1935-02-28

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

Mr. GOTT:: What quantity of onions was imported into Canada during the year 1934 from Australia, New Zealand, Egypt. Bermuda, United States of America and' all other countries respectively ?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Calendar Year 1934
Imports from	Pounds .. .. 3,183,370
	.... 3,807,016
Egypt.. 		 Bermuda	 United States	 rhilp 		.... 703,080 .. .. 766,803 .... 2,414,391 	 314,115
	.. .. 40,000
Spain		.. .. 1,681,130 .. .. 156,374
Yugoslavia		.. .. 47,004
Total imports	 13,113,283

Questions


CALAMITY POINT, B.C., FOG SIGNAL
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Is the Department of Marine in receipt of any information with respect to a collision between the ss. Princess Alice and the West Vancouver ferry No. 5?
2.	Have any complaints been received by the department with respect to the fog signals at Calamity point, Vancouver?
3.	Will the department make the necessary investigations with the view to establishing a completely efficient fog signal at Calamity point?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1. Yes.
2	and 3. Complaints made last November were that the bell on Calamity point beacon does not now sound as loudly as it did when it was first installed. These complaints were investigated and found to be without foundation. The force and direction of the wind have a great effect on the carrying power of a bell signal.
l'isle verte que., wharf watchman


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	AVas Mr. Antoine Grandmaison dismissed from the position of watchman of the wharf at ITsle Verte?
2.	If so, for what reason was he dismissed, when and at whose request?
3.	Has the government appointed some one to succeed him?
4.	If so, what is his name?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No, he did not hold that position. His appointment as keeper of the light on the wharf at l'isle Verte was cancelled on January 22, 1935, on account of age (over 70).
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	His successor has been appointed to take charge of the light on the opening of navigation, 1935.
4.	Emile Pelletier.


DOMINION ARSENAL, QUEBEC
Mr. POWER:: 1.	How many persons are now employed in the various branches of the section of the dominion arsenal at Quebec known as the cartridge factory and located on the glacis of the citadel?
2.	What was the total amount of the payroll in connection with employees of the said cartridge factory during the fiscal year 19291930 and during the fiscal year 1933-1934?


Mr. STIRLING:: 1.	Sixty-two.
2.	1929-1930-$61,241.05.
1933-1934-$41,03829.


JOHN SIMON MACLEOD
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Is John Simon MacLeod an inspector in the postal service in Nova Scotia?
2.	What is his age?
3.	How long has he been in the service?
4.	Has he applied for superannuation?
5.	If so, when will he be superannuated?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Sixty-nine years.
3.	Since the 14th November, 1890.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT*


Mr. ILSLEY:: What is the name, residence and rate or basis of remuneration of each of the official receivers in Nova Scotia, appointed' under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934?


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, the information sought to be obtained by this question will be found in the answer to question No. 20, in the name of Mr. Duff, which I shall answer when we reach it. The latter question is wider in its scope.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered by question
No. 20.


Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How many farmers of the county of Megantic-Frontenac have effected a settlement under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	What are the names and addresses of such farmers?
3.	How many settlements have been effected to date?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Records are kept on the basis of judicial districts. The county of Megantic-Frontenac is partly in the judicial district of Arthabaska, partly in the judicial district of St. Francis and partly in the judicial district of Beauce.
In the judicial district of Beauce 35 settlements were reported to the end of January.
In the judicial district of St. Francis 35 settlements were reported to the end of December, 1934.
In the judicial district of Arthabaska 3 settlements were reported to the end of December, 1934.
2.	It is not public policy to give the names and addresses of farmers whose cases have been settled.
3.	Complete returns are not available from every part of Canada but the settlements reported indicate that considerably more than
1,000	settlements have been effected to date.

Questions


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What are the names of the official receivers for the province of Nova Scotia, appointed under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	In which district or county does the jurisdiction of each receiver reside?
3.	What are the salaries of said receivers and do they receive travelling expenses or any other remuneration except salary?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 and 2. F. W. Bissett, county of Halifax; R. C. Sterne, county of Lunenburg; G. Dwyer, county of King's; F. H. Patterson, K.C., county of Colchester; T. R. Hayden, K.C., county of Pictou; R. H. Butts, K.C., county of Cape Breton; J. W. Maddin, K.C., county of Cape Breton.
3.	Salary of $150 a month and actual travelling expenses.


HOPEWELL, N.S., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the postmistress at Hopewell, Nova Scotia, been dismissed?
2.	How many years was she in the service?
3.	On whose recommendation was she dismissed?
4.	Were there any complaints respecting the
office ?	,
5.	What was the nature of such complaint, if any?
6.	Has a successor been appointed and on Those recommendation?
7.	Is the new appointee a returned man?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Dismissal authorized, but not yet effected.
2.	Forty years.
3.	The department received reports to the effect she is no longer giving personal attention to the office on account of prolonged illness.
4.	Yes.
5.	Postmistress gives no personal attention to office.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) Col. Thomas Cantley, MP.
7.	Yes.


HOPEWELL, N.S., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has contract for carrying mails on rural route No. 1, Hopewell, Nova Scotia, been recently renewed ?
2.	Who was former contractor?
3.	Were tenders asked for?
4.	If so, what were the names of tenderers and what were the prices submitted?
5.	To whom was contract awarded?
6.	Was he the lowest tenderer?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	D. H. MacLean.
3	and 4. No.
5 and 6. D. H, MacLean by renewal.


Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has the contract for carrying the mails on rural route No. 2, Hopewell, Nova Scotia, been recently renewed?
2.	Who was the former contractor?
3.	Were tenders asked for?
4.	If so, what are the names of tenderers and respective amounts of their tenders?
5.	To whom was contract awarded?
6.	Was he the lowest tenderer?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Wm. McLeod.
3.	Yes.
4.	Ashmer Perrin, S250; Alvin Archibald, $338; Neil Cameron, $348; Thompson Millen, $348; John J. Oliver, $350; Daniel MacKay, $360; Wm. McLeod, $365; Adam Murray Halliday, $2.50 per trip or $390 per annum; Charles Matheson, $460; Ellsworth R. Sinnis, $3 per trip or $460 per annum.
5.	Ashmer Perrin.
6.	Yes.


HASTINGS, ONT., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	How long did Ernest Braithwaite hold the position of delivering mail on R.R. No. 3,
Hastings?
2.	What remuneration did he receive?
3.	Was a petition signed for his retention by persons upon this route?
4.	Did the government refuse to allow him to continue on the route because his was not the lowest tender?
5.	Was he an ex-service man with dependents?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	From July 1, 1929, to June 30, 1933.
2.	$700 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes, but no information as to dependents.


PROHIBITED BOOKS
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What books, with titles, authors and publishers, are at present on the list of those not permitted to pass through the mails?


Mr. SAUVE:: It has always been considered that to publish lists of publications, the transmission of which has been prohibited in the Canadian mails, gives them undue advertising, and to that extent defeats the purpose for which they are prohibited.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	Was there an order in council passed by the government on date of November 23, 1932, approving a certain portion of road in Ontario as trans-Canada highway?
2.	If so, designate which road has been so approved?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	No.
2.	See reply to No. 1.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOURASSA:: 1.	How many suits were taken, in the course of each of the last five years, against persons charged with falsification or adulteration of butter: (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in the rest of the country?
2.	How many convictions (with the total
amount of fines):	(a) in the province of
Quebec; (b) in the rest of the country?
3.	How many acquittals: (a) in the province of Quebec; (b) in the rest of the country?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Return tabled herewith.


CACOUNA, QUE., WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the names of the men who worked at the wharf at Cacouna in 1934?
2.	How many days did each man work?
3.	What was the total salary paid to each man?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled herewith.


FORT WILLIAM TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the total receipts of grain and grain products including flax received into Paterson's elevators K. and 0., terminal grain elevator at Fort William for each of the crop years 1913-14 to 1933-34, inclusive?
2.	What was the total shipments of grain and grain products, by grades, including flax, shipped from Paterson's terminal grain ele-K. and 0. at Fort William for the crop years 1913-14 to 1933-34, inclusive?
3.	What was the total grain stocks on hand, including flax, as recorded in the official weigh-up for the crop year 1933-34 for Paterson's terminal elevators K. and O.?



BUTTER PRICES

Mr. FERLAND:: W'hat was the price of butter in England and in Canada during the months of July and August of the following years 1930, 1931,' 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Return
tabled herewith.



TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. SEGUIN:: 3.	What quantity of barley was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
4.	What quantity of oats was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
5.	What was the value of the grain Canada shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
6.	What quantity of butter was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
7.	What quantity of cheese was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
8.	What quantity of lumber was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
9.	What quantity of wheat was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
10.	What quantity of tobacco was shipped to England: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Return
tabled herewith.



ADULTERATED BUTTER TESTS

Mr. BELEC:: 1.	How many samples of butter were tested for adulteration by officers of the Department of Agriculture in Canada during each year since, and including. 1930. by provinces?
2.	How many of each of these samples tested were found to be adulterated?
3.	How many firms were convicted for the first time for violation of the Dairy Industry Act?


Robert Weir: Return tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Casgrain:
For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works in the county of 1934 eV°1XSaguenay durinS tlle years 1933'and
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with regard to this motion I have discussed the matter with the mover and we have arrived at a solution which for the present will not make it necessary to present this motion to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.



CARIBOU ISLETS-TRINITY BAY MAIL SERVICE

Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, telegrams; also the list of tenders and the names of tenderers, in connection with the contract for the carrying of mail between Caribou Islets and Trinity Bay, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, in the province of Quebec, from the 1st of February, 1934, to date.
1.	What was the total figure of Canada's trade with Great Britain: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?
2.	What was the total value of grains shipped to Great Britain: (a) in 1930; (b) in 1934?



GRAND ETANG HARBOUR, N.S.-WEST PIER

Mr. DUFF (for Mr. Ralston):: For a copy of all advertisements, calls for tenders or requests for prices, contracts, corre-
Motions jor Papers

spondence, documents, and memoranda, including payrolls and accounts since July 1, 1934, in the possession of or under the control of the government respecting extension of West Pier at Grand Etang harbour, Inverness county.
rOINTE-AU-PIC, QUE., WHARF


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, and other documents, in connection with repairs and improvements made to the wharf at Pointe-au-Pic, Charlevoix county, and a copy of tenders submitted by various persons or companies in connection with the above works, since July 1, 1934.



ARCOLA, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and' other correspondence, passing between any member of government or any official and any other person or persons since January 1, 1934, in connection with the purchase of a building in Areola, Saskatchewan, for post office purposes.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 26, consideration erf the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply, and on the proposed amendment of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver).
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): At adjournment last evening I had told the house that unemployment exists only in the large cities of the dominion. I had suggested that there are in these cities half a million workers who are without work, and I was about to inquire how this surplus population had found its way into the cities. The answer is probably twofold. The first is to be found in our immigration policy. For many years we have welcomed to our shores people of varied vocations and of varied training. It is true that most of those who came here immediately before the depression were classified as farmers or farm labourers, but a careful scrutiny of those who arrived between 1925 and 1930 will show very clearly that a substantial percentage of them either remained in the cities or found their way there shortly after their arrival, attracted by the high wages and other incidentals of city existence. For the ten years which preceded 1930 about 150,000 people a year were received into the dominion, or about a million and a half. The second reason for the surplus population in the cities is to be found in the trend of population from rural sections to the cities. Fifty years ago only eighteen per cent of the population of Canada

resided in urban centres; in 1931 about fifty-four per cent of the total population of Canada resided in the cities.
If in these centres there are half a million workers for whom there is no work, and we consider that these half million workers and their dependents constitute at least a tithe of our population, it would seem to me to be a very prudent thing to inquire whether there is any reason to anticipate that there will be employment for these workless people in a future which is not too remote. We have heard economic nationalism, national self-sufficiency, criticized in this house; and we have heard scathing references made to those who practise it. But whether we like it or not, it is a fact, and it is one which is well established in all countries of the world. It is one which we as well as others are practising. It is a doctrine which has its foundation in a very human and very natural sentiment. When there is not bread enough for the whole company we feed our own family first. I suggest therefore that unless we can see some hope of employing in gainful work those who are out of work in our cities, and of doing so in the immediate future, it behooves us to consider very carefully whether they may not have to 'be removed to other places where they can earn at least their own food and where they will cease to be dependent on the other nine-tenths of the population of the country.
We have heard a great deal of the woes of the unemployed. I do not think that the Conservative party or any member in this house is unaware of the embarrassment of the man who is without employment and without the means of sustaining his family. But after all there is another element in the community about whom we have not heard so much. We have heard a great deal about the man without a job, but it is about time something was said of the man with a job who is bearing the burden of the troubles that are weighing so heavily upon the country to-day. We find that the burden of maintaining the unemployed has become very heavy and it is making itself felt in the large centres to such an extent that our eities are on the verge of bankruptcy and are resorting to all manner of expedients to support those who are out of work. It seems to me that we should recognize the fact that a country cannot exist or persist if its cities cease to perform their allotted functions. The cities are the great pulsating organs of the national life and by them the blood of trade commerce and policy is put into circulation. If the cities become bankrupt and are unable to

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hackett
perform this function necessary to national existence, the nation as a whole is bound to suffer if not to perish.
I have noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has not given any credit to the government for enacting policies which I think admittedly have not only made our situation better but in any event have prevented it from becoming as difficult as the situation is in other countries. I believe the policy which raised tariffs and gave employment to our own people was a beneficent one and one which was helpful to the Canadian people as a whole. I believe the policy which closed our doors to immigration and negotiated trade treaties, was wise and useful, but I was amazed that the hon. members entirely overlooked the policy of land settlement which has been practised by the government and which has achieved very substantial success. It has not been hearalded abroad as widely as have some of the other activities of the government. I have before me a statement of the work accomplished by the Department of Labour showing a situation which I think should arrest the attention of the house. I find that from October 1, 1930, to December 31, 1934, no less than 132,444 people have been taken from the cities and established on the soil or in work on the soil. Families settled on farms at no expense at all to the government number 15,589 and comprise 77,945 persons. Single men placed in farm work number 33,842, making a total of 111,787, all of this having been done without any expense to the country. As regards settlement with financial assistance under what is called the tripartite agreement the relief settlement from June 1, 1932, to December 31, 1934 plan, 3,948 families or 20,657 individuals were placed on the land. This, with the total which I gave a moment ago, makes a grand total of 132,444 persons, a notable achievement. The disequilibrium which is the cause of so much difficulty at the present time, manifested through unemployment and the ills that are incident to inactivity, the dissatisfaction and the festering discontent in the large cities, can be remedied to a great extent by a further prosecution of this back to the land program. I do not profess that everyone is suited to become a farmer on a large scale, but if a survey were made of the six or eight large centres of the dominion, many heads of families would be found who would be suited to take up land in the unorganized districts, and a large number would be suited to take up small holdings in organized districts. With a small amount of assistance
great and permanent relief to this ill could I believe be found. If it be true that gainful industrial employment will not in the immediate future be available to the half million unemployed, any temporary expedient which gives them a dole or a certain amount of employment on public works which are more or less necessary, is a plan which does not commend itself to my judgment. Such a policy but "skins and films the ulcerous place" which it can neither probe nor heal; it does not cut out the sore; it does not make for cure, whereas if families are reestablished on the land where they can provide for themselves, they cease to be a burden to the state and a problem to the centre in which they live.
On several occasions I have spoken in similar terms in the house and have exposed myself to the jeers of some hon. members who sit opposite. One invited me to make an attempt at farming myself, and another made some scathing remarks as to the manner of life which people lead on the land. I do not take these jeers too seriously; debate in this, as in other deliberative assemblies is conducted in that way. But I do suggest that when people are unable to provide for themselves, when for months and years they have been sustained by others, they should not be too critical of the means and opportunities offered them to become again self sustaining. I thoroughly believe that the vast majority of those who are out of work are anxious to get back to work, but I think we should also recall that throughout the ages people have not been able to escape entirely from trial and tribulation, whether they lived in Canada or elsewhere. There are things which are essential to life; they are bread, clothing, and, in countries like this, fuel; and when people have been given the opportunity to secure these they have attained quite as much as the bulk of humanity have ever been able to enjoy as far back as the records of the human family run. So I am not too much disturbed by the criticism of those who say that all should be entitled to a livelihood on a very high plane. We have cherished a delusion of that kind for a few years back; we are now paying the penalty of having been deluded.
We are approaching the spring of the year;
I suggest that it would be most beneficial if we could at the time further accelerate the land settlement undertakings of the Department of Labour. I believe that if a careful survey were made it would be found that a very substantial proportion of those who are out of work and who are suited
1256	COMMONS
Unemployment Rcliej-Mr. Hackett
to take up life on the land would be glad of that opportunity. I wish to make it quite clear that I do not advocate that all be sent off to the hinterland, merely to drown their cries of distress in an engulfing wilderness. But I do believe that with a measure of assistance a substantial number of unemployed could be placed where they would be able to make their own livelihood and regain that self respect which comes from independence.
We have heard a great deal about housing, We have heard a great deal about slums, and it has been suggested that we should devote large sums of money to tearing down buildings in the cities and replacing them with modern dwellings. I suggest that substantial sums be used to build modest homes for those who are suited to go on the land, to build those homes, or some of them at least, in districts already settled, where there are churches, schools, telephones and highways. By doing this we shall enable those who for so long have been dependent to become again self-sustaining. This would not be extremely expensive at the present time. There are few farmers in the east who are not overburdened with land, on which they find it difficult to pay the taxes, and large numbers of small farms of a few acres each could be purchased in almost any of the eastern townships, and people adapted to life on the land taken from the cities and established on them.
I hope that the hon. gentleman who introduced this amendment will realize that he has overlooked this very valuable piece of work which has been done during the past four or five years and in his reply will give the encouragement of his support to its acceleration and encourage it later by his voice and vote.
['Mr. Chairman, I move that further consideration of the item be deferred.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I hope the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Hackett) will excuse me if I do not spend any time dealing with the matter which has engaged his attention, as I cannot imagine anything being further from the actual problems of Canada than the question which he has been discussing.
I think the matter of human suffering, which has become so widespread in Canada and in the civilized world, owing to our inability to use the goods which we are able to produce, is well worthy of the time which this house has so far spent in this discussion. I think we are indebted to the hon. member who by his amendment brought to the attention of the house and the country this major problem of our time. Of course the amend-

ment moved by the hon. member for Van-couvei Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is in effect one of want of confidence. He bases his no confidence motion on the fact that the government has failed to solve the problem of unemployment. If failure to solve the problem of unemployment merits a vote of no confidence I am surely going to vote for this amendment. I shall do so for the same reason that I voted no confidence in the government preceding this one, when the party to which my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre gives his allegiance was in power. We moved a similar resolution to this for a similar reason, that that government had failed to solve the problem of unemployment. In fact I imagine that such a motion would be applicable to any government in the world at present, with the possible exception of Russia. So I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in that respect.
I agree with him also in another respect; he said the other day that the government had sown the wind and was reaping the whirlwind. As I looked at my hon. friend when he said that I could easily agree with him that they were certainly reaping the whirlwind, for there was no lack of either whirl or wind.
But of course unemployment is not a new problem; we have been discussing it ever since I came to this house. It is true that the problem is getting more acute, but the causes of unemployment during the nine years of Liberal rule were exactly the same as they are now. It is true that there were not so many unemployed, but it is also true that those who were unemployed had the same right to be employed as the greater number have to-day. Time and time again I, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and others of this group brought the unemployment question to the attention of that government, as we have done with this government, so I say the problem is not new but is only growing more acute. The efficiency of machine production determines the size of the unemployed army. Poverty keeps pace with our progress day by day. However much we may deplore the lack of action on the part of this and other governments in years gone by in dealing with the unemployment question, a neurotic haste in doing wrong things at the eleventh hour will not make matters very much better, and I would say that the proposals of the hon. member who moved this resolution, with which I will deal later, are proposals made in neurotic haste to do wrong things.
The debate so far has not dealt at all with the economic question which is the problem of the modern world to-day. I think I could

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Irvine
sum up the entire debate, so far as the two major parties are concerned, by saying that the Liberal party has demonstrated beyond doubt that the Conservative party has failed to solve the problem of unemployment, and I think the Conservative party has demonstrated with equal thoroughness that the Liberal party did not solve it when it had the chance and do not know how to solve it now. I think I agree entirely with both sides; I think we can make it unanimous. Each has proved that the other could not meet the problem. So I am glad of this debate if for no other reason than that it affords most excellent propaganda for the C.C.F. That is what I have been trying to prove for a long time, and now these two parties have helped me out by proving it themselves, so that is something we will not have to do over again. Any person reading the debate on this, as on other motions, and seeing how effectively and completely the one party has proved the inability of the other, surely cannot have very much faith in either.
The hon. member who moved this motion apparently holds the view that if the Liberal party were in power it would be better for the unemployed, that the Liberals would be able to carry on in a better and more effective way than the present government have done. That may very well be, but I would ask on what grounds the hon. gentleman expects the members of this house or the people of Canada to believe him. First there is the ground of past experience and past history. It is an unfortunate thing that history should come up thus to meet us on the very threshold of a great ambition, but it does, and the history of the Liberal party-with which I need spend no time because, as I say that has been dealt with very well by the Conservative party-during the nine years it was in office here shows that it was just as helpless to meet the unemployment situation as the present government was or is. We moved similar motions time and time again. I recall that the last one we moved was in the last session during which the Liberal party held power. We did all we could to impress the Prime Minister of that day with the fact that there was unemployment in Canada, but I recall that he spent a good deal of time in trying to prove to us that there could not be unemployment in Canada because during that year Canada produced more goods than during any other year in all her history. Therefore he argued that there could not be unemployment in Canada. Everyone knows that the figures he gave were accurate, and that because they were true there was unemployment, for what
makes unemployment but producing more goods than you ever did before? On that occasion, sir, I did my best to put the government out of power because they had no policy with regard to unemployment. I shall do the same with regard to the present motion and the present government and for the very same reason, that neither party has done anything at all to meet the economic condition from which unemployment comes.
So with regard to the past there is no good reason why we should believe that the party of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) would do any more with regard to unemployment than the present government have done. My second reason, however, is that even in his proposals he speaks only for himself; he is not speaking for his party, and he makes that very clear. I have very great respect for the personal opinions of my hon. friend. I am always glad to hear them; they are fresh from the anvil of his own hammering, they are sincere and they are vigorously expressed. But after all they are only his opinions and really they have no more value than my opinions, nor does it mean that the Liberal party will stand by his opinions any more than they will stand by mine. So from that point of view also there is no reason to suppose that his party would do any better than the other party.
The next reason for lack of faith in his proposals is the proposals themselves. The views expressed by him, however commendable they might be in themselves, have absolutely no bearing upon the main issue now before the people of Canada. I will refer briefly to some of his arguments, and first I should like to refer to what he regards as the causes. I want to state emphatically that in my opinion he is entirely wrong with respect to what he regards as causes; in fact not one of the causes that he mentions is a cause of anything at all. They are results and effects, not causes at all. First he says there are the unemployable. The unemployable are not a cause; they are the result of something else. Next he speaks of rapidly changing adjustments, and I suppose he means the necessity for rapidly changing adjustments, which we have failed to make. He says that is another cause of unemployment, or in other words he has very properly said that unemployment is a cause of unemployment, however that may sound. Then he says that the codes of many organizations in Canada to-day, as in other nations, make it almost impossible	to
provide gainful occupation for many of
1258	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Irvine
our youth. That, he says, is another cause. That is the problem itself; that is not a cause. Next he says that business cycles of unemployment are inevitable. Is that a cause of anything? Is it even good sense to make the statement? It may be very true; it is true that these cycles have been recurring over certain periods of history, but to say that they are inevitable, that they must keep on, is to say that we are incapable of dealing wtih the economic problem which produces those cycles.
So these are not causes at all, and since my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has not found the cause it will not be surprising if he fails to find the remedy. Then he proceeds further to indicate that laissez-faire spirit in which he was born and bred, in which he has grown up and which he still serves most faithfully. I want to quote that section because I believe it bespeaks his political impotence:
Business itself must be willing to outlaw those forms of competition which are socially destructive.
That is the abracadabra of politics so far as the hon. member is concerned. He says business ought to do that, "And so, please, Mr. Business, kindly please the hon. member for Vancouver Centre; get busy and do it." That is the spirit behind the statement I have read.
But notice further: He indicates he wants to get rid of the fruits of competition without getting rid of competition itself; he seeks to do something which is impossible. So far as the evils of competition are concerned the hon. member stands with hon. members in this comer of the chamber, but he parts with us when he says, "These evils we hope big business will smooth out, but we will keep competition." That is a most impossible position to take. And so he states that "business itself must be willing to outlaw those forms of competition which are socially destructive, and it must give due shares to labour, the consumer, to management and to capital." Again we must leave it to the moral sense of big business and soulless corporations to do the fair thing with labour and the community. Of course that is the spirit and soul of Industry and Humanity-a very excellent book, the only difficulty with it being that no person ever thought of attempting to follow the suggestions contained in it, and if he did make such an attempt I am afraid he would not go very far.
Then the hon. member continues:
It must be content with business profits-[DOT]
That is, big business.
(Mr. Irvine.)
-and must not search unduly after illusory and unsocial speculative gains.
In other words the corporations must be good little fellows, go to Sunday school, do all the things we ask, and we will allow them to proceed. He states:
It must be willing to endure that minimum of government control which the general interest requires. In short, shall I say, there must be a new partnership between business and politics in Canada for the sake of the common man.
What a glorious and pious wish that is! Then,
Governments need the assistance of constructive and productive business, and I think business needs the guidance and cooperation of governments, not bludgeoning, not dragooning, not conscripting, but in a real alliance responsive to the promotings of the social conscience.
So that we are not to force anything; we are not to have any law which would compel these people to do the right thing. We are just to ask them nicely to do it; we are not to dragoon them, but must leave them to the social conscience. But a corporation neither has nor can be affected by a conscience.
That is the second hopeless feature of the proposals offered by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. We turn next to his personal proposals. These are many in number; I believe he strained to reach fourteen, but scarcely made it. I imagine the effectiveness of these proposals must be judged in inverse ratio to their numerical strength. Let us go over some of them. First he states he is giving only his personal views. Then he said:
I sugest that we should have immediately at our disposal a complete census and registration of those now unemployed.
Well, there is no cure for unemployment in a census, that I know of. For a long time we have been taking the census of the unemployed and yet we have made no progress. Indeed the hon. member quoted figures which I presume were fairly accurate, but the fact that he had those figures did not help the unemployed. However, he states that if we have those figures we will proceed to find how many are unemployable, and that when we have found the number we must find some special measures for their care. Precisely, Mr. Speaker; that is begging the question. What are the special measures for their care which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre had in mind? That is the point. We have to take his word that he will provide special measures, but we do not know what they are or how he will provide them.

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Irvine
Next he states:
I want to advocate the handling of this entire problem as one of national emergency.
Again that would not help unemployment. Every problem of a social nature is more or less of a national emergency. Then he states:
I advocate the undertaking by the government of public works on a limited scale in which the greater proportion of the appropriation shall go to labour rather than to supplies or equipment.
He does not indicate how the greater proportion is to go to these people who do the work. May I point out to the hon. member that the only way the government could carry out the works suggested under his proposal would be to go further into debt. When the hon. member had completed his public works the unemployment situation would not be improved, and he would not have touched the problem at all. Then he states:
I advocate cooperation with the construction industry and other business for privately directed works and undertakings, their financing to be assisted by the government, which shall be completely reimbursed for any advances made.
That is to say, he proposes that to give people work the government shall finance private institutions' making private profits. Already we have more of the goods which those people would be engaged in producing than we know what to do with. Yet that is one of the cures he suggests for unemployment. Next:
I suggest adequate, immediate and effective measures to increase our domestic and foreign trade.
The proper answer to that is, "Oh, yeah?" But these "adequate, immediate and effective measures" have no existence, not even in the imagination of the hon. member-and he has lots of that. They have no existence; no person has proposed them, and in the second place there is no foreign trade to be got, no matter how much he may plan to get it. He goes on:
I suggest the reduction of rates of interest on all outstanding obligations in the Dominion of Canada.
That is a suggestion of which I approve, but certainly it has nothing to do with the unemployment situation. I would go farther than my hon. friend; I would not only reduce it, I would wipe it out entirely. It will have to be wiped out and it ought to be wiped out. There is no justification for its being maintained. Why should it be two per cent, why three per cent, why any per cent? If we can justify one we can justify the other.
But the suggestion of the hon. member has nothing to do with unemployment. Then:
I suggest a national conversion scheme reducing the interest on all internal debt to two and a half per cent.
Again I would have no objection to reducing the interest; I would prefer to wipe it out entirely, but that would not employ our people. Next:
I advocate immediate negotiations with outside nations where our external bonds are held, for a mutually satisfactory scheme for the reduction of interest on external bonds.
Again I have no objection to his going cap in hand to those outside of Canada to whom we owe money and pleading with them to reduce our interest rates. Although I have no objection to it, I do not think we would get very far by doing so. Then:
I suggest the increase of our currency by $430,(KK),000, which is scientifically justifiable by the appreciation of gold values.
Just notice that,-"scientifically," if you please. He uses the expression "scientifically justifiable." May I point out to my hon. friend that if we did that, then perhaps next year we should have to kill the $430,000,000 because of the depreciation of gold, and we would be just as unscientific in the one case as we were in the other. I would ask my hon. friend to please not charge up to science the superstition to which he adheres. There is no man who can talk of a scientific monetary system that deals with gold or the gold basis, and I hope my hon. friend will keep that in mind.
But here is the point, Mr. Speaker. What is he going to create this $430,000,000 for? He is going to create at to pay the bondholders of Canada for fear they might lose something. He is going to pay the debts of Canada with $430,000,000 of credit supplied on a scientific gold basis. I do not give a curse for the bondholders of Canada at the moment. I am not going to create $430,000,000 to pay them. I want $430,000,000, if that is enough, to go into the pockets of the people of Canada to buy goods, but as soon as you pay $430,000,000 of debt you have cancelled $430,000,000 of purchasing power. There is the economics of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. That is his proposal, and perhaps it is just as well that it was his personal viewpoint only, and that he was not speaking for the Liberal party.
Now I turn to some other proposals which he made. He wants to balance the budget. I am not interested in that. That is a bankers' policy. Next he says:
For the permanently unemployable I suggest the extension of the principle of the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
1260	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Irvine
I have no objection to extending that to everybody in Canada, so far as I am concerned. He also said:
For the partially unemployable I suggest physical reestablishment for a limited period and land settlement on small holdings.
Now what does that mean-physical reestablishment for a limited period? And then, mind you, land settlement. I wonder why he did not get into cooperation with the hon. member who preceded me in this debate (Mr. Hackett). Anyone who starts out with a policy of land settlement at the present moment I think had better not be replied to at all. I think that is the best way to treat that argument. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre went on:
Such then, Mr. Speaker, is the problem and such are some of the suggested remedies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. friend I desire to emphasize that he never even got in touch with the problem in his whole speech and he did not have a single solution in the whole twelve or fourteen or sixteen, or whatever it was, points that he put forward. I know that the government has not got a solution either, but I am centering my attention on the man who moved the motion because he thought he had something, and I want to find out whether he does have something or not.
I know that the government has not a solution for this problem so far. It may have one in its mind but it has not proposed it, and
so I am centering my attention on the proposal that is before the house. And such are the proposals that the Liberal party spokesman, although he was not speaking for the Liberal party, asks us to consider in connection with the unemployment problem. I might put it all in a word and say that my hon. friend is trying to patch capitalism, and that, of course, is what the government is trying to do. My hon. friend proposes to patch it m a netw place. He is proposing a patch of a different colour and of a different size, but apart from that there is no difference between his patch and the patch of the government except that perhaps, after all, the patches of the government would be more effective than the ones he is proposing to put on.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: On which part?


William Irvine: Modestly forbids me to tell you exactly where they would be. So far as I am concerned, and I think that in this I am speaking as well for my group here, we do not believe that the system can be patched

effectively or in such a way that it can serve adequately. I do not hold that as a mere belief. I would be prepared, if I had the time, to bring the facts and the arguments also.
I waht now, in order to keep within the time limit at my disposal, to summarize some of the reasons why we believe that capitalism cannot be made to work effectively no matter who is trying to do it. And I still wait, as I have waited many years here, for any man on either side of the house to say how it can be made to work. I still throw that challenge to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. If he is going to patch this system to work successfully he will have to meet the debt situation, both private, national and international, and there is no proposal today from anybody that will adequately pay the debts either of the individual or of the nation or international debts. Even if they could pay them, if they carried on with the present system it would 'be only a few months before they would have the debts duplicated because there is no private undertaking, there is no corporation undertaking, there is no public service or public work that can be undertaken until there is first a debt created to make the undertaking possible, and if the debt-creating system is 'carried on, as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre presupposes in his patching, then even if he could pay the debts, they would be back on his shoulders again in a very short time. But he not only does not propose to do away with the debt-creating system; he does not even know how to pay the debts that are already there.
Next he deals or tries to deal with a method of putting more people to work. I do not want to put more people to work just for the sake of putting more people to work. The only way we can put more people to work in Canada to-day is by putting more debts on the backs of the people. Under the present system or under the proposals of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and also under the proposals of the government, if you could put people to work it would simply mean more unpayable, impossible debts put upon the backs of all the rest of the people of this country. Now until my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre or some hon. gentleman representing the government can tell us how they can put the people to work without creating debts can we regard either party as fit to carry on government? They cannot make capitalism work because it has gone as far as it can under its debt-creating character.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Irvine
Next capitalism cannot go on without markets. People will not keep on producing goods unless they can sell them at a profit. Will the hon. member for Vancouver Centre or anyone on the government 'benches tell the house how they propose to get more markets for Canada. I want the hon. gentlemen to tell me in what country-let them be specific for once-we can find a market, and for what shall we find a market in that country, and for how much of that will we find a market in that country, and for how long will we have that market, and finally what will that country take from us in exchange for that which we want to get from that country? These are matters of data. Where are these markets? It is all very well to talk of wider and freer markets, of adequate methods of extending our foreign trade and all that sort of rhetoric, but where are we going to extend it? What are the goods to be sold? How much will those other countries take from us? Those are the questions which the hon. gentleman failed to answer.
Let me say next that there is no unemployment problem at all. I know that that will sound to some just as foolish as it sounded fourteen years ago when I said from this same seat that we should not go back on the gold basis but that we should reorganize the financial structure of Canada, and that we should forthwith manage and control our currency and credit in relation to the economic demands of the state. I can hear yet the jeers of the cabinet of that day.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no unemployment problem. Unemployment, which should be leisure, is the boon which has come to this age as a heritage from the past. It has been made safe to us by the combination of human intelligence and ingenuity and mechanical skill, combined with the use of solar power in the production of the necessities and comforts of human life. The more of these machines we use and the -more solar energy we employ to drive them the more leisure the people have. And then we say that we have a problem of unemployment. What we have is a problem of vast social stupidity; That is our real problem.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: You can "oh, oh" just as
much as you like, but I will let that statement stand on Hansard to speak for itself twenty-five years from now or fifty years if it takes you that long to discover that we have no unemployment problem. Unemployment should be a boon. Our real problem is to make the fullest use of all the
means of wealth production at our disposal and to distribute the products to the people. Why not spend a couple of days discussing that question? Why not get to the heart of the real problem? I do not care who has failed to solve it; I do not care whether the mistakes of the Conservative party are more or less than the mistakes of the Liberal party; I am not even interested in talking about unemployment. What I want to discuss is the question of using the idle plant equipment of Canada and the great, the vast natural resources of the country so that we may produce more goods for the people and, finally, the distribution of those goods so that the people may use them. For who is insane enough to advocate production unless what is produced is consumed by the people? And surely that is the point where our system is breaking down.
Now what is the best way of distributing goods? By wages, as we have been doing in the past? Well, wages can distribute with some efficiency while there is a scarcity of goods, but never with complete efficiency. Shall we continue trying to distribute the production of machines and solar power, production in such abundance as we know is possible, by the wage system, or shall we turn from the wage system or augment that system by a meagre, begrudged national charity? That is the only other proposal that has so far been put into action. Or shall we rather seek to distribute this abundant production by means of social dividends based on the national capacity to produce the things of life? If people have the money goods will be distributed. The chief way which the working classes have of getting money is by working for wages, but at no time have they received sufficient wages to enable them to buy back the products of their labour; and as time went on and machines displaced men and produced in greater abundance it was found that men could be dispensed with, so that they no longer had any jobs at all and therefore no purchasing power, and consequently there were huge supplies of goods that had to be burned or otherwise destroyed from time to time by corporations or by government intervention.
Primarily our problem is one of distribution, and distribution is a question primarily of finance. How can this country get money into the pockets of the consuming public? I should like to hear that question discussed. Well, we must have the right to create money as required for the distribution of goods, and that means that we must take that power out of the hands of private individuals

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Irvine
and utilize the social credit of the state in the interests of the people. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre is willing to create
8430.000. 000.	But why $430,000,000? He proposes that sum because he says he is scientific and wants to refer it to a gold basis. But why a gold basis? Let me invite the attention of the hon. gentleman to a far more sensible and far more scientific basis than that for the issuance of supplies of money. I would invite him to consider the fact that the assets of Canada are plant, equipment and natural resources, and that these assets are estimated at $30,000,000,000, whereas the annual output of wealth is about
56.000. 000.000. Now that is a much better basis for the issuance of credit and currency than the antiquated, superstitious gold basis by which he is prepared to limit the issue of credit.
The first basis of such social dividends as I suggest is this. The great proportion of our increased production to-day is due to association and organization, so that much of the wealth produced is not traceable to any effort of any individual but rather to the social, communal efforts of all together. That is the first basis. The next basis of modem wealth production is really a heritage from all the past in mechanical ideas and in discovery and invention, as well as in organization. All these factors have made it possible for us to produce in greater abundance, but all these came to us from millions of people in the past; and these factors cannot be mastered or controlled by any one individual or corporation. We cannot allow that; they are not for sale and they must not be bought, no matter how much money any man has to buy them. These facilities of production, representing the genius of the race, are the heritage of this age; they are responsible for our increased wealth. And on that almost inexhaustible source we have a right to draw for the man who has been put out of a job by the machine, and to see to it that the goods which the machine that took his job produces shall be vouchsafed to him as a means of livelihood.
That is our problem, and there is no proposal, either from the government or from my hon. friend who moved this motion, that solves that problem. I do not suppose that any proposal of mine in this connection would be immediately and unanimously passed by this house. I will not now propose the complete financial reform which I think is necessary, but I do suggest that we make a beginning, and for once our beginning should
be constructively at the point of finance. I suggest that we begin by putting our machinery and solar power to work to produce everything we need. If we do not need things we will not produce them, and if they are already produced we will use them. But with these machines we should build homes in the most modern fashion, and all our social institutions, hospitals, schools, colleges, universities, roadls, bridges, crossings and highways. Let us enter upon a program of protection of our forests for future generations. Let us develop our vast coal fields for power and let us harness the water powers of the country so that we may bring every agency of modem civilization within the reach of the population living within the confines o>f Canada. That is a task which will put a good many people to work for a while, and after that is done they can lie back in leisure and enjoy watching the machine doing it for them. But that is our task, and the only means of accomplishing it is to employ the social credit of the nation and to utilize it, in its financial expression, to enable the people to buy back the goods they have already created and which are lying on the shelves of the warehouses or being destroyed because people are unable at present to use them. Put the money to that use and we shall soon find it necessary to produce1 more goods. Let us make that beginning by the proper use of the national credit and by giving social dividends to our people.
And through social dividends let our people have pensions starting, if you like, at the age of fifty-five, so that people of that age and over may vacate the production field and thus make room for the oncoming youth who will take their places in the workshops of Canada.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) will not, I hope, be offended if I do not immediately follow his arguments. I would like first to express my amazement at the caprioles and volte faces of hon. gentlemen opposite on the question of social legislation. The day before yesterday when we were about to move to go into committee of supply to vote moneys part of which would tend to relieve unemployment, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) immediately rose and proposed a motion which might be summed up as follows: you want to vote money. We say no because we want to declare -before you do so that you are not doing anything to relieve unemployment.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Oagnon
May I say at the outset that I have a great admiration for the talents and eloquence of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Comparisons are certainly almost always bad because they lack the element which makes for perfection, but I hope my hon. friend will not be offended if I compare him to a promising apple tree matured and flourishing under the benevolent rays of the Vancouver Sun. I am afraid that my hon. friend, even if he is later entrusted with the noble task of salvaging the Liberal party from the valley of humiliation will never succeed in providing the electors of Canada with the golden apples of the Hesperides, because at the present time I am sure the house will realize that no Liberal Hercules can kill the dragon whose hundred heads are the numerous broken pledges of the Liberal platform of 1919.
Although I very much admire the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, may I express wonderment that instead of criticizing the government and finding fault with our efforts toward bringing into effect social legislation, he does not come to the rescue of Mayor McGeer and Premier Pattullo in order to salvage the financial situation of his province. Last year we had very interesting debates before the banking and commerce committee and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre brought from the sunny coast of British Columbia a new financial prodigy who was supposed to give us a panacea which would cure all our social and financial evils. For two long days we heard Mayor McGeer indulge in the wildest theories of state currency inflation. Of course nobody but himself could go into the vast depths of financial science and understand his theories. The only compliment I might pay to Mayor McGeer is that his theories were less proposterous and more understandable than those of Major Douglas which may give much joy to the Ottawa Citizen but which nevertheless cannot be understood by any Canadian citizen who has ordinary common sense.
What has been the effect of the theories of Mayor McGeer? He has been elected mayor of the great city of Vancouver and he has attempted to solve the question of the interest due on the bonds of that city. The other day we found the London newspapers stating that due to his attitude, due to his wild theories, the values of all the bonds of the cities of western Canada were declining on the markets of the world. I wonder whether our friends the Liberals will provide some saner theories after they have come out of the great banquet
the newspapers this morning have announced our friends are going to give to their leader some time in the month of March.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Onésime Gagnon: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!


Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I do not know from what source the present speaker is quoting, but I deny having pronounced one single word that can be construed as meaning what he has just stated.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member said the same thing in other words. According to the rules of the house I am obliged to accept what the hon. gentleman says, but may I suggest to him that he read La Presse of August 7, 1931, and he will read what I have stated.


Mr. GOBEIL:: He did not deny it then.


Onésime Gagnon: I gave the exact quotation in this chamber on March 15, 1932, before hon. gentlemen opposite. Those words have never been denied, and the hon. member for St. James has never stood up in his place and asked that Hansard be corrected.


Samuel Gobeil: He does not deny it now.


Onésime Gagnon: We know very well what will take place at the next election. Not only will the conscription issue be revived but we shall hear a new revival of the constitutional issue. We shall hear again the cry of conscription, and we Conservative members will be slandered and attacked and represented to the people as the wreckers of the constitution, while the Liberal party will pose as the champions of the rights of the provinces and the protectors of the constitution. Let us study for a moment what took place just a fortnight ago when the government was bringing in the unemployment insurance measure. What did

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gagnon
we hear? We heard the former Minister of , Justice ridicule that measure, calling it a sop to the discontented. He closed his speech with a violent attack on the government, comparing the ministers to a lynching mob. These are the compliments we receive from hon. gentlemen opposite for enacting the very measures that they proposed in 1919 but had not the courage to put on the statute books when they assumed power. If it is true that such measures as those providing for social insurance, the eight hour day, the forty-eight hour week are ultra vires of the dominion parliament; if it is true that they are unconstitutional; if it is true that the enactment of such measures by the federal parliament would be destroying the rights of the provinces, why are hon. gentlemen opposite voting for them? If it is true that these measures are unconstitutional, why do my hon. friends disregard those so-called sacred rights? Why are they forsaking them? It is amazing to see hon. gentlemen opposite descending so low that in order to get power they will vote for measures which they believe to be unconstitutional and unworthy of statesmen and patriots.
Let me for the moment refer to what has taken place in our province since 1930. In that year Premier Taschereau in the legislative assembly passed an act, chapter 14 of 20 George Y, revised statutes of Quebec, to create a commission to be called the Quebec social insurance commission. I hold in my hand a report of the Quebec social insurance commission which -was composed of some of the most eminent and illustrious citizens of that province. Let me give their names. The chairman of the commission is Edouard Mort-petit, K.C., doctor of laws of Laval, who received the diploma of political science from the Sorbonne. Paris, and who is an officer of rhe Legion of Honour. The members of the commission are the Right Reverend Georges Courchesne, Bishop of Saint-Germain-de-Rimouski, emeritus professor in the Faculty of Arts of Laval university; the Venerable Frederick George Scott. Archdeacon of Quebec and rector of St. Matthew's Church, Quebec; John T. Foster, president of the trades and labour council of Montreal and member of the Labour Congress of Canada; Gerard Tremblay, deputy minister of labour for the province of Quebec, and late secretary-general of the National Catholic Labour Unions; Alphonse Lessard, M.D., provincial director of charities and of the bureau of health; and Georges-Arthur Savoy, president of the Dominion Blank Book Company, St. Johns, Quebec.
These gentlemen were entrusted by the Quebec legislature with the task of studying all problems pertaining to social insurance. I shall quote the terms of the order in council passed by the government at Quebec:
To make as complete a survey as possible of the following questions and of the manner in which the problems which they entail may be regulated in the province of Quebec: Old age insurance; unemployment insurance; sickness insurance; disability insurance; aid to needy mothers; family placements; manner of adoption and placement of adopted children; assistance to large families; sanitary conditions of factories and of the workers in these factories; occupational illnesses; medical inspection of workmen employed in dangerous tasks; medical attention in the work shops; sanitary education of the working men; and all other problems of social insurance.
These gentlemen visited all the provinces in Canada, and went abroad. They studied the social insurance schemes in England, France, Germany and almost all countries in Europe. They delivered various reports, and the sixth report dealing with unemployment insurance was filed with the Quebec government in the last days of December, 1932.
Now, what took place just ten days after that? In the beginning of January, 1933 a great banquet was held in the city of Quebec. This was a banquet tendered by the Liberals to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). There, Mr. Speaker, in order to revive the failing courage of the Liberals, and because at this very banquet my former opponent in Dorchester, the former Solicitor General, had the courage to blame the Liberals for their lack of policy, the former Minister of Justice stood in his place and praised the great report which had been produced by the Quebec social insurance commission. I have before me a quotation from Le Soleil of Quebec, the issue of January 15, 1933. My translation of the report contained therein concerning the observations of the hon. member for Quebec East is as follows:
Let me congratulate now the government of the province of Quebec for the work of the social insurance commission which they have instituted, and for the report which has just been made public. It is a Liberal document. Many suggestions are therein made which I have heard called socialistic theories. I am happy now to be in the company of Bishop Courchesne and Doctor Montpetit. 'That report does honour to our province, and Liberals ought to study it and work to bring about the application of the illuminating principles which it contains.
As I have said, that speech was made on January 15, 1933, by the former Minister of Justice and in the name of the Liberal party.
1266	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gagnon
In his speech he proclaimed the report of the commission to be a Liberal document. Let us see the conclusions to which the commission came, respecting sooial insurance. Did the commission state that social insurance against unemployment ought to be instituted by the provinces'- Did the commissioners make any observations against the so-called attempt of the dominion to wreck the rights of the provinces by setting afoot a scheme of insurance against unemployment? No. At page 203 of the report the commission said:
Is it possible to establish unemployment insurance on a provincial basis in a federated state such as Canada? The answer is in the affirmative, for the example of Queensland, Australia, and of certain Swiss cantons prove the possibility. However ordinary prudence suggests that unemployment insurance should be federal in character. It is very advisable to spread the social responsibilities over the whole country, for otherwise, the provinces which participate find themselves in a condition of inferiority with respect to the non-participants. It must not be forgotten that the expenses involved in social legislation should be incorporated in the net cost of production. If certain provinces do not enjoy the benefits of tariff protection, the industrialists of those provinces must of necessity aim at an equality in social obligations if they do not desire to embark on a policy of rivalry which is not only impossible to maintain, but is unfair.
The commission quoted the opinion of the railway workers of Canada who stated that there was no other conclusion to come to but that of providing a federal scheme of unemployment insurance. Do we. See the flagrancy of the contradictions of the former Minister of Justice when on January 15, 1933, he proclaimed as a Liberal document this report which recommended a federal scheme of unemployment insurance? Yet only a few days ago in this very chamber he blamed the government, and compared the ministers to a lynching mob because they have sought to effect the precise proposals and recommendations of the Quebec social insurance commission.
What did the Liberal party in Quebec do in order to set afoot the .recommendations of the commission? The commission, whose report I have before me, recommended that the Quebec government should adopt a federal system of old age pensions. They recommended, further, that the provinces should cooperate with the federal government in order to bring about the necessary measures of reform to which the Liberal party had pledged itself at the convention of 1919. What was done by Liberals? Nothing,-nothing has been done.

When, in the month of March 1933 we were fighting in this chamber to obtain from the House of Commons the power to take the necessary steps to relieve unemployment, what position was taken in the province of Quebec? What did the former Minister of Justice say in the city of Quebec on March 28, 1933? I have before me L'Evenement of Quebec, a publication sympathetic to the former Minister of Justice. It indicates that he at that time compared Mr. Bennett to Hitler, a man who in some countries has been called a gangster and a murderer. That will give some idea of the way hon. gentlemen opposite discuss political questions in Quebec.
Would hon.. members like to have some idea of the way hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to bring about unity among the Canadian people? Let us see what he said on March 28, 1933, when he was speaking against the payment of moneys which this government has voted in order to help the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. Here is what he said:
Shall we take the money of the province of Quebec to maintain Mr. Anderson in power? Is it not too much of a sardonic irony?
That is the way hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to effect unity among the Canadian people and bring about a closer understanding between the races in Canada. Speaking at Trois Pistoles on July 17, 1933, the former Minister of Justice reiterated the same principles. He condemned the government, and described as an international comedy the London conference which was being held at the time, and at whieh our Prime Minister was taking a worthy stand, one which received the general approval of statesmen throughout the world. The hon. gentleman proclaimed himself a .champion of reforms and said "I am not going to the right. I am not going to the left. I am going forward."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Onésime Gagnon: I am pleased to hear hon. gentlemen apposite applaud that statement, Mr. Speaker, but it is surprising that these gentlemen who claim to go forward should take every opportunity to block our legislation and denounce it as being unconstitutional and ultra vires and so on.
This is not all, Mr. Speaker; this little story has many chapters which are very interesting to the people of Quebec and the people of Canada at large. What has taken place in the province of Quebec? Not only have we seen the Conservative opposition in that province call for reforms which will tend

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gagnon
to promote the welfare of all classes, but we have seen a secession in the Liberal ranks; we have a new wing of the Liberal party in Quebec headed by Mr. Paul Gouin, the son of the former Minister of Justice, and supported by a distinguished member of this house, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). This Liberal wing, which is growing stronger and stronger every day, is calling for reforms also, and is asking that the province of Quebec set its seal of approval on the reforms we are putting on the statute books. What is the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) doing, he who calls himself the man who goes forward? He does not do anything, as he did nothing when he was in power from 1021 to 1930. While the hon. member for Beauce, Mr. Paul Gouin and others are denouncing Mr. Tasohereau and the terrible dictatorship which is enslaving the province of Quebec, through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. member for Quebec East to tell the people of Canada and particularly the people of Quebec whether he is for Tasohereau and against Gouin and Lacroix or for Lacroix and Gouin and against Tas-chereau with regard to social legislation.
We Conservatives are not afraid to speak about our constitution, because we have preserved and maintained the confederation pact. It is strange, when the Conservative party is bringing about reforms which are demanded by public opinion throughout Canada, to find that the Liberal party stands up and says: "Stop; you are going to encroach on the rights of the provinces." Then we hear Senator Lemieux and Senator Dandurand say in the .Senate. "We must respect the covenant; this is a sacred pact. You must not touch it: it is a wonderful work." In other circumstances, when a racial issue arises we hear the same gentlemen say that the fathers of confederation, because they were Conservatives, did not take the necessary steps to protect the minorities in Canada. These are the flagrant contradictions we find in the Liberal party. Even now we hear the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) attack the fathers of confederation in the maritime provinces, while on the other hand the leader of the Liberal party in the Senate and Senator Lemieux pose as champions of the constitution. I for one would be very much afraid to touch the .sections of the confederation pact which deal with the rights of minorities, because those rights are sacred to my race. The Conservatives have always maintained the constitution, and we are going to preserve intact the rights of minorities in Canada.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is very dangerous to make constitutional issues of purely economic problems. You cannot ignore the overwhelming trend of public opinion throughout Canada at the present time which calls for social reforms. Is there a financier, a statesman, an economist or an ordinary layman endowed with common sense who will pretend that if we enact a social insurance scheme we are endangering the constitution or encroaching on the rights of the provinces? Why, we are protecting the exchequer of the provinces, because we are assuming the whole of that social legislation cost which is denounced by hon. gentlemen opposite as being too great. Why should the provinces complain if we establish a social insurance policy which will not cost the provinces anything? Why should the provinces object if we assume the whole cost of old age pensions; why should the provinces object if we relieve unemployment by establishing the eight hour day and forty-eight hour week, establish minimum wages and take the necessary steps to curb and destroy the monopolies and mergers which took place during the Liberal regime from 1921 to 1930? Hon. gentlemen opposite ought to be afraid to invite these party quibbles and this political strife in this way, because the consumers of Canada have suffered too much since confederation through some useless and fruitless battles which have been waged between the provinces and the dominion. Take for instance the fisheries case which was discussed the other day in the committee on the British North America Act by the hon. member for Gloucester and myself. That litigation began in 1882 and did not come to an end until 1919 or thereabouts. The situation has been made worse, because the maritime fisheries of Quebec have been illegally and unconstitutionally transferred to the province of Quebec, though the maritime fisheries in great part belong to the crown in the right of the dominion. At the present time we have legislation which is going to save agriculture; I refer to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Do we see that legislation attacked in Ontario, in the maritimes or in western 'Canada? No; we see it attacked on constitutional grounds only in the province of Quebec, and the person attacking it there is encouraged by the Liberal party of that province. That is not all, Mr. Speaker. On the 23rd of March there will be a banquet at Quebec city to commemorate the great legal battles which have been waged between the provinces and the dominion since 1867. I hope the gentlemen who attend that

1268	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Gagnon
banquet will not forget the loss of Labrador and the loss of that part of our national heritage.
I believe I have only one minute of my time remaining, Mr. Speaker, and in that minute I should like to recall the stirring appeal made to hon. members of this house last year by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) whom I should like to see returned by acclamation at the next election. The hon. gentleman urged political parties to forget party strife and to cooperate in order to bring about necessary measures of reform. I should like to urge hon. gentlemen opposite to read what he said, and may I express the hope that some George Brown will arise on the other side and help the government in order to cooperate in bringing about social justice and the dawn of a new era of happiness and prosperity.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the viewpoint of this corner of the house has been put forward often enough in this debate. I believe four members out of a possible fifteen have taken part in this discussion, and if it were not for the fact that the viewpoint put forward by all four is quite contrary to my opinion I should not have taken any part in this discussion. All of those who have preceded me from this corner have stated very definitely that they are going to support the amendment. I am forced to state just as definitely that I am going to oppose the amendment, and therefore I feel like giving in a few minutes a few reasons why I propose to do so.
The motion before the house has been moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to the effect that the house go into committee of supply, and the matter which we are now debating is an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). I shall not read the amendment because all who are in the chamber are acquainted with its contents.
Since I came to this house a number of years ago I have felt non-partisan, and I still do. As an independent member I have felt obliged to decide which of the major parties I should support in this house, and I think that is true of all the independent members here. For some nine years we supported a Liberal government, and for the past five years we have been supporting the present government. At the present time it is incumbent upon us to decide whether we shall support this amendment or not.

I have been led to ask myself what would be the effect of this amendment if it were carried, and I credit the hon. member who moved it with sincerity enough to wish to see it carried. I think he put it forward in the hope that it would be accepted by the house. Now if it is carried by a majority vote and accepted by the house, what would be the effect of that? The effect of that would be the immediate resignation of the government. I think that goes without saying. The government would not dare to carry on any longer should this amendment be carried.
That opens up another avenue of thought. If the government should forthwith resign we have quite a pretentious legislative program before us which would also go by the board. We have, for instance, Bill No. 8, which is now in the committee stage. It has received its first and second readings, and by the way on second reading it was supported unanimously by a vote of 101 to nothing. All parties in all parts of the house supported the principle of unemployment insurance. But if the amendment now before the house should be carried, it would mean that the unemployment insurance measure would have to be dropped. It is in the committee stage now and it would stay there. It would become null and void, a dead issue. I doubt if the members in this comer of the house are prepared to go that far arid say that they want that measure dispensed with entirely. It is true that some here are not in unanimous accord with some of the provisions of the bill, yet I think from the vote that was taken on the second reading we are all in favour of adopting an unemployment insurance measure in the hope that in the future it will be of some benefit to this country. Well, that measure would lapse if this amendment should carry.
We have also on the order paper Bill No. 15. It too is in the committee stage. It makes certain amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am quite satisfied from having listened to the debate in this chamber on these amendments that there is perhaps not a member in this house who is opposed to them. They propose to increase the money available for agricultural purposes from $40,000,000 to $90,000,000, but should this amendment carry it means that these amendments to the farm loan act would be done away with, that that increased amount provided by the bill for taking care of farmers' debts would not be available. There is another point that I fear the members in this corner of the house are
TEBRUARY 27, 1935	1269
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Carmichael
overlooking. We represent agricultural constituencies in this corner as well as other sections of the house, and I am sure we are quite anxious to see that $90,000,000 made available during this session for use under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act Here is one member who wants to see that money put where it will be available for the farmers who are trying to refund their debts at a lower rate of interest. But if we carry the amendment which is now before us there is no possibility of that money being made available during this session.
We have some other measures on the order paper. There is Bill No. 21 calling for the implementing of the eight hour day and the forty-eight hour week. Personally I would not shed any tears if that were to fall, because the voters I represent-and they are real labour people and I am a real labour representative-do not quibble at working eight hours a day or forty-eight hours a week. They are practically all farmers, and I think perhaps most of them sleep about eight hours and work the rest of the day. So as far as that measure goes it would not affect agriculturists very much, but I am surprised that the labour members have endorsed this amendment with the possible ultimate objective of defeating this eight hour day and forty-eight hour week.
There is also Bill No. 22 for a weekly day of rest in industrial undertakings. These latter two bills I have mentioned have just received their first reading. If the amendment before the house carries, these two bills are dispensed with and there is no possibility of their being carried this session.
There is one other point that is more important than any of those I have mentioned, and that is that the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission has not yet been presented to the house, and of course the legislation to be based on that report is not yet before the house. Now if there is any measure that the people of Canada are looking forward to hopefully it is the legislation that is to be based on the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission; but if we adopt this amendment it means that such a report cannot be made and that legislation based upon it will not be brought forward this session. That is thrown into the scrap heap so far as this session is concerned.
If that is what the amendment means, the dispensing of all these measures because of the resignation of the government, then what would be the result of the election that would immediately follow? That is another question that I have been led to ask myself-what 92582-81 j
would be the likely effect of an election? Well, it is possible that there might be a change of government; it is just barely possible. I would not state that as any prophecy. I know that some of our Liberal friends are quite optimistic and hopeful. Probably the wish is father to the thought that there will be a change of government, and there may be; I am not prepared to say. I have endeavoured in the past to prophesy in regard to political matters, and usually I have prophesied wrong, so I would not like to make any prophecy now as to whether or not there would be a change of government. But suppose there would be a change; what has been offered to us by the official opposition, which we are agreed would then be the government of the day? What is offered to us by this party known as the official opposition, the Liberal party of Canada? I was amused and surprised last night, listening to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) lining up the Liberal party and scoring them most unmercifully because they had nothing to offer, and yet he ended by saying that he was going to vote for the amendment which would have the effect of putting out the present government and putting in its place those who, he said, had nothing to offer. I could not just travel with him all the way along the road. It became rather tortuous and I could not follow him.
Of course, we have also had some beneficial legislation passed in this house in previous sessions. In the last session the Natural Products Marketing Act was passed. I wonder what attitude the Liberal party would take towards that measure if they should be endorsed by the electorate and returned to power. If the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) will just stand hearing a little quotation read I am sure it will throw some light on what at least his attitude is. The hon. member spoke at St. Johns, Quebec on October 14 last and is reported as follows:
Added to its other planks, the Liberal party stood at present for abolition of the marketing hoard

"the greatest piece of high protectionist legislation yet executed in Canada"- Mr. Rinfret declared.
I presume that is correct; it is given by the Canadian Press and published by a good Liberal newspaper in the west. I do not know whether that represents the official attitude of the Liberal party, but that at least is the hon. gentleman's personal attitude. He who has been a member of a Liberal government says that one of its "other planks" is the abolition of the marketing board.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says that?
1270	COMMONS
Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Carmichael


Archibald M. Carmichael: One of your good front benchers made that statement and he does not deny it, so I presume it is correct. Well, that means that the facilities afforded the primary producers for organizing under that act are to be done away with. It means that the many thousands-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was not aware that the hon. gentleman had mentioned my name. I may say that the report is not quite correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What I have advocated is the deletion of certain sections of the marketing act, and amongst them that section concerning importations-the licensing of the right to import. But I never did advocate the complete repudiation of the marketing bill.


Archibald M. Carmichael: It would be interesting to know1 how many effective sections would be left after the act had been culled to suit the hon. gentleman. But that is not all. We have had in this chamber a good deal of discussion relating to the British North America Act, which is perhaps the cornerstone of our Canadian constitution. Now, the same hon. member speaking at the same place and at the same time said:
Proposed amendments to the British North America Act would be fought tooth and nail by the Liberals, Hon. Fernand Rinfret, former Secretary of State and ex-mayor of Montreal, told a political rally of Liberals here to-day.
We have now a committee dealing with that act to bring in possible ways and means of amending it so that we can, at times necessary, amend our own constitution. But if this is to represent the official attitude of the Liberals they are going to fight it tooth and nail.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is evidently my afternoon. I made many speeches in regard to this question and one only recently, and the stand which I take, and which those in the province of Quebec take-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am making an explanation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will confine his explanation to the statement made by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) .


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will make it a question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. gentleman rise to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Kindersley?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; that is my purpose. I say that the stand I take on this matter is that no amendment should be made except with the unanimous consent of the provinces, but not that we are against any amendments. That is different.


An hon. MEMBER:: One story for Quebec and another for here.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am not interested in what the hon. gentleman's stand is now;
I am quoting what his stand was then.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I protest against that. The stand I take-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -is as I have just stated.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What does the hon. gentleman say? Does he wish to make a statement with regard to the quotation?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: A moment ago I was not allowed to, and now I am asked whether I wish to make a statement. With all deference to the chair, I have made my statement and I will ask the hon. gentleman to accept it.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Of course I do.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am not against amendments to the British North America Act but I say that we cannot have them except by unanimous consent of the provinces. That has been my statement right along


Archibald M. Carmichael: I am glad that the hon. member is progressing and revising his views.


Mr. TOTZKE:: That is not accepting his statement.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Yes, I am accepting it.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But you qualify it.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The natural result of the tearing up of the Natural Products Marketing Act-and I am forced to conclude, 'from the attitude of the Liberal party when the act was before us, that they are not friendly to it-would be that our marketing scheme, which was voted on last week in the three prairie provinces would go by the board, and all the facilities afforded the primary producers would be dispensed with. But there is another point I would touch upon. In 1932, I believe, we passed here what became known as the Ottawa trade agreements. I fear to come to the conclusion, but I am almost forced to it, that the Liberal party are in duty bound to scrap these Ottawa trade agreements. Oh, I know they mean to scrap certain parts of them; but if certain

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Carmichael
parts of the agreements are scrapped at this end it means that the agreements fall down, because there are two parties to them and no change can be made at this end unless the other party at the other end is agreeable to such change. It follows therefore that if certain changes are made here the agreements will fall by the way, and become obsolete. Now, we had a Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act passed last session, and I am not sure of the attitude of the Liberal party towards that. Like the hon. member for St. James, they may have a change of heart either now or before they come into power, and they may not scrap it because it is a very popular piece of legislation in the prairies. But you cannot guarantee that they would not do away with that either. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out from this corner, no definite pronouncement has been made by the leader of the Liberal party. He who, according to their ideas and ambitions and hopes, is not very far removed from being Prime Minister of Canada, has made no pronouncement as to what that party proposes to do. His nine years of experience as Prime Minister and the past five years as leader of the opposition have made him discreetly wise and he is not saying anything.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has moved an amendment and he has stated very definitely what "I" propose to do. He says: "What I advocate, and I am giving my personal views only, not necessarily the' views of any party or group," and he proceeds to give us twelve points. Probably they have some virtue in them, but they are the individual views of one member and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Liberal party. So that there we are faced with the alternative of putting into power a party that has told us nothing of what it is going to do-and we know a number of things they will do which will not be beneficial. A lot of legislation that has been passed, and a good deal more that is in the act of being passed, will be prejudiced considerably toy a change of government; and yet we have before us from the Liberal party nothing official on which we can base our hopes if we support this amendment to put out the party now governing and put in the party now in opposition. The burden of the official opposition is just to put Bennett out; and the burden of the Liberal press across Canada is, "Just put the Conservatives out and let the Liberals in." That is not a very good reason for voting for the amendment now before the house.
There is considerable virtue in the amendment and1 I am not finding any fault for its being brought to the attention of the house. Its main thought is unemployment and its remedy. I doubt if I will take the time now to go into the question of unemployment to any extent except to say that I consider it worthy of being debated and I presume at some future time the house will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the question and suggesting remedies. But I do hold the view, contrary of course to that of some hon. gentlemen in this corner, that the only possible permanent solution for our unemployment problem is to get a more evenly balanced adjustment as between urban and rural populations. For the past two generations we have been educating our boys and girls away from the land which is, I was going to say their heaven-intended place to live, that is on the land, in touch with nature, working and getting their living to a large extent from the soil. For the past two generations we have been educating our people along a line that has induced them to move into the industrial centres, to enter into industrial, business and professional life and away from agricultural life. It seems to me that we must return to the basic principle of getting our population back where it belongs, namely on the land.
While many commissions have been appointed, many investigations held and even some (books written, I believe the most sensible thing for us to do in connection with this unemployment question would be to appoint a dominion land settlement commission that would have authority to make a survey in conjunction with the provinces and the smaller municipalities with a view to getting the good land lined up that would be available without cost to our boys, young men and families who are agriculturally inclined. I know in my province there is plenty of land held in some instances by the provincial government; in every township sections 11 and 29 are school lands; many of these sections have not yet been sold and some that have been sold have reverted to the crown, also in our municipalities there are scores of quarter sections that have been taken over in recent years under tax sale proceedings. Such lands might be made available without charge to those who are agriculturally inclined and under a properly set up and efficiently working commission boys, young men and families who are agriculturally inclined might thus be placed on such lands and assisted for from three to five
1272	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Carmichael
years as suggested here a few days ago by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette).
Not only might such lands be made available for such purposes, but in our country there are other young boys who would be glad to turn their attention to agricultural pursuits if they knew how to carry on. I remember last year the suggestion was made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that instead of bringing in British boys and giving them training in preparation for going on to the land, he should expend the same amount or more money to train our own Canadian boys, give them a year or two of training in agricultural pursuits and get them ready for going out and taking over land of their own. At that time I think the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and in this corner the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) could scarcely find language severe enough to castigate such a proposal. I still believe the only possible permanent solution of the unemployment question is to get our boys and girls and our men and women back on the land, not with an overhead of debt; they should be placed there without any debt so far as capital is concerned and they should be assisted by the dominion and provincial governments so as to give them a start that they may become self sustaining.
I have heard from this comer severe criticism of the government for the small amounts they are providing for the support of life in our urban centres. I can cite to the house the actual figure of what it takes to keep one family I know of near my own home town. There are the father, the mother and four children who are living on a farm. They live well; they dress well; they have not a low standard of living. The mother is a university graduate, having obtained her B.A. degree at Toronto university. They say that for $4 a week they are able to live on the land; that is, they spend just S4 a week to supplement what they are able to grow on the land. That means S200 a year for a family of six. Is that not much better than the amount of money we are paying out in our urban centres where we have to provide the people on relief with all the necessities of life? Would it not be better if these people were out on the land gaining from it a large proportion of their own living and working for it? When this measure is before us so that we may have an opportunity of suggesting remedies for the relief of unemployment, I shall have something more to say. At the present time I reiterate what

I said at first: my view is that the carrying of the amendment would not be helpful to the country; it would not be beneficial to the people I represent, and therefore I purpose voting against it.


['The natural result of the tearing up of the Natural Products Marketing Act-and I am forced to conclude, \'from the attitude of the Liberal party when the act was before us, that they are not friendly to it-would be that our marketing scheme, which was voted on last week in the three prairie provinces would go by the board, and all the facilities afforded the primary producers would be dispensed with. But there is another point I would touch upon. In 1932, I believe, we passed here what became known as the Ottawa trade agreements. I fear to come to the conclusion, but I am almost forced to it, that the Liberal party are in duty bound to scrap these Ottawa trade agreements. Oh, I know they mean to scrap certain parts of them; but if certain\n\nUnemployment Relief-Mr. Carmichael\nparts of the agreements are scrapped at this end it means that the agreements fall down, because there are two parties to them and no change can be made at this end unless the other party at the other end is agreeable to such change. It follows therefore that if certain changes are made here the agreements will fall by the way, and become obsolete. Now, we had a Farmers\' Creditors Arrangement Act passed last session, and I am not sure of the attitude of the Liberal party towards that. Like the hon. member for St. James, they may have a change of heart either now or before they come into power, and they may not scrap it because it is a very popular piece of legislation in the prairies. But you cannot guarantee that they would not do away with that either. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out from this corner, no definite pronouncement has been made by the leader of the Liberal party. He who, according to their ideas and ambitions and hopes, is not very far removed from being Prime Minister of Canada, has made no pronouncement as to what that party proposes to do. His nine years of experience as Prime Minister and the past five years as leader of the opposition have made him discreetly wise and he is not saying anything.\nThe hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has moved an amendment and he has stated very definitely what "I" propose to do. He says: "What I advocate, and I am giving my personal views only, not necessarily the\' views of any party or group," and he proceeds to give us twelve points. Probably they have some virtue in them, but they are the individual views of one member and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Liberal party. So that there we are faced with the alternative of putting into power a party that has told us nothing of what it is going to do-and we know a number of things they will do which will not be beneficial. A lot of legislation that has been passed, and a good deal more that is in the act of being passed, will be prejudiced considerably toy a change of government; and yet we have before us from the Liberal party nothing official on which we can base our hopes if we support this amendment to put out the party now governing and put in the party now in opposition. The burden of the official opposition is just to put Bennett out; and the burden of the Liberal press across Canada is, "Just put the Conservatives out and let the Liberals in." That is not a very good reason for voting for the amendment now before the house.\nThere is considerable virtue in the amendment and1 I am not finding any fault for its being brought to the attention of the house. Its main thought is unemployment and its remedy. I doubt if I will take the time now to go into the question of unemployment to any extent except to say that I consider it worthy of being debated and I presume at some future time the house will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the question and suggesting remedies. But I do hold the view, contrary of course to that of some hon. gentlemen in this corner, that the only possible permanent solution for our unemployment problem is to get a more evenly balanced adjustment as between urban and rural populations. For the past two generations we have been educating our boys and girls away from the land which is, I was going to say their heaven-intended place to live, that is on the land, in touch with nature, working and getting their living to a large extent from the soil. For the past two generations we have been educating our people along a line that has induced them to move into the industrial centres, to enter into industrial, business and professional life and away from agricultural life. It seems to me that we must return to the basic principle of getting our population back where it belongs, namely on the land.\nWhile many commissions have been appointed, many investigations held and even some (books written, I believe the most sensible thing for us to do in connection with this unemployment question would be to appoint a dominion land settlement commission that would have authority to make a survey in conjunction with the provinces and the smaller municipalities with a view to getting the good land lined up that would be available without cost to our boys, young men and families who are agriculturally inclined. I know in my province there is plenty of land held in some instances by the provincial government; in every township sections 11 and 29 are school lands; many of these sections have not yet been sold and some that have been sold have reverted to the crown, also in our municipalities there are scores of quarter sections that have been taken over in recent years under tax sale proceedings. Such lands might be made available without charge to those who are agriculturally inclined and under a properly set up and efficiently working commission boys, young men and families who are agriculturally inclined might thus be placed on such lands and assisted for from three to five\n1272\tCOMMONS\nUnemployment Relief-Mr. Carmichael\nyears as suggested here a few days ago by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette).\nNot only might such lands be made available for such purposes, but in our country there are other young boys who would be glad to turn their attention to agricultural pursuits if they knew how to carry on. I remember last year the suggestion was made to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that instead of bringing in British boys and giving them training in preparation for going on to the land, he should expend the same amount or more money to train our own Canadian boys, give them a year or two of training in agricultural pursuits and get them ready for going out and taking over land of their own. At that time I think the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and in this corner the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) could scarcely find language severe enough to castigate such a proposal. I still believe the only possible permanent solution of the unemployment question is to get our boys and girls and our men and women back on the land, not with an overhead of debt; they should be placed there without any debt so far as capital is concerned and they should be assisted by the dominion and provincial governments so as to give them a start that they may become self sustaining.\nI have heard from this comer severe criticism of the government for the small amounts they are providing for the support of life in our urban centres. I can cite to the house the actual figure of what it takes to keep one family I know of near my own home town. There are the father, the mother and four children who are living on a farm. They live well; they dress well; they have not a low standard of living. The mother is a university graduate, having obtained her B.A. degree at Toronto university. They say that for $4 a week they are able to live on the land; that is, they spend just S4 a week to supplement what they are able to grow on the land. That means S200 a year for a family of six. Is that not much better than the amount of money we are paying out in our urban centres where we have to provide the people on relief with all the necessities of life? Would it not be better if these people were out on the land gaining from it a large proportion of their own living and working for it? When this measure is before us so that we may have an opportunity of suggesting remedies for the relief of unemployment, I shall have something more to say. At the present time I reiterate what\n\nI said at first: my view is that the carrying of the amendment would not be helpful to the country; it would not be beneficial to the people I represent, and therefore I purpose voting against it.']
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was paired with tihe right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I was paired with the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I was paired with the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Sir EUGENE F1SET: I was paired with the hon. the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


William Irvine: I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Mr. COWAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUBOIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LACROIX (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Onésime Gagnon: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Ver-ville). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording several statements of pairs simultaneously announced, the list of stated pairs may be incomplete).
Motion-(Mr. Rhodes)-agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $545,724.
Mr. POULIOT:: I take this first opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson). With reference to that hon. gentleman may I repeat what I said about -his colleague the Minister of Finance, that I am sure he is abler than the Prime Minister, because he answers the questions that one puts to him. It is a great credit to him, and for that reason I congratulate him very heartily.
We have heard a great deal about unemployment in the last few days. The reason for unemployment is the decrease in trade, and we have a decrease in trade because tariffs have been increased. The minister is an able man; he has been sworn in as minister because of his ability. If he takes the trouble to go through the records of his department he will see that the number of unemployed has more than doubled and trebled since the tariff was increased by his leaders. Unemployment is the child of high tariffs. For this reason I urge on the hon. gentleman the same recom-

mendation I made to his colleague the Minister of Finance. Let him steal a stick of dynamite from the office of the Prime Minister-the stick that was not used to blast our way into the markets of the world-and let him blast the high tariff walls. When we look over the statistics of the Department of Trade and Commerce we are sorry to see the great decrease in trade, even following the Ottawa imperial conference of 1932. The minister knows very well-and he may answer me if he desires to do so-that our trade with the British empire last year was $29,000,000 less than it was during the last twelve months the Mackenzie King government was in power. Our domestic exports to the United Kingdom in the twelve months ending August 31, 1934, were $35,000 more than they were for the same period in 1930. I admit that. I admit that these figures are correct if you consider only domestic exports, but if you consider at the same time Canadian exports of foreign products it will be seen that our exports to the United Kingdom each year this government have been in power were less than they were in the last year the Mackenzie King government were in power.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to interrupt him? It is not the intention to proceed further with this item at this time, and I would ask if he would be good enough to interrupt his speech now and continue it at a later date so that I might ask the committee to defer consideration of this item, which will be gone into in the ordinary way, so that another department may be brought in.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will agree to any request the hon. gentleman makes in his own behalf, because when I wrote him he was very polite and courteous to me, but I strongly object to any other department being brought in for a subsidy to-day. I object to the estimates of any other department being considered, but the hon. gentleman is a new minister, and I am ready with an open heart to do anything he asks for himself. I do not know what other minister he has in mind, however, and I have my fears. I hope the hon. gentleman will not say that I am discourteous to him. I am willing to cooperate to the fullest extent so long as I know with whom I am dealing. I am dealing with the Minister of Trade and Commerce now. He knows that all the propaganda that has been published in the press with regard to the benefits of the imperial agreements is bluff and humbug, which has been published in order to satisfy the advertisers. The truth is entirely different.
Now, sir, to sum up, when the estimates

Questions
come up again it will be impossible for the hon. gentleman to deny what I am going to say, because I took the trouble to go through all the figures. Our imports from the United Kingdom are millions of dollars less than they were in 1930 and our exports to the United Kingdom-if we include the exports of foreign goods-are also less than they were in that year, though they are a little more than they were in 1932. May I say also to the hon. gentleman that the Canadian-British empire trade was $29,000,000 less. I will leave it to the minister to answer my statement. If he wishes time in which to answer me I will give it to him; there is one minute left in which he can say yes or no. The point is that it is now two and a half years since the imperial agreements were concluded. Our trade with the United Kingdom and the other countries of the empire is $29,000,000 less than it was during the twelve months ending August 31, 1930, the last year of the King administration. May I ask the minister whether or not that is true. He has time to answer yes or no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I move that further consideration of the item be deferred.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the acting leader of the government kindly indicate the business for to-morrow?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: To-morrow we
will take up the bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance. If we go into supply we will take up agriculture or public works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will not take up any of the social measures to-morrow?


George Halsey Perley: No.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 28, 1935
The 'house met at three o'clock.

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

Mr. BROWN:: Are both contracting parties observing the terms of the treaty between Canada and France which requires that both parties to the agreement shall issue certificates of origin furnished by the government of the exporting country?


Albert Joseph Brown: When I put this question on the order paper I had not seen article 9 of
the French treaty which deals with this matter, and on reading it I find that there is in the question an implication that is not warranted by that article. I understand that we are to have before us the question of ratifying certain amendments, and therefore this question might be dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Withdrawn.


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Canada, by affixing her signature to the telegram of the 15th of September, 1934, inviting the U.S.S.R. to enter the League of Nations, officially recognize the U.S.S.R.?
2.	If so, has the government repealed the order in council of the 27th of February, 1931. P.C. 463, prohibiting imports of coal, wood and its products, asbestos, etc., from the U.S.S.R.?
3.	If so, at what date, and what is the number of the order in council?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1. No. The U.S.S.R. was officially recognized by Canada in 1924.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


CANADA-NEW ZEALAND TREATY
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	On what date did the Canada-New Zealand treaty come into effect?
2.	What were the imports of butter to Canada from New Zealand each year under this treaty?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	May 24, 1932.
Pounds
2.	May 24, 1932 to March 31, 1933. 798,771 Fiscal year ended March, 1934. 737,601 April 1, 1934 to January 31, 1935 . 323,364


SAINTE MONIQUE, QUE., WHARF
Jean-François Pouliot: What are the names of the persons from whom wood was purchased in connection with repairs to the wharf at Sainte Monique, Lalu Saint-John county in 1934, and what amount was paid to each of them?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Joseph Rossignol	
$97	38Pierre A. Lindsay	
30	00David Tremblay	
20	70Pitre Boudreault	
10	00Pierre Ferland	
7	60



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	What is the total number of: (a) officers: (b) constables, in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	How many of each rank are Canadian-born?
3.	How many of such officers were appointed in 1934?
Questions as Orders lor Returns

4.	What is the total number in the force of: (a) French-Canadian officers; (b) French-Canadian constables?
5.	How many officers of the force were superannuated in 1934?
6.	What number of French-Canadians, if any. were among those superannuated?
7.	What is the number of French-Canadian officers in the force stationed in Ottawa?
8.	What is the number of French-Canadian officers in the force stationed in Montreal?
9.	Is there any vacancy or are there any vacancies in the officers ranks of the force?
10.	If so, will French-Canadian officers be appointed to fill some of these vacancies?


PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING COMMISSION
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	What are the names of the stenographers
engaged for the reporting of the proceedings of the Price Spreads and Mass Buying Committee or Commission during the recess of parliament?	,
2.	What remuneration was paid to each ot the above stenographers for such reporting?


IMPORTATION OF BARBED WIRE
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How many pounds of barbed wire were
imported into Canada during the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?	,	. ,
2.	From what countries was such barbed
wire impoirted?	.	. .
3.	What was the quantity imported from each country?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Return
tabled herewith.


TEN PER CENT DEDUCTION
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	How many public servants whose normal
salaries in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932, ranged from $1,200 to $1,800, suffered a deduction of ten per cent in their annual rate of compensation in each of the following fiscal years: (a) year ending March 31, 1933; (b) year ending March 31, 1934; (c) year ending March 31, 1935?	. . , ,
2.	What was the total sum appropriated by the state from such employees by way of salary deduction in each of the fiscal years indicated.
3.	What are the names and positions of
public servants whose minimum statutory salary range was in excess of $4,000 as at March 31, 1932, who received special increases in their rate of compensation in each of the following fiscal years:	(a) year ending
March 31, 1933; (b) year ending March 31, 1934; (c) year ending March 31, 1935?
4.	What were the normal statutory salaries of such public servants at the time such special increases were granted and what is the amount of such increase in each instance?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) 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 respecting the Canadian National Railways, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year, 1935, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: I wish to bring to the attention
of the house a newspaper item that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, February 25, reporting a dinner given in the Chateau Laurier in this city at which Commandatore Luigi Petrucci, the Italian consul general in Canada, delivered an address. In the body of that address he made these observations:
I can safely say to the Canadian citizens of Italian origin that to them is reserved the great task of explaining to their fellow citizens the real meaning of the Fascism of Mussolini so that it will be much easier for the Canadian people to adapt themselves gradually to the new economic and political system which is hardly unavoidable.
My question is this. Has the representative of another country, enjoying diplomatic privileges, the right to advocate in effect the substitution of a dictatorship for a democratic form of government and what action does the government contemplate to correct such interference in the domestic affairs of this dominion?


George Halsey Perley: We shall have the matter considered
and give the hon. gentleman an answer tomorrow.



MARKETING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Will he assure the house that he will see that each and every one of the producers who are asked to enter a scheme under the Natural Products Marketing Act will be furnished with a copy of the act, chapter 57 of the statutes of last year?


Robert Weir: I fear that will be impossible. Every

Business of the Home-Decorum
effort will be made in connection with any scheme brought forward to put the facts of the scheme before those who are interested in it. I will take the question into consideration and if anything further can be said, I shall be glad to get in touch with the hon. member with reference to it.



ELECTORAL LISTS-PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): May I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) how many of the 6,000,000 enumerated voters' names under the Dominion Franchise Act of 1934 have been printed and when the work will be concluded?
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: The work is proceeding very rapidly. I cannot tell the hon. member to-day how many names have been printed. I saw the acting King's Printer yesterday but my memory is not sufficiently good to recall the exact number. In the ordinary course the lists, as I stated, will be in type by April 1, and will then be distributed. A large number of them are already printed and requests have been made for copies, but it would not be fair for the Secretary of State to discriminate between applicants, and I thought a date might be set about April 1 when the lists so far as then printed would be distributed to all parties on both sides of the house. I think that is fair. I believe all the lists will be set in type on or about April 1.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Could the minister not have the lists by March 21 or 25?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: After a suggestion was made by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that the lists of the cities should be proceeded with first, a general instruction was given that that should be done and I think a large number of the city lists are already printed and delivered to the franchise commissioner. The others are largely in type, but all will be in type by April 1. If there is any special demand on the part of the house that we should have the lists in type by March 21, I shall endeavour to accede to that request. To do so might require a little more night work than we had contemplated.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would like to crave the indulgence of the house for a moment. At a meeting of the whips held in my office this morning, it was thought that I might make certain suggestions to the house.
It is suggested that during the reading of motions, putting the question and voting thereon, there will be so far as possible silence in the house.
With regard to pairs, hon. members who were in the house yesterday will have noticed that there was a certain amount of confusion, as there always is, in connection with the announcement of pairs. It has been suggested by the whips that in taking the pairs, we start at the right at this end of the chamber and proceed down to the far end, then come back, start on the left side and proceed to the other end, thus avoiding confusion.
Finally, it was also thought that I might, with due deference to all hon. members, make the suggestion that all necessary conversation between hon. members be conducted as quietly as possible.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On the short title.
Albert Joseph Brown: Might I make a suggestion? We have spent a great deal of time in going over this measure in a general way and have had a pretty thorough discussion. I agree with the minister a good deal of it has been irrelevant, but I think now we would make better progress, since there is no particular exception to the principle of the bill, if we took it up clause by clause.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 1275 of Hansard
of yesterday this question was put by my right hon. leader:
Mr. Mackenzie King: Will the acting leader of the government kindly indicate the business for to-morrow?
Sir George Perley: To-morrow we will take up the bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance. If we go into supply w-e will take up agriculture or public works.
Mr. Mackenzie King: We will not take up any of the social measures to-morrow?
Sir George Perley: No.
Therefore I understand Bill No. 15 is not a social measure, according to the statement made in the house yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister. This is a most important matter to consider at the start. There is also another point I would like to mention.


George Halsey Perley: I think it is only right that this should be straightened out a little. The leader of the opposition was told that the Minister of Finance was going on
Farm Loan Act

with his bills to-day. Then when he asked if we were going on with social measures, he referred to those in the name of the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman's own leader knew that these bills of the Minister of Finance were to be taken up to-day. They are measures of reform; they are measures to improve the condition of the people just as "the others are, but the measures about which the leader of the opposition asked me the question were those in the name of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately the Prime Minister has had a cold this week, but as soon as he returns those measures will be taken up.


Jean-François Pouliot: In reply to the Acting
Prime Minister, may I say this: It was said over the radio that the old order was gone-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute. What I
am going to say now is, I assure the committee, quite relevant. We were told that the old order was gone. Well, there is before us this legislation with regard to farm loans. This is very little different from the previous legislation; in fact this is largely an increase in the amount which is to be loaned, therefore in this respect at least the old order is not gone. But, sir, may I tell you something more? What I was about to tell you when the right hon. gentleman rose to answer me was this, that some time ago I spent a week end at home and met several farmers who spoke to me about this legislation and the Farmers' [DOT] Creditors Arrangement Act. They said that the latter has destroyed their credit with the banks, the merchants and the money-lenders, and made it impossible for any farmer to borrow money. That is due not to the new order but to the dawn of the new era as seen by the Prime Minister and his satellites last year in setting up a board with full powers to decrease by their own will the indebtedness of any farmer. By that means the credit of the farmers is completely ruined and their only recourse is to borrow money from the government. But is this amount of money sufficient to meet the whole indebtedness of the farmers? No sir, it is not. If the government is fair it will provide for the fanners enough money to meet their liabilities, because it is only from the government that they can borrow money now. This is not only my personal opinion but it is the opinion expressed by the interested" people themselves, the very farmers who cannot meet their liabilities on account of the legislation passed by the government last year. And that legislation affects even those who have not yet borrowed money from the farm

loan board, because it ruins their credit. Now the retail merchants and those who do business with the farmers not only do not give them credit but they force them to pay what is already owing. This situation shows that the Prime Minister did not see further than his nose when he passed that legislation. I am surprised that his attention was not drawn to that outcome by his colleagues. I regret it. I regret it on behalf of all the farmers who suffer from that immature legislation. Here again may I call the attention of the house and the country to the danger of having legislation prepared by people who do not know the first thing about the real condition of the farmers. They bring such legislation on ready to serve, but it is most indigestible. After having ruined the trade of the farmer by raising the tariff walls-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Morand):: Surely the hon. gentleman is not going to discuss the tariff.


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a moment, sir. I am coming to the cause-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: We are discussing this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, and I did not think it necessary to spell every word to the house in order to be understood, but if it is necessary I shall do so.


Mr. SFOTTON:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear my hon. friend from South Huron-not South, because South Huron is represented by a good Liberal, as North Huron will be after the general election.


Eccles James Gott: And Temiscouata will be
represented by a Conservative.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend said exactly the same thing about South Oxford, and he was mistaken.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I must insist that the discussion be confined to this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: I perfectly agree, sir,
and if you had said to the hon. member for North Huron, who breathes so loudly, and to the other hon. gentleman not to exhale his own to this side of the chamber.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I must insist that the discussion relate to the bill before us.


Jean-François Pouliot: If a farmer has to borrow money it is because he needs it. Will you agree with me on that, sir? And if he needs it there must be a reason, and the reason is-

Farm Loan Act
this is elementary-that he has not any money. Now why has he not any money, and why does he have to come to the government to get some? It is because he does not make any money. And why does he not make any money? It is because he has no market for what he produces. And why does he have no market? It is because there are high tariff walls.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Spotton: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I would like to see every farmer of North Huron in this chamber now to see the exhibition made by the hon. member. I know that he alone is a brass band.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.
Mr. PO'ULIOT: When I was at college and studying philosophy the first thing to learn was "to ultimum quia" the very reason of things.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you learn it?
An bon. MEMBER: Did you pass your exams?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The principle of the bill has been discussed and we are now discussing section one.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, we are still on the short title. This is most important. Is this house' to vote 190,000,000 without knowing why? It is an enormous sum, and there must be a reason for it. There is not one reason only for the need of it, there are several of them. I do not intend to indicate all of them now, but I shall continue with my argument and keep within the rules of the house and within the subject matter that is before- us.
Now, sir, take a poor farmer who- has a splendid crop of potatoes in his cellar, first class potatoes, Green Mountain or any kind you like, first class and well graded. If he has no market how can he sell them? So they stay in his cellar, he may be offered 40 cents a bag for them, but that does not help him. The same with onions, the same with every commodity; with lumber, because lumber interests the farmers very much. In the winter time the farmer is largely a lumberjack. He is interested in the sale of lumber and of other commodities. He is not so much interested in the Canadian Pacific Railway; I say that to my hon. friend who has just groaned. The farmer should be helped, we should come to his assistance. But the way,
to come to his assistance is not only to make provision that he can borrow money, although sometimes it is necessary to do that I admit. Why is it necessary? It is necessary on account of the foolish and insane policies put in force by the brute majority of this government since 1930. That is the cause of the farmers' present distress. What I ask sir, is that the farmer should be given a chance, should be put on his feet. I make very plain and clear suggestions to this government, but they will not listen to anyone who offers sensible suggestions.


Eccles James Gott: They will listen to sensible people.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not going to argue with anyone who makes jokes about the distress of the farmers. Some people were short sighted enough to tell the farmers to buy land for the production of tobacco, that they would have an unlimited market in Great Britain, but what has happened? I need not go into that, but the electors of South Essex know the losses they have suffered in the tobacco business and the onion business in the last few years. I am here as a member representing not only my constituency but Canada at large, and it is my duty as it is the duty of every member to defend the interests of the farmers. The farmer is a man who is lectured by the Prime Minister but who is not assisted by the government. That is what has happened since 1930; that is why to-day the farmer is in distress. The government have no policy to help the farmers, as they have no policy in regard to any matter mentioned in the speech from the throne. This is the result of a brain trust. It is very dangerous, sir, to take one brain out of its skull and put it into the hands of a brain trust. As a result the farmers have suffered. I gave an example the other day; I will repeat it now, and I defy the Minister of Finance to contradict me. If to-day the hon. gentleman tells the house that the government are going to loan $90,000,000 to the farmers instead of $15,000,000 is it not because the farmers are six times worse off than they were when the Mackenzie King government was in power? This is an elementary proposition. The Minister of Finance may crack jokes about it; he may speak in a solemn tone or he may direct a jibe to me; I am quite indifferent. Hon. members may call me anything they wish, as the hon. member for Vegreville did the other day in connection with another matter; I am indifferent. They can say anything-phut!-I am indifferent to it; it is of no importance whatever. I am here to do my
Farm Loan Act

duty; I am here to tell the people, on behalf of those who suffer from the iniquitous policies of this government-
Mr.'SPOTTON: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is another groan from the brass band.


Eccles James Gott: What is the sense; this is no speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: That was the beating of a drum, and I attach no importance to it. I should like to see the farmers who may wish to take advantage of this act, in the constituencies of South Essex and North Huron, sitting in the galleries and listening to the performance of these two hon. members. Not one of those farmers would ever vote for these hon. gentlemen again. This is the time to tell of the distress of the farmers, but my hon. friend from North Huron went around the dear old province of Ontario telling the farmers what this government had done for them. The next time he goes around let him ask the farmers if their pockets have been filled by this government. The government will loan money to them; they will make their indebtedness greater, but they will not give the farmers a chance to get back on their feet and carry on in the hard times we now have because of the policies of the government.
Everything I have said has been strictly to the point, Mr. Chairman. I regret to have spoken at such length, but I did so in order to satisfy your curiosity, since you wanted to know why I was speaking about these matters. I have endeavoured to explain, in order that there may be no misunderstanding as to my position. To sum up, sir, after these short preliminaries, may I say to the Minister of Finance who is listening to me now-and who, as I said, as a rule is very courteous to hon. members-that it is not always a pleasure to stand up and speak in this House of Commons. But one has a duty to perform on behalf of the poor, the neglected and those who were prosperous some years ago, and have ceased to be. They did not realize it. They realize now that they are very poor because of the policies which have been brought in by this government. We have a duty to the public, and that duty will be fulfilled to the last, until this government is expelled by the will of the farmers, the workers and all the people of this great country.


John Campbell Elliott: There is just one matter to which I should like to direct the attention of the committee before this section is carried. There seeems to have been a misapprehension
TMr. Pouliot.]
with regard to the operation of the loan act in Ontario, and some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and the hon. member for North Renfrew, stated that no loans were being made in this province.
I assume, of course, that these gentlemen were unaware of the fact that their statements were not correct. I have made inquiries, and I am told that since November last 231 loans have been made in the province of Ontario, aggregating $438,490. That is within $145,000 of the amount loaned by the Canadian farm loan board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934, if I have the figures correctly. I just wanted to have that on the record, Mr. Chairman, as I have not the slightest doubt that my hon. friend from North Renfrew who I see in his seat to-day, was under a misapprehension when he said:
My complaint is that from the time of the provincial election in Ontario last July no loans of any kind have been made by the province to the farmers of Ontario.
I just wanted to set my hon. friend right, because no doubt he will want to withdraw the statement he made.


Mr. COTNAM:: With reference to the
suggestion of the hon. member for West Middlesex I should like to say that in my section of the country no new loans have been made under the Ontario act since the election in this province last June. I have had farmer after farmer complain that loans had been approved by the provincial board but that after the election they were notified that they could not secure the loans and furthermore that the fee of $12 which they paid for inspection and examination of their property would not be returned to them, although the applications had been approved. Further, I should like to know just how many of those loans were made to Conservative farmers in the province of Ontario. It would be exceedingly interesting to find out if any of those loans were made to Conservative farmers. My information is that if loans were made they did not go to Conservatives in this province.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not believe the point the hon. member has raised properly comes under the discussion of this bill. Although I do not purpose prolonging the debate I feel I must not allow a statement of that kind to remain unchallenged. I accept the hon. member's statement as to what he understood, namely that no farm loans were being made in his district. I believe however the hon. member should look at what he said on February 25 of this year, and which is reported at page 1180 of Hansard as follows:

Farm Loan Act
My complaint is that from the time of the provincial election in Ontario last July no loans of any kind have been made by the province to the farmers of Ontario.
With regard to the hon. member's remarks about what is now going on, and his references to the political class to whom loans are being made, may I say that I believe he may rely upon the government now in charge of affairs in Ontario to make loans irrespective of the political views of the applicants.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: If the loans are made on
the same basis as political heads were cut off since the last election, then certainly no Conservatives will secure loans. When I made my former statement I made it in good faith-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: -because I have seen
letters from the chairman of the Ontario farm loan board in which the statement was made that no new loans were being made at the present time in Ontario.


Mr. HANBURY:: I would suggest to the
hon. member who has just taken his seat that judging from the 1'ast election returns if loans in Ontario are going to be made only to Conservative farmers there will not be many applications.
I am not favourably disposed to this type of legislation. May I stress what the Minister of Finance said only a day or two ago when he ascribed some of the troubles experienced by farmers who have sought to procure money to the existence of moratoria from one end of Canada to the other. I believe we would have been acting in the interests of the farmers if we had detailed and accurate information placed upon the record indicating the moratorium existing in each of the provinces of Canada, beginning at Quebec and running through to British Columbia. I do not intend to discuss that aspect of the question further than to point out that not only are there moratoria in the various provinces, but a condition exists whereby after someone who has security on property eventually succeeds in getting through the provincial courts-and that does happen on occasions-and perhaps securing a judgment he is faced with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. To-d'ay a man may procure his judgment from the court and to-morrow the farmer, or whoever it may be, finds that on account of this act the judgment he has procured is practically of no value.


Mr. HACKETT:: No, that is only for sixty days.


Wilfred Hanbury: I think the hon. member will find it is permanent.


John Thomas Hackett: Only sixty days; read the statute.


Wilfred Hanbury: which to increase production we are simply emphasizing the unfortunate condition now obtaining. We must .interpret this measure through which we are enabled to loan the farmers $90,000,000 as one which would have the effect of encouraging increased production. The fact is that to-day in Canada we have over production in many lines of farm produce. We know or at least have some idea about the hundreds of millions of bushels of wheat that the government of Canada is carrying for the farmer. We know the difficulty in connection with farm products of all kinds, and yet by this legislation we not only make it possible but we encourage the farmer to go ahead and to produce more of which we already have too much.
I have a further suggestion to make to the minister. On all sides and from one end of the chamber to the other we have had a competition to find out how cheaply we could get money. Rates of five per cent, four and a half per cent, four per cent and three and a half per cent have been suggested so that the farmer may proceed to overproduce. I did not hear any suggestion, however, throughout the long discussion which would indicate that the time might come during this session of parliament, when the Minister of Finance was producing his budget-or in later sessions when other budgets will be produced

when he would have to show us how much had been lost to the people of Canada in money which could not be collected on farm loans, and how much money would have to be paid out of the pockets of the people of Canada because we had loaned money on an uneconomical basis. I suggest that that is a point which should be considered before the measure passes. The time has come when we in Canada must consider whether we will ever balance our budget, and I believe the Minister of Finance may agree with me in that respect. I must state that I have had very little patience with the contest which has been proceeding in this chamber whereby one has attempted to outbid the other in ordet that the farmer may be provided with money to produce more than he can sell.
Before taking my seat there are one or two questions that I would like to have answered by the minister. I would like to know what the losses are up to date under the present Farm Loan Act, and what action has been taken to recover some of those losses or to recover in any case. In how many cases has action been taken under the present Farm Loan Act?


Mr. THOMPSON (Lanark):: When the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott) was speaking a few minutes ago-


Albert Joseph Brown: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. We have had this Ontario question threshed out backwards and forwards, and furthermore it is of no interest to the great majority of the members of this house.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The
hon. gentleman is quite in order so far.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I take up
very little of the time of this house, Mr. Chairman, and I only rise to my feet when I feel I have something to say. What I have to say now will not occupy me very long.
In the county of Lanark which I represent, no farm loans have been made since the last Ontario election.


Albert Joseph Brown: I am certainly in order
now, Mr. Chairman, in pointing out that this matter has been threshed out backwards and forwards across the floor of the house thoroughly. This question of farm loans in Ontario is entirely irrelevant and this discussion is a waste of the time of the house and is of no interest to the great majority of the members. I ask for your ruling, Mr Chairman.


Mr. SPENCE:: We have been listening
to the troubles of Saskatchewan for a whole week.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There is no point of order. The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) has only so far said that there have been no farm loans made in his county.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: There have
been dozens of applications for farm loans in the county of Lanark but they have not even been replied to. I know that in several cases $12 was sent in with the application and was accepted by the Henry government in Ontario and the loans were promised before the last election, but then there was a change of government and these farmers could neither get their loan nor get their money back. I was speaking the other day to a farm valuator and he told me that in the county of Lanark, where he values land, he had not been asked by the present Ontario government to value one farm since the last election. I had a man come into my house within the last ten days and tell me that he had bought a farm, had made application for a loan, but that he had to go out and borrow money privately. He wanted to know if he could get a loan under this act but I told him that the legislation had not yet been passed, and he went out

Farm Loan Act
and borrowed money privately at six per cent interest from another farmer, instead of being able to borrow the money from the Ontario government which had accepted his $12 with his application and had promised to give him a loan.
Furthermore, about the first of December I was in the city of Toronto and I called to see the Hon. Duncan Marshall. I spoke to him about these men in the county of Lanark who were wanting to get farm loans and he told me, "For the present at least we are not making loans. I do not know what our policy will be in the future." I came back and I found that not one loan has been made in the county of Lanark and the farmers there are borrowing what money they require privately. I also want to repeat that many of them who paid in their money with their application have not only not got a loan but they have not received back their $12.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I may be permitted
to reply to a specific question put to me by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury), the total of loans to date is $10,321,306.21, and the losses as of March 31, 1934, which is the latest reported figure, amount to $83,681.17. The total number of foreclosures since the inception of the act has been nineteen.


Charles A. Stewart: Are those
all losses on principal?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That figure would include
both principal and interest.


Charles A. Stewart: It is rather confusing to get the answer in that way. I note from the report that there is a very considerable amount of overdue interest.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend will
appreciate that the figure I gave was as of March 31, 1934. There are considerable sums of interest in arrear, and considerable sums of principal in arrear, but the total losses will not be determined until the individual transactions are closed up.


Charles A. Stewart: Thank you, that is the point I wanted to know.
Mr. SPOTTOiN: Mr. Chairman, I have been intensely interested in the dire need of the farmers of North Huron for securing farm loans. I wish to say this to the credit of the Drury government which was in office in the province of Ontario from 1919 to 1923, that they started the agriculture development board. They also started the province of Ontario savings banks and gathered up money from the people of the province of Ontario
who had it to spare and loaned it bo the farmers of my county who needed it. This policy was continued by the government of the Hon. Howard Ferguson and the government of the Hon. George Henry. Coming from an agricultural constituency, even before I was a member of this house I asked the Ontario government to appoint an inspector in my county who would serve my farmers and those of the surrounding counties. This they did, and I can say this, that to my knowledge there never was a political loan made in the county of Huron unless it was to a Liberal candidate whom I defeated in one election, and in that case I went to the mat to save a political opponent.
The inspector would make his rounds and sometimes I have gone in to plead that they would raise the loan -by one or two hundred dollars. Sometimes my request was granted, and sometimes it was turned down. But at any rate my farmers in the county of Huron-


Albert Joseph Brown: Mr. Chairman-


George Spotton: My farmers in the county of Huron who could not secure money elsewhere, from life insurance companies-


Albert Joseph Brown: This is out of order, Mr. Chairman.


George Spotton: When the pastoral member for Lisgar gets through I will continue, Mr. Chairman. I have always found that many half-baked clergymen are poor listeners.


Albert Joseph Brown: Withdraw that statement. I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want that statement withdrawn.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I think the hon. member had better withdraw.


George Spotton: Mr. Chairman, I neither said that the hon. member for Lisgar was a clergyman nor that he was half-baked; but I did say that I have known half-baked clergymen who were good speakers but poor listeners.


Albert Joseph Brown: That is just a way of evading the Chairman's ruling.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It is
not permissible by inference to do what you cannot do under the rules. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


George Spotton: If the hon. member for Lisgar is a minister or clergyman, and if he comes in the category of 'being half-baked, I retract.



Farm Loan Act


Albert Joseph Brown: Mr. Chairman, an hon.
member of this house cannot make a statement of that kind.


George Spotton: Then I will say he is well done, well baked.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I must insist that the hon. member withdraw that statement.


George Spotton: Mr. Chairman, if you will tell me what the statement is I shall be glad to withdraw it.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The inference was that the hon. gentleman was a half-baked clergyman.


George Spotton: I apologize to the clergymen of this country for any such inference.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


George Spotton: If you think I made such a statement, Mr. Chairman, I shall withdraw it, but I made no such accusation against the clergy.	.
I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, that m the province of Ontario we are not egotistical, but we have listened for a long time to members from the western provinces getting up and I think slandering and libelling their own provinces when they say that their municipalities are broke, and their provinces are broke, and everything is in dire straits, and that they cannot secure loans in the money markets of the world but have to come down to get this government's O.K. I say that there are only four or five old provinces-[DOT] Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island-that must therefore have that financial status which can help them out; and I do say that these western provinces do not show much gratitude. To these western members let me say that we have long remained silent in Ontario; but I appeal to them now-I am not trying to stir up anything of a sectional spirit- that the time has almost come when we shall have to have an Ontario consciousness. I appeal to the hon. member for West Middlesex, who I know is interested in agriculture; he represents an agricultural constituency, and I know from experience that he is sincerely interested in agriculture and in the advancement of that industry in his county. But I tell him that if he has not been sleeping with the Premier and Minister of Agriculture of Ontario he has been sleeping in an adjacent room. I am speaking figuratively, not literally.


John Campbell Elliott: I would be in excellent company either way.
[Mr. SpottonJ	! ! 1. IHS.H


George Spotton: The Ontario government suggested that if they were granting loans in Ontario they would grant them at four per cent; but that reminded me of a friend of mine who said that if he had some ham he would have ham and eggs-if he had eggs. They would grant new loans-if they were granting loans-at four per cent. But they were not granting loans. A gentleman whom I revere and to whom the Hepburn administration has not been kind, Mr. Charles Robertson, the whip of the Liberal party in the last house, wrote-I have his letter in my office-to a farmer stating, "This government is not granting new loans to any farmers; but in the case of those farmers whose farms have been inspected, where they pay $12, and where the necessary legal work has been done and a loan has been agreed to, they are going to consider it." But in some cases, and I will give the names, the concession and the lot if necessary, they have reduced the loan by anything from S500 to $1,500. What is peculiar to me is that the resolution of the hon. member for West Middlesex and the announcement of the Ontario government synchronized. It looks as if they are playing a political game.


John Campbell Elliott: It shows the good judgment of both parties.


George Spotton: 'Good politics, yes.


John Campbell Elliott: No, good judgment.


George Spotton: But hard on the people.
Now this is a fact. I went to the agricultural development board, after they had dismissed Mr. Roadhouse, and I was in communication with Mr. Fairbairn and Mr. Page, and they informed me that there were no new loans. The president of the United Farmers' organization in Ontario, Mr. Robert J. Scott, together with the hon. member for Dufferin-iSimcoe and myself, lamented the fact that since last June the Hepburn administration has been very cruel to the farmers of Ontario. In our opinion they were striving to make it so severe that the farmers should lose the old homestead-they would make it hard for the farmers of Ontario so that it would have its effect on the next dominion election, because it can be nothing else than that. We have positive proof. Mr. Nixon, replying to Mr. Scott, is reported to have said that he was not listening much to Mr. Scott, the president of the United Farmers of Ontario organization, because he voted for George Spotton at the last election, and Mr. Scott replied that he had not voted for me. Sometimes I get discontented with my own party; but when I think

Farm Loan Act
of the puerile, the infantile and the senile remarks of the opposition, I think I am better off staying where I am. When Mr. Nixon said that the president of the United Farmers' organization of Ontario had voted for me, that gentleman, as I say, replied that he had not. But I care not whether he did vote for me or not; if he did not many others did. The fact of the matter is however that Mr. Nixon said that scores of new loans were being granted daily in Ontario, whereas I make bold to say that this was not the case; and that will be laid upon the records in Queens park in the very near future. Some members of this house get up and tell how many loans there were. Well, if there were any, they were granted, believe me, in their constituencies during a byelection.
Many Liberal farmers have come to me and told me their farms had not been inspected. They were kidded along until the snow was on the ground. My hon. friend from West Middlesex knows this; he is fair and he will agree with me when I say that they kidded the farmers along while that beautiful white blanket covered the farms, telling them that they could not inspect the farms until the spring, and then they hoped to pass the buck to the federal parliament. But these little wise-cracking, peanut, potato politicians in Queens park, Toronto, will not, so long as I am in the flesh, kid or fool the farmers of Ontario. We have just recently seen Mr. Marshall come out with a change of heart.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


George Spotton: Duncan Marshall, whom Alberta made a great mistake in allowing to leave. I wish to congratulate this government, Mr. Chairman, on increasing the sum to $90,000,000 the amount of money available for the farmers of Ontario when they could get it nowhere else, and I plead with this government that they make the rate of interest as low as possible. The overhead, as indicated by this government, may be large, but I am glad that this government does not belong to the cannibalistic tribe we have in the province of Ontario. We have at the head of this farm loan board, they tell me, a former Liberal premier of British Columbia, and many of his assistants are from the ranks of Liberal politicians. I am glad of that, because I have never been a party to taking the bread from any home in my county or elsewhere. I have striven, and I have been successful in the endeavour, to extend the time of Liberal officeholders
92582-82J
in my riding until even after the election when the opposition thinks their party is going to attain office.
I congratulate this government on the fact that they are making it possible, after the Hepburn government has turned down the farmers, and scores and hundreds of farmers in Ontario have been driven off the old homestead, -for me to say what I have been able to say, to my farmers: Hold steady; it is only a few short months until you can drive up from the gate between those ancestral trees which your grandfather planted and you will rest secure pa the old homestead. I am leaving to-night to lend a little assistance to a Liberal whose Liberal grandfather planted such trees and through the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act I feel we shall be able to send him home happy. On behalf of the electors of my constituency, Liberals and Conservatives alike, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Finance that when the Hepburn administration turned the farmers down, he stepped into the breach and said: I am ready, aye ready.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Spotton: Well, where were the
farmers to turn? No other organization was loaning money and to scores of my farmers who are in danger of being driven off their farms, I am going to say to them, as I wire them weekly: Take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; that will hold you secure until the federal farm loan act is in operation and you will be able to hang on to the old homestead. The Hepburn administration has not been granting any new loans in the county of Huron. They may have done so in Frontenac, where they did some very cruel things, but they have not done it in the constituency I represent.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In the first place I am
quite satisfied that the great majority of the farming community in Canada is entirely in favour of this act and I am satisfied that there are not many hon. gentlemen opposite who dare oppose it. During this afternoon we have heard one or two hon. members opposing it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard made the plea that this was class legislation and he strongly pleaded in favour not of the mortgagor but of the mortgagee; he was inclined to protect the interests of the investor rather than those of the farmer. The hon. member for Temisoouata took a very peculiar attitude particularly in view of the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite have 'been pleading on behalf of the farmer. He said that this act would ruin the credit of the farmers with
Farm Loan Act

thie banks. I have understood from almost all hon. gentlemen opposite who have been speaking on behalf of the farmers, that they have no credit with the banks at all.
I rise principally for the purpose of answering sonae remarks made the other day by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addlington (Mr. Campbell). In my riding as in many others, including those of some hon. members who have spoken to-day, no farm loans have been made to my knowledge since June last. At that time there were many loans completed in so far as everything was concerned except the passing of the cheque. There is one case in particular of which I have personal knowledge where a man transferred his farm to the then mortgagee. He had sold the farm to another and taken property in Toronto as an equity. He had transferred the property to the farmer who was about to mortgage it to the farm loan board. The title had been searched; the mortgage was made out and registered as required by the Ontario board. Everything was completed except the passing of the cheque, but the loan has not up to the present date been granted.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What is the name?


James Arthurs: I am not giving names
here any more than is the hon. gentleman.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would like to get the names of all those cases. The hon. member cannot give them.


James Arthurs: I want to point out also
that as far as Ontario and I believe the whole dominion are concerned, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act depends in a large measure upon the successful passing of this measure. Many farmers are quite able to secure a compromise with their creditors providing they can produce ready money which could be acquired under this act. The difficulty in regard to providing ready money is what has caused the delay in many cases of adjustments under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
As I have said before, I have no desire to delay this legislation; in fact I am most anxious that it should be passed. I am bringing up these incidents merely to help the act along rather than to do anything to hinder its passing.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is very easy to see from the discussion this afternoon that hon. members opposite are not in love with Mr. Hepburn, but the criticisms that have been made of him in this chamber are not going to do him any harm. Hon. gentlemen opposite

seem to believe that we should not have any central government; that we should all go to the provincial field. When I first came into the house I tried to establish the status of the settlers and I was glad to hear on Monday of this week that the Minister of Labour was placing some classes of settlers under the scheme. He stated that settlers operating farms under contract with the director of soldiers' settlement could apply for the benefits of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I believe the minister tried to answer my question last week in regard to giving the exact status of the settlers, but no final decision was reached. There is only one standard, that of colonization settlers, because you cannot build up classes within classes and you must necessarily permit all settlers, even if they are not or have not been soldiers, to come under the scheme.
I would like the committee to be fully seized of the exact situation so far as not'hern Ontario in its relation to this act is concerned and I believe the same thing applies also to northern Quebec and the newer sections of colonization of the prairie provinces and British Columbia. In the two provincial ridings of Cochrane, Ontario, there are over 3,600 families who have settled on the land and who are actual farmers in the full sense of the word although they do not own their farms outright. Their farms still belong to the crown in the right of the province. These people would not come under the scheme. Surely if it is possible for soldier settlers to come under the scheme these people who are actual settlers, living on their holdings and getting their living out of farming, ought to be able to come under the act. The minister was not definite in his answer the other day and there was no possibility of arriving at a conclusion or giving a full definition of the status of people in actual occupation. As I say, if it is possible for soldier settlers to come under this act, it should be possible also for an actual settler, one who has occupied his land for a number of years and to whom the land belongs to some extent, to come under the act. I am sincere in my pleading on behalf of that rural population. When we talk of agriculturists, we must include not only farmers who own their land but also the man whose actual occupation is farming. This should be possible within certain limits.
I fully appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Finance the other day that this was a colonization scheme. I do not want it to be taken as a colonization scheme;

Farm Loan Act
but the last stage of colonization, when a man is almost ready to get his deed, having sufficient land cleared but being unable under provincial regulations to get it, is the time that the central government should come to his help. It should be possible to bring within the provisions of this measure the real settlers in the newer sections, as well as the soldier settler. There Should be no distinction. If you are going to make classes within classes it will bring trouble. Again I make this urgent plea, and I am going to keep on making it, because it is very important. It applies just as forcibly to the riding of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) as to that I have the honour to represent. In such ridings there are thousands of families who are not able to benefit under this scheme as it stands at present. That is also true in Pontiac and several ridings on the Quebec side. If the government is really desirous of finding a solution for the problem of the farmers they should make it possible for all who deserve the name of farmer to benefit.	.
Now I want the Minister of Finance to give me a concrete answer on that very important point. I do not want to be unreasonable, I do not want a settler who has just settled to come within these benefits, but the man I refer to is the farmer who by actual work for the last five or ten years has shown himself to be such. It is possible for the government to be fully protected, there are inspectors on the ground in the different provinces and they can distinguish between the settler and the real farmer. I ask the minister to give a ruling on that point. In my section we are absolutely in favour of anything that will improve the lot of the farmer as well as of the working man, but under this legislation we see no salvation and no help for one of the finest rural sections there is in Canada to-day.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take no exception to the
hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) making a plea for the settlers in his area, but may I point out that I am not competent to give a ruling, as he puts it. He cited a reply given to him on a question submitted to the Minister of Labour. That had reference to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and had we been discussing that act I would have given the same reply. To-day we are discussing the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I propose to move an amendment to the present bill which will define a farmer in precisely the same terms as the definition in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. That is as specific an answer as I can give. My hon. friend will realize that the board
must be the judge whether or not a man comes within the definition laid down by the act.


Mr. VALLANCE:: On Monday last I drew to the attention of the minister a condition that exists in Saskatchewan in connection with the exemption law of that province. The minister answered me at that time that he was not aware that any representations had been made to the government. After recess the minister was kind enough to refer to a telegram, I believe, sent by the chairman of the board. I did not happen to be in my seat at the time.
Mr. RHODES. Sent by the commissioner. Air. VALLANCE:
In view of fact that Saskatchewan is only province which provides for exemptions from seizure under chattel mortgage and in view of fact that conditions of loan require additional security on chattels, believe board will require legislation in your province which will make security taken on chattels in province of equal value to similar security taken in other provinces.
That suggests to me that the other eight provinces have no such exemption legislation. Saskatchewan did have an exemption law unless legislation passed recently cancelled it. The very fact that we have an exemption law indicates that the farmers in that province probably were in greater need of financial assistance than those in any other province. In spite of what the hon. member for North Huron has said about the western provinces I still claim that we in the west, through no fault of our own, find ourselves in a more difficult position than farmers in the eastern provinces. If this Canadian Farm Loan Act is to be operative in Saskatchewan only on condition that the exemption law now in existence be done away with this act will be of very little advantage to the farmers there. All loans that have been advanced up to the present to farmers in Saskatchewan have been advanced with these exemptions in existence.
What are the exemptions? I put them on record in Hansard last Monday; they are: Four oxen, horses, or mules, or any four of them, six cows, six sheep, four pigs and fifty domestic fowls besides the other animals kept for food purposes, together with food for such animals for the period from November 1, to April 31, or such portions of the months which follow the date of seizure.
Now I am in hearty accord with the act and the spirit of the act and what it proposes to do, but if as a preliminary to its becoming operative in Saskatchewan we are to be compelled to forego that right we had
12S8
Farm Loan Act

under the exemption law, to me it seems too great a price. The migration of farmers from the drought areas to the northern part of the province was possible only because - they had these exemptions. If they had not had them you would have had, not hundreds but tens of thousands of destitute farmers in Saskatchewan alone. So I am apprehensive about what the final result will be if we should be faced with climatic conditions in the next few years similar to those we have had for the past five or six. So I urge the minister that the exemption laws be left in effect; loans have been advanced by private companies with these exemption laws in existence, and if private capital is willing to invest in farm mortgages notwithstanding the exemption law, surely the Dominion of Canada can do the same. I think section 9 deals with this whole matter. It reads:
In the event of legislation being passed by the legislature of any province operating under this act after loans have been made available in that province which, in the opinion of the board, would prejudicially affect the security of existing or future loans, the board, by notice to be published in the Canada Gazette, may cease to make further loans in that province.
It would seem that this farm loan board is going to be clothed with authority to sit in judgment on the legislatures of the provinces, and if legislation passed by a province does not meet with the approval of the farm loan board that board will have the right to cease lending money in that province. That power to supersede the legislature is too great to give to any board. I urge that before this bill is passed the minister give consideration to those provinces that have exemption laws.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, my hon.
friend cited section 9 of the act. We are only inserting that in the present amendment for the purpose of renumbering. That section was in the old act, and has been there since 1927. It has no reference to the point my hon. friend has just made. But I am advised by the solicitor of the farm loan board that these exemptions from chattel mortgages have been peculiar to the province of Saskatchewan, that they have not obtained in any other province, and that the list of exemptions in Saskatchewan was very widely enlarged during the session of 1934. The object that the commissioner of the farm loan board had in mind in bringing the matter to the attention of the government of Saskatchewan was not to prejudice the farmers of that province.


John Vallance: I am not suggesting
that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The object was to assist
the farmer by making available to him additional security which, as my hon. friend and the committee will realize, only has application to second mortgages. Otherwise there would have been no necessity for dealing with the question of chattels at all because under part I of the act we deal only with first mortgages oovering real estate and buildings. The solicitor further advises me that the amendment which has been passed by the Saskatchewan legislature only has reference to mortgages made to the Canadian farm loan board, and that the law with respect to those exemptions remains as it was with respect to other mortgagors.


John Vallance: That is what I object
to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: So my hon. friend will
realize that it has a limited application. My hon. friend says he objects. He will appreciate, of course, that in that case the question is one wholly for the legislature of Saskatchewan, because in the natural course I would asume that the commissioner would make his recommendations only with respect to loans which might be made by the farm loan board.


Mr. DONNELLY:: 
Mr. SHAVER:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James J. Donnelly: the Argentine are in the same position. They are receiving more than we are for their produce, because of their small freight haul due to being close to the seashore and also because of their inflated currency. I know of no country in the world where the farmer is in such a bad condition, unless it be India. Unless some relief is given to the western farmers the same will be said of western Canada as was said of India, namely, "Unless something is done for the Indian farmer we will have one vast rural slum." That will be true of western Canada unless something is done for our farmers.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: You are not
helping it with that kind of stuff.


Mr. MULLINS:: I have been sitting here for some days listening attentively for some constructive suggestion from the opposite side of the house and I have not yet heard it. I have heard nothing but criticism. There are hon. members sitting on the other side of the house who want to scuttle the ship so as to drown the captain of this party. I have waited patiently for something constructive. I have listened to the hon. member for Macleod talk about a nineteen cent cow; I heard the hon. member for Sherbrooke talk about five cattle for four dollars. I heard an hon. member making the statement that Canada is in the worst position of any country in the world. He does not know what he is talking about. All I ask is that he go where I have just come from; let him travel through Kansas. I have just come from Kansas and Colorado and I saw them gathering tumble weed, a weed which is gathered on the prairies for feed to save their live stock. They are in a far worse condition than we are.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are doing that
out west.


Henry Alfred Mullins: They are in a far worse
condition than we are in the northern part of the province of Manitoba. As I stand in my place I can see a gentleman in the gallery who is a real farmer, not one of your class farmers.


James J. Donnelly: Just a cattle buyer,
like the hon. member.


Henry Alfred Mullins: He is not one of those cowless, sowless, chickenless farmers. No, he is not a farmer who has exploited the top six inches of the soil. I can see from my place in this house a farmer who sold his crop last year for S72.000. Why does he not say something about that. Why do we not have a little cheer added to the discussion, (Mr. Donnelly.]
and not continually damn the country I have lived in longer than a good many of those third-rate professional men. I am not going to sit here any longer and listen to them.
Then the hon. member for Macleod made a statement about the old canning cow. Why did he not tell us that cattle sold yesterday in Toronto for seven cents a pound? Why did he not tell that hogs have gone up to eight and a half cents a pound? Why did he not tell that and spread a little cheer? How much money do hon. members expect the Minister of Finance will loan to the farmers when they are doing their cause so much harm? Hon. members opposite are not putting this matter in the proper light. Spread a little sunshine, and do not talk all the time about these extreme cases. Let us talk about other things. Yesterday in Toronto three loads of cattle sold at six and a half cents a pound, and others sold at seven cents a pound. But hon. members opposite seem to prefer to talk about an old canner cow. Why, in the old days after the old canner cow had served her purpose on the range we turned her loose and pensioned her. We did not try to get nineteen cents for her; we were not so small as that.
I want to say that in the constituency of Marquette we are not in the condition hon. members opposite are trying to make out. True, we have suffered through low prices, but our trouble is that we cannot get our products to the market. I have not yet heard one hon. member opposite make the logical statement that what we want in western Canada is lower rates of interest. The Minister of Finance is now offering us that lower rate of interest. That is all we are asking for. We do not want to continue to be exploited by interest rates of eight per cent or nine percent, but we would be content with interest near five per cent.
Then, further, we are asking for lower freight rates. We want to get to the markets of the world. I have lived in the west a long time, and I defy any person to carry on farming in western Canada and pay the present freight rates to get to the markets of the world. It is not possible; it cannot be done. I would like to see lower freight rates; I would like to see our farmers placed in a position where they may make homes instead of boarding houses. A good many of our farmers have become discouraged. Why? A lot of travelling salesmen came along and took their money by inducing them to invest in watered stock. They were sold the inflated stocks of various corporations.
I believe I see in this chamber a few men who

Farm Loan Act
have suffered from watered stock. That is one of our difficulties in the west. We have had to face watered stocks, gambling and wheat speculation. We have come to the conclusion that there is only one panacea, namely, to go 'back to work and do our farming the way the Almighty intended us to do it. We have to do away with the one-crop rotation and make homes of our farms. We must not drive our young men away bo the cities.
These new political parties come along with new panaceas, and make the statement from public platforms that the Canadian government could not take a bromo seltzer without referring to London. That statement was made by the member for Southeast Grey.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I never mentioned bromo seltzer.


Henry Alfred Mullins: That Canada cannot take a bromo seltzer without referring to London.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No.


Henry Alfred Mullins: She referred to London.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am very sorry; I would like to claim it, but it is not mine.
Mr. OOTINA.M: It would be good for a morning headache.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I never referred to a bromo seltzer.


Henry Alfred Mullins: She is quoted as stating that Canada could not take a bromo seltzer without referring it to London.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Probably crazy water crystals.


Mr.   M@: Also in Saskatchewan the hon. member referred to a Bennett stomach. She said a child was X-rayed and it-turned out that he had a- Bennett stomach.


Mr. OOOTE:: Nothing in it.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Under matured, I think she said.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I was quoting a medical authority.


Henry Alfred Mullins: You made the statement from the platform. You cannot deny it.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I don't deny it.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Then the hon. member for Battle River talks about perishing Dick. Think of any such statement as that!


Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask the hon. member if he is referring to me? Because if he is he is misquoting me.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I had not intended to speak this afternoon and have not the clipping with me. But fortunately I have here for the benefit of the hon. member for Southeast Grey a quotation from the Star which is her favourite paper. In its issue of June 5 the Star says:
Hamilton, June 5.-"We cannot take a bromo-seltzer for the headache from which we are suffering until it is decided at an economic conference that it is the thing to do." Miss Agnes Macphai], M.P. for Southeast Grey, charged at a public meeting under C.C.F. auspices here Saturday night.
So I did not misquote you.


James J. Donnelly: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is not addressing the chair.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I regret it was not I. I do not remember saying anything so clever.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Will the hon. member please address the chair?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Yes, I intend to do that, Mr. Chairman, but the hon. member interrupted me and I had to answer her.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You cannot get the last word with her.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I would like to see a little oheer spread in here. I do not want the Minister of Finance to be discouraged by all this calamity howling from the other side of the house, making extreme statements about conditions in western Canada. I will venture to say that nearly every municipality in my constituency has a credit balance.


George Spotton: Hear, hear.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am not going to have the statement made that the municipalities are all bankrupt. The municipalities north of the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway are not in that position. I say that the little towns in my constituency are most of them in a very good financial position, and I am proud that my constituency is purely agricultural. I cannot sit silent in my seat any longer when I hear these extreme statements made about western Canada. I must take issue with them. Let me tell you that eighty-five per cent of the prairie farmers own their farms, and only forty-five per [DOT] cent of them are mortgaged.


John Vallance: What is the hon. member reading from? What is his authority for that statement?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I fortunately have that
clipping with me. I am reading from the Country Guide. Does the hon. member take it?
1292	COMMONS
Farm Loan Act


John Vallance: No.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The Country Guide should be good enough authority for the statement I am making, and it says that 85 per cent of the prairie farmers own their farms and only 45 per cent are mortgaged. If I were the Minister of Finance I would not make a loan at all to some of these people in the 45 per cent class. No doubt they are some of those that my hon. friend was referring to who want a loan all the time. You cannot satisfy them with loans, Mr. Chairman. I had only one mortgage left, Mr. Chairman; I had cleaned up all the rest, and I went to the last man who owed me $3,200, the balance on a farm, and I said to him, "I want you to pay me. You have owed me this money for seven years. What are you going to do about it?" "Well," he said, "I can't pay." I said, "I think you can. I hear you made good profits last year, that you had a pretty good crop on this farm. Now I think you had better pay." "Well," he said, "take $1,000 and I will pay it." Now if the Minister of Finance is going to make loans to that type of man that only wants to settle with you for so much, then God help the people who are standing behind this country and buying its securities for their old age. I would be most particular in making a loan to farmers. First I would want to know the man. He would be 50 per cent to start with.
I would look him over, and his ability to farm. Then I would want to look at the farm. You may have good fertile land, but if you have a shiftless, useless individual on that land, your loan is no good.
I have said that 85 per cent of the prairie farmers own their farms. In Ontario 88 per cent of the farmers ow-n their farms, and only 42 per cent of them are mortgaged. So we out west are in just about as good a position as the farmers in the county of my hon. friend from North Huron (Mr. Spotton). I just wanted to make that reference to show that the Ontario farmer is not in a very much better position than we are in western Canada.
The government is paying thousands of dollars to keep up unemployment camps. There is a camp in my constituency with from 1,200 to 1,500 men in it, and they are having the best time of.their lives. They have their hockey matches and their boxing bouts and concerts two or three days a week, and the menu card is as good as you could get at the Chateau Laurier cafeteria. Why keep these young men there? In the pioneer days-yes,

in my day-we got no such pap handed out to us. We went out to fight the battles on the open prairie, and I am glad of the experiences I went through as a pioneer.
This is not my last contribution on the floor of this house; I am going to notify the house of that now. I have heard members around me stating that this is their last contribution in this house, and others expect it to be theirs. Well, this is not my last. Marquette tells me that I have a mission in this house, and that I have got to serve them. I have had letters sent to me and they have encouraged me greatly. There is a new era coming for we have a government that is doing something. For goodness sake, gentlemen opposite, wake up and help solve this country's problems to bring Canada back on its feet. Stop your calamity howling over there, and spread a little sunshine. I look into the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite who are members of the United Farmers. I am a member of the United Farmers of Manitoba, and just as good a one as any that sits on the other side of the house. I have financed and helped them all down through. I believe in them and stand back of them to-day. They have sent a resolution here asking for the abolition of these unemployment camps. They are going back to horses; they are going to farm as the Almighty intended them to farm, but the difficulty is that they cannot hire the labour. The labour is not available. The men are all in the camps enjoying themselves. Let us get back to the right conditions. We have a country that is the best in the world, and I defy anyone, and this includes my hon. friend from Willow Bunch, to challenge that statement. I know the district he comes from; I was in it in the early days. I have a great many friends. in Willow Bunch. I have travelled all over the United States and have seen the conditions there. I know the conditions under which the farmers borrow from the government of the United States under their Fraser-Lemcke act. I have seen the actual conditions of the farmers themselves, and I make this statement, Mr. Chairman, that there is no country in the world that offers the same inducements as Canada to the young man who wants to go out and work. So I say to you young professional men who are struggling for an existence in some country town: Go and get one of those western farms; this is the best time you ever had to buy one of them; take off your coat and go to work and farm it the way the Almighty intended you to farm it.

Farm Loan Act


Mr. PORTEOUS:: There has been a good deal of criticism, both in this house and outside, and there have been many rash and untrue reports not only from private citizens but from the Premier of Ontario with respect to the Ontario development board. The statement which has been reported that 11,000 applications which were made to the Ontario development board prior to the last provincial election were political applications is entirely untrue. As a matter of fact I had a good deal to do with the Ontario development board in my district, and I never knew who the inspector in that district was until he was fired by the Hepburn administration.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never mind about
that.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Leave Ontario alone for a while; are you a provincial or a federal member.


Victor Clarence Porteous: My experience is that
more loans have been made in Ontario to Liberal farmers than to Conservatives. And I make that statement-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Without knowing anything about it.


Victor Clarence Porteous: -after having made a
survey in my district in connection with the board. The Ontario development board was started under the Drury regime, and it was started because it had been found to be necessary to have long term, low interest loans to farmers; and that principle has been carried out all through. The hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard has said that it is not necessary to go into the loaning business, that it should be left with private interests. I want to take issue with that statement. It is necessary. Until the Ontario development board started we never had in Ontario sufficient long term, low interest credit to farmers, and that is why they entered the field. That is why this bill has been introduced. It has been introduced to supply that need, and I congratulate the Minister of Finance on its introduction. Perhaps, as the hon. member for West Middlesex has said, a few applications have been granted under the Ontario development board in the last few months. But no applications would have been granted under the Ontario development board had it not been for the action of the Minister of Finance in introducing this bill. The Ontario development board has been negligent in that it has not supplied the need of credit, and it has been negligent also in its failure to send a representative to meet the creditors, under
the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, so that an adjustment could be made. I find that in no instance have any official receivers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act had representations from the Ontario development board. We have heard hon. members get up and claim that mortgages should be reduced, that there should be a debt reduction, that doctors and lawyers should reduce their fees and storekeepers and mortgage companies should reduce their accounts; yet they are supporting a government that does not recognize the necessity of sending a representative under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to make a suitable adjustment so that the farmers may be able to pay their debts. In my opinion this act should be worked in conjunction with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because I believe that is necessary. I believe there are many private persons who have mortgages on farms and are in need of money, and who would make a settlement of sixty or seventy per cent of their claim if they could get the money, because they are in need of funds at the present time, and this act could be worked in conjunction with that legislation. No loans had been made by the Ontario development board until after the meeting which was referred to by the hon. member for North Huron, the meeting of the United Farmers in convention in Toronto, when they criticized the action of the Ontario government and the fact that they were not making any more loans. And I say that they would not have made any loans had it not been for the fact that they knew that the Minister of Finance was about to introduce legislation to cover the field, and by reason also of the criticism which was directed at them by the farmers in convention at that time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Marquette, may I say that he has possibly the most lively imagination of any member, old or young, in this house. I agree that it is a mistake to point out the most pessimistic side of the struggle which we are going through, but it is probably more wrong to be unnecessarily optimistic. In statements that have been made with regard to western Canada in particular, we may have heard some pessimistic things; but I have not heard a single instance cited in this house which has not been true. Some extreme cases may have been mentioned, but I have not known of a single set of figures quoted that have not been accurate. As regards the statement of the hon. member for Marquette, all I have to say is that if the picture he has drawn this
Farm Loan Act

afternoon is tru-e, then in honesty he ought to oppose both the bill which is before us at the present time and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because there is no need for such legislation so far as Manitoba is concerned.
I was interested in his statement about someone in the house who had taken off a crop worth 872,000. As one interested in agriculture, I might say to the committee that the largest crop I ever took off in western Canada brought me my greatest loss. The hon. member did not give the other side of the picture: he did not say what it cost to take off that 872,000 crop.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I be permitted to
explain? The hon. gentleman I was referring to sold 100,000 bushels of wheat at 72 cents and two cars of barley at 92 cents, and that gentleman was sitting in the gallery a minute ago. He cleared up all his debts.


Henry Elvins Spencer: If that is so, and if that
condition is general throughout Manitoba, I am glad to hear it; but I am rather of the opinion that Manitoba is not in a much better position than any of the three prairie provinces, or even British Columbia. The figure given by the hon. member showing that eighty-five per cent of the farmers owned their farms is entirely fallacious; and the figure showing that only forty-two per cent of the farms have mortgages is, I claim, also wrong. M e were told by the Prime Minister in his radio addresses-and surely he was pretty careful about what he told the public over the radio-that the farm debt of this country was no less than 81,000,000,000. If the farm debt is as large as that, surely Manitoba has not been the one province that is exempt, May I for a moment refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard who said that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was against the best interests of 90 per cent of the farmers of this country. As one who comes from the prairie provinces I have to take exception to that statement. I believe the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is a very good piece of legislation and one very badly needed in Canada. From recent information I understand that not only is it being used to a considerable extent in the prairie provinces, but in the old province of Quebec it is probably being used more than in any other and I am quite sure it will be used in Manitoba. I also take exception to the statement made by the hon. member that this is class legislation that we have before us. In my opinion the legislation was put forward entirely as a matter of self 
preservation, on the part of the dominion. The 'farmers who represent the greatest calling in this country are a certain asset that we cannot afford to let go into bankruptcy wholesale and we cannot have them leave their farms. It is because of that situation and the fear that that might take place, such legislation as this has been proposed by the government, namely the extension of the farm loan act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.	.	_
The hon. member said also that this financing is being carried out to encourage the farmers in greater production. I do not believe that. I think the Minister of Finance told the house only the other day that this was being done to help out the debt situation throughout the dominion and I believe that statement is correct. We have to-day, as some hon. members have pointed out, an extremely serious debt situation in Canada, particularly with regard to agriculture and it is to help to reduce the terrible debt that the farmers are trying to carry that this act is being passed, so that they may be able to refund their debts through the application of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the use of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, thus not only bringing about a smaller liability but having it carried at a much lower rate of interest.
We must remember that during war time the farmers were encouraged to increase their holdings tremendously in support of the interests of Canada as a whole. After the war when we had a seven months' winter so far as the west was concerned, we had a famine in feed which caused enormous debts to be developed amongst the farm communities. We found the price of cattle dropping so rapidly the following year that huge debts were incurred wherever cattle were being carried. The farmers have never got over those times and the legislation before us today would help them considerably toward at least seeing daylight.
So far as agriculture is concerned the problem in Canada both east and west is on the one hand one of prices which have been extremely low, and the fact that agriculture has not been in a position to regulate in any way its prices as has been done with regard to prices for the products of industry. Second, the problem before Canada east and west is one oif debt.
Before I sit down may I refer to a statement made by the hon. member for North Huron whose words I think I caught correctly. He used these words, that when western members spoke about western Canada

Farm Loan Act
they slandered and libelled their own province in referring to the debts of their municipalities and provinces. I think this statement was entirely uncalled -for. I am in pretty steady attendance in this house and so far I have not heard a statement with regard to th-e debts of western Canada made by any western member on either side that was not correct. I think it ill becomes the hon. member to make such a charge. He went on to say that he was glad that by this legislation there was going to be $90,000,000 put at the service of the farm loan 'board and he intimated that this was for Ontario. Even if only part of it was for Ontario, it appears that conditions in that province are not so rosy after all if the farmers there require the assistance that is being proposed by this legislation. The situation in Ontario is the same as it is in western Canada so far as agriculture is concerned; it is one of low prices over which the farmer has no control and this has brought about the huge amount of debt that agriculture is carrying.


Mr. REID:: I would like to direct a
question to the Minister of Finance and I think this is an appropriate time to ask it. But before asking it, might I point out that while many complaints have been made regarding loans, I think the complaint generally at least in the lower Fraser valley has been that not enough loans have been made in my province. I am not, however, going into that matter at the present time nor into the other matter that the men themselves will be bankrupt before loans are made. I think the minister said that the integrity and ability of the man would carry more weight than would the property itself. I have in mind the government increasing the loan to $90,000,000 and I understand they intend to loan more money so as to enable the farmer to get out from under or lighten his existing load. I am pleading now on behalf of a class of farmer out there who is carrying quite a load, who is just as desirous of getting out from under as the farmer who owns his farm and who should receive consideration. Will those who are on five acre farms, shall I say, with an investment of perhaps of $40,000 or $50,000 and who are struggling along at the present time with low prices, come under the regulations to be based on the amendments which are going through the committee? Regulations, although they were not in the act, were made by the board debarring these men and they were told in most instances: The board has
made a ruling that the class to which you belong will not be taken in under the former farm loan act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The best answer I could
give to my hon. friend is to say that this is a farm loan act. We define "farmer" in the act and when we come .to the appropriate clause, I purpose moving an amendment placing on the word "farmer" the same interpretation as is used in the Farmer^ Creditors Arrangement Act. The regulations to which he referred, passed by the farm loan board-and now I am dealing with the old board if I may so term it-were not restricted in any sense; they were if anything rather widening the interpretation of the word "farmer" as defined in the original act. It may be that the regulations, or even the definition itself, were not sufficiently wide to include certain classes of people engaged in farming. But the size of the farm is not an issue, as I understand it. It is purely a question of whether or not a man is a farmer within the meaning of the act. I hope when I move the amendment my hon. friend will appreciate that, while we are confining these loans to farmers, the interpretation of farmer is as broad as it can reasonably be made.


Thomas Reid: As far as British Columbia is concerned the board in making these regulations did not take in poultrymen or small ranchers. Although it was not specifically provided in the act that they did not come under it, the board itself defined a farmer as excluding that class. That is why I asked whether the regulations would be changed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot say offhand
whether the regulations will be changed, but I do not believe we can widen our definition of farmer beyond that used in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Frank Thomas Shaver: It was reported in the
public press on Tuesday that the Minister of Agriculture of Ontario issued a statement on Monday to the effect that the agricultural development board of Ontario will still make loans to farmers, and no legislation will be passed by the Ontario government to enable the -Canadian farm loan board to come into operation there. Will that prevent the Canadian Farm Loan Act from coming into operation in Ontario, or if it does come into operation will it be in competition with the Ontario agricultural development board? Will they both be in operation in Ontario at the same time?
Farm Loan Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When this bill is passed it becomes operative in all the provinces. Whether it comes in competition with the Ontario board in making loans would be a question of fact; it may or it may not in an individual case. If their agricultural development board continues making loans it follows that both the dominion and the province will be making loans in Ontario.
Mr. ILStLEY: In Nova Scotia there is an impression that it is impossible to get a loan of more than a certain amount. I was under that impression myself. I have not been able to attend the discussions here, and perhaps that point has been dealt with. I thought the minister said a moment ago in answer to the hon. member for New Westminster that there was no limit as to the size of the farm, or that the amount of the loan did not come into question. Is that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. We have yet not had a chance to come to the individual sections of the bill, but I have no objection to dealing with the question now. What I had reference to was that the acreage of the farm had no bearing on the point, but there is a limit beyond which they may not go in making an individual loan, namely, $7,500. I have an amendment

I mentioned it the other day- which will increase the percentage on valuation that can be loaned.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I am of course interested in conditions in the Annapolis valley in Nova Scotia, where values perhaps are large compared with farms in some sections of Canada. Unfortunately there is a large amount of mortgage indebtedness in the Annapolis valley. On the other hand there are not many foreclosures, and conditions in many respects might be worse. Eor instance in the county in which I live no dominion or provincial relief money has been expended. The people are self-reliant and want to pay their debts and discharge their mortgages. I suggest as a matter of policy that the government should decide whether they have faith in the future of the apple growing industry in Nova Scotia. I suggest that they decide that they have faith in the future of that industry. If they do, they will take over a number of the present mortgages in the Annapolis valley and be prepared to lend money on apple orchards. Loans have been made there, but I think from the minister's knowledge of conditions in Nova Scotia he will agree that comparatively speaking not very much has been lent there. It may be due to the policy of the provincial board. I know the chairman of the board, Mr. Paterson, very well, and I have no particular 
criticism to make of his policy except that it is characterized by great caution; he does not intend to take any chance of losing a dollar of the government's money. While that is good for the government it is pretty hard on these orchard owners who have run into bad times and are unable in most instances to get money from the Canadian farm loan board when they apply for it. I think there should be a more liberal policy of lending on apple orchards. It depends on whether those in charge of the fund are going to take some chance on apple growing coming back to the position it was in a few years ago. I think in times like this the government had better decide to have some faith in the future of that industry.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Thomas Reid: In all provinces?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, and after this amendment, where hitherto on first mortgage, they have been limited to fifty per cent on the land and twenty per cent on buildings, they will be able to lend up to fifty per cent of value of land and buildings.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the minister propose to enlarge the amount that may be lent on an individual farm, or is the $7,500 limit to be adhered to?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is intended to adhere to the limit of $7,500.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Enlarging the limit would perhaps help my constituents more than some other things. It is not unusual to have farms worth quite a lot of money, $20,000 or $30,000, and some are heavily indebted. There are instances where that limit stops them from going to the government.

Farm Loan Act


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The Ontario development board has lent over $50,000,000 to farmers in Ontario. Applications are being made under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act for readjustment of these loans. I should like to know if the official receiver in a community has authority under the act to recommend an adjustment of those loans or that they should be written down, where they have been made by the province.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course, Mr. Chairman, we will have this discussion all over again when we come to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, but we have covered quite a wide field so I have no objection to answering the question of my hon. friend. The official receiver has no authority to do anything except to attempt to bring the parties together in a mutual arrangement. But the board of review, the case having been referred to it, has authority to order a compromise which would involve a reduction in the amount of the mortgage held by the provincial board.


Mr. MacLEAN:: This act has just been introduced in the province of Prince Edward Island, and naturally we are receiving many questions and a great deal of correspondence in regard to it. The difficulty seems to be that the man who needs assistance most will not be able to get it under this act. I refer to the man who is mortgaged pretty heavily, perhaps beyond the point at which the farm loan board would give him assistance if they adhere to the limit of sixty-six per cent of the value of the property. The man who has a gilt edged risk does not have so much difficulty in obtaining a loan as the man who is loaded up a little beyond that point, but the second man is the one who needs assistance at the present time. We are led to understand, by the minister's statement, that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and this act are distinctly separate, and that they cannot be termed even companionable acts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Then perhaps they may
be termed companionable acts, but even if a man has an arrangement made under the other act so far as I can see there is no way by which he can get new money under this act with which to carry on. On previous occasions the minister has explained that it is not wise to put in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act any provision which would compel the farm loan board to lend money to anyone who might be suggested or recommended under the other measure. I quite agree that there is room for argument there, but still there is a great difficulty. If a man
makes 'an arrangement with his creditors under the other act he is unable to get any new money from the man who holds the mortgage, or from any other man or from any lawyer who has money to loan, and in Prince Edward Island we do not have loan companies. So it is impossible for a farmer to get a loan under any condition. That is the difficulty; even if the farmer makes an arrangement with his creditors he cannot get money with which to carry on. If something could be worked out under which the man who is hard up and cannot meet his interest or principal payments could 'be tided over and given a new start it would be 'a good thing, and, I think, in keeping with the intention of these two pieces of legislation.
I am glad the minister gave us the explanation he did give this afternoon; we will be able to send copies of Hansard to those who are interested. I do hope that in handling these loans through the representatives in the different provinces the government will be as lenient as possible. Do I understand from the minister that this sixty-six per cent is on the real estate alone, or does it include movables and personal property?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is on the real estate, and that has reference to the first and second mortgage. But I pointed out to my hon. friend from Hants-Kings a few moments ago that whereas hitherto a first mortgage has been limited to fifty per cent of the value of the land and twenty per cent of the value of the buildings, under an amendment which I propose to move when I have an opportunity to do so that percentage will be increased enab" ling us to loan up to fifty per cent of the value of the land and buildings. So in that respect I may point out to my hon. friend, who may not have been here the other day, that we are going even further than they have gone in the United States, where at the moment they are confining themselves to our old limit of fifty per	cent of	the value	of	theland and twenty per	cent of	the value	of	the
buildings.


Mr. DAVIES:: There is one matter I
should like to draw	to the	attention	of	theminister, arising out	of the	definition	of	the
word "farmer." This afternoon the minister was kind enough to restate what he told the house on Monday, namely that it was his intention to bring in an amendment to the present definition of the word "farmer" which will provide that under the farm loan act the definition will be the same as under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Members of the committee will, I think, recall that
Farm Loan Act

the object of having that definition standardized was that there are certain farmers who live in small towns or village, some of whom have retired, who still have to live on the earnings of their farms, and it seems that they were not in a position to obtain loans under the act. This morning I received a wire which I think will prove of interest to the minister, which reads as follows:
Board of review holds opinion that present definition of farmer would not cover ease where party does not actually till the soil.
This is from Alberta. If it is so that the board of review in that province holds that the definition under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act requires that a man should actually till the soil, then that definition is not going to be very acceptable since it does not cover the cases which the committee intended should be covered when it was suggested that the definition should be changed. I quite recognize that it does not necessarily follow that the farm loan board in its operations will interpret the word "farmer" as it has been interpreted under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, but I think we should keep in mind that it is highly desirable that the definition should be interpreted in practically the same way. I can quite conceive that later on, if this definition is interpreted by the farm loan board as it has been by the board of review in Alberta, applicants who reside in a village and are not actually tilling the soil will not be eligible for loans under this act.
I commend to the minister's consideration this interpretation by the board of review of Alberta before he actually brings in his amendment with respect to the definition of the word "farmer" because I think it essential that this definition should be so couched as definitely to provide that a farmer, so long as he is a farmer, does not actually have to reside on the land proposed as security; nor should it be necessary for him personally to be tilling it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course the logical thing would be to discuss the definition of farmer when we come to that section, but as I say we 'have travelled so far afield over a number of days that we might as well keep at it until we have answered every possible query that may arise, so I do not take exception to my hon. friend having raised the point. The definition of " farmer " as given in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is I think as broad and comprehensive a definition as it would be possible to provide. I give that view to the committee in all humility and with due deference to hon. members learned

in the law who have had a wider experience than I have had. My experience has been that the simpler a definition is made the more comprehensive it becomes, and that the more one attempts to include exceptional cases the more it is restricted. There will always be border-line cases. By using the definition of " farmer " as it appears in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act there will be no restriction calling for actual occupation of the soil on the part of the individual, so long as he is a bona fide farmer. I believe the hon. member raised the question whether or not a person could be said to be tilling the soil. My answer would be that if he is not tilling the soil he is not a farmer. I would add however that in defining a term borderline cases will always be found, and I believe we will have to leave to the discretion of the farm loan board the matter of dealing with individual cases. They will have to decide, on the merits of each case, whether or not a man is a bona fide farmer and entitled to a loan on his farm.


Percy Griffith Davies: What about the man who is a poultry farmer or a bee keeper? Certainly he would not be tilling the soil, but he is none the less a farmer engaged in a certain class of farming.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I answer the hon. member as I did another hon. member? I do not believe I am called upon to state whether or not a certain individual shall come within the definition of the word " farmer." Parliament will say what in its judgment is a farmer, and following that the board in its discretion must determine whether or not an individual case comes within the law as laid down by parliament. I believe upon reflection the hon. member will realize that the condition I have described must obtain. If I wanted to find the definition of the term " farmer " after parliament had expressed itself I would refer to the Department of Justice. I would most respectfully decline however to place myself in the position of interpreting the law applicable to individual cases.
Section 1 agreed to.


Samuel Gobeil: Section 2.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, before coming to section 2 I should like to move an amendment which, in effect, would be a new section 2. However I do not believe we need concern ourselves about the renumbering of the sections at this time because as-1 understand it that will be done automatically at a later time by the law clerk. My amendment is:

Farm Loan Act
That Bill No. 15 be amended by inserting the following section after section 1 thereof: 2. Section 2 of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, chapter 66 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by striking out paragraph (d) thereof and substituting therefor the following,-	_
(d') "Farmer" means a person whose principal occupation consists in farming or the tillage of the soil.
That simply means we are amending the interpretation act and changing the definition of the word "farmer" as it now appears in the act so that it will conform in exact verbiage with the definition of " farmer " in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Mr. BURY:: May I call the minister's
attention to the fact that the new definition he proposes to insert should end with the words "consists in farming." If he leaves it in its present form it will clash with t'he definition of "farming" appearing in the same section of the act, because the definition of "farming" in section 2 (e) is:
"Farming" includes stock raising, dairying and the tillage of the soil.
Inasmuch as "farming" is already defined in section 2 (e) I suggest the new definition need go no further than this:
(d) "Farmer" means a person whose principal occupation consists in farming.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no objection to allowing the amendment to stand to afford an opportunity for a further investigation. May I add however that it was prepared by the legal representatives of the farm loan board and was approved by the Department of Justice. However I am not questioning the contention of the hon. member; he may be quite right. I do not pretend to be able to give an offhand judgment as to whether or not an amendment ought to be changed.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Farming is already defined in section 2 (e) in the terms I have indicated. I would submit the addition of the term "or tillage of the soil" immediately after defining "farming" rather suggests a curtailment of the meaning of the term farming. Why not leave the definition of farming to be supplied by the act itself?


Thomas Reid: Only a few moments ago the minister defined a farmer as one who tills the soil, because he stated to the committee that if a man was not tilling the soil he would not in his opinion be a farmer. The hon. member for East Edmonton has indicated that the word "farming" includes stock raising, dairying and the tillage of the soil. If that definition is followed, and if the matter is not considered carefully, it will mean that 92582-83
a man who is taking care of an orchard may find himself in difficulties. He would not be tilling the soil. A bee keeper is not tilling the soil; a poultryman is not tilling the soil, nor does he come under the definition of "farming." The amendment should be allowed to stand until the definition is clear, otherwise it would be impossible for a poultry farmer to obtain a loan. That is one of the reasons I asked the minister if the regulations would be changed, because if a proper definition is not given not one poultryman could obtain a loan. I ask that the section stand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already asked that it stand.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Capital stock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My amendment, Mr. Chairman, which I will ask the chairman to read, has a twofold purpose. Under the act as it exists an initial advance of 85,000,000 was made to the board by the government, upon which the board under the statute as it exists is obliged to pay interest to the government at the rate of five per cent. This amendment is designed to make it within the power of the governor in council to fix the rate of interest, the object being to reduce that rate of interest to the general level of the rate of interest which will be charged on all loans.
There is a further amendment by adding a subsection 4 to section 3, reading as follows:
The hoard may retire the outstanding capital stock subscribed by borrowers under the act, by crediting the amount of the par value of the stock subscribed by the borrower as a payment upon the borrower's indebtedness under his loan from the board, and when so credited, the borrower shall thereupon cease to be a stockholder of the board.
As I understand it, in layman's language that simply means this, that whereas hitherto the farmer who has received a loan from the board had to subscribe to the stock to the value of five per cent and had to pay interest upon that sum until such time as the mortgage was finally liquidated, this amendment will have the effect of immediately crediting that five per cent to his loan from the board and he will have the benefit of the interest on that between now and the time when the mortgage is finally paid.


Thomas Reid: And his debt will be reduced accordingly?


The CHAIRMAN:: Sir George Perley
moves:
That Bill No. 15 be amended by striking out section three thereof and substituting the following:

Farm Loan Act

3. Section five of the said act is repealed and' the following is substituted therefor:
"5. The capital requirements of the board shall be provided as follows:
(1)	The government of Canada may subscribe to an initial capital to an amount not exceeding five million dollars and may pay the amount of any such subscription at such times and in such amounts as in the judgment of the board are necessary for the purposes of the board; and the amounts provided from time to time under this subsection shall he free from interest charges for a period of three years, after which time interest shall be paid at such rate as the governor in council shall direct, repayment of the amounts so provided shall be made from time to time out of the earnings of the board': Provided that before any such proposed repayment is made, the reserve fund of the board provided for by section nine of this act, shall be at least equal to the total repayments, including the repayment then proposed to be made.
(2)	In addition to the initial capital provided for in the next preceding subsection, the board shall issue capital stock in shares of one dollar each, which shares shall be subscribed for by the government of Canada from time to time as loans are made under this act to an amount equal to five per cent of the said loans, so that the total amount subscribed under this subsection shall equal at any time as nearly as may be, five per cent of the total amount of principal outstanding on loans theretofore made, the same to be called for by the board as required.
(3)	The minister may purchase at a price not exceeding the par value thereof, the capital stock issued by the board to any province and for the purpose of such purchase, the minister may make the necessary expenditure out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund.
(4)	The board may retire the outstanding capital stock subscribed by borrowers under the act. by crediting the amount of the par value of the stock subscribed by the borrower as a payment upon the borrower's indebtedness under his loan from the board, and when so credited, the borrower shall thereupon cease to be a stockholder of the board."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, that a new section be inserted after section 4. The motion reads as follows:
That Bill No. 15 be amended by inserting the following section after section four thereof:
5. Section seven of the said act is amended by striking out paragraph (a) thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) Loans shall be made only on the security of first mortgages on farm lands up to fifty per cent of the board's appraised value of such lands and the buildings thereon: Provided that no one person and no two or more persons having joint or several ownership of the land to be mortgaged' shall have by way of loan in the aggregate at any one time more than seven thousand five hundred dollars."
[The Chairman.]
(2) The said section seven is further amended by striking out paragraph (f) thereof and substituting the following therefor:
"(f) Every loan made under this section shall be repayable upon such terms and within such periods not in excess of twenty-five years as the board may prescribe: Provided, however, that all loans repayable over a period in excess of five years shall be repayable in equal annual or semi-annual instalments of principal and interest."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The only change in section 5, paragraph (a) is to enlarge the valuation of a farm from the figure of fifty per cent of the land and twenty per cent of the buildings to fifty per cent of the land and buildings.


George Halsey Perley: I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Samuel Gobeil: That
will now be the new section 5.
Section 5 (new) agreed to.
On section 5 (as printed)-When loans available.


Archibald M. Carmichael: Mr. Chairman, it
is very difficult to tell just what section we are on. We have in heavy type the figures 3, 4, 6, 5, 8-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand it, we
have just carried the new section 5.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is correct.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I suggest that the
chairman read the marginal note to the sections so that we can tell which section is before the committee. I wish to say a few words on section 5 as printed, with the marginal note "When loans available." I happen to live in a province where loans have not been available for the past seven or eight years, since the farm loan act came into operation. This section says:
Loans under the provisions of this act shall not be made in any province of Canada until notice of intention to commence the making of loans in that province has been given by the board in the Canada Gazette.
Are all the nine provinces now going to be on the same basis? That is, will the notice in the Gazette take in all nine provinces, and will lending operations be carried on in all nine provinces at the same time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it is the intention
when this bill becomes law that it shall become operative as well in provinces where

Farm Loan Act
hitherto it has not been in operation, namely, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Saskatchewan.
Section 5 agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Samuel Gobeil: We are
now considering section 6.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to this section. The effect is that if there is a realization on the security held by the board and the title to the property, which is the subject of such security, is transferred to the board, then in that event the government's subscription of five per cent shall be cancelled and a contribution in that sum shall go to the reserve fund of the board. It is merely for the purpose of improving the security position of the board. The amendment reads:
That Rill No. 15 be amended by striking out section 6 thereof and substituting the following:
6. Section 9 of the said act, as amended by section 7 of chapter 46 of the statutes of 1934, is amended by striking out subsections 3. 4 and 5 thereof and by substituting the following as subsection 3:
"3. If, as a result of proceedings to realize upon any security held by the board, the title to the property which is the subject of such security is transferred to the board or if an amount insufficient to discharge the debt secured is realized, the stock in the board subscribed by the Dominion government in respect of such loan shall be cancelled and the amount paid thereon shall be transferred to reserve account."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 7-Chief executive officer in provinces.
Mr. BARBER:: It is provided that the officer shall, upon appointment, exercise all the powers and duties conferred upon him by the board. Does that mean that applications for loans shall go through this officer or direct to the board?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the ordinary course they would go direct to the officer, but I assume there would be nothing to preclude an application going direct to the board itself, though I have no doubt that in that event the board would refer it back to the chief executive officer of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-Local loan advisory board.
Harry James Barber: AVouId this board advise in regard to valuations?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, or contribute any other local knowledge which the chief executive officer might feel like consulting them about. It is an advisory body pUrely and may or may not be called into consultation by the chief executive officer. It would depend upon the circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Legislation prejudicially affecting security.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That will not affect provinces in which there is a moratorium law?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is the old clause; it is a renumbering. It was designed in the first instance to guard the board against any laws which might be passed by any province prejudicial to the operation of the act, but there is no change in the provisions.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What does the minister mean when he says "prejudicial to the operation of the act"?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If any province should pass a law which would affect the taking of proper security on the part of the farm loan board, in that event the board might for the time being withdraw from lending operations in that province.


Mr. BLAIR:: Will the local advisory board work in cooperation with the provincial advisory boards?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I should hope so, but it will not of necessity. This is purely a dominion act and their duties are solely in respect of this dominion legislation.


John Campbell Elliott: Ilf I may be allowed to refer to the old section 7, is there any amendment to clause (e) of that section with regard to the rate of interest?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, there is no amendment.


John Campbell Elliott: That remains as it is?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 10 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Thomas Reid: Will the minister allow me to ask a question with regard to section 11 which we have already passed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


Thomas Reid: I notice it is provided that:.
Farm Loan Act

The board shall for all purposes be deemed to be the agent of the crown and any security taken by the board shall be so taken on behalf of the crown.
Does that mean that they would be really acting on behalf of the crown and that a municipality could not sell the property for unpaid taxes? Suppose a mortgage were issued on behalf of the farm loan board and there were unpaid taxes on the property. Does this section mean that the municipality would have no right against that property inasmuch as the board would then be acting as an agent of the crown? That is a very important point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the act as it exists
at the moment we were working in cooperation with the province because there had to be enabling legislation by them. Now we are setting up a new position and as we enter a province, this is to clarify our position and make it clear that the action of the board is on behalf of the crown in right of the dominion.


Thomas Reid: I think we should hesitate right at this point, because last year when we were putting through amendments to the Soldier Settlement Act, I do not recall the wording but the provision inserted in the act was to the effect that the soldier settlers would come out from under the jurisdiction of the crown. In that act the municipalities were then given the right to sell property belonging to soldier settlers. Now under this farm loan act we are taking that power away from the municipalities and giving it to the crown. Personally I am against this clause.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course the extent to which my hon. friend is against it will, I am afraid, militate against the successful operation of the act in any province. I might point out to him that he need have no concern in respect of the payment of taxes, because in the amendment last year we provided specifically as will be found in paragraph (c) of section 4 of the amended act of last year:
Pay yearly to local taxing authorities amounts to the extent of the taxes that would have been owing on such real estate had the same been assessed and a levy made thereon in that year.


Thomas Reid: Last year, according to the
exact wording in the act, the soldier settlement board was made a " corporation sole,'' so as to give municipalities the right to sell lands belonging to settlers under the soldier settlement board, when the taxes of those settlers were in arrears. We are not going to give that right to municipalities in regard
[Mr. Reid.J
to land belonging to ordinary farmers, but we did in respect of land belonging to soldier settlers.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
like to join in the protest of the hon. member for New Westminster, if it is intended that lands reverting to the crown through the agency of the board are to become non-taxable. This has caused a great deal of discontent,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is
clear, there is no objection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite clear and there is no question. That is why we included in the act of last year the amendment which
I	just read. I think it clarifies our position.
Sections 14 to 16 inclusive agreed to.
On section 17-Supplementary advances.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment to
move to this section:
That Bill No. 15 be amended by striking out section seventeen thereof and substituting the following:
17. Subsections one and two of section nine of The Canadian Farm Loan Act Amendment Act, 1934, renumbered as section nineteen of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, are repealed and the following are substituted therefor:
"(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part I of this act, the board may in any case where it lends on the security of a first mortgage, make a further loan for a period of not more than six years, repayable on such terms as the board may determine, on the security of a second mortgage on the farm lands and in those provinces of Canada where chattel security may be taken by the board, of a charge on live stock and other personal property.
(2) The aggregate of loans made to any one borrower under the provisions of parts I and
II	of this act shall not exceed, in those provinces of Canada where chattel security may be taken by the board, two-thirds of the appraised value of the land and buildings in respect of which security is taken and in any province where chattel security may not be taken sixty per cent of the said value and shall not exceed at any one time the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars. The amount advanced' under this section shall not exceed one-half of the amount advanced on the security of the first mortgage."
The principal effect of this amendment is to provide that in Quebec where we may not take a chattel mortgage, the position shall not be prejudiced on that account, and therefore we make an arbitrary figure of sixty per cent as against sixty-six and two-thirds per cent where we can take chattel mortgages.


Thomas Reid: Why is it advisable to put chattel mortgages on farmers' stocks?

Farm Loan Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is merely for the purpose that in those cases where a second mortgage is advisable and the security might not be deemed sufficient, the farmer, if he so desires, could give a chattel mortgage which would bring the security up to a sufficient amount to enable the board to make the loan.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will a chattel mortgage on stock be the only security on the second mortgage?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; it would be in addition
to the mortgage on the realty itself, but without the chattel mortgage there might not be sufficient margin in the real estate to enable the borrower to borrow that amount of money which he might desire to secure.


Charles A. Stewart: I must confess that last year when permission was received by the board to consider chattel mortgages as security, I could not understand the particular urge for taking this particular class of security in conjunction with mortgages. It is rather an unusual and, it seems to me, strange proceeding. A chattel mortgage will now be taken for a period of six years if it is included in the mortgage on the real estate. Was it the hope that by the inclusion of the chattel mortgage, this would increase the loan, or what was the purpose of including chattel mortgages?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The purpose as I understand it was merely to enable a farmer who desired a second loan and who had not sufficient margin of security left in his real estate to furnish an additional security by way of chattel mortgage; that is all. '


Charles A. Stewart: My candid opinion is that it would be better if chattel mortgages were abolished completely; I think they are a great source of evil. People get into financial difficulties and sometimes have to chattel their securities to satisfy their creditors, but I have always detested this method. I do not believe it is good business and personally I doubt whether the inclusion of the chattel mortgage will not get a man into a position where there is no hope of his paying off the loan.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not quarrel with the attitude taken by my bon. friend, but may I point out to him that while we have chattel mortgages, it seems to me it is far better that the farmer should be in a position to consolidate his security with the farm loan board than that there should be chattels left that might be open to be preyed upon by somebody else. The idea of including them was not that we desire to take them, but merely
to enable a needy farmer to utilize them for the purpose of bringing the maximum loan up to the figure he desires.


Thomas Reid: But the information given to
me is that there have been instances where in the opinion of the board the value of the land having gone down they asked the man to put up further security without bis receiving any more money. Say he had a $4,000 loan, made when land was valued at $100 an acre; the information given to me at a meeting I attended was that the board said the value of the land had gone down so they asked these farmers to put up further security. If that is correct I think this chattel mortgage question should be looked into still further.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not know that we
need1 stress this matter of chattel mortgages. Personally I do not attach great importance to it, but so1 far as the provision goes I understand it is to the advantage of the farmer. I cannot conceive of a case in which the board would wish to make a loan on the security afforded by the chattel mortgage, but the purpose of this is to help a farmer to bring his total loan up' to the figure he desires.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the minister
has grasped my point. I am speaking of a case in which the value of the farm had gone down and they told the farmer he would have to put up more security. If that is being done it is an iniquitous practice which should be stopped.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised that practically the only instances in which the farm loan1 board' have asked a farmer for security by way of chattel mortgage, where they held a mortgage on his farm which was in arrears, were not with the object of further involving the farmer in debt to the board but to protect him against attempts on the part of other creditors to cripple him by securing a mortgage on his chattels. The farm loan board took it for the purpose of consolidating his indebtedness to the board itself. I give that statement to the committee precisely as it has been given to me by the commissioner of the farm loan board. Personally I know no case where the board has attempted to get additional security to the prejudice of the farmer, but only in the circumstances I have referred to.


Charles A. Stewart: If chattel
mortgages are to be taken I prefer to see the board have the right to take them; I am quite in accord with that idea. But I object to the system itself, and1 if I were back in a provincial legislature I would do my best to
Farm Loan Act

abolish the taking of chattel mortgages. Once a man gets in the position where he has to give a chattel mortgage he is pretty near bankruptcy. He is apt to get into the hands of what we designate as loan sharks, at excessive rates of interest, and very few in such a position, from my observation, are able to pay them off.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite concur in the view of my hon. friend. But he will realize that the question whether or not there shall be chattel mortgages is one for the provinces and therefore is something we need not concern ourselves about,


John Knox Blair: Is any provision made for
examination in order that a farmer who is sold out may have an opportunity later to go back to the land and start again?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Any such provision that
exists in the provinces will still obtain. That is the only answer that I can give.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am very much in accord with the amendment the minister has proposed, as to lending up to two-thirds of the value; I think that is sufficient. But in my province and in the particular part I represent there are many farmers operating a section or a section and a half or two sections. Assume that the appraised value is $20 an acre; two-thirds of that would figure out at $8,500 on a section. So that if the aggregate is limited to $7,500, there will be many farmers whose needs that would not meet. Within the last ten or fifteen years loans have been made in that part of the country based on valuations of S30 to $40 an acre, and in many cases loans of fifty per cent of that value have been made. I think two-thirds of the appraised value is sufficiently high, but many farmers will be unable to take advantage of the act because $7,500 would not be enough on the larger farms. Many farmers have loans of $10,000 on a section of land, and the moral risk in many of those cases is just as good as it would be for $7,500 on a smaller area. Many farmers out there who are farming a section or more are better farmers than those working on three-quarters of a section. Does the minister not think that that limit might be increased if the security is there?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a question of policy. The idea we had was that a greater service would be done by helping a larger number of small farmers rather than by using up the amount available in a smaller number of large mortgages. While no doubt there will be cases where worthy farmers will suffer by not

being able to secure a larger loan, on balance I have no doubt that a greater public service will be rendered by spreading the money over a larger number of small loans. After all, while there are conditions peculiar to the prairies, we must remember that this legislation is applicable to all Canada, and in the great majority of provinces when you get beyond $7,500 you are dealing not with a farmer but with an enterprise. So on balance it was felt that we could not go beyond a maximum of $7,500.


Eccles James Gott: I represent probably the most diversified agricultural section of Canada. There are some farmers in the riding I have the honour to represent who would be delighted with the opportunity of getting a loan of $10,000. I ask the minister if he could not make the maximum $10,000 rather than $7,500.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When you set a figure there will always be border line cases. I do not see that I can usefully add anything to what I said a moment ago in reply to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 18-When title transferred to board.
Harry James Barber: In our province I think the trouble was very largely with the administration. The man in charge in several eases that have been brought to my attention would go to someone who had a loan and was unable to meet his payments, and say to him: "You had better give me a quit claim, and perhaps next year or the year following you will be in a position to redeem it." I received a letter to-day from a man who bought land at about $125 an acre when times were good; he cleared sixty-five acres of bush land, built his fences and buildings, and borrowed money from the board. Apparently last fall the man in charge secured from him a quit claim deed. I quote from the letter:
I asked the farm loan man "how about going before the receiver appointed by the government?" and he asked me what I owed besides the farm loan board? I told him the feed and grocery bill for the month. He said it can't be done, because you have already given a quit claim to the board.
Apparently there is no hope for that man, although when he gave the quit claim deed he understood that he would have a chance to redeem it in some way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am advised by the farm loan commissioner that in a number of eases farmers have voluntarily come to the board

Farm Loan Act
and said, "I cannot pay" and have offered quit claim deeds which the board has accepted. In some cases the board has turned around and leased the farm to the farmer in question, and I have not the slightest doubt in the world that, apart altogether from documentation, the board would be only too happy to place the farmer in his old position in the event of his being able to redeem his security. In this connection it must be borne in mind that during the whole period the farm loan board has been in operation there have been only nineteen foreclosures.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have an amendment
that will be section 2 (a). That is the definition of a farmer, and my hon. friend from East Edmonton thought the definition I moved, which was the definition contained in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, was restrictive if anything in the latter part. That amendment read:
Farmer	means a	person	whose	principaloccupation	consists in	farming	or the	tillage of
the soil.
I am quite content that the words "or the tillage of the soil" be dropped. The definition then would read:
Farmer	means a	person	whose	principaloccupation	consists in	farming.
If that is agreeable to the committee I am quite content that the amendment should be in that form. I give my view with some diffidence because it is more or less a layman's view and the legal members of the committee may think otherwise, but my impression is that the simple definition will give the broadest possible scope in interpretation of the word farmer. I therefore move that the amendment read:
Farmer means a person whose principal occupation consists in farming.


Charles A. Stewart: I wonder
if the minister has considered how widely that may be interpreted by the board, and what a great deal of difficulty may be entailed. I never was more struck with the wisdom of the provision of the old act than when discussing the matter with the chairman of the board some years ago. If I remember correctly the provision was that a man had to be a farmer living on his farm and cultivating it himself. Under this new definition I can see that a man may not have any other occupation than that of a dealer in farm land. He might be in the position in which I happen
to be. I have a few farms and no other occupation, unless you call this an occupation.
I do not know what you would call it.


John Thomas Hackett: It is a job.


Charles A. Stewart: But as long as I have no other occupation I can go on purchasing land and renting it and securing mortgages from the farm loan board; at least if that is not so I misunderstood the statement of the minister. I do not think that is the intention at all, with all due respect to my colleague from East Edmonton. I can foresee a good deal of difficulty for the board in dealing with this matter. The maximum loan is $7,500, and I agree with the minister that that is quite enough; in fact I think it is a little too much, but if you confine the loans to the men actually operating farms and living on them I think you will be on much safer ground.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There would be much to
be said in favour of the view just expressed by my hon. friend from West Edmonton if it were not for the fact that there is another safeguard in the act we are now amending.
I will read subsection (c) of section 7 of the act:
Loans under this act shall be made only to farmers actually engaged in or shortly to become engaged in the cultivation of the farm mortgaged and whose experience, ability and character are such as to warrant the belief that the farm to be mortgaged will be successfully cultivated-
So the definition must be read in conjunction with that subsection. In the last analysis, however, I submit to the committee with all deference that the object of this bill is to provide loans to farmers rvho are farming. You may put in the act whatever verbiage you choose but we must depend upon the good judgment of the board itself in interpreting not only the actual definitions but in selecting the class of men to whom mortgages should be granted. In the circumstances I do feel that we have sufficient protection, and in saying that I was quite willing to accede to the suggestion of the hon. member for East Edmonton, which was also subscribed to by my hon. friend for New Westminster-


Thomas Reid: It is not wide enough yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must say to my hon. friend that I could not conceive of a wider definition.


Charles A. Stewart: Neither [DOT]
could I.
Farm Loan Act


Thomas Reid: With all deference to the minister's opinion it is all right as long as the board interpret it as the minister has suggested, but the trouble is that when the act goes through the house and is passed on to the board they look up what it says and they say, "Yes, we can lend to farmers or those farming," and then they say, "Let us see what farming is," and they look up another act and they say that farming means stock raising or growing grain, so where does the poultry man come in? He is not a farmer, according to the board. I tell you this is serious. I think the viewpoint of the minister is the viewpoint of the committee; the act is intended to make loans as freely as possible consistent with safety, but the trouble is that this class of farmer will not come under the act with this present definition. As long as that definition remains the great class of poultrymen, who are carrying heavy burdens and who are just as anxious to be assisted as are the men raising cattle or tilling the soil, cannot secure relief. Does the minister believe the poultry farmer with large assets could come under the present act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must give the same answer to my hon. friend that I have given on three or four other occasions; that is not only that I am not competent but that it is not incumbent upon me to attempt to define what may constitute a farmer in an individual case. Parliament says this is intended to be an act to provide for loans to farmers. The question who is a farmer must depend upon the interpretation placed upon the act by the board. While in practice and in its application my hon. friend from New Westminster may not be satisfied with that interpretation I do say to him with deference that it would be impossible to get any definition of a farmer wider than is contained in the amendment I have proposed.


Thomas Reid: I would not protest so strenuously but I know in the past the board have set their faces against that class of farmer. They say he does not come under the act. I hold the view that if no other change is made the class I have in mind will be excluded.


Mr. NEILL:: Would the chairman read the definition?


Samuel Gobeil: It is as follows:
That Bill No. 15 be amended by inserting the following section after section I thereof: ^
2. Section 2 of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, chapter 66 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by striking out paragraph (d) thereof and substituting therefor the following,

(d) "Farmer" means a person whose principal occupation consists in farming.


George Gibson Coote: In my view it would be a
gross mistake to have a restrictive definition. I should like to see the matter left in the hands of the board. I have in mind a man who has a section of land lying very close to town, land which in ordinary times would be valuable. I believe there is about $14,000 standing against it, and the man who holds the claim against it has said to the owner, " If you can get me the cash I will take fifty per cent of what you owe me, because I need the money." The man who owns the property is about seventy years of age, is living in town, and has a tenant on the farm. I should like to see the definition of the word "farmer" left in such a way that it would be within the option of the board to make a loan. In the case to which I have made reference the man is too old to take over the operation of the farm, and it is much better for him to have it in the hands of a tenant. The tenant could not possibly buy it and obtain a loan. I believe it would be wise to leave the definition as wide open as possible, so that these matters may be left to the decision of the board. If we have the right kind of board I believe justice would be done, and they would be in a better position to deal with the needs of each farming community.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe the amendment
in its present form is as wide as it can be made; certainly it is in the least restrictive form. It provides for the very privilege which the hon. member has in mind, namely that it leaves the widest possible discretion in the board to decide whether or not a person making application for a loan is or is not a farmer within the spirit of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Samuel Gobeil: Shall I
report the bill?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Before the bill is
reported may I ask the minister if he would consider the advisability of having prepared an office consolidation of last year's amendments, this year's amendments and the original bill for the convenience of the layman. The numbers, sections, subsections, clauses, and so on, are most confusing to all of us. The numbering of the sections in the two amendments and in the original bill of 1927 are very difficult to follow, and one finds it almost necessary to call in the aid of a lawyer to disentangle them, something which in these days one cannot well afford to do.

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
Further than that, I believe a good public purpose would be served if the regulations were attached to this office consolidation. I make the suggestion because I believe what I have suggested is done frequently in connection with bills affecting the Department of Agriculture; I am not sure whether or not it has been the practice in the Department of Finance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The suggestion of the hon. member is most excellent. It was my intention to have the office consolidation prepared at the earliest possible moment, and that will be done. I cannot be sure however as to whether or not the new regulations will be attached, because my purpose is to have the office consolidation prepared as soon as possible. However if the regulations are not ready in time they will be sent out as speedily as possible thereafter.
Bill reported.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Public buildings-Nova Scotia-
Bridgetown-public building, $30,000.
Halifax - maintenance of immigration quarters, $25,000.
New Waterford-public building, $44,000.
Oxford - public building, $30,000 - Total, $129,000.
John Campbell Elliott: I should like the item of
$30,000 for a public building at Bridgetown to stand. One of the hon. members from Nova Scotia is interested in this list of items, and as he is not here I should like to have it stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite satisfactory.
Item stands.
Maritime provinces generally - Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $50,000.


John Campbell Elliott: This is an item I wish to refer to because it represents a set of items of which this one is typical. It is a vote for improvements and repairs to dominion public buildings, and the vote is increased from $40,000 last year to $50,000 this .year. In view of the money that is being expended under the Public Works Construction Act I submit we should not be increasing year by year the amount that can be spent under a special vote of this kind. It places upon the officials of the department and the minister the obligation to meet demands that would not be
made upon them if there were not these amounts placed in the estimates which they can allocate anywhere. In speaking of that I refer generally to items of this kind. Public works estimates should be kept down as far as possible to what are actually known as public works estimates which are passed on by this committee of the House of Commons, instead of their being passed on by the officials of the department without the members of this committee knowing the places to which those amounts are going.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The objection,
if I may so term it, raised by my hon. friend is met I think by the practice of the department in years gone by. The procedure is that the chief architect obtains from the district architects from time to time estimates of the amounts likely to be required for repairs to the buildings in the different districts; he assembles those amounts and in the light of experience over a period of years determines what is a fair and reasonable amount to ask for this work. My hon. friend will agree that it is impossible to foresee everything that may happen. A roof may be found to be leaking, a heating system may fail, or any other part of a building may require attention. As my hon. friend knows, during the last three or four years the necessity for economy has curtailed the amounts of these votes. In 1930-31, for instance, the appropriation was 855.500 for the corresponding item, and our experience has been that in the past few years we have not had quite as much at our command as the circumstances required. For that reason this vote has been slightly increased.


John Campbell Elliott: We shall perhaps be able to facilitate the work of the committee if we get as much information as we can beforehand in connection with the works that are being carried on under the Public Works Construction Act. I understand that under that act a large amount of money is given in a lump sum just as this is, without being allotted to any particular work, and that out of that lump sum large scale improvements have been made this year in order to get the buildings in as good a shape as possible. A much larger amount has been at the discretion of the minister under that act during the last year than ever before, and for that reason there is much less necessity for any increase in these lump sums in the estimates this year.
There are certain things that I think this committee should perhaps reserve until we discuss the Public Works Construction Act. I
1308	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
do not know when the minister expects to bring down further estimates, but it is pretty difficult to know exactly how these work into one another. I think about $27,000,000 is allotted to the Department of Public Works out of the $40,000,000. I believe that is approximately correct. Perhaps the minister could tell us how much of that has been expended up to the present time, and the amount that is committed at the present time.
The Minister of Finance tabled a statement showing all the commitments in the various departments under the Public Works Construction Act up until January 31 last. But of course this is the time of year during which many commitments are being made. I should be glad if the minister could furnish the committee as soon as convenient with the commitments that have been made under that act up to the present, and the amount actually expended up to the present. He has given a statement of items that were specified under the Public Works Construction Act, but these do not deal with the two items of $2,000,000 and $2,500,000 under which certain commitments have been made. I want in that connection again to stress the objection I make with regard to these lump sums generally. Hon. members will remember that in the closing days of last session an amendment was made to the Public Works Construction Act providing for the expenditure of $2,500,000 for constructing other buildings. I should like the minister to let us have details of what other buildings were constructed under that, the extent to which tenders were obtained by public advertisement, and the extent to which tenders were obtained merely by inviting them.
I have had the opportunity of looking over a number of the orders in council that have been tabled. I want here to say to the minister that for his own protection and for the protection of the treasury the clause that was put into the Public Works Construction Act against the most strenuous objections that could be made from this side of the house, doing away with the necessity for advertising tenders publicly in cases over $5,000, has worked a hardship, as I think he will agree, not only upon him and his officials but upon the public treasury. I do not think it is a good thing to have tenders let in that way for buildings and harbours and rivers, involving quite considerable sums. Will the minister be good enough to furnish us at as early a day as he can with the particulars to which I have referred? I do not intend

at the moment to take up the time of the committee with any further protest except in regard to each of these lump sum items. I think the increases in them are all wrong. The principle is wrong. I am told, and it is quite apparent from some of the orders in council that have been passed under the Public Works Construction Act, that buildings are being erected and sites purchased for buildings without this house passing upon the advisability of placing those buildings there or of purchasing those sites. I do not think it can be defended, and it is contrary to all the principles of public works construction. Take any building, I do not care in what province it may be; this house has a right to pass upon it. It should not be passed upon by the officials of this department nor by the minister nor by council without that item having been passed upon in committee of the whole house, as has been the practice since confederation until within the last year or two.


Mr. ROSS:: I assume that this amount is here for the general maintenance and upkeep of public buildings. In the last four or five years it has been annually decreasing until there was no money to maintain these buildings. Now I imagine that anything that was in order under the regime of the ex-Minister of Public Works may be commended to the present minister, and when we look up the same item in the years when he was minister what do we find? I would commend to the minister the amount that was then voted under my hon. friend opposite. These buildings are old and they need a little more money than they naturally did during his tenure of office, and if you look at the item in 1928, 1929 and 1930 you will see that it was at one time $102,000 as compared with $75,000, and in the last year under my hon. friend it was $110,000, which was an increase. I suggest that the minister make it equal to the amount that was voted under my hon. friend opposite; for surely the ex-minister cannot be wrong. He could not make a mistake, and I would commend to the minister the increasing of the vote to $110,000 as it was under the hon. gentleman.
Mr. EiLLIOTT: That would be very satisfactory, I am sure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-
Amqui-public building, $19,000.
Asbestos-public building, $8,000.
Bagotville-public building. $25,500.
Dolbeau-public building, $22,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $100,000.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
Grosse Isle quarantine station - improvements. alterations and repairs, $7,800.
Montreal - instalment on purchase of armoury, $15,200.
Montreal-addition to 4th Division Engineer's armoury, $7,000.
Quebec citadel-improvements and maintenance, $15,000.
Quebec examining warehouse-repairs and renewals, $1,200.
Ste. Anne de Beaupre-public building, $25,000.
Westmount - instalment on purchase of armoury, $12,700.
Mr. GASGRAlIN: Under this item will the minister allow us to ask a few questions regarding public buildings that are being constructed in Montreal? I have reference to construction work that is going on there in connection with a public building. I understand that the contractors had a contract for putting uip the building, but recently some other contract was given in connection with part of the foundation. Why was another contract given?
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection to giving the information though it does not relate to this item. I did hope that we might be able to arrange some time to have a discussion of the Public Works Construction Act and everything appertaining to it in relation to some one item. However, as my hon. friend has asked this question I have no objection to giving the information. A contract was let after public fenders had been called for for the construction of this building, and the contract was awarded to the parties submitting the lowest tender. The contractors undertook the work and encountered some unforeseen difficulties in connection with a very heavy flow of water. I believe they were pumping out of that foundation between 300,000 and 400,000 gallons of water daily. On account of this very heavy flow they experienced difficulty in getting their foundations in and they contended that this was not contemplated nor within the provision's of that contract. They therefore held that they should have an extra for this unexpected development. Some delay ensued, the department taking the position that it was not clear whether this was provided for by the contract or not. 'Notice of default was served on the contractors and some delay occurred. Then they proposed that the work should be undertaken by them through a subcontractor on a cost plus basis. The department did not accept that suggestion. Finally the department took over and out of the contractors' hands the sinking of the caissons and the putting in of the foundations and
certain work that goes with it, and called for tenders for that work from those who had tendered for the construction of the building. An agreement was arrived at with the contractors as to the amount to be charged against them for the work which they would have had to do under the method they intended to carry out, and for the work that was being done incidentally in connection with parts of work that had to 'be done at the same time, and this was deducted from the amount of the tender for this work, the caissons and the foundations. The contract was awarded to Anglin & Norcross for that part of the work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the amount?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the
figures are about $257,000 less $89,000. That is my recollection.
Mr. OASGRAhN:	Before tenders were
called for by the department, bad borings been made to find out the condition of the soil, and did the contractors tender

the main contractors-on the basis of a report made by the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certain borings were made and the information procured was made available to the contractors.
Mr. OASGRAIiN: And they based their main tender on the borings as made by the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On the information available at that time, which they say did not disclose the true condition.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Because they found out afterwards that the borings did not indicate what the soil was like in various places.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The borings
indicated what was found there, but when they opened up the foundation there was this unexpected heavy flow of water.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see under this vote
102 an item of $25,000 for a public building at Ste. Anne de Beaupre. Was this public building requested by the municipality or by the people in the village?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed
that a petition was received as far back as 1914 from the residents of the town, and then a request was received in 1924 from my hon. friend-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Thank you.
Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -urging the
construction of the building. Again in 1926 a similar request came from my hon. friend, and there have been requests since then.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I thank the minister
for the information he has been kind enough to give. I am glad to see that the government in that regard is following in the footsteps of its predecessor and also continuing the good work that we had started to do at that time. Could the minister inform the commitee as to the site on which this post office is to be built and when the first preliminary works were started for its erection? A certain amount, I think $4,000 or $5,000, was voted to purchase a site for this public building, but on account of difficulty in securing a suitable site in the central part of the village, the project had to be abandoned. Has a site been bought and, if so, from whom?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A site has not
been acquired, neither has one been selected.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the department
now in its possession any offer for sale of a site for this public building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not on record anything indicating any suggestion as to the site.	.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Nobody has made an
offer to the department for the sale of any building or lot or houses of any kind?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not
yet invited any offers and I am not aware of any voluntary offers of sites.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I was just asking the
minister whether he had received any suggestions by persons that they were willing to dispose of their property in favour of the government, of course for a consideration, as a proper site for the erection of this public building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As my hon.
friend knows, he has now spoken of a matter that often presents great difficulty. Sometimes it is one side of the creek as against the other; sometimes it is main street as against some other street and-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is only one main street there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -when we go
to select a site, we often find conflicting claims or advantages. Possibly my hon. friend might make a suggestion as to a site. If he has any information, he might let us have it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I shall be pleased to
see the minister and discuss the matter with him if he would like me to do so.


Mr. CARDIN:: Why not discuss the
matter in the open?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would do it in the
open, but I would rather take it up with the minister in the same way as the other negotiations were carried on, because I think they were very fruitful.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On which side
of the street is my hon. friend?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is only one main street. As to which side of the street, that depends. I believe there are in the records certain recommendations that were made at that time and places suggested as suitable and appropriate sites. I do not know whether the side of the street may not now have been changed and that is why I asked the minister whether he had received any of those requests. If he is not in a position to disclose all the facts to the committee now, I might be able, if he has any trouble, to help him at a later date.


Mr. JEAN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to let this item pass without calling the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to the fact that the estimates this year do not contain any amount for the Maisonneuve post office. Five or six years ago, the government had made arrangements for the purchase of a building in Maisonneuve and the intention was to establish a post office in that building. However the builidng is still occupied by the city of Montreal. Two years ago, I asked for the production of all letters relating to this affair; the city of Montreal was prepared to leave the building if the Dominion had been willing to take it over and pay the purchase price. I understand the contract was signed by both parties. All there is to do now is to make the necessary alterations to the building in order to convert it into a post office.
Two years ago, if I remember correctly, the Minister of Public Works said in reply to my remarks that the necessary alterations would be made as soon as the city of Montreal would be ready to hand over the building. I think the city is prepared to hand over the building at any time so that a post office may be opened provided the government pay the purchase price.
Consequently, I would ask the minister to tell me if the government has the intention

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
to put in the estimates at the present session the necessary amount to carry out the agreement of six years ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend all the information as I understand he has requested it. An appropriation was made for the purchase in Maison-neuve of a building which was the city hall of that municipality. It is now in the occupation of the Quebec government-


Joseph Jean: It was acquired by the city of Montreal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -as a cancer clinic. For some time the department has been ready to take over the building for the purpose for which it was to be acquired, but the provincial government or the city of Montreal have decided to retain its use until the university buildings are completed when the clinic will be moved into them. My hon. friend is naturally curious to know why there is not in the estimates anything in respect of this building. The reason is that a cheque was issued for the purchase amount; the cheque is being held and is available as soon as the building can be turned over and we can obtain possession of it. Therefore it is not necessary to have an item in the estimates. We have not had anything definite as to when we shall be able to obtain possession of the building. I believe the construction program on the university has been halted and pending the completion of it, I presume matters will go on as they are. When they are in a position to give us the building, we shall be in a position to give them the cheque.


Joseph Jean: If the minister will look in his correspondence, he will find that the city of Montreal is ready to hand over the building and to take the hospital out of it if the government is ready to pay for the building and to make the necessary repairs to convert it into a post office.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is some overriding control on the part of the province of Quebec in the use of the building.


Joseph Jean: I do not think so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, whenever they are ready to give us the building we are ready to hand them our cheque.


Joseph Jean: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Ontario
[Stage Direction]
Belleville public building-addition to site, $17,500.
Belleville-new gun shed, $9,600.
Burlington-public building, $35,000.
Campbellford-public building, $35,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $125,000.
Dunnville-public building, $60,000.
Fenelon Falls-public building, $25,000.
Gananoque - gun shed and caretaker's quarters, $11,700.
Hamilton-'addition to armoury, $75,000.
Kingston-machine shop, $35,000.
Kingston-addition to armoury, $12,000.
Kingston - R.S.A. and brigade building, $52,000.
London-Royal school building. $25,000.
Meaford-public building, $40,000.
Perth-purchase of property for armoury purposes, $6,500.
Toronto-instalment on purchase of armoury, $29,400.
Toronto postal station "A"-improvements, etc., $5,500.
John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister tell me what the amount of $35,000 for Campbellford public building is for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to provide for the erection of a public building for postal purposes on a site purchased in 1912 at the corner of Mill and Front streets in the town of Campbellford; $30,000 for the building; $3,000 for fittings; $1,000 for inspection and $1,000 for grading and sidewalk.


John Campbell Elliott: Is it the intention to have public tenders called for in connection with this building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As this comes under the regular estimates of the department, it is subject to the provisions of the Public Works Act, and public tenders will be invited.


John Campbell Elliott: I see in the Ontario list a new gun shed at Belleville, $9,600; gun shed and caretaker's quarters at Gananoque, $11,700; an addition to the armoury in Hamilton, $75,000; Kingston machine shop, $35,000. Is the last item I have mentioned in connection wih the military college?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These buildings are all requested by the Department of National Defence, the one for Kingston being for the erection of a machine shop. It is necessary to enable major repairs and overhauling of guns and equipment to be undertaken. There is quite a military establishment there.


John Campbell Elliott: What about the royal school building at London?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item is to provide for the erection of a school building for the military district of London. At present there are no proper lecture rooms for schools of instruction. Spare barrack rooms
1312	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
and so on have been utilized. The arrangement is most inconvenient and unsatisfactory m view of the large number attending these courses.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: The buildings undertaken by the Department of National Defence, as my hon. friend remembers, are comparatively few, and the expenditures were Eomparatively large under that act. These are minor ones that they have requested from time to time since that work was undertaken.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the minister has not quite got my point. Are public works and national defence both functioning in the construction of buildings for military purposes?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That takes us back to the provisions of the Public Works Construction Act. My hon. friend will recall that there is a provision in that act that the works undertaken were not to be under the control of any particular department, but should be assigned from time to time to such department as the governor in council might decide. A construction program of $39,000,000 is fairly large, and it was thought well that the work should be apportioned. Certain undertakings were allotted to national defence and certain to public works. The public works department have had allotted to them construction to the amount of $25,969,600. Certain undertakings were allotted to the Department of Marine, certain others to the Department of National Defence, certain others to the Department of the Interior, the Department of Indian Affairs, and one or two to the Department of Railways and Canals. The orders in council providing for that distribution have been laid on the table, as my hon. friend knows. I should be pleased to procure and submit to the committee a list

of the undertakings so assigned. I think my hon. friend, with his experience in that department, will agree that a program of $39,000,000 added to the regular program of public works would be pretty heavy. It was thought that in view of the special conditions and circumstances it might well be apportioned as has been done.


John Campbell Elliott: Of the $26,000,000 allotted to the public works department, up to December 31 only $3,633,000 has been expended, and $8,349,000 committed. That would not be any great strain on as efficient a department as that over which the minister presides. And my question is still unanswered; why it is that a large amount of construction is being undertaken by the Department of National Defence? I take that as an example, because I see it is largely national defence appearing in public works. Why is it that what is in this list is allotted to public works, while $2,530,000 is allotted to national defence? Has it been found that the $2,530,000 was not sufficient to do what is required for national defence? They expended only $535,000 up to the end of the year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The expenditure shown in the statement filed by the Minister of Finance was up to the end of the year. As the hon. member well knows, the actual expenditures up to any date do not represent the full amount that has been earned up to that time. For example the estimates are back perhaps a month, and after the estimates are in and approved by the architects and engineers they have to go through all the routine of this department and of the Department of Finance before being paid. There is involved the preparation of plans and specifications, the publication of advertisements and so on, and the larger undertakings are just getting nicely under way. The expenditures made in the early months were in respect of repairs to buildings and the smaller undertakings with which we could proceed at once. As to the commitments, I can give my hon. friend some of the information for which he asked some time ago.


Mr. ELDIOTT:: If I may interrupt the
minister, I think he has misunderstood me, for he is answering everything except what I asked. I was asking if he could give any explanation as to why this large collection of works relating to military buildings should come under the public works department while apparently we have a national defence public works department functioning at the same time. Why this division?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These have not been assigned to the national defence department. The items that were assigned to them are some of those that appear in the schedule of the Public Works Construction Act. These items now in the estimates of course are not in that schedule, and they are coming in under the regular public works estimates where they would have been last year under ordinary conditions. They are just getting back home, that is all.


John Campbell Elliott: But is there not sufficient of the $2,530,000 left to meet them?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I presume not.
I do not know exactly what expenditures the Department of National Defence has made out of its allotment.


John Campbell Elliott: It amounted to only $535,000 at the end of the year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The actual expenditure is one thing but the commitments are another.


John Campbell Elliott: I am giving the commitment to the minister; at the end of the year it amounted to $535,000, which leaves them $2,000,000 not committed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know anything about how far their commitments extend or what they have in mind, but the specific expenditures we have here could not possibly be made out of that item.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister tell
us why? What is the principle, if there is any principle, that decides which should come under national defence, under the Public Works Construction Act, and which should come under the Department of Public Works? Is there a principle that decides?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no
underlying principle, but I think if my hon. friend will look at the items that we assigned to the national defence department he will find that they are principally military buildings.


Mr. POWER:: The same thing applies to
those assigned to the Department of Public Works, as my hon. friend from West Middlesex has just said. In the public works estimates this year for Ontario out of about fifteen items there are nine or ten which provide for the construction of military buildings. I have not added up the amounts, but I figure that more than fifty per cent of the amount voted for public buildings in Ontario in the public works estimates is for military buildings. I take it, therefore, that the Department of Public Works has some
experience in the construction of military buildings. Now we come along to the Public Works Construction Act. For some reason which has not been made known to members of this house there seems to have been an arbitrary division, and it was decided that $2,530,000 of the $40,000,000 appropriated should come under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence in connection with military buildings. What I should like to know first is whether there is any principle, why a certain building is allotted to the Department of Public Works and another similar building is allotted to the Department of National Defence. When we asked the minister a moment ago why certain of these appropriations under the Public Works Construction Act were under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence he s:,id presumably it was because they were for military buildings. Our reply is that in the estimates a large proportion of the buildings provided for are military buildings, but they come under his department. The minister must have some explanation, and I am sure he will be only too glad to give it to the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose my
hon. friend will agree when I say perhaps it is well that they are coming back under the Department of Public Works, where they were before the Public Works Construction Act was passed.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, where they always
were.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Public
Works Construction Act of 1934 was special in its character. Included in the schedule attached to that act were certain military buildings, and it was thought that with the engineering staff the Department of National Defence has available they could well undertake the construction of those buildings, and we proceeded on that basis.


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister think
that is a good system?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Now we are
coming back to the regular program of public works, which heretofore has been carried on by the Department of Public Works. With respect to the estimates this year we are just adopting the course that was followed in other years except with regard to the Public Works Construction Act which, as I have said, was a very large program and which was parcelled out as I have indicated.
1314	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Charles Gavan Power: Does the minister think
it was a good system that was followed under the Public Works Construction Act?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should say
that we would have to await results and check up in order to see what has happened.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any
doubt about it? Apparently he must have.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no
opinion to express.


Charles Gavan Power: Apparently the minister
has some doubt, because he pointed with pride to the fact that we are improving the system by going back to the old method. Is that what I am to understand?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not say
we were improving the system, but from my hon. friends' arguments I thought they would believe we were making an improvement, and that they would approve of the course we are adopting.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not arguing about that point at all. I am asking the minister, who after all has the job of telling the committee the why and wherefore of the different items in the estimates and of the policy laid down by the government, what is the policy. He tells me very frankly that the policy is that when the government feel like it they say the Department of National Defence shall carry on and when they do not feel like it they say the Department of Phblic Works shall carry on. There must be some reason for that. If my hon. friend from Temiscouata were here he would say even the government must have some method. They must have done that for some reason, and I think the minister owes it to the committee to tell us if there is any specific reason why the Department of National Defence now is undertaking works which for many years 'were undertaken by the Department of Public Works. Surely the Department of Public Works has efficient engineers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I must return to the broad, general, argument which I outlined at first, namely that this $40,000,000 program was a very heavy one and it was thought that the best results could be accomplished by distributing it among the different departments rather than, by imposing 'all the burden on one department, which would have involved a heavy increase in staff. It was thought that in the national defence department they had adequate
[Mr. H. A. Stewart.l
engineering services and staff; they felt competent to undertake the work, and that was done.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister should not talk *about an increase in staff; he knows very well that in eveTy order in council passed providing for the construction of a building, he also provided for an architect or inspector or some other official to look after the work, so they practically created a new staff in every constituency where they expected to win an election.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All I can say to my hon. friend is that if we had undertaken the whole of the program we would have required a very much larger staff.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister is usually reasonable, but may I call his attention to the argument he is now making. He is stating that an expenditure of $40,000,000 for public works construction is too much for the Department of Public Works to handle in one year. He has suggested that it was better to divide it up by giving $500,000 to the Department of Indian Affairs, $2,145,500 to the Department of Interior, $7,150,080 to the Department of Marine, $2,550,000 to the Department of National Defence, $26,378,589 to the Department of Public Works and $264,500 to the Department of Railway and Canals. He has stated further that it was wiser as the orders in council under the Public Works Construction Act indicate, to get outside architects to work on the construction of these buildings. He states that in order to help out at a time when there is an extensive building program, instead of increasing the staff of the Department of Public Works this government sets up small staffs in every other department to which any of the works are allotted. I submit that is a wasteful and unwise procedure and will prove most unsatisfactory. That argument was advanced by hon. members on this side of the house when the Public Works Construction Act was under discussion. If by placing all these expenditures back in the Department of Public Works, where they should be, the minister means that in this as in other matters they are seeing the light, then I should like to congratulate him upon the change.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as the Department of Public Works is aware there has not been any increase in the staffs of the other departments which have undertaken the construction of buildings. If there has been any increase it has been very slight indeed. There has been an increase in the staff of the Department of Public Works, and in some

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
cases outside architects have been employed to prepare plans. That has been done because it has been felt that architects have been greatly affected by the depression and need employment as much as any other class of employees. I believe that is not an uncommon practice because in my hon. friend's time outside architects were employed, and I believe in that connection no mistake has been made. I am not admitting any mistakes. The hon. member may think that all these works should have been done by the Department of Public Works. As I have said, however, we were not in a position to undertake all of them; we had not sufficient staff to do so and the arrangement I have described was made.


Charles Gavan Power: It seems to me that not very long ago very important and prominent members of this chamber were urging that departments should be consolidated so that the same kind of work could be done by the one department. We were told that it was an absurd condition to have the Department of Public Works doing dredging work, the Department of Marine doing dredging and the Department of Railways and Canals doing the same work. If I am not very much mistaken, in his radio sermons the Prime Minister stated he was going to reform the civil service, as well as the rest of us, and I believe he stated one of the items of reform was the consolidation of certain departments. At any rate I know he spoke about a new department of communications. I gathered he had some intention of consolidating the work of different departments so that it might be more efficiently carfied out under one head. I have not the speeches of the Prime Minister before me, although I have given them considerable thought and contemplation.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will be useful.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; we will keep them, and if they are not expurgated by the careful hand of some of his friends they will be very useful. It seems to me he gave the impression that there was some proposal to consolidate departments in order to make the civil service more efficient. I suggest if there is any place where the efficiency could be improved it is in the present instance.
We are carrying on what are known as public works construction. For generations we have had a department of public works which in the main has functioned efficiently and is staffed by men who have had wide
experience in construction. They have constructed harbours, breakwaters, marine works, works of the Department of National Defence telephone construction-


Jean-François Pouliot: And this building.


Charles Gavan Power: And, as the hon. member for Temiacouata states, this very building, which is a credit to that department as well as to the people of Canada. But we are now told by the minister that the Department of Public Works could not expend 340,000,000, I hesitate to believe that the minister is serious when he makes the statement that he and his staff could not expend that much money.


John Campbell Elliott: He did not tell that to
council, either.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member who was the former minister states he never told that to council. He has a staff composed of experienced men; he has had four or five years of personal experience. They have constructed every type of building from one end of the country to the other; they are in touch with contractors and people who supply material, and yet for some reason which has not been disclosed we find the Department of Marine is to expend 37,150,080, and other departments are to spend other amounts. If my information is accurate the amount to be spent by the Department of Marine will be spent on the construction of public buildings, works which are essentially those of the Department of Public Works. I suggest that if the minister does not consider he owes it to the committee, he at 'least owes it to himself and the officials of the department over which he presides with so much dignity to explain why his department has been slighted to the extent of not being entrusted with carrying out these all-important works. I suggest the explanation which has been given hitherto will not satisfy members of the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The suggestion for the consolidation of departments is not a new one.


Charles Gavan Power: No, it is not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It has been made from time to time and generally has proceeded from those in opposition. The departs ments in question have been carrying on activities which to a certain extent have overlapped. That was a difficulty which existed when this government took office, and except in the present instance having to do with this



Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
special program it has not been exaggerated or extended. The hon. member has been complimentary to the Department of Public Works, for which I thank him.


Charles Gavan Power: I expect to need them soon.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In general I agree with his statements, but I must repeat that $40,000,000 added to our regular program made a very heavy expenditure to undertake, and it was thought advisable to distribute it. That was the reason it was distributed.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell the committee how much was spent each year for the last six or seven years for public works? It does seem to me we would not have to go back very far to find a time when the government had a program equalling almost $40,000,000.


Charles Gavan Power: It was $38,000,000 in 1929-30.


George Gibson Coote: I think the government has made one of the greatest mistakes of its life in not having a program of forty or fifty million dollars for the construction of public works every year during the last five years. We have been going through a depression with much unemployment, particularly in the construction industry, and it would have been an appropriate time to construct more public buildings. I do not know whether the minister has the figures available, but if he has I wish he would give them to the committee- the approximate amount which has been voted for public works each year during the last six or seven years.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the figures here as to the estimates and expenditures for the last four or five years, but they have been severely curtailed. I think they have run from twelve to fifteen and sixteen million dollars, and possibly as low as ten million. On other occasions they have exceeded, I think, thirty millions.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell us, if not now perhaps at some other time this session, what is the total value of the armouries and other military buildings under construction at the present time both by his department and by the national defence department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would involve the obtaining of the information from the Department of National Defence. It is not available to-night; however, I shall endeavour to get it for my hon. friend.


John Campbell Elliott: There were some further particulars I asked the minister for, and I assume that with his usual courtesy he will provide them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: I suggest an item should stand under which we could discuss fully the Public Works Construction Act. Perhaps the minister would consent to item No. 108 which is a vote for public works generally, standing for that purpose. In speaking to him I realize that I am speaking only to the minister of one of the six building departments now functioning under this government, but as his is the main building department I wonder if it would be asking too much to ask him to obtain the same information from the other departments in connection with construction work under the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would prefer
that the minister responsible for the expenditure should give those details and explanations. It would be more regular and I think would be productive of better results.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not unreasonable, and will be satisfactory on the understanding that item No. 108 be allowed to stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.
Item stands.
Public buildings'-Manitoba-
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $25,000.
Elkhorn-public building, $22,000.
Rivers-public building, $12,000.
Russell-public building, $22,500.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Would the minister give the details of these improvements and repairs to dominion public buildings in Manitoba?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The sum of $25,000 is required for renewals, improvements and repairs during the fiscal year 1935-36 in connection with the dominion public buildings in Manitoba. An increase of $10,000 in the appropriation was asked for by the chief architect after a report had been received from the district architect.


John Power Howden: That amount is for improvements and repairs to buildings that have already been provided?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, repairs,
alterations and improvements.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: What is to be built at Elkhorn?

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation is for the erection of a public building on a site situated on the north side of Riehill avenue for post office and militia purposes.


Jean-François Pouliot: In what constituency?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the constituency of Brandon.


William Gilbert Weir: What are the details of the public building at Rivers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is to purchase a site and construct a building for postal
purposes. It will be a one storey and basement brick structure.


William Gilbert Weir: What is to be
built at Russell?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is for
the purpose of a site and erection of a building for postal purposes. It will be a one storey brick structure.


John Campbell Elliott: Did the minister find any necessity for any public building in Manitoba represented by any member sitting on this side of the house?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not sure
that I have had requests from any hon. gentleman on that side, but I have found the necessity for a building down in Prince Edward Island.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, we are discussing
Manitoba. Apparently the minister is much better at answering questions he is not asked than in answering those he is asked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Saskatchewan-
Broadview-public building, $15,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $25,000.
Regina-instalment on purchase of armoury, $31,000.
Whitewood-public building, $12,000.
William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps the minister would tell us the nature and purpose of these two public buildings at Broadview and Whitewood, which by accident happen to be in the one riding. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) is a fortunate man.
Mr. STEWrART (Leeds):	My hon. friend
from Melville was fortunate in getting a clock for his constituency not so very long ago.


William Richard Motherwell: Just a contract fulfilled.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The sum of
$15,000 is to provide for the erection of a public building for postal purposes on a site
92582-84i
situated at the corner of Edmonton and Sixth avenue in the town of Broadview. It will be a one storey brick structure.


Jean-François Pouliot: In what constituency?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Qu'Appelle.


William Richard Motherwell: What is the nature of the public building at Whitewood? I suppose that the item of $25,000 for improvements and repairs to dominion public buildings can be spent anywhere throughout Saskatchewan.


Ernest Lapointe: Even in Melville.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, Melville
gets some of that.


John Campbell Elliott: This is another province
evidently where there was no necessity of any buildings in ridings represented by members of the opposition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, the
chances are that my hon. friend looked after the buildings in those ridings pretty well when he was minister.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and in ridings represented by members on both sides of the house.


James J. Donnelly: Where are these repairs and improvements to public buildings to be made?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is similar
to other items we have passed for improvements and repairs to public buildings in Saskatchewan. It is an increase of $2,500 over last year.


James J. Donnelly: When does the minister expect to have the building in Regina completed? I am referring to the vote of $750,000. And when the building is completed, what do you expect to do with it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Plans are being prepared and we expect to invite tenders in the next two or three weeks. The building will be on a site owned by the dominion.
Mr. 'CAMPBELL:	Is the minister going
to invite tenders for a building of $750,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, public
tenders.


James J. Donnelly: Is it intended to tear
down the present building? And when you have the new building completed what will be done with it? For a long time the people of Regina have been wondering what will be done with it.
Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The present
building is a very old structure; that is our report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Alberta-
Calgary-instalment on purchase of property for ordnance stores, $9,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs. $17,000.
Peace River-public building, $31,500.
Red Deer-addition to armoury, $7,000.
Vermilion-purchase of building for postal purposes, $8,000.
Mr. GERSHAW:: Can the minister give
us the particulars of the largest item there in connection with a public building at Peace River?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is for the purchase of a site and towards the erection of a public building for postal purposes at Peace River. It will be a two storey brick structure: building, $26,000; fittings, $3,000; grading and sidewalks, $1,000; contingencies, $1,500.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it a new station for the Peace River railway?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is for postal
purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister point
out which of the buildings in that Alberta list have been found necessary in ridings represented by gentlemen of the opposition here?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This one is represented by a gentleman who does not sit on this side of the house.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the minister
would answer my question rather than one propounded by himself.


Ernest Lapointe: A member of the allied army.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give us some particulars regarding the first item, instalment on purchase of property for ordnance stores? Where is this property located and what is it for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to provide for the second instalment on the purchase of the property of the Calgary Paint and Glass Company, located at Tenth avenue west, corner of Seventh street west, for accommodation of ordnance stores, under the Department of National Defence, as authorized by order in council, March 31, 1934.


George Gibson Coote: What was the amount of the purchase price?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is on a
rental purchase agreement. The property was under lease for three years and the rental was $8,880.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for
Red Deer is such a man of peace, I should like to know why there is an addition to the armoury there.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: In time of peace prepare for war.


Ernest Lapointe: That is a bad principle.


George Gibson Coote: Do I understand that the property to which I have referred is being paid for in three annual instalments of $8,000 or $9,000 each?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is on a rental basis over a period of ten years, when the ownership will be completed and the building will be acquired by the government.


George Gibson Coote: What was the full purchase price of the property?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The rental will be $750 a month for ten years, and that completes the purchase of the property.


George Gibson Coote: From whom was it purchased?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Calgary
Paint and Glass Company.


Jean-François Pouliot: In what constituency is Vermilion?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In Battle River.


Frederick William Gershaw: There is a large barracks being built at Calgary, at a cost of $2,000,000 or $3,000,000. What department is that under?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: National Defence.


George Gibson Coote: Has the minister not received some requests-two years old or more, I believe-from the town of Claresholm, for the erection of a post office there? If so, what progress has been made?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not recall such a request from that locality. I shall be glad to look the matter up, and if the circumstances warrant it, it will be given consideration in the supplementary estimates.


Jean-François Pouliot: In the absence of the member for West Calgary, and on his behalf, I beg to thank the Minister of Public Works for having put that item in the estimates.


Robert McKenzie: From whom was the building at Vermilion purchased?

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Royal Bank of Canada.


Robert McKenzie: It seems to me that the policy of the government in purchasing all these bank buildings is not helping the unemployment situation. In my constituency an old bank building was purchased against the wishes of the people of that district. I wonder who was responsible for this building being purchased at Vermilion? Was it the people of Vermilion that wanted it, or was it purchased, like the building at Areola, against the wishes of the people of the town? When the building in Areola was purchased it was against the people's wishes; they wanted a new building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no suggestion on the part of the bank that we should purchase the building. The closing of branch banks in the smaller places has presented an opportunity to acquire buildings that are suitable for postal purposes at a cost very much under that which would be incurred in constructing buildings.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But it does not give work to the unemployed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is suitable for the purposes, and in these days when economy is being urged, and the curtailment of expenditures, the government thought it well wherever possible, and where buildings were available, to acquire them. Where public buildings have been necessary, if such buildings were available an effort was made to purchase them, and they are purchased at very moderate figures, very much below cost. The building in Vermilion is a good one, recently constructed, and will afford ample accommodation for postal purposes.
Mr. POULiIlOT: Speaking again about West Calgary, I asked the minister what progress had been made with regard to the building of or repairs to the armouries. If my memory serves me well, there was some discussion about the matter. What progress has been made since then?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hope substantial progress has been made on account of the importance of the constituency, but really the building is not under the control of the Public Works department. It was assigned to the Department of National Defence and the minister of that department will be able to inform my hon. friend as to what progress has been made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courteous answer, but we are at just the same point as we were when the hon.
meniber for West Middlesex and the hon. member for Quebec South complained sr much about the duplication of managemen This is too bad. I do not know whether _ shall be here when the Minister of National Defence submits his estimates to the house.
I am very anxious to hear about the matter and I am sorry the Minister of Public Works cannot inform us.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Minister of National Defence is in his seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but this is not the time for him to speak.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He might, if the hon. member asked him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know, but one at a time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Ask him.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I shall wait. I have a great respect for parliamentary traditions. At the same time I hope substantial progress has been made in the construction of that monument to the memory of the very distinguished member for that constituency. I trust, when the Minister of National Defence comes before us with his estimates, he will give us complete details about the building. Perhaps on account of the excellent work which is being done by this country at the League of Nations, the seat of the league will some day be transferred from Geneva to Calgary, and those barracks will become the palace of peace on this continent.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps now we have the explanation why some items go into public works and others have to go under the Public Works Construction Act. I presume the reason why the purchase of the bank building at Vancouver had to come under public works was because it could hardly be put under the Public Works Construction Act which is for the purpose of relieving unemployment. The minister will perhaps now say if that is the fact.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend will read again the Public Works Construction Act, he will notice in the schedule that moneys are appropriated for certain purposes. There are two general votes and under the wording of those general votes money could not be appropriated for the purchase of this building, so it had to come in in this way. It is the only way in which this could be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1320	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
Public buildings-British Columbia-
Armstrong-purchase of building for postal purposes, etc., $7,000.
Chemainus-public building. $37,000.
Creston-public building, $30,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $35,000.
Hollyburn-public building, $50,700.
Kelowna-public building. $65,300.
Mission City-public building. $30,000.
Penticton-public building, $61,000.
Vancouver - instalment on purchase of armoury, $17,100.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
Thomas Reid: Before asking some particular
questions regarding these items, I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to answer some questions regarding the public works program.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Reid: Is there a general vote from which moneys can be taken under the $40,000,000 program?
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): There are two general votes in the schedule to the act, one for public buildings and one for harbours and rivers.


Thomas Reid: So that the government could make from those funds appropriations for works that were not under the schedule?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Reid: I ask that because I notice in the statement brought down to the house, considerable expenditures had been made which had not been included specifically in the items as brought down. That is what prompted the question. Under the present item I notice six or seven buildings are mentioned. Would the minister explain for what purpose they are being constructed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The first item, Armstrong, is for the purchase of the building formerly occupied by the Canadian Bank of Commerce in the town of Armstrong, to provide far post office accommodation.


Thomas Reid: There are six more. The Armstrong item is specifically mentioned as being a postal building, but the other six are just called public buildings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Chemainus item is for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building for postal purposes. The Creston one is a post office building. The Hollyburn one, Vancouver North, is for the purchase of a site and the erection of a public building for postal purposes.
{Mr. H. A. Stewart.]


Thomas Reid: There are two others: Mission City and Penticton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These are all for post office purposes.


Thomas Reid: While I am particularly pleased to see the large expenditure for public buildings in British Columbia, because since coming to Ottawa I have always been gratified to see expenditures made in connection with works in that province, I am going to place before the minister a building project that I think should receive consideration. I believe I would be remiss in. my duty did I not lay the matter before him. For at least the past three years I have appealed for a post office building in the city of New Westminster. In 1928 plans were made for alterations to the present building and those plans were approved by the postal authorities. The present building was erected in 1900, quite a few years ago, when there was a population of some 10,000 people. It is safe to say that the postal facilities provided in those days are not adequate for present day requirements. The population of the city has grown tb about 18,000. They are taking care of the greater part of the municipality of Burnaby, besides all the mail of the Fraser valley. It is a positive disgrace to see the condition under which the men who sort the letters and the letter carriers have to work. They go through an underground tunnel into a small building at the back and there they are crowded. If they want to turn around, they have to go outside. They are working back to back. There is no room at all to work and the sanitary conditions and the ventilation of the building are terrible. If it had belonged to some corporation, I believe the city authorities would have condemned it. Last year under the relief act for public works an appropriation was made for a $30,000 customs building on the Pacific highway. I was glad to see money spent there, but I would like to know who proposed the building on the Pacific highway because I know the district fairly well, having been reeve there for some nine years. The post office building was required far more than the customs building. Not that I was objecting to the customs building-go ahead and put up more buildings; but here is a plea with respect to a building already belonging to the government and in which the conditions are terrible. We find six or seven buildings being constructed for postal purposes in Other cities, and I am not objecting; I am not jealous of the other districts which are being looked after, but it seems

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
that we in New Westminster are being entirely overlooked. I ask the minister for some consideration.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	The	building
constructed on the highway was for immigration and customs purposes at the border, where I believe there is very heavy traffic.


Thomas Reid: Who proposed it?
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	The	Department of National Revenue said they required the accommodation. It was not started on the initiative of the Department of Public Works; we were simply meeting the requirements of the other departments in order that they might be able to give the services they have to give at that point. In regard to New Westminster, I believe my hon. friend has suggested the construction	of a	building
there-


Thomas Reid: The alteration.
Mr.	STEWART	(Leeds):	He has suggested it on more than one occasion. But if we had acceded to all the suggestions and requests for alterations and improvements and additions and new buildings, the public works program would have reached perhaps 875,000,000 or 880,000,000 instead of $40,000,000. We are doing the best we can. I know my hon. friend feels that his claim is as good as some others; perhaps it is, but we cannot meet them all.


Thomas Reid: I did not object to the expenditure of the 830,000, but half of that building is comparatively new. It was altered in 1928 or 1929, and it may well be that it will be done away with if they construct the building on the Pacific highway. That is why I made the statement that the post office was far more in need of alteration and addition than the customs building on the Pacific highway. I was surprised when I saw the estimate last year-not that I object to it, but if we are to go ahead and encourage a works program something should be provided for my constituency with its large industrial population lying between New Westminster and Vancouver. This post office building, I am sure, is required more than many of the other projects.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no announcement to make as to any program of public works. There are those who think that a public works program does not relieve the unemployment situation very much after all.


Thomas Reid: I am not one of them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am glad to
hear that. Undoubtedly a large measure of at least temporary relief is afforded by the construction of useful and necessary public works. That was the object the government had in view in launching this program, which will be well under way during the coming summer, and I am sure the result will be beneficial. We have many communications expressing satisfaction with the results and the measure of employment that has been afforded. The situation at New Westminster will have to be reviewed in connection with any program that may be brought down similar to the one launched last year.


Thomas Reid: I see that in the instalment
on purchase of armoury, Vancouver, there is an increase of 83,000 over last year. Would the minister say what that is due to?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The 817,100 is
made up of the third instalment on the purchase, amounting to $13,942.63, and a fire insurance premium for three years from March 10, 1936, making a total of 817,062.63, say 817,100.


Thomas Reid: Did I understand the minister to say he is still giving consideration to the matter of the New Westminster post office in the event of a public works program being brought down?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said it would be considered in that connection.


Thomas Reid: Seriously, I hope.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Is it possible
to have this item stand over, or can an item under it be discussed on some other item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If there is any
particular item my hon. friend' wishes to bring up I wmuld prefer that he do it now.


Olof Hanson: The minister
knows that for the last five years we have urged the necessity of a public building in Prince Rupert. It is not necessary to put all the particulars on Hansard again. The government has already acquired a - site and excavated it. Has the minister given consideration to the application made by public bodies such as the city council and the board of trade of Prince Rupert concerning that project?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This matter has been presented to the department on more than one occasion by the hon. gentleman himself, both personally and by letter. The expenditure involved is large. We have the
1322	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
site, but to construct a building there such as is suggested would involve a very large expenditure, and up to this time it has not been thought possible to provide for it. It again is a matter that is under consideration in connection with any program that may be undertaken.


Olof Hanson: I notice that under this item there are six new public buildings for British Columbia. I hope Prince Rupert has not been forgotten just because I happen to be on the opposition side. I am sorry even to mention that view, but other new buildings listed in this item are all in places smaller than Prince Rupert, and the strategic position that Prince Rupert holds and the revenues obtained there in the different departmental offices I think merit consideration. If this matter cannot be discussed on any other item I would ask to have the item stand over, because I am expecting some information from Prince Rupert in connection with it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I propose to leave one item standing, as we usually do, and I have no objection to my hon. friend discussing the matter to which he refers under that item, even if this is passed. As to his remark that he hoped that opposition members had not been overlooked, I call attention to the fact that two of these buildings, the one at Hollyburn and that at Vancouver, are both in opposition ridings.


Thomas Reid: Having crititized the department I wish also to offer a word of thanks to the minister on behalf of the dyking commission on Lulu island for coming to their assistance last year by providing rock to save the dyke from breaking. I think it is only proper that I should do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Thank you.


Olof Hanson: Is there a possibility of consideration being given the Prince Rupert building in the supplementary estimates?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know whether there will be any supplementaries.


Olof Hanson: Would there be any chance under the $40,000,000 building scheme of 1934? Does the minister mean to say it is practically out of the question to give any consideration to a public building in Prince Rupert for 1935?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the general vote in the act of 1934, as my hon. friend knows, most of the items are specifically set 
out and any construction such as that proposed in his constituency would be entirely outside the provisions of that act and would have to be provided for by a separate item, either in another bill or in the estimates.


Olof Hanson: I have the proposed expenditure under the act of 1934 and I find that approximately half of it has not been ear-marked for anything. So I would ask the minister to give consideration to that building, which has been before the department for many years. I would remind him that a site has been acquired and the excavation has been completed, so that some consideration must have been given the strategic point occupied by Prince Rupert in connection with central and northern British Columbia. I would ask the minister to give further consideration to it, and I reserve the right to discuss this question further on the item that is to be left open for that purpose.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, etc.-
Ottawa Public Buildings and Grounds-*
Elevator attendants. $108,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $150 for firing the noon gun, $449,400.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $395,000.
Light and power, including roads and bridges, $178,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $343,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $40,700.
Telephone service, $85,500.
Water, $67,000.
George Gibson Coote: Might I ask the minister
if it is proposed to erect any new buildings in Ottawa this year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The only buildings that it is proposed to erect in Ottawa this year are those provided under the Public Works Construction Act, which include an office building on Wellington street, an addition to the mint, a postal terminal and an administration building at the central experimental farm.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to urge on the minister the desirability of commencing this year the erection of a building on Wellington street, or somewhere close to the other government buildings, for the bureau of statistics. That is one of the departments used very much by members of this house, and they would make even greater use of it if it were located somewhere close to this building. It

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
is a shame to house the bureau of statistics in that old saw mill down on Sussex street. It was too bad the former government ever bought that property and put the bureau down there. I hope the Minister of Public Works will see fit to provide a building in this part of the city as soon as possible. Certainly it would be sound economics for the government to do that, and I hope the minister will give it his very careful consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Similar suggestions have been made from time to time, and they are very worthy of attention. The quarters now occupied by the bureau of statistics are looked upon as temporary and not by any means satisfactory. I hope that some day the bureau will be suitably housed in a building of its own, adapted to its peculiar needs.


George Gibson Coote: I was over at the bureau
a few days ago, and the quarters are most unsatisfactory. I do not see how the staff can possibly do anything like their best work, and in addition they should be closer to these buildings and more available to members of this house. There is a wealth of information to be obtained there of which we might make very good use if we could obtain it. As the minister says, these suggestions have been made from time to time; I am sure I' have heard them for the last five years at least, but we do not get any action. I hope next year it will not be necessary to make the suggestion again; I hope the building will be under way long before that. I trust that when the minister brings down his supplementary estimates he will make provision for commencing this work. We have plenty of building material here in Canada with which to put up two or three good administration buildings to house all the government departments. We have owned this property on Wellington street for years; why not make use of it? We have the material and the men, and now that the Department of Public Works is being relieved of so much work surely it can easily provide the necessary oversight and architectural services. I do want to urge the construction of a building for the bureau of statistics, because their present quarters are a disgrace. Every time I go down there I am ashamed of this parliament because we do not provide a better building for such an important department.
Mr. FUU'LIOT: I entirely agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Macleod with regard to the bureau of statistics, but I have other constructive suggestions
to offer to the minister as well. The other day I mentioned the supreme court building. It is a shame to have the Supreme Court of Canada housed in its present quarters, and it is ridiculous to construct a new mounted police building before providing for the supreme court. My hon. friend knows that it is nonsensical, and he knows the importance of the Supreme Court of Canada. The people who are in the mounted police will have a palace before the supreme court is given the attention it deserves, which is most unreasonable.
I have another suggestion as well. We need a new fireproof library to house the treasures we have there. There are also treasures in the library of the Supreme Court of Canada. There are some very precious and rare books which are not in the parliamentary library but which may be found in the supreme court library, and very often members of this house who belong to the bar have to send for those books. The supreme court building is not fireproof, and if that library should be destroyed it could not be replaced. The other day the chairman ruled me out of order when I referred to those books, but I think this is perfectly relevant now, and I should like to take this opportunity to say a word about them. In 1848 the legislative buildings in Quebec were destroyed by fire, together with the library, which was a great loss to the country. New buildings and a new library were erected, but in 1878 there was another fire which destroyed the buildings and many very valuable books. What would happen if there should be a fire in the parliamentary library or the supreme court building? All those books would be destroyed, and no amount of money could replace them. If the minister is not going to spend a great deal of money he might do something at least. He might put rubber tile flooring in the parliamentary library as well as in the supreme court library; that would be something. It is almost impossible to work in the library here because of the noise. The floor creaks; there are type-writers going; people are talking, and there is no suitable place to work. No man from outside can take advantage of the books in our library. Members of this house can take them to their rooms and work there, but that privilege is not open to students and scholars from outside. This is a situation Which should be looked after. I do not say this for the benefit of the contractors; I say it in the general interest. There are valuable books in our libraries. I have found statutes with the leaves uncut going back a hundred
Supply-Public Works-Ottawa

years. They have not been consulted, but they are here and they may be consulted again a hundred years hence. They are useful, just the same, and it would be hard to replace them. Therefore I suggest that the minister accept these suggestions in good part; they are offered in the broadest spirit and in the public interest. I draw the attention of the minister to these facts because he is a man of teaming, a man who has a first class personal library, who knows the value of books and knows how much the country would suffer if there were a fire which destroyed either t'he library or the books. The same observations would apply to the supreme court.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With much the hon. member has said I agree. I do not suppose there has been any time in the past fifteen years when the same conditions have not prevailed, and when mention has not been made in this chamber about the necessity for providing better accommodation for the supreme court. That accommodation has not 'been provided, however; for one reason or another successive governments have not felt they could undertake the task.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The judges were opposed to'it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Differences of opinion exist as to where the building should be located, the type of building, and whether or not it should be devoted exclusively to the dominion courts or should 'be a building embracing accommodation for all. the courts. There has been considerable discussion as to the site and type of the building. There is the further fact that the city of Ottawa has been allotted a large sum of money for expenditures under the building program. It is felt that the money should be distributed rather than concentrated in one place. I agree when the hon. member states the accommodation for the supreme court is inadequate and out of date and that steps should be taken to remedy those conditions.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for his observations, and I am pleased to note he agrees with the suggestions which have been offered. It is absurd, however, to make such large expenditures for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when we do not make an expenditure for the judges of the supreme court. May I ask the minister if he would consider seriously the suggestion of having a rubber tile floor placed in the library of parliament?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The accommodation for which provision has been made and

which the hon. member describes as a building for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is in fact an office building. At present we rent quarters on Rideau street in the Larocque building and we find those quarters altogether inadequate. The policing of the provinces has been taken over by the federal department. The provinces are paying for these services which have involved an increase in staff and the necessity for increased accommodation. The new building will provide for office accommodation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would a rubber tile floor in the parliamentary library be considered by the hon. member?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know about that; prior to the fire the floor was considered a work of art, and was said to be in keeping with the architecture of the remainder of that beautiful room. The floor is not fireproof and has undoubtedly been injured by the water 'which came in and loosened the boards. But to put linoleum or rubber tiles over it would to a certain extent I fear destroy the character and architectural design of the room.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member for his courteous answer, but I must say I disagree with him entirely in his artistic appreciation of the interior of the library. From the outside it is a jewel, but from the inside it is ugly. All the woodwork in the interior is in my view very ugly and out of fashion; the French call it style baroque. The floor is now out of order, a condition which I believe was caused by the flow of water, and does not look at all attractive. The only redeeming feature about the interior of the building is its height. I must say however that one finds great difficulty in finding books, because there is not proper accommodation for them. The most useful books are in the basement, and because of the terrific heat from the pipes in winter and the fact that it is like a cave in the summer one does not care to go there. I wonder if the minister has ever gone down there to look at some of the old books. I believe the situation is as bad as the one described as existing in the New Westminster post office. The interior of the library is the ugliest piece of architecture in Ottawa. Outside it is beautiful. I should like to have it made fireproof and have it beautified by being made simpler.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree with the hon. member when he states that the arrangement and construction of the library are not

Supply-
Harbours and Rivers-Quebec
modern, and that it is not fireproof, but I do not agree with him when he states it is not beautiful or is not a work of art.


Jean-François Pouliot: We will leave it to the chairman to decide.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Quebec-
Essential Undertakings-
Anse a Beaufils-repairs to breastworks, $43,000.
Anse au Griffon (river)

extension to breastwork, $6,100.
Baie des Roehers-wharf repairs, $5,500. Baie Lavalliere-dredging, $15,700.
Baie St. Paul (riviere du Gouffre)-extension of protection wall, $8,800.
Black Cape (Howatson's Point) -wharf, $38,800.
Bonaventure-wharf repairs and improvements, $8,500.
Cape Cove (Anse du Cap)-wharf reconstruction, $50,000.
Carleton-wharf reconstruction, $30,000. Champlain-extension of protection work, $27,000.
Cross Point-wharf repairs and improvements, $14,200.
Deschaillons-dredging, $11,200.
Donnacona-dredging. $42,000.
Doucet's Landing (Ste. Angele de Laval) - dredging, $15,000.
Dune du Sud, M.I.-breakwater, $6,500 Gascons-wharf reconstruction, $3,100.
Grand Anse-wharf, $2,500.
Grande Entree, M.X.-wharf extension and reconstruction of breastwork, $17,600.
Havre Aubert. M.I.-strengthening and widening wharf, $31,800.
Havre St. Pierre-wharf reconstruction. $75,000.
La Malbaie (St. Etienne)-wharf extension, $39,000.
Little River St. Lambert-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $4,000.
Manicouagan-wharf extension-one-third of the cost to be contributed jointly by the Ontario Paper Co., Ltd., and the Anglo Canadian Pulp and Paper Co., $100,000.
New Carlisle-wharf reconstruction, $50,000. Notre Dame du Lac-wharf extension, $9,000. Peninsula-wharf extension, $5,800.
Port Daniel East-wharf repairs and reinforcement, $33,000.
Quebec-extension of Kings wharf, $200,000. Richelieu river-improvements, $180,000. Riviere au Renaud'-wharf repairs, $5,900. Riviere des Hurons-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $60,000.
Riviere du Loup - wharf enlargement, $139,000.
Riviere la Guerre-contribution towards completion of improvement, the provincial government to bear a like amount, $37,500.
St. Antoine de Tilly-wharf reconstruction, $20,500.
St. Juste du Lac-wharf extension, $8,500. Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $400,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: May I thank the Ministel of Public Works for the item of $139,000 for the enlargement of the wharf at Riviere du Loup. I deeply appreciate the consideration the minister has given to that beautiful place on the south shore of the river St. Lawrence known as Riviere du Loup. The amount voted for the enlargement of the wharf is substantial. What amount will be spent for steel, what amount for lumber, and what amount for labour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is an important wharf over which there is a heavy volume of traffic. I cannot state definitely how much steel or timber will be required; that is a matter to be determined after the plans have been prepared. The figure appearing in the vote is a rough estimate of the amount which will be required to do the work.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand betweer
$85,000 and $90,000 will be spent for steel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My information shows that sheet steel piling will cost about $79,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is satisfactory, and
I thank the hon. gentleman. I highly appreciate the way the minister has dealt with the member for Temiscouata since he has been minister. May I tell him that I know he put that amount in the estimates in appreciation of the savings that I helped him to make in his own department when I told him what was going on in the sale of materials, and which resulted in substantial sums of money being refunded to the department. I told him also of what was going on in other constituencies where some people were selling rotten timber for wharves, and he was kind enough to send the chief engineer there and to have all the rock fill taken out from the wharf in order that the lumber might be tested to the bottom. That meant a great saving to the department, and it is because of that the minister has put this amount in the estimates. There is something else. The government has lent a big amount of money to Newfoundland. That was denounced here and the government did not lend any more after I denounced it; they were so thankful to me for telling them the right thing to do that they said, "Well, Temiscouata, you have saved us millions of dollars through our not lending any more money to Newfoundland, and we will give you something for your wharf at Riviere du Loup." I thank the minister and the government for what they have done in appreciation of the work the Liberals are doing.
1326	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not sure
my hon. friend's deductions are altogether warranted. There were other elements that contributed to the construction of the wharf at Riviere du Loup in addition to those he has just mentioned, although they, of course, had their place. I would not say, however, that they were the determining factor.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I say to the minister that what I have told him was just a repetition of what I had heard from the voice of my conscience.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can the minister give
me any information regarding the enlargement of the wharf at Pointe au Pic, the contract for which was let last fall? I am told that the firm of Hill & Sibbald, of St. Catharines, Ontario, got the contract, but did not go on with the construction of the work, and that afterwards some other firm was to have been given the contract because the first contractors would not undertake the work for certain reasons; I do not know what they were. I should like to know who really has the contract for the construction of that wharf, and if the work is to go on, and if so when it is to be done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The firm to
whom the contract was awarded is the one mentioned by my hon. friend, Hill & Sibbald. The department has nothing to indicate that they will not go on with the work. Recent correspondence indicates that they have ordered their sheet piling, and so far as we know they propose going on with the work.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When will it be proceeded with-next spring?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At the opening of navigation.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When my hon. friend
speaks of sheet piling, may I ask if this is not the first time that sheet piling has been used for that purpose in that district? I do not think it has ever been used for work such as that down below Quebec.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
of any instance in which sheet piling has been used in that locality, but it is not an experiment at all.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What I want to know
from the minister is whether sheet piling has been tested in construction of this nature below Quebec. I have never heard' of its being used in that district, although it may have been used elsewhere. Are there any other wharves below Quebec in which sheet piling has been used?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
that in the opinion of the engineers of the department it is a sound and safe and suitable type of work for that locality.


Jean-François Pouliot: I also wish to thank the
minister for the amount provided in the estimates for the wharf extension at St. Juste du Lac.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario-
Under Contract-
Byng Inlet-dredging-to complete payments,
[Stage Direction]
Essential Undertakings-[DOT]
Fort William - harbour improvements,
[Stage Direction]
Goderich-dredging, $32,300.
Hudson-wharf, $14,000.
Kincardine-reconstruction of north wall, $11,400.	„	„
Kingsville-harbour improvements, $85,000.
Meaford-harbour improvements, $40,000.
Midland-harbour repairs and improvements, $55,000.
Oshawa-harbour improvements, $40,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $60,000.
Port	Arthur	- harbour	improvements,
$08,000. _
Port Colborne - repairs	to	breakwater,
[Stage Direction]
Port Hope-harbour improvements, $15,000.
Providence Bay - harbour improvements, $15,000.	'	_
Rondeau-repairs to west pier, $11,000.
Saugeen river-dredging, $18,000.
Sauit Ste. Marie-dredging. $15,800.
Thames river	mouth-repairs	to lighthouse
wharf, $14,000.
Toronto-maintenance of eastern channel, $15,000.
Wallaceburg-extension to wharf and warehouse, $5,000.	_
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $200,000.
George Gibson Coote: I should have asked this
question under item 110, Mr. Chairman. It is in regard to the heating in this building. There are some rooms up on the sixth floor which it is almost impossible to keep warm enough to sit in during the cold weather.


James Houston Spence: On every floor.


George Gibson Coote: I have taken the matter
up with the minister, and it is perhaps necessary to make this public protest. I was in one room on the sixth floor and I noticed that the member had an electric heater during the very cold weather to keep himself warm. All that would be necessary would be to put in a little bigger radiator with a larger radiating surface in the rooms. As it is now, in very cold weather you cannot have the windows open for ventilation for more than two or three minutes because it gets too cold. I hope before another cold winter

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Saskatchewan
comes the minister will see that better provision is made for heating some of these rooms.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will attend
to that.


Mr. GOLDING:: I should like to take
advantage of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister the situation at Bayfield. I have had some correspondence with him and I am glad to note that there is indication of some intention to do some dredging there and also to make further repairs to the pier. I have talked with the fishermen and they are firmly of the opinion that until the breakwater that was destroyed some years ago is restored, conditions will not be good. When I was in London last year the engineer gave me an estimate of 812,000 as the cost of restoring the ninety feet of breakwater that was washed away some years ago. If that work were done it would be money well spent and would result in a saving of money in the future. I should like on behalf of the fishermen at Bayfield to ask the minister to give consideration to their request.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A report is being secured at the present time in view of verbal representations made recently by my hon, friend, and it will be followed up.


William Henry Golding: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories-
Essential Undertakings-
Cowan river-replacement of dam, $21,500.
Fort Chipewyan-wharf replacement, $7,000.
Prince Albert-reconstruction of retaining wall, $21,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $15,000.
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Notwithstanding the outcry against titles in some quarters, there is a clamour for the creation of a pier at Seba on lake Wabamun, and I would ask if anything is being provided in this vote for that purpose.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is there any intention to provide for it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will have to investigate and see.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The application was put in some time ago, and I understood that it had been favourably reported on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: Before the committee rises may I ask the minister what he proposes to do about Whitby harbour and the requests that have been made for Whitby.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We propose to look into it.


William Henry Moore: To look into the harbour? When does the minister propose to look into the harbour? I should like to be with him when he does it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should be delighted to go up and look at it, and even swim in it.


William Henry Moore: May I say that I will extend the hospitality of the riding when the minister goes into it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Accepted at once.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 1, 1935