1935-06-27

[Stage Direction]
First report of select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Harris.

Questions

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

Mr. VALLANCE:: 1.	Was George McDonald, C.A., a member of the firm of Clarkson, McDonald, Currie and Company while he was a member of the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Commission?
2.	Was the firm of Clarkson, McDonald', Currie and Company acting as auditors for any department of the government during the period in which George C. McDonald, C.A., was a member of the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Commission, and, if so, what moneys, if any, were paid by the government to the said firm during that period?
3.	Is the firm of Clarkson, McDonald, Currie and Company, of Montreal, associated with the firm of Clarkson, McDonald, Currie and Company of Toronto?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No information.
2.	No.
3.	No information.


DUTIES ON JAPANESE GOODS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: On May 20 my right hon. leader
asked a question of the Prime Minister with reference to trade between Japan and Canada. At that time the right hon. gentleman gave a detailed reply. Has he further information to lay before the house now with respect to the negotiations that have transpired?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: It is probable that before we
rise I may make a more extensive statement, but in the meantime discussions have taken place between the Japanese authorities and the Canadian authorities, and the minister at Tokyo has presented the position of Canada as clearly as it can possibly be placed. I sometimes think that some of our friends on this side of the Pacific fail to realize that during a period of forty years the dominion parliament, under all administrations, has taken positions at the instance of British Columbia which at the moment have been somewhat embarrassing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the house is to sit on Monday, the first of July?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was our intention to sit unless
the house intimated its desire that we should not do so, but as I have explained we are entirely in the hands of the house. I was going to speak about the matter later in the day, but if it is the desire of the house that we should sit we will do so.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility of sitting on Saturday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We have considered the question of sitting on Saturday, but in view of the fact that the evidence being given before the special committee has not been concluded I wondered whether it would be advancing matters very much by sitting on Saturday. That is the only consideration that has prevented me from giving notice to sit on Saturday. If it is thought that any useful purpose could be served by giving notice, I could give notice to-day or tomorrow; but it does not seem to me that we should make greater progress, especially in view of the fact that the other chamber has a very substantial volume of business to dispose of before they conclude with the bills now before them. That is my advice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree that if the committee is not through, it would not be advisable to have a sitting on Saturday.
When the Prime Minister referred a moment ago to the relations with Japan, in the concluding part of his remarks he spoke of the attitude of all administrations toward Japan and said that he was afraid it had created an embarrassing situation. I do not wish to speak for his administration. With regard to previous administrations, I may say that our attitude when in office was, I think, distinctly of a character to preserve very harmonious relations with the orient, both Japan and China.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may be out of order, but if the right hon. gentleman will read what I said he will find that it had reference to the attitude which this parliament and preceding parliaments had taken at the instance of British Columbia with respect to various matters in connection with Japan. I need hardly mention franchise matters and questions of that sort which have caused and do cause some embarrassments which have occurred under any governments that I have any knowledge of.



RECIPROCITY NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to
401P
Pensions for the Blind

ask the right boa. gentleman about the progress of negotiations with the United States on trade matters. Is there anything further to report at this date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that if negotiations resulted in any conclusions being arrived at, I would communicate them to the house. Negotiations are still continuing; that is as far as I can go.
PENSIONS FOR THE BLIND On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Is the Prime Minister prepared this afternoon to give a statement to the house in respect to the intention of the government regarding pensions for the blind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I omit from the statement I am making anything which should be said, I shall give it at a later date, but I have been in the committee until late and in council from two till three, and I can only say this, that so far as dealing with the blind by a special act by which the dominion would undertake the paying of pensions is concerned, it is concluded that no such action be taken this session by this parliament. I do not know that I need amplify that statement beyond saying that as a number of the provinces have not taken advantage of the Old Age Pensions Act, to provide that payments might be made to a given category of persons by those provinces that had adopted the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act, would be to make an invidious distinction against which very strong opposition has manifested itself. On the other hand to set up machinery to deal with payment of pensions to the blind in every province by the federal government would also involve something that the government at this session is not prepared to do.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon.E.N.RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 114, relating to the application of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, in the province of British Columbia.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want ito detain the house. I think the objections which some of us on this side have to this bill were very carefully stated in committee yesterday afternoon. I merely desire to say that I am entirely opposed to this legislation for several f Mr, Mackenzie King.]
reasons. In the first place it is distinctly and viciously sectional in nature. It is an absolute and inevitable corollary of the other bill which appeared on the order paper dur- ' ing the present session and which sought to give a special electoral system to one province. It is a companion bill to that moved by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) the other day, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act in respect to .certain situations which arose in one constituency, .that of St. Law-rence-S't. George.


Mr. GAHAN:: That is not true.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
also opposed to it because the government's failure to defend their own legislation is an open admission on their part that it is ultra vires. In the next place not only does it remove from British Columbia the benefit of this legislation which we all supported last year, but regardless of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, if there is to-day a declaration by the Supreme Court of British Columbia that this legislation is ultra vires of the federal parliament, this will absolutely imperil the existence and validity of this legislation in every province.
Further, legislation which excludes or seeks to exclude any one province from the scope of the pact of confederation, or legislation which seeks to give special! effect in only one province to certain terms of this parliament, is vicious in principle. In my humble judgment this will only tend to emphasize and accentuate that feeling of restlessness and anxiety which at the present time prevails in our province with respect to the pact of confederation itself. Therefore, I move the following amendment:
That on the .motion that Bill No. 114 be read a third time now, the word "now" be struck out and the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to make merely this observation, that if any province in this confederation speaking for the people of that province, desires to launch litigation in the form of that which was launched before a single judge to obtain an interim injunction, I conceive it to be the duty of a federal government endeavouring to do what the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is doing, to permit that province to have its way. To do otherwise is to cast some doubt upon our own action which I believe is quite sound and is supported by law.
On the other question as to whether it would interfere with the harmonious relations between the provinces and the federal

Farmers' Creditors Act
power, that is presumably a matter which the provinces are thinking of. But if one reads the record as to the assistance that has been given to British Columbia during the last few years to enable it to discharge its obligations and as to the burden that is cast upon this government by reason of the advantageous terms that were granted to the western provinces, notably in Manitoba, which became the measure of obligation for both Alberta and Saskatchewan and which resulted in the dominion making an interim advance of $750,000 per annum to supplement the subsidy payments received by British Columbia, I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will realize that any further statement is beside the mark. There has been a most earnest desire, in face of the situation that has developed in the western provinces, to assist them in every possible way in the discharge of their obligations. In fact, to such an extent is that true that in many quarters it is believed the assistance should not have gone as far as it has, but we have endeavoured to preserve the financial integrity of all the four western provinces. I am not now going to traverse that situation.
When we were dealing with the application of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, it was made applicable of course to every part of Canada, east and west and north and south. The question of the relationship between the crown in the right of the dominion and the crown in the right of the province was one which by understanding and agreement in the otheT provinces was acted upon in a sense that they were willing to share a part of the loss sustained by others in the adjustments that were being made. It was not a mandatory power of the federal government in respect to taxation that was being invoked, because we have always recognized the autonomous position of the various *provinces. What we have said is that if it is threatened that the crown in the right of the provinces would not deal with a board of review, exercising powers exercised in all the provinces and dealing with creditors of all kinds, with respect to its claims, the desirable thing, of course, is not to endeavour to proceed with it at all for to proceed with it at alii would at once invite the suggestion that invidious distinctions were being made between British Columbia and the other eight provinces, as the other eight provinces were sharing the losses with other creditors and making their sacrifice, if you call it such, in taking less than one hundred cents on the dollar on debts due to them' by debtors, whether taxes or otherwise. The province of
Ontario through its constituted authority has been willing to have such matters dealt with by the board of review; Alberta, the neighbouring province to British Columbia, has been willing that their claims shall be dealt with in that way. Where debts were due to the crown in the right of the province, without in any sense admitting that it had attorned to the jurisdiction in the sense of admitting that the parliament of Canada had a paramount right so to legislate, the other provinces were willing to accept and have accepted the arrangements so made by the board of review. They believed that if the act were to be effective in respect to ordinary creditors, loan companies, banks and private individuals who were compelled under it to accept a much less percentage for their interest than provided in the documents, in many instances compromising at fifteen, twenty or twenty-five per cent reduction, then obviously the province, as a creditor desirous of helping its own citizens to deal with complex and difficult problems in connection with farmers, created many years ago must not rely solely in its strict legal right as the crown with the priorities that attach thereto, and having so expressed their willingness and acted accordingly, if one province says it will not do so and its attorney general launches an action to say that the power of the crown in the right of the province shall not in any sense be interfered with in the sense of making any compromise, voluntary or otherwise, then, of course the duty of the federal power is not to create invidious distinctions between the provinces but to withdraw and leave it for the province itself to make such adjustment with its own citizens as it thinks desirable. We availed ourselves of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act after the Supreme Court of Canada, as I explained yesterday on a stated case following the decision of the privy council, had concluded we had the right to make certain arrangements without going through bankruptcy proceedings, to enable farmers to secure the benefits which were secured to companies' creditors, preferred and otherwise, as indicated in the stated case. In order that they might receive these benefits we passed this statute; that is that farmers might have the benefit of bankruptcy without going through the bankruptcy court. The crown in British Columbia having taken the view that it has taken, it is not for us to quarrel with them, they are nearer the spot, they are on the ground, they know the views of their fellow citizens. If their citizens desire that they should not have the benefit of this legislation unless
Farmers' Creditors Act

the crown itself shall also compromise with them-because if a loan company in eastern Canada or a private lender or a bank wTith its branch in Vancouver is compelled to settle its claim with its debtor at sixty cents on the dollar, but the crown with its claim says: We must have one hundred cents on the dollar, and is insistent in that regard, then, of course, you have destroyed any possibility of there being a settlement. And as any possibility of settlements being destroyed would result in the act being nugatory, it is felt that the act should not be applicable to that province. That is the position. None other. There is no desire in any sense to lessen the operation of the act from one end of Canada to the other, but to prevent the act, the effect of which is being destroyed by the action taken in British Columbia, remaining there as a standing menace to its successful operation in other provinces which have acted upon the assumption that it is desirable that the crown should compromise as well as other creditors.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia, presuming the injunction is made permanent, will not have decided the matter for the rest of Canada. If the injunction is made permanent without a defence, it is the judgment of a single judge sitting in an undefended action, which never has been regarded as being a precedent in any country, in any court, not even in the courts in the province itself in which such a decision is given.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: If the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is to be accepted I am afraid it may create countless difficulties and involve this country in many troubles. The province is challenging the validity of federal legislation; is doing so before a single judge as the Prime Minister says. But all litigation in our country starts before a single judge, and then goes to higher courts. If because a province acts in that way the federal parliament will legislate that province out of the operation of a federal act, where will that course end? Would the same principle apply to the various pieces of legislation enacted during the course of the present session? I know provinces which claim that our bills passed this session on hours of labour and minimum wages and even unemployment insurance are not intra vires of this parliament. If any one of them starts litigation to have the courts decide on that matter will this parliament exclude that province from the operation of the act? What about taxation? If any province claims that a certain tax which is imposed by this parliament is ultra
[Mr. Bennett.J
vires of the power of this parliament, will that province be excluded from the operations of that act and be exempt from taxation? Well either the present government of British Columbia is right in this matter or it is wrong. If it is right, whatever we do here, whether we exclude it and let the act apply in the rest of Canada, the legislation is invalid and not binding upon any Canadian citizen. If it is wrong why should the citizens of that province be excluded from the advantages, if there are any, of this legislation? The Prime Minister talks about the autonomy of the provinces; yes, but the central government also is autonomous within the limits of its jurisdiction. Our confederation charter has created a distribution of power, within the limit of its jurisdiction the central government is autonomous and its legislation operates directly on the individuals in all provinces, without the help or medium of the local governments. I claim the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is quite right when he says that this is sectional legislation. If we are to take this course in this matter why not in all other matters? I well remember some legislation of this parliament to which the whole population of the province from which I come were opposed, but nobody thought of excluding that province from the operation of that legislation. It is a bad principle, it is a vicious precedent, it does not make for national unity, but for national disruption. Therefore I shall vote for the amendment.


Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) :: Mr. Speaker, I was not impressed by the argument advanced this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). This measure is purely of a punitive nature; that can be gathered from the remarks let drop by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I fear that this long session, which has lasted for more than six months, has frayed the nerves of this house. Legislation of this kind is not usually brought in during the early part of a session, it is the result of too much application to the work of the session during this long period.
I did not find an answer made by the Prime Minister to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), who said

and I was very much impressed by his statement-that this was a piece of sectional legislation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, sectional legislation already applies to the province of British Columbia. Who can say that next year, should this government be in power-which God fobid-this sort of legislation will not be applied to the province of Quebec? I well remember when

Farmers' Creditors Act
the legislation with regard to bankruptcy was first mooted. It was brought about through the efforts of the Canadian Bar Association, of which at one time the Prime Minister was president and of which he is now honorary president. The first efforts were in the way of attempting to obtain uniform legislation with regard to bankruptcy for the whole of Canada. We have that right under the British North America Act; in fact the parliament of Canada has the exclusive right to legislate with respect to bankruptcy. If the province of British Columbia is to be deprived of the opportunity of sharing in that legislation, what is it to do? I cannot believe that the Prime Minister has carefully thought out the matter, because as a rule he knows his law perhaps as well as any man in the Dominion of Canada. How is it possible for the people of British Columbia to obtain the advantages of such legislation if the parliament of Canada declares that it is going to give its sanction to the putting through of legislation of this kind? That province becomes practically a stepchild; nothing can be done for it.
There is a wider question, however, creating a condition whereby one province is, I might say, publicly spanked by this parliament as a warning to others not to indulge in the same way of treating dominion legislation? What is going to happen? I remember that in 1915 and 1916 we were trying to obtain the goodwill of the province of Quebec in the matter of bankruptcy legislation. We had all kinds of meetings; we had conferences; we had hospitality extended by the present Prime Minister and others, in order that the people of the province of Quebec and elswhere might see the sweet reasonableness of our proposed bankruptcy act. We pointed out to the people of Quebec that this was not an encroachment on the rights of the province, that we did not intend to interfere in any way with their civil law, but that it was a matter of dominion application and that it was something for the benefit of the whole country. I well remember how the pundits of the bar of the province of Quebec, Sir Lomer Gouin, Mr. Taschereau and others, looked with a great deal of suspicion on any efforts to bring about this sort of uniformity. They felt that it was the thin end Of the wedge and that in due time the whole province of Quebec would be placed under the jurisdiction of the common law. We made them believe, and they did believe as was the fact, that there was no such intention at all.
Now, however, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) said yesterday, we have a thunderbolt from the blue. In its 92582-2S5
boldness British Columbia has presumed to declare that in certain parts of the act we have proceeded illegally, and that the province of British Columbia has certain rights which it wishes the court to declare and decide. Surely it cannot be an offence to ask the courts of this country to declare what is or what is not illegal; this is the first time I have heard a statement of that kind made in this house. They have the right to appear before the courts and plead their case, and if it should be found that we have proceeded illegally certain measures can be taken. This bill never should have been brought into the house; the matter is now sub judice, but notwithstanding that the Prime Minister and the government declare that hereafter, when a province refuses to conform as it is claimed it should, it will be placed in the same position. I cannot believe that the government is in its real senses in putting a measure of this kind on the statute books. Perhaps the rule of those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad applies here.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is an act of madness.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is an act, anyway, with
which we do not agree. This morning, when I considered the position in which we have been placed in regard to this question, I thought of the famous nursery rhyme, which might be paraphrased in this way:
Eight little provinces all in a row,
One would not do as it was told, so it had
to go.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nine provinces.


Mr. QUINN:: Did they have to tell you
there were nine provinces of Canada?


Samuel William Jacobs: I think I did know there
were nine, but when this bill passes there will be only eight. When this act passes-and I feel that it will pass, because I have no illusions that anything I may say will interfere with the passage of the measure-we will be reduced to the position of the children in the nursery rhyme. This is something that has never been heard of before. What is going to happen, for instance, if to-morrow the province of Quebec declares that it agrees with the province of British Columbia? Are we going to disqualify the province of Quebec? I do not think we will do that; I hardly think even the Prime Minister is quite so bold as to want to place the province of Quebec in the some category as the province of British Columbia, though it does

Farmers' Creditors Act

happen just now to have a government which does not see eye to eye, on the surface at least, with the federal government.


Mr. DUPUIS:: It might happen to New
Brunswick to-morrow.


Samuel William Jacobs: I hope it will happen today. Surely the Prime Minister does not wish to undo the work he has done so effectively during the last eighteen or twenty years in connection with the Canadian Bar Association. We were formed especially for this purpose of bringing about uniformity and non-sectional legislation throughout the Dominion of Canada, but by this very act the Prime Minister is undoing the splendid, constructive work for which he has been given credit by the bar association for all these years. I entreat the Prime Minister to give a little further thought to this matter. Perhaps it might go over until Monday, if we are going to sit that day. Monday is Dominion day, the anniversary of the day when all the provinces were brought together, and I do not really think the Prime Minister can put through a piece of legislation like this at a time when we are about to celebrate the great natal day of the Dominion of Canada.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I come from one of the other provinces but I agree heartily with the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. I would point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that he was hardly doing justice to the house in his manner of introducing his objection to this amendment. He referred to the litigation being launched in the way in which it was launched. Does he mean by that that when a province desires to object to the constitutionality of any legislation it can only do so in a certain manner? Is he stating that if a writ is launched as this writ was launched, this house will not tolerate it?
I should like to point out what the effect will be upon the other provinces if this bill goes through. The Prime Minister said that if it is undefended, if no litigation arises from it, it will not have the same effect throughout the west of Canada that it would have had had it been fought out. From his experience he must know that exactly the opposite result would occur. Suppose someone in Ontario objects to submitting to an order of the board. They will say that a writ was issued by the province of British Columbia questioning the validity of this legislation and that the dominion government did not even defend [Mr. Jacobs.!
the action with the result that a judgment was given against the validity of the legislation. The effectiveness of this legislation throughout the rest of Canada will be largely gone. During the stress and strain through which this country is going there is no time for friction between the dominion government and the government of a province that happens to be represented by another political party.


An hon. MEMBER:: What was it started for?


John Campbell Elliott: Some hon. member asks: What was it started for? It was started as an exercise of the rights which everyone has before the oourts of this country. The remark of the hon. gentleman was perhaps the best argument that could be given in favour of this amendment. It indicates the attitude of the government.


Mr. COTNAM:: How about Hepburn's
action?


John Campbell Elliott: Another hon. member has exactly the same viewpoint. He feels that unless the province falls down and worships everything done by this government it should be put out of the confederation. To ask why this action should have been started is about the most senseless question I have ever heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Ontario government would not even let them go to the courts.


John Campbell Elliott: We should not consider this as a family quarrel. If this litigant has not started this legislation with the meekness and humility due from a province to the dominion, perhaps it will change the endorsement on the writ to more polite terms. I submit we should agree with the suggestion that this matter should not be pressed at the present time. Perhaps it will be a little cooler next week and a Sunday will have intervened. It is possible that those who are now taking this very severe view may revise their idea and not ask that this legislation be proceeded with at the present time.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North 'Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is largely but not solely a legal matter and there are other aspects which should be considered. Personally I should like to see the constitutionality of this legislation upheld. I am almost inclined to think that British Columbia is getting what is coming to her but I cannot see that this is a proper way to handle this matter. Either this legislation is intra vires or it is not and it seems to me that the courts

Farmers' Creditors Act
should decide the matter. If the courts have the authority as the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said so frequently they should have, I cannot see why this matter should not go to them to be decided. By means of an injunction British Columbia will not 'be receiving the benefits of this act and there is no need for haste with regard to the matter. The Prime Minister has stated, if I understand him aright, that the action, of the courts might leave some doubt as to the constitutionality of the legislation but I am rather inclined to think that to settle the matter in this way will leave considerable doubt as to the constitutionality of the legislation as it affects all the provinces. Such action may affect this and other acts, not merely in British Columbia but throughout the whole of Canada. It must be remembered that British Columbia has taken this action only because she wished to safeguard her provincial rights in certain cases and if this legislation is proceeded with by this government it will undoubtedly penalize the farmers of British Columbia who might need the benefits of the act. Under these circumstances I do not think it is fair to press the matter at the present time.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I spoke briefly on this matter yesterday but after listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) I have not been able to alter my opinion. It seems to me that this bill can do no good and it may do considerable harm. If the province succeeds to-day in its action then it will be excluded from the operations of the act and this bill will be unnecessary. If the province fails in its action, the legislation passed last year will apply and should this bill be passed we would be placed in the position of depriving the farmers of British Columbia of a share in the benefits of that legislation. I do not want to misquote him, but I understood the Prime Minister to say that the government of British Columbia having taken the action which it has, must be responsible for depriving the people of the benefits of the act. Surely this government and this parliament have some responsibility to the farmers of that province. Because the province has taken a wrongful step is no reason why the farmers of that province should be punished by not being allowed the benefits of the act. It seems to me that if the action on the part of the province succeeds-and this is my reason for making my statement now-you do not need this bill, and if it does not succeed you do not want this bill because you 92582-255 J
do harm to the province of British Columbia or to the individual farmers of that province.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Megantic (Mr. Roherge). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Anderson (Toronto-	Mulock
High Park)	
Anderson (Halton)	Factor
Arsenault	Maclnnis
Baribeau	Beaubien
Barrette	Rheaume
Bell (St. Antoine)	Raymond
Bell (St. John)	Dubois
Beynon	Euler [DOT]
Burns	Butcher
Casselman	Howard
Charters	Blair
Cowan	Ilsley
Dorion	Verville
Dupre	Ferland
Esling	Hanbury
Fraser (Cariboo)	Speakman
Ganong	Michaud
Geary	Mercier (Laurier-Outremont)
Gordon	Fiset
Gott	Rutherford
Hanson	Veniot
(York-Sunbury)	
Harris	Jacobs
Jones	MacLean
Kennedy (Winnipeg)	McIntosh
Lawson	Gray
MacDonald	Urquhart
(Cape Breton)	
MeDade	Dupuis
McGibbon	Power
Maloney	Young
Manion	Chevrier
Matthews	Moore (Ont.)
Moore (Ch&teauguay-	Dubuc
Huntingdon)	
Perley, Sir George	Marcil
Pettit	Bouchard
Porteous	Maephail, Miss
Rhodes	Ralston
Ross	Roberge
Rowe	Lacroix
Senn	Sanderson
Smith	Gardiner
(Vietoria-Carleton)	
Smoke	Pouliot
Spotton	MacMillan (Mackenzie)
Stevens	Malcolm
Stitt (Selkirk)	Weir (Macdonald)
Sullivan	Brasset
Tummon	St-Pcre
White (London)	Gershaw.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mer-cier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ESLING:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Han-bury). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PETTIT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GARDINER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vietoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. ST-PERE: I was paired with the hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Franchise Act


Mr. MALCOLM:: I was paired with the
hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Port Arthur-Thunder Bay (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RALSTON:: I was paired with the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. FACTOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Kent (Mr. Arsenault). Had I voted, I wouild have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
Mr. MoINTOSH:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South -Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment of my hon. friend, the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie).


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saint Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DESROCHERS (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saint-Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McDade). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Had I voted, I would have voted for 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. SPEAKER:: The question is on the
main motion. Shall the motion carry?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On
division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read -the third time.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 109, to amend tihe Dominion Franchise Act.
He said:	The amendment made by the
Senate will be found in the votes and proceedings of this day. For the word "except" they substitute the word "unless," so that in the seventeenth line it will now read, "unless evidence satisfactory to the judge has been adduced."
James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the Secretary
of State give us an idea of the legal difference?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall the motion carry?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



MORTGAGE CREDITS FOR FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 120, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long term mortgage credit for fishermen.
Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: A few days ago the Minister of
National Defence, who also happens to be acting Minister of Fisheries, placed on the order paper a resolution upon which this bill, No. 120, is founded. After reading the resolution not only once, but several times,
4024	COMMONS
Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
and after consulting with several hon. members regarding it, I came to the conclusion that it was not very clear. It reads:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure for the purpose of establishing a system of long term mortgage credit for fishermen, under the administration of the Canadian farm loan board, and to authorize the government of Canada to provide initial capital in an amount not exceeding three hundred thousand dollars,

If the resolution had stopped there and if the amount instead of being $300,000 had been very much larger, it would have been fairly satisfactory; but it goes on to say:
-and to subscribe an amount of five per cent of the capital stock as loans are made-
Whether the capital stock is to be $300,000 or a larger amount, the resolution is not very clear, but if the government is going to subscribe five per cent on only $300,000, that will mean that all it will subscribe will be the small sum of $15,000.
The Minister of National Defence is not satisfied to stop there. The resolution continues:
-to purchase fishermen's long term loan bonds in an amount not exceeding five hundred thousand dollars; and to guarantee the principal and interest of such bonds to an amount not exceeding one million dollars.
In other words, the government or the Canadian farm loan board can purchase $500,000 worth of fishermen's long term loan bonds, and whether out of this 8500,000 or another million dollars, the government can also guarantee the interest and principal of such bonds to be an amount not exceeding 81,000.000. If we take this resolution at its very best; if we give it the greatest amount of longitude and latitude, the most that we can make out of it is that the government is arranging through no less an organization than the Canadian farm loan board for loans to fishermen. It seems to me that some other method or means should have been adopted than to give to the Canadian farm loan board the matter of dealing with this very important question. The farmer should hoe his own row and the fisherman should plough the billowy main. Instead of this, Bill No. 120 coming under the farm loan board should as a courtesy at least to the great fishing industry of this country come under a special commission or board or be dealt with by the fishery organization in the government even if that organization is not as complete as it might be.
Bill No. 120 is based on this resolution and carries out some of the matters referred to in it. As I said a moment ago, under this bill
[Mr. Duff.)
this matter is to be dealt with by the Canadian farm loan board under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. If hon. members will look at this bill and compare it with the Canadian Farm Loan Act, they will find that this bill is copied almost word for word from the Farm Loan Act. The only practical difference I can see, with a few exceptions, is that the word "fisherman" is substituted for the word "farmer" in a few cases.
What are the provisions of this bill? I am going to refer first to the amount involved or the amount which may be loaned under this measure to the fishermen of this country. Before I proceed with that, may I be permitted to say that in my opinion the fishing industry has at the present time greater possibilities than any other natural industry in this country. It is an industry which with a little encouragement with regard to administration, loaning of moneys, or obtaining markets has tremendous potentialities. This house voted $90,000,000 toward the farm loan board and loans to farmers, to which I am not objecting; the other day it was estimated that it would cost $10,000,000 for a housing scheme; last year we voted $40,000,000 for public works, a special amount in addition to the regular estimates, both main and supplementary and this year we have voted another $30,000,000 for public works, so that in two years we have voted about $80,000,000 for that purpose; yet the Minister of National Defence introduces this resolution and bill whereby the great fishing industry- and although I am giving the legislation the widest interpretation, I cannot make the amount larger-is entitled to the paltry sum of $1,800,000. That is almost an insult to the great fishing industry of this country.
Last year there were some 65.506 fishermen engaged in this industry, this number being distributed as to provinces as follows:
Number
Province:	of fishermen
British Columbia	 11,066
Quebec	 13,627
New Brunswick	 12,289
Nova Scotia	 17,133
Prince Edward Island	 3,194
Manitoba	  2,822
Saskatchewan	 614
Alberta	 743
Ontario	 3,984
Yukon	 34
It is true that in the last two or three years, due to certain conditions which I need not elaborate at this particular moment, the fishing industry has fallen off much more than it should. But I remember in 1930 the Prime Minister spoke in Halifax, and I want to

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
refer to the statement he made then because of the small amount which this resolution and bill calls for. In his address in that city he promised that "he would throw the whole financial power of the state behind the fishing industry." Now, after five years, in the dying days of this parliament and after parliament has been sitting almost six months this year, the government has come down with this bill. I might refer to it as a six-month's conception bill, whereby they are only going to arrange for the fishermen to borrow $1,800,000.
The Prime Minister also said he would throw the whole financial power of the state behind the fishing industry. He said:
I must not lightly make statements that I am not prepared to the last syllable to carry into effect.
Well, how is he carrying into effect the statement he made in Halifax that he would throw the whole financial power of the country behind this great industry? Here is what has happened in the last five years: Value of Fisheries of Canada
1929		 $53,518,000
1930		 47,804,000
1931		 30,517,000
1932		 25,957,000
1933		 27,558,000
So, in spite of the promises that the Prime Minister made to the fishermen of this country, whether on the Atlantic, the great lakes or the Pacific, the falling off in value of fisheries in those five years is almost fifty per cent. Therefore I say the Prime Minister has not carried out his promise. But to-day, when this parliament is almost over and the government realize that they must go to the country and face the electors in a few weeks, the Minister of National Defence comes down with this sop legislation in an endeavour, I presume, to get the votes of the fishermen. But let me say to him and to this government that the fishermen of this country are not going to be fooled by this legislation.
I cannot deal with all the sections, it would take too long, so I am only going to deal with one. Clause 6 says:
Loans made under the authority of this act shall be subject to the following conditions:- (a) loans shall be made only on the security of first mortgages on fisherman's lands-
I call attention to that.
-not exceeding fifty per cent of the actual value of such lands and the buildings thereon as appraised by the board.
Now that certainly is a great handout to the fisherman of Canada. He is going to be
compelled to give security on his land, if he has any. Then we go further:
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 one thousand dollars.
Is not that wonderful legislation for our fishermen? Is not the government generous? They are going to give the fisherman not more than one thousand dollars to build a vessel, a boat or buy gear or do something else in connection with his business, but, they say, before we give you that thousand dollars you must mortgage any land you have, and if you have not any land you cannot get the thousand dollars to help you prosecute this industry, to start you young men who are coming along, aged nineteen, twenty, twenty-five. You must go out first and get a house and land. The result will be that this bill is absolutely worthless. I say to the Minister of National Defence that this bill as far as the fishing industry is concerned is a sham, a mockery, it is useless, because I am very doubtful if ten per cent of the fishermen, the sixty-six thousand men in that industry, in their present condition, would mortgage their real estate if it were possible so to do. And there are thousands of men in the fishing business who have no real estate. We know that the fishing game is a young man's game. It is true the old men have to go fishing with their sons and the young fooya, nevertheless if we are ever going to put this industry on a proper plane it must be carried on by young men. Young men have no real estate,, own no land, but the Minister of National Defence comes along and says: We will lend you one thousand dollars if you will give us two thousand dollars security on your real estate. Let us assume for a moment that they have real estate, what is going to happen? Take the deep sea fMiing industry. For many years we have had in Nova Scotia a cooperative scheme. These fishing vessels and boats are built under such a scheme. There are sixty-four shares in one of these vessels. The vessels are about 150 tons gross and when built and ready for fishing carry some twenty men. To-day a vessel of this description with auxiliary power will cost about $32,000. In the piast the scheme has been that some young man who wants to get on in life goes around among his friends and neighbours and asks for subscriptions for one or more shares in the vessel'. Suppose that under this scheme thirty-two men decide to build a fishing schooner costing $32,000. Assume that they

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
all have real estate; the Canadian farm loan board would take thirty-two mortgages on thirty-two pieces of land, thirty-two real estate properties, in order to help build a $32,000 vessel. The thing is ridiculous. I say that under this act the government will never spend any money, because nobody will be able to take advantage of it. And the same thing applies to smaller vessels. If men want to build, boats or get gear to carry on the industry they will be unable to take advantage of this act for two reasons; because a lot of the younger men have no real estate, and those who have, if it is clear of mortgage, need to keep it clear in order to maintain their credit, to carry on their business and to look after their families.
There is only one way to handle this matter. Even if it were a good bill nothing could be done under it in the next two or three months. If the government had been sincere in this legislation they should have introduced it last January or February, when parliament opened, for everyone knows thalt the fishing season starts at that time. Whether in Nova Scotia or British Columbia or on the great lakes, getting new boats built, repairing nets or traps or gear, is done during the winter season so that they are ready when the ice goes out on the great lakes or the season starts in the maritimes or British Columbia. So this legislation even if it were good would be absolutely useless as far as 1935 is concerned. I say that the proper thing to do is to withdraw this bill. It is not in the best interests of the fisheries, it is legislation under which not one dollar can be borrowed as far as this year is concerned. Instead of legislation copied almost word for wrord from the Canadian Farm Loan Act, when the election is over and a- new government is elected and a new Department of Fisheries is constituted that department should settle down and consult with practical men and find out what is in the best interests of the fisheries. I should like to know who suggested legislation such as this. I have no hesitation in saying that my friend the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short)) was not consulted, because he is a practical man, he knows what should be done in the interests of the fisheries, and we all regret that he is not going to run in this election. He has given the best years of his life to the fishing industry and for a number of years has sat in this parliament and given it the benefit of his counsel as far as fishing is concerned. We all hope he will be translated to a higher sphere and that the public will not lose the benefit of his services.

We hear a great deal of talk these days about guarantees or bonuses on wheat and other things; we hear whisperings about setting a minimum price on wheat. If this government is sincere in its desire to help the fishermen I should like to ask the minister why this bill does not contain a clause giving a bonus to fishermen or setting a minimum price for fish. Let me tell my hon. friend that in France to-day the fishermen receive from the federal government forty francs per quintal, or the equivalent of $3 in Canadian funds, in order to help the fishermen and increase the number of those who go down to the sea in ships. That is what the French government has done, but all the acting Minister of Fisheries gives us is a bill copied from the farm loan bill, substituting the word "fishermen" for the word "farmer."
It may be said that we have not taken advantage of our opportunities in this house to bring forward suggestions. Let me say that four months ago in the select standing committee on marine and fisheries I gave notice of the following resolution:
Whereas the fisheries of Canada are in a very unsatisfactory	condition	due	to	the
depression and other causes;
And whereas for	a number	of years	thefishermen of Canada have not	been	able	to
make sufficient money from their avocation to properly look after their families and keep their boats and fishing gear in a satisfactory condition;
And whereas the fishing industry is capable of great development if some encouragement is given this primary industry of Canada;
Therefore be it resolved that this select standing committee	on marine	and'	fisheries
memorialize the government and House of Commons of Canada to bring down and enact legislation whereby a sum up to and not exceeding ten million dollars will be loaned to the said fishermen and fishing industry, under proper regulations, for the purpose of providing money to build boats and vessels, purchase gear, et cetera, erect bait and cold storage plants, provide a bounty to ship builders to build fishing vessels, and a bounty or bonus of so much per one hundred pounds on fish caught by the fishermen as well as for any and all other purposes which may be deemed in the interests of this great industry.
I hope hon. members will not think me boastful or egotistical if I say that in a small and modest way during the time I have been in this parliament I have endeavoured to advocate certain things in the interests of this great industry. I may be asked why, after giving notice of this resolution, I did not ask the select standing committee to consider it. There were several reasons. One was that shortly after I gave the notice we had the long adjournment of five weeks. Then, after giving the matter further consideration, I felt

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
that if I brought up this resolution in committee and had it discussed there, being a member of the opposition, perhaps the government, from their own political standpoint, might not want me to get any credit for it. So, being a fairly good politician, I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and I considered that by filing the notice with the committee I had done enough to bring the matter to the attention of the government. And in all modesty, sir, I suggest that the bill now before us insufficient as it is, has been brought in at the last moment because of the action I took suggesting that $10,000.000 be voted by this parliament for the fishermen.
I say $10,000,000 is a small amount to spend in order to help the fishing industry of this country. As I have said, there are 65,000 fishermen in Canada. Under this legislation, making the very best of it, all we can hope for is that the government, through the farm loan board and other people, will arrange to loan the fishermen $1,800,000. That is only $1,000 each for 1,800 fishermen. It may be argued that not more than 1,800 fishermen could or would take advantage of this act even if it were not drafted as it is. I have some knowledge of the matter, and I am sorry to say that the fishing industry is in such a state, due to the depression, to the falling off of markets and to the prices received for fish in the last few years, that these fishermen are in dire need of assistance from this government or some other source. Therefore I say that even if this legislation was of such a type that the fishermen could take advantage of it, $1,800,000 is not nearly enough to be of any benefit to this great industry which is scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should withdraw this legislation; he should not proceed with it because, as I said a moment ago, it will be of no value because the amount is too small and because the fishermen will not be able to take advantage of it due to the clause which provides that they must give first mortgages on their land. Let me say to the minister that if he is determined to go on with this legislation, section 6 should be removed. The only right way to loan money to fishermen is on the goods or chattels which they buy with the money loaned to them. Let the government take chattel mortgages if they loan fishermen $1,000 or $5,000.


Finlay MacDonald: And have them carry insurance.


William Duff: I am coming to that. First I say $1,000 is a ridiculously small amount. How many schooners of one hundred tons can be built for that sum? How many schooners of even twenty tons can be built for $1,000? There should be no specific amount stated in this bill. Whether the amount loaned is $5,000, $10,000 or $20,000, my suggestion is that the government should insert a clause providing that they will loan up to seventy-five per cent of the value of the boat and gear, take a chattel mortgage or bill of sale, register the security and then take out marine insurance up to the amount advanced. That is the only sensible and sane way to do it.


Mr. ERNST:: Would the hon. member permit one question for the sake of information? Where would he draw the line that is, what about the small boats which cannot be insured?


William Duff: I am afraid my hon. friend
is mistaken; small boats can be insured. Every boat can be insured; under an amendment passed several years ago-perhaps my hon. friend does not know this-you cam register a boat from one ton up. I remember we changed it from five tons to one ton. Even if they were not registered I say there would be no difficulty in having the boats insured, not only in regard to marine insurance but also in regard to fire and accident insurance. I say to the minister that this is the only sensible way to proceed if he is sincere in his desire to help the fishermen of this country. I hope he will give me credit for being serious in this matter and for desiring to help the fishermen just as much as he does, because together with other hon. members I have advocated this for the last number of years and have been vitally interested in the industry for 40 years in a business capacity. I say the only way to help the fishermen is to drop clause 6, draft a business like clause and not put such a low limit on the amount that may be borrowed. Loan the fisherman 75 per cent of the value of his boats, his gear or other equipment and take a chattel mortgage to ensure repayment. That is the only sensible way to do it because as this bill now is it will prove absolutely useless as not ten per cent of the fishermen could give lands and real estate as securities. As I said before, it would be absolutely ridiculous to have ten, fifteen or twenty people give mortgages on ten, fifteen or twenty different pieces of land in order to secure a loan to build a boat.
This bill has been introduced at this late date when no benefits can be provided for the fishermen. The construction of new boats
402S


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to consider this bill more particularly from the angle of its effect upon the fishing industry of the province from which I come. I cannot go as far as the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Duff) in his wholesale condemnation of the bill. I shall vote for the second reading but I am impelled to do so more by a consideration of .the name of the bill and what I hope it implies than by anything in the bill itself. The bill is called the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act. It may be asserted that that title enacts the principle of assistance to fishermen but I am afraid that that is not so. It only makes an assertion, it only affirms a principle and the details of the bill fall short of carrying out the hopes which might be raised by a consideration of the title.
Despite the fact that I intend to vote for the second reading I should like to point out certain features which seem to weaken the usefulness of the bill in the hope that the minister will take them into consideration. The acting minister comes from the same province as I do and we in British Columbia have high hopes of the interest which he will take in fishing matters. This is the first time that an hon. member from the Pacific coast has occupied that position. The first point to which I would direct attention is the definition of a fisherman. The bill states:
"Fisherman" means a person whose principal occupation consists in fishing;
That is all right 'but the definition of fishing is as follows:
"Fishing" means the taking and processing of fish of ali kinds for commercial purposes.

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
If the taking and processing of fish is to be considered as one occupation, it may apply to the man on the Atlantic coast who catches the fish and salts, cures or dries them but it would eliminate a large body of the salmon fishermen in British Columbia who take no part in the processing of the fish. They merely catch the fish, they merely take them out of the water to sell.


William Gordon Ernst: Is the member making the
point that persons borrowing must both take and process?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; my point is that taking and processing are combined together, so a man to qualify would need to be employed in both. If that is the meaning it will cut out our people in British Columbia. If the word "and" is to be translated "or" that is equally undesirable because it will then-


Mr. STIRLING:: And/or is meant.


Alan Webster Neill: Even then "or" would not
do because if the processing of fish qualifies a man to borrow that would let in a cannery owner and the casual labourer working in a reduction plant. It should be confined to the man who gets the fish out of the water. That would be sufficient. You do not need to say anything about processing, but if in addition he does process it, that is so much to the good. The man in Nova Scotia will not be cut out if he processes, but you do not want to leave out the British Columbia man because he does not process.
Paragraph (f) of section 2 defines "fisherman's land." I admit that this is copied out of the farm loan act. The definition here is:
"Fisherman's land" means land under occupation or owned by a fisherman.
For the love of Mike if a man goes and squats on a piece of land or rents it, can he go and mortgage that property? That is too absurd to need pressing home. It should be limited to lands owned by fishermen, but instead of that it says lands owned or occupied by a fisherman. A fisherman may rent land or may squat on government property. He may get permission from the owner to put up a shack on the foreshore, and the owner might come along two or three years later and find that the land had been mortgaged during that period. That needs re-defining. Under section 3 the board may lend on the security of a first mortgage on fisherman's lands as defined in the interpretation clause, so the definition will need to be changed.
Dealing with section 3 the board can only loan money on first mortgages on fisherman's land alone. As the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough has said, that is wholly undesirable. It takes away a great deal of the proposed usefulness of the act. I have here a wire which has just been received by the member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) from the Canadian Halibut Fishing Vessel Owners' Association. It reads:
Through the press we learn that a fisherman to participate in the proposed loan must own property. If so this would bar ninety per cent of our fishermen here. We think his boat and gear should be security. Please endeavour to have bill changed accordingly.
There is no question that that is so. If you are going to confine it to the little piece of land which the fisherman owns, large numbers of them do not own any, at least in my district, where they live in rented houses, or in a boat on the shorefront, then in the language of this telegram, which was quite unsolicited, a substantial proportion, although I hardly think it would be as bad as 90 per cent, would be eliminated from the bill altogether. The loans should certainly be made on the gear as well. I know that chattel mortgages are not very desirable, but there is a clause in the act which says that the board can loan only 50 per cent of the value, and the period should be shorter than in the farm loan act, where it is twenty-five years, because a fisherman's gear and even the boats and engines wear out much quicker than that. Unless you are going to let the gear form at least a substantial portion of the security you might as well forget the act altogether. That is one of the very worst things in it.
Then we find under section 6 that the loan they can get is limited to $1,000. That is not enough; it is not half enough; it is not 20 per cent enough. Some small trawling boats will cost $1,200 to $1,500 but when you get up to a seine boat it costs $25,000, and that is more than the value of many an ordinary farm. Yet a farmer can get a loan of $5,000 and up to 66 per cent of the value of his land, while these fishermen can get a loan of only $1,000, and not more than 50 per cent of the value of their land only, while the farmer can have a land and chattel mortgage as well.


William Gordon Ernst: May I ask if the seine boats are as a rule owned by single individuals?


Alan Webster Neill: To quite a considerable
extent and to an increasing extent. Originally they were owned entirely by the cannery companies.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not think the hon.
member got the purport o-f my question. Are they owned by one person or are they owned through a number of shares?

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen


Alan Webster Neill: Both ways. Sometimes it is
a company, sometimes a small partnership, and very often it is one man. They are generally operated by a partnership on shares, but some are owned by one or two individuals.
I was saying that a loan of $1,000 is not enough. What is the use of offering a man $1,000 to equip a seine boat that is worth $25,000, and if as I said before, you are going to expect him to offer real estate as security the whole act is useless to him. I am dealing very shortly with these things because I do not want to detain the house.
Under paragraph (c) of section 6 it is provided:
Loans under this act shall be made only to fishermen actually engaged in or shortly to become engaged in fishing.
I may not get the support of my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough in this, but I am very strongly of the opinion that this should be limited to actual fishermen, to men who have been actively engaged in fishing within the last two years. We do not want to start a whole lot of amateur fishermen. There are men who think it is a fine thing to go fishing, that it is a fine, easy, life, just as there are people in the cities and towns who think that raising chickens or ducks, or something of that kind, is an easy life, and they find out very bitterly to their loss later on that it is not. We do not want to encourage that class of people to go into fishing. There are men who like to go fishing in the summer when the weather is good, but we do not want to encourage any more people to engage in fishing for a living. There are too many already. The complaint of the fishermen is in many places that there are too many fishermen for the catch allowed, so much so that the government, recognizing it, sometimes cuts down fishing to four or three days a week because there are too many fishermen. The fishermen are of the same opinion. They complain that they did not make a living out of the last season, and the fisheries officials come forward with ridiculous figures showing that the catch five years ago was so much and that in a later period it was so much more, and therefore they say that the fishermen must be doing very well. But the explanation is that a larger number of men are now fishing. I say that we do not want to increase the number of fishermen. We want to take care of the men who are there now. If a man by accident, wreck, or fire loses his gear, and that often happens, if he is a practical fisherman and fishing is the only thing he knows, he should be encouraged to get a loan so that he can buy 
the gear to go on with his business. The young fellow just starting up follows in his father's footsteps and inherits his gear in all probability, so he probably does not very much need a loan for a new start such as is indicated in the bill. I do think it would be a good thing to have this limited to practical fishermen only.
There is this other point. Section 16 says that the board shall have power to provide for:
(b) the charges to be made against borrowers for the expenses of appraisal, determination of title and recording.
Under the farm loan act there is a flat charge of $10 whether the man gets his loan or not. That is too much, especially when the loan is restricted as it as in this case to $1,000 for the fisherman as against $5,000 for the farmer. It should at the most be $5, especially in cases where the applicant gets no loan. It is quite a considerable tax to pay $10 on a small loan. That is the interest at 5 per cent on a loan of $100 for two years, and where the fisherman is refused the loan it is a hardship for a struggling man to have to pay $10 in order to be told that he cannot get a loan.
There is one other point. This act will lose much of its usefulness if it is not made open, so to speak, to any association of fishermen. I have in mind a cooperative company of fishermen organized on the very best progressive lines, and it has been most successful even in these hard times. These fishermen started with practically nothing but their own boats and they have built up on the west coast a trolling industry in a cooperative way which is a standing credit to them. They have a large number of their own boats and run their own stores, but they have not been able to get to the point where they can buy their own packers, which would very much facilitate their operations. They need some place to go to where they can borrow, on the security of the packer, fifty per cent of the cost. That cannot be done under this act because it must be done by the individual, and the individual can borrow only $1,000 anyhow and only on land. I do not suppose that all these men put together, between 150 and 250, have $5,000 worth of real estate, but they have ten times that amount in the shape of gear which they would be very glad to put up. I make that suggestion to the minister. If these corrections are made, then the act will fulfil the purpose designed in the title and will be a good act which one can gladly welcome. But if it is not to be amended in these ways then it is only a gesture. An expression which we

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
have so often heard in this house in the last few weeks is, "Well, anyhow, it is a step in the right direction, and we have established a principle." I am tired of being invited to vote for gestures and principles. A legislative enactment is not the place to look for principles and policies. You define those in the planks of your platform or in your speeches outside or in the house; but bills are supposed to enact into practical legislation the results of policy, and I am not a bit satisfied when I am told that though there is not much in a bill there is a principle. We do not want principle alone; we want action. Too much legislation has been passed in this house lately in connection with which we have had dangled before us this or that principle. We are told, "Anyhow, the principle is stated." Yes, the principle is stated but it is not carried out.
I do not want to hear general platitudes; I do not want to be told that such and such is desirable; I want to see it carried into practical effect. It cannot be denied, and I am not trying to deny it, that this bill is a step in the right direction. But we want to go further. Our fishermen in British Columbia are hardheaded and practical men who know the difference between a gold brick and something valuable. If the bill can be taken advantage of, all right; if not, what is the use of it? They will no doubt endorse any party that brings down something practical, and I beg the government, not so much to put teeth into the bill as to put some practicability into it, so that it can be taken advantage of by the various people interested. Otherwise I do not hold myself compelled to vote for it on the third reading. We have been challenged again and again with regard to some of these bills; a minister will say, "I challenge hon. members opposite to vote against- this bill." Well, I am prepared to accept that challenge and to go back and tell the people I represent just why I vote against any bill. I would go back and say, "I voted against it because I was fed up with gold bricks." I hope that this bill will be amended so as to make it of real benefit to the fishermen, and if it is no one will endorse it more heartily than I or the people I represent.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto); This bill will do a good deal, with the protective clauses in it, to put a withering industry on a better basis. I am glad to see the principle of this legislation also extended to the fishermen to the head, of the lakes, because after all most of the protection given to the fisheries has been largely for the maritimes and the coastal trade. But there is another feature of the industry, and that is the
trade on the great lakes. Unfortunately it has been overlooked for years in the legislation passed by the dominion parliament. This legislation is a necessity; an emergency exists, and this legislation is intended to meet that situation. The price spreads commission revealed, in connection with this industry, a state of affairs which was not creditable either to parliament or to the people of Canada, from the point of view of labour and the consumer.
An examination of the bill will show that it proposes the establishment of a board. The commission recommended a fishermen's board, and in the interpretation clause the principle of a board, namely the Canadian Farm Loan Act is adopted. The board is to be the Canadian Farm Loan Board, established by the Canadian Farm Loan Act in 1927. There is a long list of definitions which are interpreted. The main provision of the bill is section 3, giving the constitution and the powers of the board. The board will have power to issue and sell bonds to be known- as Canadian fisherman's loan bonds and to make long term loans to fishermen on the security of first mortgages on fishermen's lands. The board may also hold real estate which has been mortgaged or otherwise secured to it. It can invest its funds in -debentures, bonds, stocks or other securities; and as to the capital requirements, it is provided that the government may subscribe to an initial capital not exceeding $300,000. Section 5 deals with the limit of outstanding bonds, the rate of interest, time limit, redemption and so on, and in section 6 certain conditions for loans are laid down. Loans are to be made only on the security of first mortgages on lands not exceeding fifty per -cent of their actual value. As to *the use of the proceeds, they may be used1 to purchase boats or vessels, lines, hooks, trawls, nets, anchors, bait, traps and other equipment. Part of the loan may be used to discharge liabilities already accumulated, or for any other purpose which in the judgment of the board is deemed necessary for the operation of the industry as a commercial undertaking. In connection with repayment, the board has wide powers.
The interest is not to exceed eight per cent. It seems to me that is a very high rate of interest to-day, though I admit that so far as this industry is concerned, with the difficulty of getting loans, the overhead charges might be high. But eight per cent is a very high rate of interest.
Section 4 of the bill is the most vital provision ever enacted in this country. I commend the undertaking, speaking as a protec-

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
tionist of the protectionists, because we want protection for all the people all the time and not for some of the people some of the time. There is provision here that the board may loan money to the mortgagor or other person -to do what? If the fishermen shall fail or neglect to pay any lawful rates, taxes or assessments under the law of the province concerned, then the board may pay them.
I am glad to see that the fisherman is coming into his day. He has eaten the sour grapes of free trade long enough and his teeth are on edge. He wants protection, something away from free trade. He was led to believe by free .trade leaders in the maritime provinces and on the Pacific coast that the only hope and joy of this industry was in a system of free trade as proposed for many years in this house by Liberals, Liberal Progressives and Progressive Liberals. The time has come when there is an emergency in this industry so that the poor fisherman has, like the grain men, the coal, steel and iron men in the maritimes, to come to parliament for assistance. At last the fishermen are getting away from the principle of free trade to that of advanced protection.
I have dealt already with the principle of the bill. I am not objecting to advanced protection for agriculture, for the farmer, for the fisherman. A farm board has been set up for the protection of the farmer, the same board that is set up under this fisherman's loan act to do something for the fishing industry. Now in connection with fishing we have the same element of protection. I want to speak a word to-day about the cities on the great lakes and the people engaged in industry there in Ontario and Quebec. Forty-six per cent of our people are industrial workers, and the principle of this legislation should apply to them also. The time is not far distant in this country when we shall have to set up for the industrial workers a board similar to those set up under this fisherman's loan act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act so that the retail storekeeper, the individual worker, and those engaged in industries will have some means of protection. A retail grocer who fails and whose little shop is gone or an industrial worker who gets out of work or is only on part time should be dealt with in the same manner as the poor fisherman or farmer; he should be able to secure similar protection. There is no reason why forty-six per cent of the people who are engaged in industry should not have the same form of protection as is given under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the fisherman's loan act and so on. There should be created 
for these people a similar board to establish Jong term mortgage credits even up to twenty-five years for the small retail grocer or the small industrial worker who is out of work or may be on part time as many of them are. Sooner or later we shall have to extend this very wise and 'Commendable feature of this legislation. I would like bo see some kind of board set up for the industries to which I have referred and some credit established either through banks, insurance companies, loan companies, mortgage companies or through parliament or partly through one and partly the other, for the protection and relief of the small industrial worker and the small storekeeper on the same basis as these other acts I have mentioned. We should have protection not only for the fishermen and for the farmers but for everyone; we want a system of protection that will take care of all the people. Those small industrial people who have lost their all by foreclosure or unemployment or high taxes are in the same plight as are the fishermen and the farmers, and the principle of this bill should be extended to them.
Speaking for an industrial province, I say that the industrial workers of this country are no longer going to stand for handing out protection to some and not to others. Under the provisions of this bill we are paying through the new fisheries board, taxes, mortgages, lien notes, security to the bank, hypothecation of the plant and equipment of the fishermen. The same principle of protection should be extended either through parliament or the banks or a board similar to the farm loan board to the industrial workers so that they will have a fair show under protection as we have it to-day to hold and retain their properties and their equities and their small business ventures.
I commend the government for bringing down this legislation. It is too bad that there was not an inquiry by the price spreads commission into industry, along those lines for the industrial worker in the way I have indicated. I wrote one of the members of the price spreads commission, but the commission was too busy to take up the matter. Ontario and Quebec pay eighty-two per cent of the cash taxes of the dominion and forty-six per cent of Canada are industrial workers, but the latter have no protection at all along the lines of saving their business, their homes or properties by long term loans. When such a man in the city cannot pay his taxes, he cannot go to a board. The fisherman can; the agricultural worker can; the farmer can, but the poor industrial worker has nobody to go to. In the city from

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
which I come some of these men are paying forty per cent interest on second mortgages to shark loan companies incorporated by this parliament and the same thing is true of the high charges on chattel mortgages. In view of the case made for the fishermen before the price spreads commission, the day is soon coming in Canada when we shall have to set up a board for the industrial workers who have been driven to the wall, who are losing their property, who are being foreclosed on the first mortgage and then the second mortgage or foreclosed for nonpayment of taxes. I may say to the government that the principle underlying this bill will have to be extended to those who pay the taxes in the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and a board under the regulation of trade and commerce with wide federal powers established for their needs and protection. With protection as a principle for all instead of as a privilege for some, I commend this wise bill.


James Malcolm: I do not wish to engage the time of the house for more than a moment, but I should like to call to the attention of the minister that probably we have heard less of the fishing industry in Ontario in the great lakes district simply because the fishing industry in this province is under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) have suggested some amendments to the bill as it applies to the Atlantic and Pacific coast fisheries. If aid is to be given by the state to the fishermen on the great lakes, I should like to suggest to the minister that his bill does not really cover the present needs of the situation. Most of the fishermen on the great lakes do not own any great quantity of commercial land, they are in much the same position as that indicated by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Their shanties may be on government land or they may have leased property. In many cases their commercial buildings are on government docks, so that the value of commercial property which they could offer by way of security to the minister for an advance is negligible. Most of the commercial fishermen on the great lakes sell their fish fresh; their commodity is delivered to the market probably more rapidly than- is the fish of the maritime provinces or of the Pacific coast. The greatest need of the fishermen on the great lakes is when disaster overtakes them, when by an act of God several gangs of nets are lost in one of the storms which are so frequent on the great lakes.
I should like to point out to the minister that the fisherman who has some security can secure from the bank a loan to pay cash for his gear, and in that case he is really not in need of much governmental assistance. Those who are not so favourably situated could be greatly assisted by a government loan, but that loan would really be for the purchase of new gear, new gangs of nets, new engines for boats and repairs to existing vessels. I think the bill should be so worded in so far as the great lakes are concerned that the loans should be made on gear and equipment for the reason that while the fisherman may own residential property for his home, he does not as a rule own much commercial property.
The second point in connection with these loans is the matter of the amount. I think the limiting of the amount to SI,000 rather destroys the effectiveness of the legislation. One does not gather together very much gear for seine fishing for 81,000. Four or five gangs of nets cost much more than 81,000; it is not much of a hull to weather the storms of the great lakes that you can buy for that amount. I suggest to the minister that if he has good inspection, and loans be made only to the amount of fifty per cent on gear, he could well afford to increase the amount to some much higher figure.
Then I am against long term loans on fishing equipment. The rate of depreciation on it is probably more rapid than on any other sort of industrial equipment. Boats wear out very quickly, nets rot very, quickly. Practically all the gear used by fishermen has to be replaced every few years. If a loan is made to a fisherman I would suggest that it be for a short term or even repayable in instalments over the period in which he would normally redeem his securities were they given to a bank or loan company. I think I voice the opinion of all members who are familiar with the fishing industry in Georgian bay and lake Huron and lake Superior when I say that we could be of great assistance to those fishermen by providing cash advances to restore gear or to purchase new gear. But I do not think they want such loans for twenty-five years, or even five years. All they would ask would be loans repayable in instalments every three or six months out of their earnings from the gear purchased with the proceeds of the loan. Another point, raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, I think is deserving of consideration, namely, that it is not the course of wisdom to encourage too many young men to go into the fishing business. Those now fishing the great lakes I think are producing the quantity

Mortgage Credits for Fishermen
of fish that can reasonably be sold in the Canadian and American markets. To make long term loans for which the security might quickly disappear and for which the borrower would hold no great feeling of responsibility would only induce much severer competition with those already in the industry. So in framing the act, so far as the great lakes are concerned, I think loans should be restricted to restoring gear and equipment for those already engaged in the industry and helping those who have been in the industry recently but who have been forced out by economic circumstances or storms-I know of several cases-to reestablish themselves in the industry; and that loans on gear should be for short terms, within the time in which the security may be worn out and be of no value.
Those are the only observations I wish to make. I agree with the principle of assisting this great basic industry. I am not familiar with the situation on the Atlantic or the Pacific coast but I am familiar with it in Ontario on the great lakes, which produce many million dollars' worth of fresh fish.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: To the principle of the bill, that is, assistance to fishermen by providing them with credit loans, I do not think any hon. member would take exception. But there are sections in the bill with which I cannot agree. Much has been said by speakers preceding me as to long term loans, especially on land. I doubt if one per cent of the smaller fishermen, that is those having gill net boats, own their houses outright. When one considers that fishermen of that class are in the majority in British Columbia, one must conclude that this bill will not provide much assistance for them. In British Columbia there were 196 boats of ten tons and over with a valuation of $2,120,000, but when we come to the smaller boats, the gill net boats, there were 5,461 valued at over $3,000,000. Then there are numbers of men who still use sail or rowboats. I was a little surprised to learn the number using sail boats, not having enough money to put engines in them. There were still 2,393 using that type of small boat. So in all we have close to 8,000 small boat fishermen, and I say that out of that total perhaps not over one per cent own outright the houses they live in. By this bill the man who does own his home may be provided with a loan up to one thousand dollars spread over twenty-five years. During that time his engine or boat will have passed away, but still the mortgage will run on his home. I support the contention of the hon. member for Comox-
Alberni (Mr. Neill) that the benefits of the act should be confined to fishermen. Reading some sections of the bill one would think it is confined to those entirely occupied in fishing, that is those who go out on the river or sea and catch fish. Section 6 (b) says:
The proceeds of such loan shall be used* for the following purposes and no other:
(1)	To purchase boats or vessels, or shares or part interests in boats' or vessels for use in the fisheries.
(2)	To purchase equipment for such fishing boats or vessels including therein the purchase of gasoline, crude oil or other engines.
(3)	To purchase lines, hooks1, trawls, nets, anchors, bait, traps, and any other equipment or apparatus for use in fishing.
(4)	To discharge liabilities already accumulated.
I interpret that to mean that the loans will be made only to those solely engaged in fishing, that is to those who go down to the sea or river in ships. But if you turn to the interpretation section you find that:
"Fisherman" means a person whose principal occupation consists in fishing.
"Fishing" means the taking and processing of fish___
I take strong exception to making loans to firms for the processing of fish. This bill, I understand, is designed to help those who go down to the sea in ships, real fishermen. Certainly in my opinion clause (c) of section 2 is contrary to section 6.
Another point is that under the Canadian Farm Loan Act men have been appointed, by reason, I presume, not only of their business knowledge but their knowledge of farms as well. Under this bill, while it is true that the Minister of Fisheries will be in charge, the bill, after it passes the house, will be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian farm loan board. With all deference to the men who have been appointed I do not think they are fully competent to handle the affairs of the fishermen. I suppose the farm loan board will consider that they only have to value the land and that if a fisherman comes within the provisions of the act he will be granted a loan, but there is more to it than that. I would suggest to the minister that some official of the fisheries department should have some say in regard to these loans. I for one would deprecate it very much indeed if loans were made under this act in order to further the large interests or to enable men to combine and go into seine fishing. I know a loan is limited to $1,000, but in the matter of seines, twelve men or more could get together and obtain loans of $1,000 each, thereby entering into competition with the smaller fishermen.

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
I agree also with other hon. members who have stated that this bill comes a little late in the session. I do not see how the fishermen can take advantage of it this year, even if loans are expedited, because fishing is pretty well under way on the Pacific coast at present.
I am not going to take up much more of the time of the house at the moment; I shall withhold further remarks until we are in committee, but I believe many of us will have to differ with some of the provisions of the bill in its present form.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a
few words in connection with this bill, which purports to 'establish in Canada in system of long term mortgage credits for fishermen. With the principle of the bill I entirely agree but, as the .last speaker stated, this is very late in the session to bring down a measure of this kind. Knowing the plight of the fishermen, as the government have known it for a good many years, and in view of the resolution I introduced a few years ago in this connection, if the government had been sincere they should have brought before parliament legislation much more comprehensive and much easier of application than the present bill. The aim of the measure is good; it is designed to relieve and help the fishermen. With that I am quite in accord and I would not oppose the bill, but there are many features of the measure which I think will result in it not becoming operative this year. In the part of the country from which I come the fishermen are very poor; they are perhaps next to the poorest fishermen in the country, and I am afraid they will not be in a position to take advantage of this legislation, with their little plots of ground, their small properties, their small boats and the gear at their disposal.
There is another feature to which I should like to refer. The interest rate to be charged is not mentioned in this bill. I think in one paragraph it is stated that the interest rate will be that which it is found necessary to charge in accordance with the bonds issued by the board. I doubt very much if any man would undertake to make an agreement with the government or with a private individual without knowing in advance the rate of interest that would be charged.


William Gordon Ernst: That would be stated in the agreement.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Yes, but it is not very
encouraging. In another paragraph the bill states that in default of payment of interest or taxes the board has the right to make such 92582-256
payment and to impose interest of eight peT cent. I think that interest is too high. We are to give the government power to go into the loan shaving business, because a rate of eight per cent is not exacted even by the banks. So we are not giving the fishermen much more relief than they have already. I should like to refer also to section 11, which provides:
In the event of legislation being passed by the legislature of any province 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.
I doubt very much if the fishermen of the province from which I come will derive any benefit from this bill if that clause remains. Recently a move has been made by the provincial government of Quebec, which administers the fisheries of that province, by which the government advances money to the fishermen on the basis of the number of feet of keel in a vessel, in order to help the fishermen secure new vessels, and also in connection with new gear to be used in their work. If the provincial government provides for reimbursement by the fishermen in a way that does not commend itself to the board, this measure will not be operative in our province. In that case it will be sectional in its nature, and that might be one ground for opposing it.
When the bill is in committee I may have some further remarks to make, but I repeat that this is tardy legislation. If the government think they are going to place a feather in their cap and say they have done something for the fishermen I am afraid they are greatly mistaken. The public generally and especially the fishermen know that for the last four years I. as a member of this house, have advocated that the government should do something to improve the condition of the fishermen in the province of Quebec, on the Atlantic seaboard and particularly on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, but the government have done nothing. This is what might be called a deathbed repentance. This bill appears to give something but in reality it gives nothing; it offers something but it will not give anything, at least for some considerable time. So I think the fishermen will know what to do when the election comes along. They will vote for the people who have always advocated assistance to the fisheries; they will support those who have always given them assistance, as it has been given by the provincial government of Quebec.



Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen


Finlay MacDonald: Is it intended to submit this bill to the fisheries committee or to the committee of the whole?


Grote Stirling: To the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Thomas Reid: I am going to appeal to the minister again with regard to subsection (e) of section 2, which states:
(e) "Fishing" means the taking and processing of fish of all kinds for commercial purposes.
Section 6 sets out the purposes for which loans may be made; it provides that loans may be made only to fishermen, but here we have the word "processing." I should like the minister to make a statement in this regard.


William Gordon Ernst: If the suggestion of the hon. member were adopted quite a number of fishermen in eastern Canada would be excluded from the operations of the act. They not only catch or take the fish; they also process them. You could not say their major occupation was fishing unless you include processing.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I notice that the definition of "board" is as follows:
"Board" is, includes, and means the Canadian farm loan board, established by the Canadian Farm Loan Act, chapter sixty-six of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, and amendments thereto;
It has been stated that the Canadian farm loan board have many requisitions before them at the present time and there is also the matter of loans and arrangements to be made under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.	In view of the work before this board, will they be in position to deal with this legislation? Are we not placing another burden upon the shoulders of the board and will this board as it is at present constituted be in position to understand the problems facing the fishermen in various parts of the country? There might be different conditions facing the fishermen in that part of the country from which the minister who is piloting this bill comes; other conditions may face the fishermen in the district from which the hon. member from Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) comes, while other conditions are faced by the fishermen in Quebec. The members of this board may be fully conversant with 
questions concerning farms and lands but I doubt if they have full knowledge of fishing problems.


Grote Stirling: I do not think the hon. member has taken section 10 into account. That section provides for the appointment of a local loan advisory board and the chief executive officer of the province who would be appointed by the farm loan board would be assisted by the advisory board. In all probability the members of that board would have particular knowledge of fisheries. In connection with the work before the Canadian farm loan board, I believe the hon. member is confused between the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I am not aware that the Canadian farm loan board has so much work before it that it cannot take on the administration of this bill.


Thomas Reid: Clause (f) reads:
"Fisherman's land" means land under occupation or owned by a fisherman.
I should like an explanation of that definition.


Grote Stirling: I do not think that definition should be held to too rigidly. There may be instances where the fisherman occupies land owned by his wife or some other relative.


Thomas Reid: Could a loan be made on the land if it was in his wife's name?


Grote Stirling: Oh, yes, the loan would be made against the land. We must remember that the board which will administer this bill will use reasonable common sense such as we ourselves would use if we were to administer this legislation.


Pierre-François Casgrain: The minister referred to section 10 which deals with the local loan advisory boards. Section 10 reads:
The board' may appoint for any province or for any two or more provinces in which the board is authorized to make loans, a local loan advisory board of not more than three members. The chief executive officer appointed by the board for such province or provinces shall, ex officio, be a member of such local loan advisory board and the chairman thereof.
How are the members of these boards to be appointed? Who is going to recommend their appointment? Will they be political appointees? [DOT] We have a peculiar condition in Quebec where the Magdalen islands are under the jurisdiction of the Atlantic coast; the Gaspe coast is under the jurisdiction of the fisheries department at Quebec, and there is also the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. I should like to know if one official

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
will be appointed for the north shore and another for the Gaspe coast? Most of the fishing is done in these two districts where the conditions are somewhat similar although not exactly the same. What qualifications must this man have? Will there be one man for each district or will there be a man appointed in Quebec city or Montreal? Will this man be connected with a cooperative selling agency or will he be a man conversant with the real situation facing the fishermen?


Grote Stirling: Could we not wait until section 10 is reached?
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Interpretation.


Alan Webster Neill: I cannot agree with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) when he says that the leaving out of the words "and processing of" in clause (e) will mean that no one will be able to obtain a loan. That would just eliminate those whose sole occupation is the processing of fish. The way it is now a hardship is being placed upon the man in British Columbia who takes no part in the processing of the fish he catches. This should be limited to the taking of fish out of the water and then it would not hurt those who take out the fish and process them as well. This would eliminate the man working in a cannery or a reduction plant or the owner of such a plant. I do not suppose the government intends to include these, or if they do they should say so. I think the minister should give further consideration to this clause.


Grote Stirling: It seems to me that "and" is the correct way of expressing this. The hon. member who has just spoken does not want to include those who process the fish but I understand that in other parts of Canada that is desirable. When the hon. member was speaking on the second reading he referred to this matter and stated that it would include the canneries but it does not [DOT] seem likely that a large canning establishment would want to make use of the small sum of money which would be available.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister states that it is part of the government policy to lend money to people who process fish, I have no more to say. If it is the intention of the government to make loans to some casual labourer who works a few days shovelling coal or looking after the oil in a reduction plant, to some Indian woman or anyone else engaged in the processing of fish, we have not so understood it.
92582-256J


Thomas Reid: If you look at section 6 you will find that loans can be made only for certain specified purposes and those purposes do not include the processing of fish. Loans are made for the purpose of purchasing boats, equipment and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Powers of board.
Alan Webster Neill: I do not suppose there is any use moving an amendment when the minister says he is not going to accept it. The temper of the committee this afternoon was certainly in the direction of asking the minister if he would allow loans to be made also on the security of gear.


William Gordon Ernst: Clause 3 deals only with
bonds issued by the board.


Alan Webster Neill: It says that the board may:
(b) make long term loans to fishermen on the security of first mortgages on fisherman's lands.


William Gordon Ernst: That is correct.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept the hon. member's
apology. The minister has not so far as I know expressed the opinion of himself or of his department or of the government on the representations made this afternoon in the direction of including the security of gear as well as land. I would like to hear whether he has determined to exclude gear.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, when the government decided that it would be desirable to proceed along this line it was met with the difficulty which I presume has stood in the way of preceding governments in this matter: What should the security be? It has decided that it is prepared to go the distance of accepting as security land occupied or owned by the fishermen, but to introduce loans made on gear or on boats is to introduce loans made on something which may be destroyed and which in any event has a comparatively short life. The government therefore, after careful consideration, has decided in this measure to proceed so far as to offer loans to fishermen on the basis of their land.


Alan Webster Neill: That means that ninety per
cent of the would-be applicants will be cut out.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
403S
[Stage Direction]
Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
On section 6-Conditions for loans.
Alan Webster Neill: What about the representations that have been made this afternoon that the amount loaned should be more than $1,000 in view of the fact that farmers with no more security can get $5,000?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Are we clearly to
understand under clause 6 that there are really needy fishermen who need this assistance who are going to be excluded because they have no land to give as security for a mortgage? I may say to this committee that when I entered this house first in 1925 I was the first man from the province of Nova Scotia to advocate long term loans for fishermen. There was an act at that time which had been passed by a previous government extending long term loans to farmers, and I very strongly advocated then that loans be extended to fishermen both on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, and I think I was supported in that contention by some other members from the province of Nova Scotia. I did not visualize at that time that we would have before any parliament this bill as it is now before this house. I am of the honest opinion that this bill will not help at least eighty per -cent of the shore fishermen of my province, if section 6 be not amended.


Pierre-François Casgrain: Nor in Quebec.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The men who have capital and can carry on the fishing industry by themselves do not want to go into debt through long term loans or any other kind of loan. The man we want to help in Nova Scotda is the man who has practically nothing except the determination to follow a humble but honest calling. If section 6 is going to remain in this bill, then I say it is not very much of a bill. I am certainly in favour of the principle of extending long term loans to fishermen, and I am in favour of the principle of this bill, although it does not even say how long the loan is going to be for, but the bill should certainly be so framed that it will bring aid to those who need aid in the province of Nova Scotia and on the Pacific seaboard as well. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, I still maintain the position I took before in this house, that more than long term loans, we want to see that the Nova Scotia fisherman has the right to live and that his prices are not dictated by monopolist control such as we have in the province of Nova Scotia. If a resolution that I placed on the order paper had been supported by this house the shore fishermen of Nova Scotia

would have been much better off under it than they will be under this particular bill.
I may also say that we want to encourage as much as we can all those fishermen in Nova Scotia who join their cooperative unions. I wish to say frankly that our position in Nova Scotia is this: If the fishermen who to-day are suffering from economic thraldom are going to be relieved we must break monopoly and give the fishermen a chance to live and encourage their cooperative unions. To my mind section 6 nullifies the full effect of the bill. I am sorry to have to say that.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed -the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



EIGHT HOUR DAY


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate do not concur in the amendment made by the House of Commons to the ninth amendment made by the Senate to the Bill No. 21, an act to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day and forty-eight in the week, in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization of the League of Nations in accordance with the labour part of the Treaty of Versailles of the 28th June, 1919, for the following reasons:
That the Sen'ate sees no sufficient reason why with relation to the class of labour referred to in the said amendment, the bill may not go into effect at the time stipulated in the Senate amendment.
And further,-That the Senate direct the attention of the House of Commons to the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th amendments to the said bill to which amendments no reference is made in the message from that house.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed the Bill No. 62,

Supply-Legislation
an act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, with an1 amendment, which is as follows:-
1. Page 1, lines 9 and 10. For the words "at the date of the coming into force of this amending act," substitute the words "on the first day of July, 1935."

The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair. Auditor General's Office-[DOT]
Contingencies - further amount required, $35,000.
Mr. OA8GRAIN: Can the minister give an explanation?


Mr. RHODES:: The auditor general requires this sum for the additional work imposed upon the department in connection with the enlarged duty which has been necessitated in respect of relief expenditures.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Secretary of State-
Contingencies *- further amount required, $25,000.
Pierre-François Casgrain: What is the reason for this vote?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of this amount 820,000 is required in connection with the commission appointed under Mr. Justice Parker to inquire into the performing rights matter, and $5,000 is required for additional clerical assistance, chiefly in the patent and copyright offices, owing to an increased amount of work and also to the fact that there has been more illness among the employees during the present year, for whom we have had to substitute temporary employees. The additional sum for these offices will simply cover temporary work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation The Senate
Salaries and contingent expenses-further amount required, $6,000.
To provide an amount in lieu of residence for the Speaker of the Senate-further amount required, $1,000.
To provide for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the session of 1935 to members of the Senate for days lost through absence due to public business, by illness, or on account of death. Payment to be made as the treasury board may direct, $24,260-Total, $31,260.
Mr. POULIOT:: Before this item carries, may I say that, following the suggestion of the opposition the government has saved over
$108,000 by delaying appointments of senators. This is one of the very few instances in which the government has not been wrong, because it has followed the recommendation of the opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
House of Commons
Contingencies - further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
To provide an amount for the Speaker of the House of Commons in lieu of residence- further amount required, $1,000.
To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session-notwithstanding anything to the contrarj7 in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $18,000-Total, $29,000.
Ernest Lapointe: This item includes an amount for the Speaker of the House of Commons in lieu of residence-further amount required-$1,000. I have no objection to the item, but it gives to the Speaker the same allowance he had before, and my only objection is that the same thing is not done for the Deputy Speaker, who also had an allowance. If the Speaker is granted his former allowance in lieu of residence, I see no reason in the world why the Deputy Speaker should not have the same privilege.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This was an oversight due to the circumstance that the vote was prepared in precisely the same form in which it was received. When the oversight was brought to my attention I began to prepare an amendment; in fact, I was in the act of writing it when the hon. gentleman rose. I therefore move that the resolution be amended by adding, after the word "required," in the first line thereof, the words:
including an allowance of $500 for the Deputy Speaker in lieu of apartments-further amount required.


William Duff: Can the minister tell us how much was voted in the main estimates for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot say offhand, but this item merely restores to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker and to the Speaker of the Senate the amount of allowance which they have hitherto enjoyed in lieu of residence.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Sup-ply-Agriculture-Live Stock
[Stage Direction]
Library of Parliament-
Books for the general library, including binding-further amount required, $2,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: A suggestion has been made by members of the opposition that the library of parliament be made fireproof, and the same suggestion has been made with regard to the library of the supreme court. It met with the approval of the Minister of Justice, who was supposed to convey the message to the government. What has been decided in that respect? Did the Minister of Justice convey that message?


Mr. GUTIIRIE:: I will as soon as I get lime.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions-further amount required, $40,000.
Mr. MOTHER  WELL@: I would like under this item to have a word or two with the Minister of Agriculture regarding a certain live stock matter. I would appreciate it if the hon. gentleman would come a little nearer so that I could hear his answers because I have some things to say to him, of course in a kindly spirit. It is generally understood, commonly reported, and known around parliament hill as well as outside parliament hill that the purchase of a certain shipment of Percheron brood mares was facilitated by one minister of the government, and half of them were retained at Halifax by my good friend the Minister of Agriculture through his inspections! staff. First I would ask the minister whether he knows anything about this shipment of Percheron brood mares to Australia, and whether his officers detained half of them at Halifax because of their age and general unfitness to go forward. When my hon. friend answers that, I .shall proceed further. I am not under the illusion that my hon. friend is blameworthy in this matter, rather the opposite; I merely want to get the facts correctly from him.
Mr. "WEIR (Melfort): There was a shipment of pure -bred Percheron brood mares that went from this country to Australia. My understanding is that either the trade commissioner of Australia got into touch with the trade commissioner from Canada, or our trade commissioner in Australia got in touch with the head of his own department, with the information that there was a demand for Percheron pure bred mares in Australia. My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Commerce communicated with the Canadian Percheron Asociation, and between

them, although I do not know the details of the affair-it was not brought to my attention until the shipment was selected-a shipment was selected to -be sent to Australia. The department having been led to believe that this shipment in its entirety would not be a credit to the Percheron breed of Canada, two inspectors from the Department of Agriculture were sent to inspect the shipment at Halifax, and three of the animals were pronounced unfit in the estimation of those officials to be truly representative of the best type o-f Percheron brood mare in Canada to go to Australia.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I understand the minister knew nothing about this shipment until it arrived at Halifax. What would interest us all is to know why these animals went to Halifax on their way to Australia when some of them were purchased in Ontario and some in Alberta. It was giving them a long joy ride to their destination to go to Halifax-not that I have anything against our Atlantic ports or anything like that; but generally shippers take the shortest, most direct route; they are not fond of paying excess carriage.
My first assumption was that one minister in this case, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) the ex-minister now, facilitated in some way through the Percheron breeders' association or otherwise the purchase of six brood mares for Australia, and the Minister of Agriculture, learning of this apparently for the first time, had his inspectors examine them at Halifax and retained three of them as unfit to send to Australia as typical of the quality of the animals of our Percheron breeders' association, a conclusion which has proven to be correct. This is not the first time this kind of monkeying between two departments, one nosing into the other's business, has occurred during the last year and a half under the administration of the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, against whom I have nothing to say except that when a gentleman is preaching business ethics and the control of industry, he should first get himself under control. Here we have a record and it is not the first one; we all remember the story about the Yorkshire geldings the ex-minister was responsible for in a bulletin that went around the world, something that will be news in our libraries in hundreds of years from now when research readers will be wondering what kind of political geldings had control of our destinies in Canada at this time. We know about the

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
Richelieu Shipping Corporation. The ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce was nosing very prominently into that by bonusing those two worthless boats to the tune of $6,500 apiece. I am delighted to learn the government have seen at last their moral obligation in the matter by correcting the ex-minister's blunders and making it right to the farmers who had lost the proceeds of their cattle through the control of industry by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce trying to control the business of another department. That is business ethics personified. We have other instances to which I might refer, but that is sufficient for the moment. This is what I would like to ask the minister, because I want to get the information from him rather than give it myself: I have before me a return tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in reply to a number of questions I asked about this matter. Apparently I did not put them in quite proper form, thus giving whatever minister is responsible for this return an opportunity of getting by and not giving anything like the information the Minister of Agriculture has given to-night. Had my hon. friend anything to do with getting up this return to the questions I put on the order paper about a month ago, which return was tabled recently by the Secretary of State?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: I have not the
questions in front of me, but as the hon. member knows, if in the questions the information is to be received from a particular department and they concern more than one department, that information is sent by each department to the Secretary of State who compiles all the answers. Not having the questions in front of me, I cannot say whether any of them pertain to the Department of Agriculture, but so far as I recollect all that my department had to do with the matter was that the health of animals branch would necessarily have to inspect this stock before it was shipped and the other inspectors, as I stated before, passed their opinion upon the shipment.


William Richard Motherwell: The health of animals branch has nothing to do with the general type or conformation of an animal or anything of that nature; it has to do with the health and freedom from disease of the animal, so that their inspection as to type, conformation, and so on, would be quite worthless. I am sure the inspection carried out at Halifax would be by the regular inspectors of the live stock branch, the proper
ones under the circumstances. I think I have revealed the fact that the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce has been committing another great ministerial faux pas.


George Spotton: It sounds good, but what does it mean?


William Richard Motherwell: It is no wonder to me that he was excluded from cabinet circles when this kind of thing was going on. If it were the only instance, it might be overlooked, but I have mentioned two or three and I could mention more. These three critters did not get to Australia; they were a discredit to Canada, and I think I should incidentally give credit to the Minister of Agriculture for being alert enough to waylay them at Halifax before they got that joy ride round the world to reach Australia. May be the minister would tell us why the shipment went to Australia via Halifax. Was this some more of the skilful management of industry by the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce, or what was it?


Robert Weir: I am sorry, but I
cannot give any reason why the shipment went by Halifax, my department not having anything to do with it.


William Richard Motherwell: Then it will do no harm to tell the minister that it was reported that due to a lot of bungling in the purchase of these animals in Alberta or elsewhere, they missed the boat via Vancouver and to make the best of a bad job the mares were sent around the world the other way by Halifax.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does this item include
salaries for agricultural propagandists who have been laid off since 1930? Is it the intention of the government to reinstate them in their job?


Robert Weir: This vote is not
for that purpose.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret it. It is a great mistake on the part of the government to have laid off these men who have great knowledge of the agricultural problems and who were helping the farmers all the time. Numerous protests have been sent to the minister without any satisfactory reply; what was received was just an acknowledgment from his secretary. Petition after petition has been sent to him from the farmers of my riding asking to have these men reinstated.
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

The minister gives the farmers what they do not ask for; he gives them schemes, but they do not want schemes, they want help from these experts. One of the greatest blunders he has made since he has been head of the department was to lay off these able men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms - further amount required, $19,800.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to ask the minister whether consideration has been, given to the representations from boards of trade and farmers' institutes and public bodies throughout northern and central British Columbia, as well as from' myself, as to assistance to experimental farms and model farms in that locality.


Robert Weir: Full consideration
has been given to these representations. A great change has taken place in the agricultural situation in the district to which the hon. member refers, chiefly on account of changes in the industrial operations there. Mining was carried on for years in that locality and for a time was very profitable and large sums were paid in wages which were spent freely for products of the farms. Not only -that, railway operations which at one time were active were completed. The farmers there had the -advantage of a local market for their products. In addition, lumbering operations in the area have been to a certain extent suspended, and their benefit to the agricultural population has been lessened thereby. All this has made it difficult for the farmers -in the locality to market their products profitably. But there is one thing which they have done and for which they deserve great credit, in conjunction with the officials of the provincial department of agriculture as well as of the federal department; they have discovered that they can grow particularly fine timothy in the area, and as the freight is very little, it can be shipped long distances at small cost. A great deal of attention is being given to assisting the farmers in that connection. It is hoped that large illustration stations other than those already established will be set up as model farms. In connection with that the department have entered into a contract with the provincial government to use their property at Tranquille, which will also serve as a source of information to the ranchers in that part of central and northern British Columbia. I can assure the hon. member that every consideration has been given to those requests.

M,r. HANSON (Skeena): That means that there is no further assistance to be given to that part of the country this year, eithef in the main estimates or in ithe supple-m-entaries?


Robert Weir: The hon. member has -misunderstood me. We are giving assistance in the way I -have stated, and a survey is being made for the purpose of selecting illustration stations, which serve the purpose of model- farms the hon. member has suggested. It is not proposed to set up a large experimental farm in that locality at the present ti-me, but by using these large illustration stations it is believed that we can make available to -the farmers in that district information as to the most efficient way for them to produce what will be to their greatest advantage. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has brought this to my attention on. a number of occasions.


Vincent Dupuis: -Could the minister give, by provinces, the details as to experimental farms, the number of illustration farms and the amount required for the whole year for these purposes?


Robert Weir: I am sorry I ha-ve not that information -w-ith me. The greater part of it was given when the main estimates were under discussion. I shall- be glad, however, to supply the information to the hon. member.


Vincent Dupuis: I thought it had not been given. How many large experimental farm-s are there -in the province of Quebec?


Robert Weir: I cannot give the names of the farmers who have illustration farms. The larger experimental farms in Quebec are at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, at Cap Rouge, Farnham, L'Assomption, and Lennoxville. Those are all I can recollect, but I think that is all..


Vincent Dupuis: The minister cannot state the number of illustration farms in the province?


Robert Weir: No, I cannot, but I shall be glad to send the information to the hon. member.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Again I want to make an appeal under this item, as I did last year, for the experimental farm at Kapuskasing. Last year $500,000 was voted for the public works program, and only $1,200 was spent for new buildings at that farm. I do not think the minister has ever visited that farm- I suppose he has been too busy but if he

Supply-A griculture-F arms
had he would have seen for himself that the living quarters of the men working there ane a disgrace not only to the government but to that section of the country. The minister promised; me faithfully last year that out of the public works vote a certain amount would be given for that purpose, but only $1,200 was so spent. The working men at the Kapuskasing experimental farm are at present living in tar paper shacks built in 1914 to lodge the prisoners of war. Those shacks have not been renovated in any way. They are not fit for cattle to live in. I should be possible for the Department of Agriculture to spend at least a little money for that purpose. We have 'been very patient. The minister is well aware of the wonderful work being acomplished by that experimental farm, which is looking after the agricultural needs of northern Ontario and southwestern Quebec. It is giving service to nearly 200,000 people, and it covers an area of nearly eighty-five per cent of the province of Ontario.
The minister no doubt realizes that there is no grain bam in Kapuskasing. I am speaking from personal knowledge; I visit that farm every year. Last year five thousand bushels of oats were practically lost on account of rain; they had to thresh the grain as soon as it came out of the field for want of a grain barn in which to store it. The minister will realize that an expenditure of only $1,200 on the buildings on that farm was simply ridiculous. I am very much in earnest in this appeal. When I was sitting on the government side I made similar efforts to get more money and I am glad to say I did get some more. We are not jealous in our section; we are glad that the government found it possible in the past to bonus the wheat growers of the west to the extent of several million dollars. Under the new marketing act northern Ontario will derive no benefit whatsoever, and the same applies to other legislation such as the farm loan act; we do not receive any benefit whatsoever from it. For the last five years I have been asking the government to spend the money absolutely needed for the administration of that farm. Surely the minister is fully seized of the necessities of the case. Kapuskasing is a rallying point for the rural classes in our section; people come there from hundreds of miles about; in some cases they travel five hundred miles in order to get there and see what is going on. The Kapuskasing farm is doing wonderful work in pushing back the frontier of this country. There is a great demand for pedigreed stock, for seed grain, for literature and so on, and with the limited
funds that have been available this farm has been unable to comply with more than one-fifth of the requests that have been made each year.
There is another point to which I should like to direct the attention of the minister. Some of the men working on that farm have had their wages cut by twenty-nine per cent for the last five years. Three years ago ten per cent was taken from their wages; only five per cent was given back this year. In some cases an injustice is being done these workingmen; as I say, some of them are receiving twenty-nine per cent less than they were getting five years ago. The minister knows that the cost of living in northern Ontario is higher than it is in this part of the country. I am sure the minister will realize that I am sincere in regard to this matter, and I am appealing to him to see if he cannot find it possible, either under this item or under the public works program, to see that the workingmen at the Kapuskasing experimental farm are provided with decent living quarters.


Robert Weir: I regret that it has not been possible for me to visit the Kapuskasing farm; it is one of the few I have not visited. I fully appreciate that it is one of the most valuable farms in the entire system from the point of service, and I believe it has been very actively supported by the farmers of that community. If conditions are as the hon. member has stated-and I have no doubt that his statements are correct- provision will be made under the public works vote for better accommodation for the labourers and those engaged at the farm. I shall be glad to take into serious consideration and to submit to the officials of the department the recommendation of my hon. friend in this connection.


Olof Hanson: I should like a little information from the minister; I do not feel that he has given me the answer to which I am entitled. If he has not the information with him, perhaps at another time he will tell me how much money has been spent in that seven hundred miles between the Alberta boundary and Prince Rupert along the line of the Canadian National railway to assist the agricultural population by way of experimental plots; the places where that money has been spent; what was spent in 1934 and what it is intended to spend in 1935.


Robert Weir: I have not that information with me, but- I shall be glad to send it to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
Cold storage warehouses-further amount required, $150,000.
Edward James Young: I should like a little information in connection with this item.


Robert Weir: Grants are given under the 'Cold Storage Act to assist cooperative organizations, in particular, when they feel that it is to their advantage to erect cold storage plants in certain localities for the preservation of agricultural products. During the past two years we have included in the general estimates only the amounts for which commitments actually had been made. It was felt that it would be unsatisfactory to estimate what might be required in addition for further work because up to that time few applications had been received. Therefore the rest of the vote was held over as long as possible in order to have as many applications as possible received and inspections made of the properties concerned. In that connection we believe that $150,000 will cover all the approved applications to date and leave a small balance over for applications known to be in the course of preparations in different parts of the country. The basis of the grant is this: After the property has been inspected, after the location has been found suitable and after the values have been found to be correct, under the Cold Storage Act a grant may be made up to thirty per cent of the total value of the building and equipment. Of that grant fifteen per cent is given in the first year; seven per cent in the second year and then I think four per cent, two per cent, and two per cent.
_ Mr. YOUNG: Is any of this money available for grants to individual farmers or producers for cold storage purposes?


Robert Weir: No.


Edward James Young: Is there a policy of making grants to individuals?


Robert Weir: No. This is under the Cold Storage Act, a separate act that is administered by the dairy branch of the Department of Agriculture.


Vincent Dupuis: Has the associated cooperative of Quebec received a grant?


Robert Weir: I could not say.
I may tell the hon. gentleman, however, that the application must be received and passed upon before any work is done, and ''cry generous consideration is given by the department. Where we feel it is at all warranted we are anxious to give every possible assistance under this act.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the minister inform
me, whenever it is convenient for him to do so, what amount if any has been granted the associated cooperative of Quebec?


Robert Weir: Yes, I shall be very glad to do so.


Mr. TAYLOR:: I should like to ask the
minister if the application of the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association is being considered under this item.


Robert Weir: I believe that is
one of the applications that has been considered. If the application has been in for a length of time sufficient to enable the officials of the department to report on it, those making the application will have been advised. As I have said already, however, generous consideration is given all such applications, particularly those from fruit districts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingent expenses of the Canadian Pension Commission-further amount required, $10,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should like to ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health to explain this increase.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: It is felt by the
bhairman of the commission and myself that better service might be given the pensioners and those who desire pensions if occasionally they might be examined -by other doctors. Often after a doctor has examined an applicant three times he has a tendency to look at the man in the same way every time, and this is to obviate that possibility to a certain extent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will
these be private doctors outside the department? 1


Donald Matheson Sutherland: No, these are the
permanent men.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL DEFENCE Militia Services-
Engineer services and works-further amount required, $400,000.
Ernest Lapointe: I wish to direct the
attention of the committee to the huge share of these supplementary estimates devoted to military purposes. First we have this item of $400,000 for engineer services and works, further amount required; the next item is general stores, further amount required, $600,000. This is all in addition to what was voted in the main estimates, which was supposed to meet the requirements of the

Supply-National Defence
Department of National Defence. The next item is for non-permanent active militia, further amount required, $386,000; the next item is for permanent force, further amount required. $265,000. Those sums make a total of $1,651,000 for militia services. If you add to that the $145,000 for naval services and the $1,302,900 for aviation, you reach the enormous amount of $3,098,900 for militia, naval defence and aviation. If you add to that the other items which are voted to other departments, such as the $400,000 for a barracks in the good old city of Calgary which is so ably represented in this house, you reach the huge total of $4,500,000. That is almost one-third of the total amount to be voted in these supplementary estimates, a larger amount than that being voted for public works and much larger than the amounts provided for any other service of government. I desire to protest against this huge expenditure for military purposes, and I wish the minister would give the committee the reasons why such amounts are required at the present time.


Grote Stirling: In a general way these supplementary votes are necessary because of the dilapidation which has taken place during the past few years. For the last three or four years necessary economies have been affected and expenditures have been curtailed and we are endeavouring to restore the properties of the department, both physical and human, to the condition in which they were before. Under the engineering vote, $50,000 is required for the repair of buildings which have been allowed to deteriorate to a certain extent. If these buildings are not restored we shall have to spend a great deal more later on. The second item is $70,000 for construction work on the citadel in Quebec. I was interested in seeing the work which has been done in restoring the citadel. As the frost comes out each spring the masonry walls are in great danger of sliding down on to the streets of Quebec, and I am surprised that a major accident has not occurred already.


Ernest Lapointe: Is not that work on walls being carried on by the unemployed in the relief camp at the citadel?


Grote Stirling: A certain amount of work has been done in that way, but- if these walls are to be prevented from falling into the streets the work will have to be done more quickly in order to complete it before next winter. The largest item in this engineering vote is to provide for the purchase of land at Rockcliffe in order to carry out the arrangements which have been arrived at by the
federal district commission, the Department of Justice acting for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Department of National Defence. This scheme in connection with the Rockcliffe airport has taken some little time to consummate. The federal district commission has been most anxious to improve the entry into Ottawa from Montreal, and through the acquisition of certain pieces of land, through a give and take by all thfe parties mentioned, a suitable arrangement has been arrived at under which certain high land to the south of the Rockcliffe air field passes into the possession of the Department of National Defence. For some time this department has been desirious of removing certain high trees which were a menace at least to emergency landings, and they will now have control over any buildings which may be built on this land. The commission gets its new roadway as well as other pieces of land which in due course will probably foe sold, and the money derived from the sale of these lands by the district commission will be a first charge against this expenditure. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be able to round out a piece of property close to their barracks which hitherto they have had to borrow from the Department of National Defence. They will get an area very well suited to their purposes and the Department of National Defence will retain control over building to be erected so that the landing facilities of the Rockcliffe field will not be jeopardized.


Eugène Fiset: Do the three items referred to by the minister make up the total of $400,000?


Grote Stirling: That amount is made up by the $50,900 I mentioned for the repairs of buildings. I gave the figures roughly. There is $69,693 for the Quebec citadel. There is $12,500 being provided for the arsenal program, to which I shall refer later. This covers the removal of the dominion arsenal from Quebec to a point of greater safety at Val-cartier. The transfer of the survey section to a new building at Rockcliffe will cost $9,150. The completion of the married men's quarters in St. Johns, Quebec, will cost $24,100. There are small travelling and freight allowances amounting to $1,250. The purchase of property at Rockcliffe, to which I have alluded, will cost $150,000. There is $9,000 being provided for the extension of a sea wall at the Charlottetown rifle range. A concrete sea wall was erected to prevent erosion but it was not carried quite far enough along the western end and the sea has been encroaching behind the existing wall. It is desirable that the wall should be protected. The replacement of an
Supply-National Defence

extremely aged heating system in the drill hall at Charlottetown will cost $5,550. The general renovation of the gun emplacements at the Sandwich battery at Halifax will cost $8,000. Provision is being made for a vote of $45,000 for the rebuilding of the wooden part of the armoury at Fredericton. This is a permanent construction with the exception of one end which is wood, and it is no longer money well spent to continue to repair this portion. As these premises are badly needed it is intended to tear down the wooden structure and replace it with a permanent structure. The construction of a concrete retaining wall and the erection of a competitors' hut and other repairs at the Truro rifle range will cost $2,000. The paving of Cogswell street and North Park street in front of the military properties in Halifax will cost $3,000. Then, there is provision for installation of mechanical stokers at Toronto; construction of an addition to provide a miniature rifle range at Kingston armoury; installation of water supply and electric current at Cedar Springs.


Eugène Fiset: I am very sorry that the minister has not chosen to take into consideration the representations which I made on the main estimates when the ex-Minister of National Defence was in charge of the department, in regard to the extension of the armoury at Rimouski which was requested by the officer commanding the regiment and recommended by the officer commanding the district and the adjutant general. The ex-Minister of National Defence left me with the impression that this demand for an extension which is so urgently needed would perhaps receive recognition when the supplementary estimates were brought down. I am sorry that an item has not been included in the list of works mentioned, and I am sure the fact that it has not been included will cause bitter disappointment to the officers and non-commissioned officers of that regiment.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: This
afternoon I participated in a discussion respecting a certain province within this confederation, and in my humble opinion that legislation which we voted on this afternoon was introduced because of the economic depression. To-night I have before me certain telegrams received from one of the eastern provinces, one of the maritimes, the province of New Brunswick, and from these, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there has been a military and political defeat in that province. What I am particularly concerned about at this time, and I rather had it in my 
. mind this afternoon when the vote with respect to another province was being taken, is what might happen if we were confronted with a military emergency as well as an economic emergency. In an economic emergency one particular province has been excluded by the vote this afternoon from the operation of a federal act, and with that vote as a precedent, if we were confronted with a military emergency and conscription was applied in Canada, I wonder if the minister would vote to exclude one particular province from a federal act on conscription. I should like to ask on this vote if there is any intention to exclude the province of New Brunswick on account of the overwhelming defeat that has been inflicted upon the Conservative party in that province within the last few hours.


Grote Stirling: The answer is no.


Mr. McPHEE:: I would like to suggest in regard to this vote that I support the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser), because I have just returned from the province of New Brunswick to-day-


George Spotton: Oh, that is the reason!


George Washington McPhee: and the Minister of
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) is still down there. I was wondering if in the case of a war the Minister of Trade and Commerce could come back to Ottawa and the parliament of Canada.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How clever!


George Washington McPhee: The province of Ontario boasts of its quintuplets, the Dionnes; Saskatchewan followed suit with five quintuplets of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on June 19, 1934; the Prime Minister had quintuplet- radio addresses last January, and now New Brunswick, I see by telegrams I have in my hand, has followed with a set of quintuplets-five Tories. The premier of the province and all the members of his cabinet have gone down to defeat. I would say to my hon. friend who is piloting this item through the committee that the people of this country and their representatives on this side of the house might very well say to him and his colleagues as Cromwell said: Get ye gone ; give ye place to better men.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: A case of inflation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
join with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) in protesting against this very large increase in military expenditures. As he said, these three items alone constitute

Supply-National Defence
another $3,000,000. When we have asked that something more be done for the men who are now unemployed, we are told by the government that they have no money. There is trouble to-day, as we all know, in the city of Regina over the question of the trekkers. The trouble arose because of the unsatisfactory conditions in the camps in British Columbia. I think it is apparent to all that not only in British Columbia but everywhere else where the present system is in vogue there is a very great deal of dissatisfaction over the placing of these men in camps and giving them only twenty cents a day. A good deal of the work that is being done in the preparation of landing fields is being done by these men at twenty cents a day, which is all that is paid even for work requiring skilled labour. I do not intend to go into that matter again at this time because it has been gone into again and again, but I do urge that when we are told that we cannot make any more adequate provision for our unemployed because there is no money, that is an absolute sham when in these estimates we can vote $3,000,000 for military purposes.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: For works.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of it is for
works, but why not works that will serve the needs of the people? We are living to-day in a period when there is no immediate danger of our being dragged into a great war.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: How do you know?


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I said once before, if we were going to go into a world war the provision we have now would not take us very far in such a matter as that. The Department of National Defence says that they have no immediate program that contemplates our being dragged into a war in the international field. When the main estimates were under consideration the minister said that one of the reasons for such military expenditures was that we must maintain law and order in this country, and I fancy that that is one of the very real reasons why we are having such a huge additional expenditure on military forces in this country. If you want public works, build schools instead of arsenals; if you want public works, build homes instead of 'barracks. There is another way of providing public works than that which is being proposed to the committee here.
One cannot but feel that there is a very great discrepancy between the amounts that are being contributed to solve outstanding
unemployment problems to-day and these amounts which are being voted for military purposes. I say that any government that will come down with supplementary estimates for military purposes to the extent of $3,000,000 have no right whatever to say that they cannot afford to pay unemployed men more than twenty cents a day-none whatever. Further than that, if we were paying them more than twenty cents a day, if we were paying them the wages which they quite reasonably ask that they should be paid, we would not have the need of expending money on military forces within this country. We have within the last few days seen a considerable increase in the mounted police force, and I was told by someone to-day that several unemployed firemen around the city of Ottawa are now going around in mounted police uniforms. As this gentleman said, it is an ill wind that blows nobody good. While we are increasing our mounted police, while the soldiers are standing by, ready if necessary to meet contingencies in western Canada arising because of this trouble with the trekkers-3 do not want to be accused of encouraging disorder; I do not want to be accused of urging anyone to take action that will be opposed to law and order, but I do say-


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Pour on a little gasoline.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -that if there is disorder at the present time it is the result of policies which for years have been carried out with regard to these unemployed! men. The Minister of National Defence is, in a curious way, at the head) of the department that deals with these unemployed' men. That is the reason I have for taking the matter up at the present time; the two are closely related. If the present policy of giving men only twenty cents a day and putting them in camps is persisted1 in, the minister will also be expected to call out the forces if necessary.
Now I think that the Minister of National Defence has the reputation in this house of being fair; I have always so regarded' him. I regret that his throat is in Such bad condition, because I do not want to put him in the position of having to answer a number of questions; but, reading the report of the commission that studied the situation in British 'Columbia, I think the hon. gentleman was hardly fair when he made his statement regarding that report. The papers throughout the country heralded1 his words, but he gave a very small part of what the report contained. It seems to me that we
Supply-National Defence

should have had1 the whole report; for within even the narrow limits within which the commission worked there was found much that was very unsatisfactory indeed. And remember, these, projects are closely connected with the matters we are considering in this vote. Take the question of food supply. It was said that the food was fairly satisfactory, but the commission said they had to make an exception of milk and meat, surely two very important items in the food supply. They said that the meat was not up to specification and that this formed a just cause of complaint. That was the report of the commission. With regard to cleanliness, they said that on the whole the camps were not in- bad condition, and that, I believe, is true so far as Rockcliffe is concerned1, of which mention has been made to-night. They did say, however, that in Point Grey rats had become a menace more particularly in the bunkhouses. Let me read from the report:
As to Point Grey camp (200), the men properly complained as to the unsanitary condition of the latrines and cess pools; also want of cleanliness in the washhouse and showers. We found that these were disgraceful -crude, unsightly and dirty. The wash basins were worn and chipped, and should have been discarded. All these essentials should be renovated, if not completely replaced.
They pointed to some of these little irritating things. For instance, there is the matter of tobacco. I do not happen to be a tobacco user myself, so that I cannot appreciate the difficulties in this regard as much as some others in the house can. But the commission stated that the men had to wait until they had been in the camp a sufficient length of time to cover the cost of a package of tobacco, at 1-45 cents per day. You can understand how these little irritations would cause dissatisfaction among the men. But much more important than that is the finding of the commission that-
-camp life, generally speaking, is not the normal condition under which men desire to live.
And again that-
-many men who are forced hy circumstances to go to relief camps are utterly unfitted for either the type of life involved or the work expected to be done. Many have been trained in various trades or professions and find themselves utterly unsuited to the manner of life in the camps as to the tasks given them to do.
Then came the very difficult question of workmen's compensation, which is not provided for undter the provincial laws but which at best comes in the form of a gratuity from the federal government.


The CHAIRMAN:: Will the hon. member try to keep a little more closely to the item. At present he is a long way from i.t.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Pierre-François Casgrain: The Tories will.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That is politics.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, over there.
I am not worrying about that.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: He has
been helping you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not talking
politics to-night.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member is
capitalizing on this.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Supply-National Defence
be redressed- Bet they soon found that the communist groups, to use the common phrase, double crossed them. I had a letter from our secretary regarding the matter. This may be of interest to the committee as giving an idea of the situation:
The Canadian Commonwealth Federation has extended the utmost support. ^ morally and financially, to your committee. No attempt has been made to dictate or interfere with your policy and tactics. The desire, as frequently expressed, has been simply to help the strikers in every way possible, with all the resources at our disposal, and only in a manner satisfactory to the strikers.
The action taken in a meeting of the strikers indicates that the cooperation and support of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is unwelcome, and is therefore repudiated by the strikers. It has also been indicated that prominent leaders of the strikers are more interested in capitalizing the situation to the disadvantage of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation than to the advantage of the strikers and the winning of the' strike.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has given concrete evidence of support for the strikers and' their demands and is prepared to continue that support, if acceptable, but finds it impossible to proceed with plans now under consideration, in the face of repudiation by those whom this support has been tendered.
They were thus forced in British Columbia definitely to repudiate cooperation before the trek eastward started at all. I confess that those of us who are trying to represent labour find ourselves in a difficult situation. We have had a great deal of sympathy with the men in these camps.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Surely the hon. member is going too far altogether in making a speech on this.


Hugh Guthrie: Let him continue.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will not go much further along this line. This whole digression came because of an interjection by an hon. member opposite. I say that our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have tried to express sympathy with the men in the camps. We have raised this question again and again in the bouse. We did it on the national defence estimates. The difficulty is that as soon as we make any move along this line there are those, like one of the hon. gentlemen opposite, who accuse us of sympathizing with communist methods.
I want to return to the description of what these men in the national defence camps feel. This is from the diary from which I was quoting:
Here is a summary of the system under which these camps operate: We are not allowed to call meetings, but still they are called.

We talk revolution and all its attending evils (?) without being hindered. We go on strike whenever the mood strikes our fancy. Are evicted. Go to town and get relief until we are reinstated, then back to some other camp.
That is the way in which things have been going on for some time. Again:
But it is not only the conditions of these camps that make us get up and howl for something to be done about our state. It is really the fact that we are getting no place in the plan of life-we are truly a lost legion of youth-rotting away for want of being offered a sane outlet for our energies. Something to do and something for that doing.
Surely that is a legitimate ambition for every young Canadian-something to do and something in return for doing it. I would remind the committee that most of the men are young. The average age is about twenty-three, just boys. If it were not that I am getting my indemnity, I fancy one or two of my boys would be out in these camps because there is practically nothing for boys to do when they get out of school or university. This is the situation we find ourselves in. These camp boys are not hoodlums; they are not criminals; they are simply boys out of a job; and we are refusing in any large way to adopt any policy that will give them a job. We content ourselves with preparing, if they persist in their march eastward, to send out troops to shoot them down. That way of treating them is surely not worthy of the Canadian people. This man later on writes again:
The bank that we are working on is so hard that we couldn't do anything to it even if we wished. Machines have been made so man could do things on a large scale, and here we are playing around with picks and shovels. Here we are, the youth of a young nation- we either stay here or else are forced to bum around the country begging or stealing.
A great and lasting force has risen from this oppression-the	seed is planted-the
germination has been more successful even than hoped for. The authorities are beginning to worry over the fact that the youth of the land are leaning to communism. What did the fools think we would do? Take it lying down?
And again on April 3:
The day is nearing! This grand and glorious walkout will tell when all the boys land in the city of Vancouver. We have learned that we can't get anywhere by simply striking and holding the strike within the bounds of the camps. We must wake the public to action- show them proof of our pitiable state. Hundreds will darken the tops of the box cars as they wheel towards the big city. "On to Vancouver" is the slogan. Will Vancouver turn us down? Many are the men who have
been sent from the	area to the big
house on the hill at Essondale. One of the

Supply-National Defence
boys went nuts there this winter and had two guards over him till the snow was off the trail. Such is the result of living as we have to under unnatural conditions. What I could show the public if I only had a camera!
I must thank the chairman and members of the committee for their courtesy in permitting me to read these extracts from this boy's diary. What I want to impress upon the committee is that these, boys are ordinary Canadian boys, caught by the depression, unable to continue their schooling, unable to find a job; the state itself not providing any very material help but simply hustling them off into the country in remote camps where they may be less likely to cause trouble. Is that the way to deal with good Canadian boys? I do not wonder that they want to call the attention of the nation to their pitiable condition. And how have we received, them?
I do not think I can speak too strongly of the despicable way in which the Prime Minister received those men the other day. I regret that their leader was a man with a criminal record; that of course discounts him. I 'regret that they are under the leadership of communists, and undoubtely communists have their affiliations-


Vincent Dupuis: May I ask a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Just a moment.


Vincent Dupuis: Just a question, if the hon. member will allow me. What would the hon. member have done if he had been the prime minister?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, it is very difficult to say. My colleague suggests, wait until I become prime minister.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: That is an evasive answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say the first thing was to receive them with the courtesy due to any delegation that comes to the prime minister of this country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hand them cigars.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The fact that one of those men had a criminal record was held to the forefront not only in the interview but all across the country as discounting the entire group.


Mr. GRAY:: He represented the men.


James Shaver Woodsworth: He may have been chosen to represent them, but if the men did not choose any better representatives than some in this house, you can understand the difficulty.
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland)1: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I take exception to the hon. gentleman connecting any hon. member of this chamber with the leader of that group. If I understood the hon. member correctly he drew a parallel between the leader of that group, who admitted he had a criminal record, and hon. members of this House of Commons. I ask the hon. member to retract that inference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no inference at all.


William Alexander Fraser: It is beneath the dignity of any hon. member of this house to make any such inference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no such inference.


William Alexander Fraser: It was a plain statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is a bit exhilarated over the victory in New Brunswick.


William Alexander Fraser: I don't have to get exhilarated as far as you are concerned. I ask that the hon. member withdraw the inference he made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no inference to withdraw.


William Alexander Fraser: Well, repeat the statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will repeat it as nearly as I ca,n remember. The question was asked with regard to this man representing the camp workers. I tried to suggest that they had no opportunity of knowing of his criminal record1; he was selected simply because he was more active than the rest My suggestion was that they had no very good method of choosing their representative and in fact did not do much better than was done in the choosing of members of this house.


William Alexander Fraser: Mr. Chairman, in accepting the anaemic explanation of the hon. member may I say that if he thinks he can stand there with a smug grin on his face after making an inference comparing the leader of that group-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Alexander Fraser: -a man with a criminal record-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Wait a minute.


William Alexander Fraser: I have
the floor.

Supply-National Defence


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
have the floor.


William Alexander Fraser: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman, I still insist that the hon. member withdraw that inference. Where do you think you are, in a dock strikers' meeting?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no point
of order, I think. The question was asked, "What should have been done?" The men made much more reasonable requests than might have been imagined. When they suggested fifty cents an hour they were probably stating the maximum amount, but I notice fifty cents an hour is being seriously considered in Ontario in connection with relief work. Fifty cents an hour for a six hour day and five day week after all amounts to only sixty dollars a month. That is not so very much more than is being spent now per man under this present scheme. And if we did pay these men sixty dollars a month it would take an enormous number of men to exhaust the sum of three million dollars that we are asked to vote to-night. That is the reason that I brought this matter up under this vote. In the supplementary estimates three million dollars can be appropriated for military affairs, but we cannot pay sixty dollars a month to men who are giving or are prepared to give good service in this country.
Then, further, the men asked for workmen's compensation.


Vincent Dupuis: That is provincial.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Although that is
a provincial matter, the report of the commissioners points out that it constitutes one of the difficulties. Some definite arrangement ought to be arrived at regarding it. At the present time it is a mere gratuity. The relief workers are working side by side with men who have the right to compensation, which they have not. It is a legitimate grievance.
The third point was the recognition of camp committees. Complaints would be heard at any time, the Prime Minister said. But the men asked that they should be represented by their committee. A case was brought to my attention only this afternoon, and I give full credit to the minister for very kindly and promptly taking it up. A man was discharged from a nearby camp. He came to me in the lobby a few hours ago and said he was quite guiltless of the crime charged, that no proof whatever was adduced; he was simply told to get out, and he felt quite confident that that would mean that he could

not get back to any other relief camp. It is to prevent abuses of that kind that we seek to have some change in the regulations.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: You do not know the
case yet; you are only giving one side.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am giving the
side that has been omitted.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The side that suits you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, they ask for separation of the camps from control of the Department of National Defence. I think that is a legitimate request; we in this corner have been urging it for years. We do not think unemployed men should be put under the control of the National Defence department. Why should they? The officers over them may be kindly men, but they are not accustomed to the problems which these young men face. Army discipline should not apply in these camps; the training and discipline of army officers does not particularly qualify them to deal with this class of men.
Then, social insurance; that was immediately rejected. I suppose that meant non-contributory unemployment insurance. We in this corner have advocated that for some time. They ask also for guarantee of the relief camp workers' right to vote. That strikes deep at the very foundation of our Canadian citizenship. We have, in practice, disfranchised this whole group of men. They feel that they have no way of expressing themselves at the polls, and so they have taken direct action. Is it to be wondered at?
The Prime Minister says that law and order should be maintained. For years I have stood out for the peaceful settlement of international affairs and also for the peaceful settlement of affairs in our own country.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Like the Winnipeg strike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Winnipeg strike is too big a matter to enter upon at this time. That is a silly interjection; it has nothing to do with my position. So far as I am concerned I have nothing whatever to be ashamed of in connection with the Winnipeg strike. If the hon. gentleman cares to read the issue of the Winnipeg Tribune just arrived-a Conservative paper-he will find that in the leading editorial, notwithstanding the Winnipeg strike and all that, I am commended for having taken the stand that I am taking these days regarding this matter.
I do not see why in this house we cannot discuss any question on its merits without some member interjecting entirely irrelevant things into the discussion.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. ROWE:: What about the merits of the item?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have
already explained that this is closely connected with these camps to which to-night we are asked to give an additional grant. Further than that, the only reason that I can see-and the minister has given no very good reason-for extending the military forces of this country is to be able, as the Prime Minister says, to maintain law and order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to maintain law and order just as much as anyone who says "hear, hear," but what kind of law and order? It is law and order under which there can be, as there has been in the past, exploitation of the poor with no opportunity for the poor to better their condition? Is that the kind of law and order we want in this country? Is it law and order under which we will have something very like a military dictatorship while tens of thousands of our young boys are prevented from living a normal life, herded into these camps, some of them kept there for four long years, without any opportunity of advancing their education and without any hope of getting any further on in life? Before it is too late I ask the government to reconsider its entire position and, in all fairness, not to let the whole burden of blame fall on a few people at the present time who perhaps have taken unwise steps but who have been incited to do so because of the bad conditions that have prevailed for the last four years. Again I protest against the increase in this item for military expenditures.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. .Chairman, while I think my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has wandered pretty far from the item under discussion, I am very glad that he has had the opportunity of discussing this item as he has discussed it. I am glad the opportunity has been afforded him of stating, as clearly as he has stated to-night, that the present strike marchers' movement from the west towards Ottawa is essentially a communistic movement, led by communistic influence and communistic organizations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Under control of them.


Hugh Guthrie: I think probably the organizations to which he refers are those we know as the unemployed association in Toronto, the Workers' Unity League, the Workers' Defence League, the Young Corn-92582-257*
munist League and a number of others the names of which I cannot remember for the moment. There was a time when they openly called themselves communists, but in the province of Ontario the communist society or association was pronounced an unlawful association by the highest courts in the province, and that judgment still stands. So when these communistic leaders reached Ottawa a week or ten days ago they were openly members of an unlawful association.
Altogether apart from that, however, the whole movement eastward has been in defiance, and in rather open defiance, of the law of the land. From information that comes to me-and it comes once a week-I have not a doubt but that the disruption of the camps, of which my hon. friend has spoken to-night, was the result of communistic propaganda. It is the result of the efforts of the Bucks, the Boychuks, the Ewens, the Popovichs and the rest of them. I have known of it for some time; there have been no overt acts in regard to which I could start legal proceedings, but it has culminated in this so called marchers' strike, and the leaders of that striking party are outstanding communists. So I am glad my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has made the matter clear in his speech tonight.
Now the hon. member asks why the strike marchers were not stopped before they reached Regina. This move was organized in the city of Vancouver without notice to anybody; a thousand of them-between eight hundred and one thousand, to be more accurate- boarded Canadian Pacific railway trains one night. There was no force there to stop them. They went eastward through the province of British Columbia, and it was suggested that they should be stopped in British Columbia. There was no force to stop them. They came eastward again to Calgary, and they practically worked their will on that city. They established pickets around the employment bureau; they demanded rights, food, sustenance, and said if they did not get their demands they would help themselves. We had no force there to stop them; we had not taken any steps through the mounted police or the militia. They came eastward again to Regina. At that point both railway companies complained and said they were entirely unable to cope with the difficulty. By this time the number had swollen to some 1,500, recently increased to over 2,000, I believe. The railway constabulary could not cope with the situation. Both railways applied to the government. Both railways applied to the provincial government at Regina
Supply-National Defence

without any result. We thought it was our duty to maintain law and order and to prevent unlawful travel upon the railways of Canada by those strikers in contravention of the clear provision of the Railway Act under which both our railways operate.
When these representations were made to the government the government asked the mounted police to assist in preserving order and in preserving the safety of railway traffic not only for passengers but for employers and for trekkers as well, and to see that railway property was not further trespassed upon. We had to place sufficient of the mounted police at Regina to see that the law would be regarded, and they are there yet. The delegation came to Ottawa, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has described, and the demands they made were the demands he has discussed this evening. Following their return to Regina they have announced that they are going to persevere in their effort to reach Ottawa, whether by rail or by highway travel I do not know. At the request of the railways, however, and in the interests of the citizens of Regina and of Canada in general, the mounted police have been instructed to see that the law is maintained and that these men do not come eastward in breach of the law.
As the Prime Minister announced in this house a day or two ago, a camp has been established where they will be fed, housed and oared for in every reasonable way until a final disposition is made of their case in regard to where they will go ultimately. They can go back to the camps whence they came, or there will be no objection to their going to other camps. Those marchers who have homes and desire to return there will be assisted. These things have been made public to the marchers in Regina. A number of them are ready to go to the camp but they are not permitted to do so by the communist leaders. Their baggage has been seized and they cannot get their kits. The office opened for the purpose of arranging to put these men in the camp has been picketed by the communist leaders and their men. That is the situation which obtained in Regina at four o'clock this afternoon. The law will be maintained and the marchers have been notified to that effect. Accommodation is offered to them; they will be fed and housed in the excellent camp established. If they do not go to that camp and persist in breaking the law I am afraid they must take the consequences.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the minister what circumstances have arisen since the time at which the main estimates were presented to .parliament to necessi-

tate the large increases which have been made in these items. As has been pointed out, these additional sums asked for amount to $1,651,000 for militia services; $145,000 for naval services and $1,302,900 for aviation; a total of over $3,000,000 is being asked for in addition to the amounts voted in the main estimates presented to this house some four months ago. Those main estimates showed considerable increases over the appropriations of the previous year and at that time we were told by the minister that the increases were necessitated by the very things which he has stated to-night, namely, the necessity for normal replacements and additions. I should like to know what circumstances have arisen in the last few months to necessitate these large supplementary votes on top of the increased votes in the main estimates. The main estimates for 1935-36 showed an increase over the appropriations of 1934-35 of $117,,136 for militia services, an increase of $28,000 for naval services and an increase of $738,000 for aviation. Those increases amounted to something over $883,000, but the estimates were passed in the belief that they would cover all that was necessary for these services. Instead of that being so, we are being asked to-night to vote not an amount equal to the increases in the general estimates but an amount of over $3,000,000. There must be some explanation for this very large increase. The main estimates for these three services total something like $14,250,000 while these supplementary estimates total over $3,000,000, or nearly one-fifth of the main estimates. What has arisen during the last four months to necessitate an increase of one-fifth over the main estimates?


Grote Stirling: So far I have been able to give an explanation of only one item, as the discussion has strayed very far afield1 to the relief camps of British Columbia- and the incidents now occurring in Regina. I shall be glad to give an explanation of each of these items as it comes up. The right hon. gentleman asked why I use the same argument to-night to explain these increases as I used before. The reason is that the dilapidations had occurred then and have occurred since. At that time I argued that these buildings, this equipment and these properties of the department should be put in a proper state of repair. When the main estimates were being considered over four months ago the government was not of the opinion that the money should be forthcoming for the degree of restoration which I thought was proper. I continued to press this matter believing that it was .penny wise

Supply-National Defence
and pound foolish not to keep up the properties as they should be kept up, not to permit the training of the non-permanent active militia and allow it to drop be'low a certain point, and to allow the ships of the Royal Canadian Navy to get into such a condition that subsequent restoration would cost considerably more than at present. The government has seen fit to advance the amount necessary for what can be roughly termed restoration from beginning to end, whether it be material, property or human personnel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is one
item here for the permanent force, further amount required, $265,000. What dilapidation has taken place in the permanent force to require that amount?


Grote Stirling: Are we going to jump
from item to item, or shall we take them all as one general item?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Perhaps we had betteT deal with one item at a time.


Mr. CHURCH:: If the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodlsworth) had his way, our defence force would be reduced to the boy scouts and girt guides. I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that awtay back in 1870 and 1885 Canada and' the northwest territories were saved from dislocation by the very volunteers he is criticizing to-night. The city of Toronto furnished the Queen's Own, the Grenadiers and the Bodyguard, the latter commanded by the late Colonel Denison. These men had to march 250 miles through the wilderness and across frozen country, with little else bult dog biscuits and hard tack to eat, in order to save the very territory from which the hon. gentleman comes and avenge the death of that great patriot, Thomas Scott. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that Toronto sent 65,000 men to the great war and 6,000 never returned. They went to fight in a great cause, for freedom and for civilization; many of them are buried in France and Flanders and there are hundreds more in Christie street hospital who will never come out of that institution well. They went to the war to fight for the hon. member and others. Since I first came to this house I hake seen these estimates reduced from $16,000,000 down to about $8,000,000. These militia units are commanded by business men and patriots and quite often they are farced to put their hands into their own pockets in o'rder to provide the necessities for their regiments. But the officers, non-commissioned officers and men
do this gladly for their country. They are just as fond of peace and security and just as opposed to war and militarism as the pacifists in this house and1 out of it, foir whose freedom they fought on land and sea and in the air. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that we do not know where to find the Liberal party on this question of militia estimates. It is a game of ins and outs as far as they are concerned. They do not care a hoot what becomes of the defences of this country. The government has already reduced the militia estimates from fifteen to approximately eight million dollars, and the result has been that the service has been starved. Many of our returned men are suffering to-d'ay; many are dying daily, and thousands are in their graves. Seven men were carried out of Christie street hospital last week-end. The women and children of these seven families are suffering untold privations.
Something has been said in this house about soldier pensions. I have here a return that was brought down to an order of the house, and it shows that the great government presided over by the present Prime Minister has done more for pensions and relief than has been done 'by any government since the war closed. The figures show that Mr. Justice Taylor of the pension commission has settled more oases, that more pensions have been granted on compassionate grounds, and more clothing has been given. There is a vote in the estimates of $500,000 to take care of those on relief and others not otherwise provided for.
I want to say t'o the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whose speeches I often read, that we have had sixteen years now of this peace talk, peace agreements, peace pacts, and pacifist talk; we have had four or five international conferences on disarmament, and the net result has been the absolute failure of the open diplomacy policy of Woodrow Wilson. So far as I am concerned I have never been enthusiastic about the League of Nations. They had similar leagues of nations ever since the days of Hannibal and Scipio in the old Roman empire. It was said in the olden days that Rome, Italy and Greece would never lose th'eir supremacy, that Spain and Carthage would never lose command of the sea, but both happened. Let me say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that England to-day has lost command of the sea. I have here the official figures for Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, United States and Germany, showing the ships of the line, the cruisers, the destroyers, the submarines and aircraft, and without reading all these
Supply-National Defence

figures I may summarize them by saying that the net result is that England has lost command of the sea as a result of pacifist talk and doings. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, assisted by some Liberals and Progressives, is very fond of talking pacifism. They look upon anyone in the militia to-day as almost a public enemy. But, Mr. Chairman, the militia is a police foree necessary for the protection of this country. I do not know what is going to happen to Canada, with her little navy and small army, now that England has lost her command of the sea.
While I do not wish to criticize the league unnecessarily because in many ways it has done useful work for humanity, I say now, as I said the other day with respect to the deplorable situation of the league, that it depends upon compromise rather than upon justice. The league refuses to face the facts. It insists on the theoretical equality of all nations, and yet whenever it has had to deal with a problem of first importance it has failed. The League of Nations to-day is reduced to the allies who won the war, France, Italy and Great Britain. It was Woodrow Wilson who started the league, but the United States have persistently refused to join it; Japan has quit it; Italy is ou the verge of quitting it, and so the league to-day is reduced to those allies which won the war. Neither the United States nor Russia will join the league. Japan will not rejoin it. She demands the application of the Monroe doctrine in the far east. So you can see the absolute failure of the very policies which Woodrow Wilson propounded, and those of the pacifists in this house.
Now what have we got in Canada in the way of defence forces to-day? We have practically no defence forces at all in case of trouble. We have even abolished the little bit of a vote we had for the cadet movement. It never was a military movement, but it taught respect for authority, discipline, courtesy aud many other of those manly instincts that go to make a man, but to-day this cadet movement has 'been abolished even in the city from which I come. That in my opinion is a retrograde step. Hon. gentlemen opposite are opposing such institutions for the good of the children as the girl guides and the boy scouts, and many other praiseworthy movements of that kind. Canada's vote for defence is the lowest per capita in the world.
In conclusion I should like to quote a few paragraphs from an article, Sea Power Surrendered, by Captain B. Acworth, D.S.O., R.N., which gives statistics of the naval strength of the great nations of the world. Where will Canada be now if a foreign foe

sails up the St. Lawrence, with our little navy? Our British navy now uses oil from Persia and South America instead of coal, and is dependent on a foreign supply of oil in war, as Captain Acworth says. I quote:
Indeed, this danger is clearly apparent to the government; for has not Mr. Baldwin warned the country that so long as he has any responsibility in the nation's affairs he will not sanction the use of the British navy for blockade without first consulting America? Has not Great Britain taken up the cudgels against our old friend Japan on behalf of the oil combines, though the British Empire contains only two per cent of the oil resources of the world? Has not Mr. Baldwin flatly refused to see a deputation consisting of distinguished admirals, shipowners, and marine engineers who only asked to be allowed to place before him a reasoned case for designing all future ships for alternative coal and oil firing? Has he not expressed the determination of the government, despite all reasoned argument, to retain the British navy on an exclusively oil-fired basis to the exclusion of dual-firing which would place fuel monopolists under the thumb of British sea power instead of the reverse?
So long as British sea power is governed by international influences over which the public, at the present time, has no control, the technicalities of a sound naval policy are therefore irrelevant.	_
There was a time when British foreign policy rested upon British sea supremacy. In those days there was an atmosphere of peace about the world which we to-day have every reason to envy.
The chief object of British foreign policy is now, seemingly, the defence of this country without the support of sea-power-a policy called "collective security." So great a change in the British attitude to defence must clearly have an argument, and the argument seems to be the rise of air-power. Some appear to think that sea power can no longer provide security. Others believe that air power is a buttress of sea power which we can afford to diminish if air power is increased. Both these views are demonstrably unsound. To-day Great Britain is more dependent for her food and raw material upon sea transport than at any time in her history. Our ability to pursue our civilized activities, and to defend ourselves, whether by means of the navy, the army, or the air force, is absolutely dependent upon sea-borne foreign oil.
Just fancy an enemy fleet sailing up the St. Lawrence, and Canada dependent on Persia and South America for oil.
The mechanization of the army, and a strengthened air force, make increased, not decreased, demands upon sea transport and sea defence. Yet the government, by subsidy, is encouraging a "scrap and build_ policy" for merchant ships, a cardinal condition of the subsidy being the construction of an "up-to-date" (? Diesel) vessel for every two coal-fired ships destroyed.
We in Canada* are dependent on the British fleet for keepiing open our trade routes and our commerce and protecting our shores, and

Supply-National Defence
we do not pay a cent of taxes for its upkeep, but the British taxpayer is heavily taxed for that purpose; he pays taxes on his tea and sugar and many other commodities to protect our shores while Canada sponges on the British taxpayer for defence and for maritime freedom. Let me say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the volunteers who went to the west in 1870 and again in 1885 tried to get a small vote of $1,000. As a child I saw them going to the Northwest rebellion. And long afterwards an effort was made to have a plaque put up in Queens park to these veterans of 1870 and 1885 and their application w'as refused:. It was not the fault of this government. They were also refused a small grant to send the survivors of that little force from Halifax and Montreal out to Winnipeg where they fought to save this country, and that section of the country represented by the horn, member. I can tell the hon. gentleman that I heard1 the same speeches away back in 1910, 1911, 1912 and again in 1913 and 1914. I heard the same speeches at the time of the South African war. But facts must be faced, and we cannot sponge on the mother country so far as our defence is concerned.


Angus MacInnis: Will any of the work carried out under this item be done by relief labour on the basis of twenty cents a day?


Grote Stirling: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I could better illustrate what I should like to say in reference to these estimates as a whole than by the observations made by the minister on this particular item. The first item under National Defence is engineer services and works, further amount required, S400,000. This is a supplementary item that has come in since the main estimates were presented four months ago. The total amount asked for in the main estimates in connection with engineer services for 1935-36 was $297,500, which was exactly the amount voted in the previous year. If in 1934-35 $297,500 was enough, and inasmuch as the government in its main estimates asked for the same amount this year, surely it was not treating the house fairly or taking the house into the confidence of the government, as it should have been in respect of supply, not to have told us that when the supplementary estimates were brought down we should be asked to vote an amount twice as large as we were voting in the main estimates. If the minister can give a satisfactory explanation I will not press the matter; but to ask this house to
pass, for engineer services and works, $297,500 in the main estimates and get it through on the understanding that the government was not asking for more than was voted the previous year, and now to come in with supplementary estimates and ask for $400,000 as a further amount required, is simply not treating the house as it should be treated in the matter of supply.


Grote Stirling: I am sure the right hon.
gentleman was in when I gave the explanation. He must have heard that $150,000 was for the arrangements at Rookcliffe of which he knows, and which were entirely new and separate from the main estimate. I have told him the reason why in my opinion it was necessary to lay further figures before the government with regard to dilapidations in buildings, and I have told him why I put forward a request for further money for the citadel of Quebec after my visit of inspection there and seeing the extent of the damage. If these explanations are not sufficient to convince the right hon. gentleman, I have nothing more to say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not sufficient, because my hon. friend now says that out of the $400,000, $150,000 is required for Rockeliffe and something for the Quebec walls. Assuming that $50,000 is required for the Quebec walls


Grote Stirling: Seventy thousand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That makes
$220,000, and the item is for $400,000. There is an extra $200,000, all but $20,000 unaccounted for by the explanation. It is therefore not satisfactory.


Grote Stirling: Let me repeat. The
right hon. gentleman was in his place when I read every item of the $400,000 and he asks me now to repeat them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did
not read every item.


Grote Stirling: I beg your pardon, I
did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He read a
number of items but he did not give the figures.


Grote Stirling: I beg your pardon, I
did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister read it again?


Grote Stirling: Is that reasonable?


An hon. MEMBER:: If you can't be polite
you won't pass one item.
Supply-National Defence


Grote Stirling: The items which go to
make up the S400,000 are:
Ordinary repairs to military buildings, $50,957.
Fortifications at Quebec, $69,693.
Further contribution for the arsenal program ait Valcartier, $12,500.
Transfer of survey section of building in Rockcliffe, $9,150.
Completion of married quarters, St. John's. Quebec, $24,100.
Travelling and freight, $1,250.
Purchase of property at Rockcliffe, $150,000.
Extension of Charlottetown rifle range, $9,000.
Replacement of worn out heating system at drill hall, Charlottetown, $5,550.
Renovation of gun emplacements at Sandwich battery at Halifax, $8,000.
Rebuilding wooden section of Fredericton armoury, $45,000.
Construction of concrete retaining wall, Truro rifle range, $2,000.
Paving of Cogswell street and North Park street, in front of military properties at Halifax, $3,000.
Installation of mechanical stokers at University avenue armoury, Toronto, $4,000.
Construction of addition to provide for rifle range, Kingston armoury, $4,000.
Installation of water supply and electril current at Cedar Springs, Ontario, $1,800.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I call attention to the fact that the first item mentioned by my hon. friend was $50,000 for ordinary repairs. Now I contend that in submitting the main estimates, ordinary repairs at least would be expected to be included. Why should we have at the present time an item for ordinary repairs of $50,000 over and above any amount required for that purpose in the main estimates? It certainly looks as though the government, at the time the main estimates were before us, had purposely refrained from giving the committee the full amounts it intended to spend during the year. There is another project covered by what the minister has just read. The item is classified as engineer services and works and includes $150,000 for the purchase of property at Rockcliffe. 1 submit that that item should not be smuggled into this particular estimate. If the government is purchasing property at Rockcliffe that fact ought to have been expressly stated to the house at the time the main estimates were submitted and not delayed until the supplementary estimates were brought down. I do not think the minister's explanation is at all satisfactory.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the minister kindly say what the $150,000 with reference to purchasing property at Rockcliffe is for?


Grote Stirling: I shall be happy to repeat the explanation I have already given, that it is to consummate an arrangement arrived at

between the federal district commission, the Department of Justice on behalf of the mounted police and the Department of National Defence on behalf of the Rockcliffe air field. The district commission has been desirous for some time of improving its entry into Ottawa from the Montreal direction. The Rockcliffe air field is improved in that the high land with the trees on it will pass into the custody of the Department of National Defence and the piece'of property at the west end which has been loaned by National Defence to Justice for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks will pass into the custody of the Department of Justice. It appears to be an arrangement which is mutually satisfactory to the three parties making it, and as regards the odd pieces of land, shall I call them, which will remain in the hands of the federal district commission, severances and the strips along the new road which presumably the commission will dispose of from time to time, the money received from those pieces of land will come into the consolidated revenue fund to repay the dominion government this $150,000; that money will be earmarked for that purpose.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Do I understand that this is a new transaction altogether for the purchase of new land?


Grote Stirling: Yes, it is the purchase of new land.
Mr. CHEVRIER. Will the minister say from whom those lands were purchased or are about to be purchased? Has a sale been consummated or is it just contemplated? In the second place, from whom is it contemplated to purchase the land or, if it has been purchased, who are the vendors?


Grote Stirling: I do not understand that the purchases have actually been made. I believe expropriation proceedings have been or are about to be undertaken. I can send across to my hon. friend the plan I hold in my hand if that will interest him. It shows in colours the land now occupied, the land to be purchased and the land which will be retained by the commission.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I appreciate the minister's courtesy in letting me see the plan, but he has not answered my question. From whom were the lands purchased and at what prices? I do not see on this plan the names of the vendors or of those who owned the property and at what amounts the lands have been actually sold. The minister spoke of expropriation proceedings. I have not heard of

Supply-National Defence
those proceedings. If they have been sanctioned by order in council, I should like to know.


Grote Stirling: I may say for the hon. member's information that the order in council was signed just within the last day or two.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I would like the minister to inform the committee who owned those lands, what proportion of them have been purchased and the price in each case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are being expropriated.
Mr. 'CHEVRIER: If they have been expropriated, when was this done?


Hugh Guthrie: The order in council was passed yesterday, and expropriation proceedings will be taken as soon as that order in council reaches the Department of Justice; it had not reached there to-day. Then a plan is filed showing the names of the owners and the land to be purchased, and a tender of what we consider a fair price is always made.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: But I am still concerned about the answer as to who are the owners of those lands. There must be some vendors. There must be some agreement.


Hugh Guthrie: The lands are to be expropriated.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: There must ibe some expropriation proceedings directed against someone.


Hugh Guthrie: When the plans are filed, all the owners whose names appear on the plans need to be notified1.


William Duff: Who are they?


Hugh Guthrie: We do not need to know until the proceedings are undertaken.


William Duff: The government is asking us to vote this money. We want to know the names.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend.


William Duff: Then the vote will not go through.


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot help that.


William Duff: Of course the minister knows the names of the people who own the land.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stand.


William Duff: We want to know the names of the owners of those lands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How can we get the
names?


Pierre-François Casgrain: I do not think the item should pass without the information being given by the minister. I think the question put by the hon. member was a fair one, and the item should stand if the answer cannot be given to-night.


Grote Stirling: I do not know the names of the owners of the pieces of land. I have before me a plan ini which certain names appear. I could read the names and would do so with pleasure, but I do not know whether they are accurate and I might, omit some. I shall be willing to find out the names of the owners of the land which it will be necessary to expropriate, but I do not know them now.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then there is no reason why the item should not stand until the minister does know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be within the memory of at least some members of the house that expropriation proceedings were taken at the point where the Hudson Bay railway entered Churchill. A description of the land by metes and bounds was made by engineers. The department know nothing about the owners. They file the plan thus prepared by engineers. Then the appropriate searches are made and notices given to all the persons affected. Tenders are made of the money which it is believed will be fair compensation for the land thus taken. The first step is the preparation of the plan by metes and bounds which describes the area; I want to make that clear. When that is done the plan is filed. When the plan is filed no one knows better than does the senior member for Ottawa, that it goes to the registry office. In the registry office search is made by the solicitors in charge of the expropriation proceedings; notice is given to the people concerned and a tender is made. If they decline to accept the sum offered, then proceedings are instituted in the exchequer court. If they get more than was tendered, they receive the costs of the proceedings, and if they get less, the costs are deducted from the tender made. That is the case here. I recall the circumstances in connection with the order in council. It contains merely a description of the land with a plan attached showing the area involved in order that proceedings might be taken promptly so that there might be no speculation worked. The question was litigated whether Mr. Dunning as Minister of Railways had power to file that
Supply-National Defence

plan while certain proceedings were pending, and it will be recalled that in Montreal before any action was taken with respect to the tunnel there, the Minister of Railways filed his plan. That plan was for the purpose of vesting the properties in the crown in the right of the railway company, in this case vesting these properties in the crown. My information is that it is expected that from the proceeds of the sale of these lands the moneys paid for them will be fully repaid, because it is to carry a road through connecting with the Montreal highway, and will provide additional building sites which the departmental officials believe will more than compensate the government for the initial payment to be made. And the provision is made that the moneys thus received shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, and not to the federal district commission. So that the crown will be reimbursed the money which it now temporarily advances. .


William Duff: I do not know what information the Prime Minister had in regard to the expropriation of lands for the Hudson Bay railway, but I cannot conceive of anything different happening in Manitoba from what would happen in any other province. In other provinces when lands are expropriated for a railway, before the expropriation can take place a plan must be filed by the railway company showing how much land is taken and how much is taken from each owner; the names of the owners must be on the plan, and that plan must be filed with the registrar of deeds in the district. So if my right hon. friend got the information in connection with the Hudson Bay railway that there were no names of owners of land on the plan, presumably the land belonged to the crown; consequently the Prime Minister in making that argument is not fair to the committee. In regard to the expropriation of lands outside of railways I have also had some experience, and I say to the Prime Minister-great lawyer as he is-that before expropriation proceedings take place the plan must be filed, showing the names of owners and acreage of each owner. It is useless for the Prime Minister to try to tell this committee anything else, and we are not going to take such an answer. We want the names of the owners of the land indicated on the plan or else this item will be held up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must correct the hon.
gentleman. The Expropriation Act is the act at issue here, not the Railway Act. When I spoke of what took place at Churchill I was

pointing out that the Minister of Railways filed a plan as he did in connection with the taking in Montreal. I was not saying what the plan contained; I merely say he filed a plan and the lands were thereupon set apart. So far as this is concerned the lands are vested in the crown by reason of the filing of the plan and the taking possession.


William Duff: The plan must contain the
name3 of the owners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it does not follow
that has to be done, because they may not be known. That is a matter that arises after the solicitors take charge of the expropriation proceedings. The Railway Act is one thing, the Expropriation Act another. There is no reason for any heat or anger about this matter. I investigated the matter for my own satisfaction as I do matters of this kind generally, and what happened I have explained. The area of land is described by metes and bounds. The plan is filed, the land is vested in the crown, and the crown may then take possession. I remember on that plan there was the name of someone, Eagleson, I think as the suggested owner of the property.


John Campbell Elliott: The plan shows the names of Eagleson, James Fox and another Fox- two Foxes, several names; but there is no indication as far as the plan goes of the amounts of land being purchased from each of those owners.


William Duff: The Prime Minister need not try to insinuate that there is anger on this side; and the only heat, if there is heat, is caused by himself. We had to adjourn this house for five weeks and go home and come back here in the middle of summer, and he ought, to appreciate our being willing to do it. Here to-night we are sweating in this hot chamber when this house ought to be prorogued and we all ought to be home. And the quicker we get out of this the better, let me say to the Prime Minister, for his own sake and the sake of everyone else. The only other heat was in New Brunswick to-day, the Prime Minister's own province, which elected forty-three Liberals and only five Conservatives.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: If the heat has affected the
Prime Minister in any way it has not affected us, except that we realize that the people of this country want a federal election at the earliest moment.
As regards expropriation proceedings, I have had something to do with them in connection both with railways and with other lands, and

Supply-National Defence
I say to the Prime Minister that before a government or anyone else can expropriate property they must file a plan with the registrar of deeds and the names of the owners of the land must appear on that plan.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the section; there
is nothing about the names of owners:
9. Land taken for the use of His Majesty shall be laid off by metes and bounds; and when no proper deed or conveyance thereof to His Majesty is made and executed by the person having the power to make such deed or conveyance, or when a -person interested in such land is incapable of making such deed or conveyance, or when, for any other reason, the minister deems it advisable so to do, a plan and description of such land signed by the minister, the deputy of the minister or the secretary of the department, or by the superintendent of the public work, or by an engineer of the department, or by a land surveyor duly licensed and sworn in and for the province in which the land is situate, shall be deposited of record in the office of the registrar of deeds for the county or registration division in which the land is situate, and such land, by such deposit, shall thereupon become and remain vested in His Majesty.


William Duff: But you cannot file a proper plan without having the names of the owners on it.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, you can. I
would not like to disagree with my hon. friend about a statute, but if the government desires to purchase Sparks street to-morrow it can file a plan and take possession without the name of anyone being on it.


William Duff: Because no one owns it
except the crown.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, the lots on Sparks
street.


William Duff: If the dominion government
wanted) to take the buildings on the north or the south side of Sparks street, before they could expropriate them they must name the owners of those lands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Duff: I say yes, and I know what I am talking about.


An hon. MEMBER:: You may be wrong.


William Duff: I am not wrong; I am right.


Mr. QASGRAIN:: Following what the
Minister of Justice has just read there is also the provision that after the plan has been filed notice must be given to the owners.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, yes.
Mr. CASGR.AIN:	If the Minister of
National Defence does not know who the
owners are, the Minister of Justice through his officials must know the names of the persons who are the owners of this area described by metes and bounds.


Hugh Guthrie: When I have searched
the registry office the parties will all have to be notified.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: Has that not been done before this date? The plans have been deposited.


Hugh Guthrie: The plans have not yet
been deposited. The order in council was passed only the day before yesterday, June 25.


William Duff: May I ask the Minister of
National Defence-the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are off at a tangent- if the map or -plan which I hold in my hand is the one which has been or will be filed for the expropriation proceedings?


Grote Stirling: The one attached to
the order in council- is that one that will be filed. It is similar to that except that it has not on it the course that the road will take; it is a land plan only. Otherwise it is similar to the one the hon. membeT has.


William Duff: Thank you very much. I
am right and the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are wrong. I am going to show that they are wrong. The Minister of National Defence says that outside of a few lines on this plan it is a facsimile of what is to be filed with the registrar of deeds. On this plan is the name of James Fox. The Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister say there is no need to file a plan with names on it. Here is a good Scotchman, Kenneth McDonald; other names are P. Thomson, G. Monkford, and E. Robillard.


Mr. STANLEY:: He is a Scotchman too.


William Duff: I will give you some more-
C. Eagleson and L. O. Eagleson. Why was it necessary to put these names on if the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister- and of course this plan ne-ver would be made unless the Prime Minister supervised it, as he supervises everything-


Mr. BAKER:: Because the names are
there it does not say it is necessary.
M-r. DUFF:	No, they are put there only
to make work for someone in the department, to give someone a job.


Richard Langton Baker: Just to give you a chance
for argument.
Supply-National Defence


Pierre-François Casgrain: Were there no negotiations with the owners of the property, no offers made to purchase the property, before this transaction was completed? I understand that in all the departments the practice is to approach the owners and try to make a bargain with them, and that recourse is taken to expropriation proceedings only when the parties cannot come to an agreement. I should like to ask the minister if there were no negotiations or rapprochements made between the department and these people.


Grote Stirling: I am not aware that any rapprochements were made.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Does the government contemplate purchasing land or immovables in the Montreal district out of this amount?


Grote Stirling: I am not aware that the department is even considering buying land in the district of Montreal.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask the minister who initiated these proceedings?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a, word. This whole scheme was initiated in the first place by the federal district commission. I may not be accurate as to whether it preceded the defence or air service but I know that over a long period of time the federal district commission have been extremely anxious to get an eastern entrance to the city of Ottawa via the driveway. They are making a very beautiful entrance to this city which, apart altogether from the beautification, will have the effect of relieving congestion on the Montreal road in years to come, leaving the road through Eastview for the heavier traffic.
So far as the air force is concerned, I have had occasion to fly from that field a number of times, and in discussing the matter with members of the air force I have found that they always have been very nervous about the high hill on the south side that is covered with tall trees. You must land on a flying field in conformity with the wind that is blowing at the time, and if a landing has to be effected from the south side there is very grave danger because of that high hill and the trees upon it. The air force always have been very nervous with respect to that physical condition and have wanted the shoulder of that hill removed so that the menace might be eliminated. This dovetails into the scheme of the Ottawa Improvement Commission. I speak of these facts because I have had occasion to discuss the matter with the federal district commission several times, and the view I have ex-

pressed as to the air force came to me incidentally from the different officers with whom I have had contact.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that is the case why smuggle the item in under the head of engineering services and works? There are separate items for aviation under which this amount might more properly be placed. Why not put it under the federal district commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall not quarrel with my right hon. friend, but there was no question of attempting to hide the item. I think it is a most praiseworthy step; I think it is in the public interest, and I believe that in the years to come it will return a much larger sum of money than will be expended on it. It might have been better to put it under a separate item, but it touches three different departments and the engineering branch of the Department of National Defence naturally would do the surveying. I assume that is why it appears in a national defence item, but there was no attempt or intention to disguise the item. I should think my right hon. friend, who always has been an advocate of the beautlncation oi Ottawa-aiiu I say this in his praise-would ibe the first to say that this undertaking is one designed in a marked degree to enhance the beauty of Ottawa. At the same time it will serve another purpose; it will provide more satisfactory accommodation for the Department of Justice in connection wtih the mounted police and will round out- a proper landing field for the capital city of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon, friend that I would be the first to support him and the government in any soheme that would meet the two necessities of which he has spoken and at the same time help in a necessary civic improvement, but the last place I would expect to find it would be in the most unpopular vote that is presented to this house, namely, an increase in the vote for militia services. I wonder very much that the government should have selected this particular service to cover the purchase of this property. So far as the land is concerned, in connection with the purposes mentioned by my hon. friend, I am quite prepared to withdraw my objection to the purchase, but this is a very different explanation from the one given by the Minister of National Defence.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If there had been any intention on the part of the government to smuggle this vote into the estimates, certainly

Supply-National Defence
the government went about it in a very clumsy fashion. As my right hon. friend has suggested, this amount could have been put in a separate item, and to that extent it would have reduced the militia estimates and lessened the criticism of military expenditures.


William Duff: Just another mistake by the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may say to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough -that the government has made many mistakes. I have not known of a government in the history of Canada that has not made many mistakes, and I never expect to see a government of Canada that will not make mistakes. I suggest to my hon. friend that the government that does not make mistakes does not make anything. We would be the first to admit that we have made mistakes, but certainly if this is a mistake it must ibe apparent that it was not done with any sinister purpose.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With what the Minister of Finance has said with reference to improving the approach to Ottawa I have no quarrel whatever, because that matter has been mooted for a long time. Undoubtedly there must be a further approach from the east in order to relieve the congestion of traffic on the Montreal road and also to meet the objection to the landing field at Rockcliffe. That is nothing new; that has been talked of for three, four or five years, ever since the inception of that aviation field. We all agree that better landing facilities should be provided and that the congestion on the Montreal road should be relieved; with that I have no quarrel at all, but there have been many alternatives proposed. For a long time the local newspapers have been advocating an entrance from the east, but this is not the only alternative. I must agree with what my right hon. leader has stated; if this vote had been properly put in the estimates those who are primarily interested in following these matters would have had some knowledge of it. It was purely and simply a matter of luck, or perhaps a matter of psychology, that in considering the estimates this matter came up; otherwise no one would have known anything about it- until the whole thing had been completed. To that procedure I must register strenuous opposition. It was not fair to the people of Ottawa; it was not fair to the representatives of the people of Ottawa in this parliament that a matter such as this should have been contemplated and practically
consummated without anyone having the slightest knowledge that the project was under way. That is why I feel that the matter has not been handled in the fairest way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My colleague the Minister of National Defence made a very clear explanation when this item was first called, but unfortunately he is suffering with a sore throat and his voice does not carry very far. I must say that I heard him with some difficulty even at this short distance. He made a very clear explanation and I am sure that Hansard, which is not very far from him, will have a record of his remarks. If the hon. member will look over those remarks to-morrow morning I am sure they will1 disclose a full explanation.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: That is locking the door after the horse has been stolen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores-further amount required, $600,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Here is another item of the type to which I referred. When the national defence main estimates were before the committee for consideration four months ago we were asked to vote $837,800 for general stores, an amount similar to the amount voted the year before. I submit that when the committee allowed that item to pass without discussion it did so because hon. members believed they were voting the government the same amount as had been voted the year before. We are now being asked to vote almost a duplicate amount and I should like to know what has happened to the general stores in the last few months to necessitate this additional vote of 8600,000.


Grote Stirling: The same explanation applies so far as the general stores part of this vote is concerned, that is, these stores have been depleted for relief purposes, purchases have not been as heavy as they should be, and it is desirable that they be brought up again to a general average. Included in this item are two others; I referred to one a moment ago, that covering the dominion arsenal. This vote includes an amount of $287,610 to cover the removal of the arsenal from its present dangerous position outside the city walls of Quebec. The filling station is a menace to life and property and preparations have been made to affect a change. Hitherto these preparations have proceeded rather slowly but the buildings at Valcartier
Supply-National Defence

are almost ready to receive the filling station and it is intended to proceed more rapidly with the evacuation of the site at Quebec.


Eugène Fiset: What is the amount of the item referred to by the minister?


Grote Stirling: 


Eugène Fiset: That is included in the $600,000?


Grote Stirling: Yes. There is another item for $201,095 under the heading of artillery stores. The number of fuses have been allowed to drop below the quantity required for even peace time practice on the ranges. Of that vote, $125,485 is to provide for training and instructional requirements for the permanent force, non-permanent active militia units and central camps and schools. Wheels, et cetera, to the amount of $40,790 are necessary owing to the mechanization of "C" battery and the increased use of motor transport vehicles for gun hauling. Quick firing three inch equipment is necessary to provide one section of modern armament for defence of Halifax and Esquimalt fortresses. The existing equipment is obsolete and is of little value either for training or for defence purposes. There is not one single antiaircraft gun in Canada and it is impossible to carry on the training of men in the use of these guns.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If what the minister states is correct it offers the strongest reason why he should have told the fact to the committee when the main estimates were under consideration. He states now that this equipment is obsolete making it impossible to give training to the men, but it seems to me he should have brought these facts to the attention of the committee when the main estimates were being considered. I cannot understand why he should leave these items to the last moment and then bring them up in the form of supplementary estimates during the dying days of a parliament.


Grote Stirling: I have endeavoured to
give this explanation more than once. As minister for the time being I consider it necessary that these things should be done and the government has decided to proceed this far in agreeing to do wha.t I consider was necessary to be done in the department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It seems to me that all the minister's explanation amounts to is this: Having charge of the military, naval and aviation services he has been able

to persuade the government to come up to a certain mark in making provision for these services, while the ministers of other departments, for example the Department of Labour and the Department of Agriculture, have not been able to persuade the government to come up to what they believed to be the necessary mark in order to serve the needs which they have particularly in charge. I am still in doubt as to the real reason why the minister has been able to obtain this supremacy over his colleagues in the government.


Robert Weir: Will the right hon.
gentleman tell me the item in agriculture to which he refers?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not refer to any particular item.


John Campbell Elliott: How would the arsenal
at Quebec come under general stores?


Grote Stirling: I cannot give any reason why it should or should not. The arsenal turns out a certain quantity of small arms munitions as well as shells and fuses, all of which are stores until they are used.


John Campbell Elliott: Is this expenditure to be
made on the building?


Grote Stirling: The expenditure will be
in the transfer to Valcartier of the contents of the arsenal, its machinery and stocks from the dangerous position it occupies outside the citadel in Quebec.


Eugène Fiset: I understand that
this amount of $287,000 in connection with the arsenal is to cover the transfer of a dangerous plant to Valcartier where new quarters have been erected. Do I understand that the sum of $287,000 is simply for the transfer of the present equipment of these buildings to Valcartier, or is it, as I think it is, an allotment of money to the dominion arsenal, Quebec, for the manufacture of a certain number of rounds of ammunition? I think that is what it is. I cannot understand what the minister means by stores, if he is going to use that money for the transfer of the equipment of the buildings from Quebec to Valcartier. It may mean that he is going to buy new machinery, new equipment. The minister's reply was far from clear; perhaps he would elucidate it.


Grote Stirling: The removal of the
dominion arsenal from Quebec to its new site at Valcartier is a scheme which has been long considered, which has been started, and which is of considerable magnitude, and it has been

Supply-National Defence
proceeded with as money was available. A certain portion, of the buildings necessary to receive certain portions of the work done in the arsenal are now just about ready at Val-cartier to receive them. That change over, what is known as the filling station, will be made. The most dangerous part of the process will be removed from Quebec to Val-cartier. This money will enable the next piece of development work to go on at Val-cartier, and as it is completed more of the work done in the arsenal at Quebec can be moved over to Valcartier.


Eugène Fiset: Does the minister
mean that the dangerous buildings of our dominion arsenal, which are on the coal fields, are going to be transferred from Quebec to Valcartier?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: Then a portion of this $287,000 is to be used to transfer the equipment of these buildings to the new site and also to enable the manufacturing at the new site of a certain amount of ammunition. I suppose that is the proper explanation?


Grote Stirling: I think the hon. member has now stated it correctly. That is the way I understand it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, if I
remember well, General1 McNaughton has been chief of staff with a salary of $10,000 a year. He was appointed1 to the national research counoil at a salary of $15,000, and no provision was made for his superannuation from his position as chief of staff. If he is not superannuated within a month' or thirty days after he is appointed to a higher salaried position, which appointment has been made, his superannuation will be based, not on the salary of $10,000 which he was receiving as chief of staff, but on the $15,000 which he receives in his present position, which does not carry superannuation. I hope that the minister catches my point. If General McNaughton is superannuated1 now he will be superannuated on the basis of a salary of $10,000, but if he is not superannuated until next week he will be superannuated1 on the basis of a salary of $15,000. May I ask the minister if he has taken any steps for the superannuation of General McNaughton right now in order to save several thousand dollars to the public exchequer, or if he is going to wait to give him a fat superannuation later on this week? Was I clear enough? Here as a case where a man is entitled to superannuation based on a salary of $10,000, and it is time right now
to save several thousand dollars of public money to the public exchequer, and the minister sife idle in his seat and does not answer my question. I ask him, will he superannuate General McNaughton right now on the basis of a salary of $10,000 in order not to give him the privilege of having a superannuation on $15,000 in a position which does not carry any superannuation, according to the statute. No answer? Sir, this is a scandal.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Here I denounce this case of favouritism with regard to the chief of staff, and all the ministers sit idle and dumb in their seats. I want an answer.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The question of
the salary or superannuation of General McNaughton is not under consideration. It has nothing to do with this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: I heard the Prime Minister state that General McNaughton was not now receiving any salary as chief of staff but was practically acting as chief of staff until he was replaced.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order. That would
come under item 330, not 329. When we come to the next item the hon. member may discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Jean-François Pouliot: No, Mr. Chairman, the item is not carried, because the chief of staff has to look after all these matters that come under item 329, and if you are not satisfied as to that, we will have the statutes brought into this chamber. What I a,m saying is absolutely pertinent to the item before us, and it was because the government was unable to answer that you ruled me out of order. It is a scandal in this house, and a scandal against parliamentary tradition. What does the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) say? I have been kind to him because we were college mates. Let me tell him what the electors of the province of Quebec think of him.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Can we not invoke free speech here, Mr. Chairman? Are we in Russia that we must stand in silence? This is one scandal in which there has been favouritism for the chief of staff who has been instrumental in having the large salaries that are paid to militia men and to himself, and I have a right to denounce it in this House of Commons.
Progress reported.
Eight Hour Day



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will foe the business for to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Amendments from the Senate. A bill was sent back from this house to the Senate with the statement that we had concurred in all the amendments except one, the consequential one. That appears on the record but not in the report of proceedings in the house. It apparently was overlooked that that was done. We will take the Senate amendments and I think there are two small bills, and then we will continue with supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not take the elections act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps we have had enough of elections for to-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, we are willing and prepared to face another-


Ernest Lapointe: Let us have it now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -just as soon as possible-


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, June 28, 1935