1935-03-04

MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens) moved concurrence in the first report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the royal commission on financial arrangements between the dominion and the maritime provinces-Sir George Perley.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (For the Prime Minister) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons relating to the appointment of
Railways and Shipping

standing committees of the house be amended by adding to the standing committees of the house for the present session a standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred the accounts and estimates of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided, however, that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply; and that said committee consist of: Messrs. Beaubien, Beaubier, Bell (St. Antoine), Bothwell, Cantley, Chaplin, Duff, Euler, Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser (Cariboo), Geary, Gray, Gobeil, Hanbury, Heaps, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Manion, Power, Price, Speakman, Stewart (Lethbridge) and Tummon.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask my right hon. friend if that resolution is the same in all essential particulars as the resolutions that have been passed in previous years?


George Halsey Perley: Yes, I think it is; I am informed that it is.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Before the motion is adopted, Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to complain about an answer I received from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) not long ago, with regard to Mr. Laforce, an employee of the Canadian National Railways. I asked in what capacity this man was employed, his salary and so on, and I was told that it was not in the public interest that this information should be made public. I cannot blame the minister for that answer but I do blame the management of the Canadian National for answering my question in that way. When members of the House of Commons ask questions this is the answer they get, but when they come to us to borrow money-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must tell my hon. friend that this discussion is not in order on this motion, which is to appoint a committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: But this is my point. That committee will investigate the business of the Canadian National Railways and the merchant marine, but only a privileged number of members of this house are entitled to secure information from the officials of the system. When a member, from his seat or through a question on the order paper, asks for some information such as this, he is denied the information he requires.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member must realize that he has the privilege of going

before the committee and asking any questions he may desire to ask. This discussion does not come up on this motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the evidence taken before the committee is printed in any case, and the hon. member can have some member of the committee ask any questions he wishes asked about Mr. Laforce. He will be able to get the evidence printed, if he wishes to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the house will allow me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the hon. member should carry the matter any further.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Who are the members of the Trent canal staff?
2.	What are their respective positions and salaries?
3.	When were they appointed?
4.	How many of the staff are engineers?
5.	What members of the staff are furnished with: (a) rent-free house; (b) rent-free telephone; (c) fuel and light without charge?


Robert James Manion: This information was
brought down last session, votes and proceeding No. 22, page 113, February 23, 1934. The information relates to the entire engineering and operating staff of the canal, their duties and their salaries, and is far too bulky to place on Hansard. However, as stated, it is already available to the hon. gentleman in the records of the house.


TRENT CANAL
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	What income has the federal government
received from the Trent canal during the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive, from the following sources respectively: (a) rentals of property; . (b) rentals or dues from power users; (e) tolls?	-
2.	What was the expenditure upon the Trent canal during the years 1932 to 1934 for (a) salaries and wages; (b) construction and repairs; (c) all other expenditures?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Amount of revenue received on the Trent canal, fiscal years 1929-30 to 1933-34 inclusive, for rentals of property, rentals or dues from power users and tolls:

Questions
Fiscal year	Rental of property
1929-30		(land)
1930-31		
1931-32		
1932-33		
1933-34		
Total		
2. Amount paid on	Trent canal, fiscal years
work under contract	and other expenditures:
Fiscal year	Amount paid for salaries
1932-33		and wages
1933-34

Rentals or dues from power users Tolls (hydraulic) $ 91,186 00 .... 91,094 18 .... 91,096 00 .... 91,086 00 .... 1,206 00 ....		Total $ 92,593 88 94,142 43 93,135 06 92,488 45 2,600 04
$365,668 18		$374,959 86
1932-33 and 1933-34 for salaries		and wages,
Amount paid		
for work under	Other	Total
contract	expenditures	
	$ 58,467 73	$264,843 62
$44,070 00	57,139 42	283,697 94$44,070 00	$115,607 15	$548,541 56


TRENT CANAL-TONNAGE
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	What tonnage carrying freight passed through the Trent canal from lake Ontario to Georgian bay during each of the years 1930 to 1934, inclusive?
2.	What tonnage of other craft passed over this route during each of the same years?
3.	What has been the total cost of the Trent canal detailed as follows: (a) construction costs, repairs and improvements; (b) salaries of staff; (c) settlement of drowned land claims, and costs of lands expropriated or purchased?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No vessels carrying freight passed through the whole canal from lake Ontario to Georgian bay.
2.	1930-23,785 tons of freight through portions	of	canal.	Number	of	pleasure	craft
lockages-6,658,
1931- 23,172 tons of freight through portions	of	canal.	Number	of	pleasure	craft
lockages-6,561.
1932-	5,189 tons of freight through portions	of	canal.	Number	of	pleasure	craft,
lockages-5,661.
1933-	6,341 tons of freight through portions	of	canal.	Number	of	pleasure	craft
lockages-5,887.
1934-	4,624 tons of freight through portions	of	canal.	Number	of	pleasure	craft
lockages-11,064.
3. (a) Total cost of Trent canal as at March 31, 1934:
Capital expenditure	$19,953,583	99Income improvement expenditure	
3,766,618	66
Operation and maintenance
expenditure	 4,700,928	94


$28,421,131 59 S2582-87
[Stage Direction]
(b)	Amount paid in salaries and wages, 1880-81 to 1933-34, inclusive, $16,137,869.84.
(c)	Amount paid for settlement of drowned land claims and costs of lands expropriated or purchased, 1880-81 to 1933-34, inclusive, $889,842.78.
It will be noted that the amounts paid in salaries and wages, etc., are shown as from 1880-81 to 1933-34, inclusive. A detailed distribution is not available prior to 1880-81.

Mr. CHEYRIER:: 1.	How many members of the public service of Canada contributed a total sum of $1,985,563 to superannuation fund No. 5 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1934?
2.	Does any federal act, or any regulations of the Department of Insurance require insurance companies to inform their policyholders and shareholders from time to time both as to the financial and actuarial condition of such companies?
3.	If so, when will the Department of Finance advise the contributors to superannuation fund No. 5 as to the actuarial status of such fund?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$2,237,188 was the net amount of contributions by 23,532 civil servants in the year ended March 31, 1934.
2.	There are no regulations and no provision of general application. Under the insurance acts of the dominion, fraternal benefit societies are required to send financial statements to their policyholders. The special acts of incorporation of some insurance companies require financial statements to be laid before the members at the annual meeting.

Questions

3.	Benefits to contributors are specifically authorized by statute and there is no provision requiring that they be advised with respect to the matter referred to.


MR. ALBERT RIOTJX
Jean-François Pouliot: How many days did Mr. Albert Rioux act or sit on the board of review for the province of Quebec, as a representative of debtors, in virtue of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


Mr. RHODES:: From the date of his
appointment, December 8, 1934, to date, thirty-two days.



ST. FABIEN, QUE., STATION-MAIL CONTRACT

Sir EUGENE FISET:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the transport of the mail from St. Fabien station, county of Rimouski to the post office?
2.	If so, has the contract been awarded, and what were the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. Yes.		
2. Yes.		
	Per annum	
Georges Dube	.... $148	50Robert Rioux	.... 149	00Angelbert Rioux.. ..	.... 175	00Cyrice Rioux	.... 200	00Alphonse Jenn	.... 224	00Seraphin Cote	.... 240	00Achille Caron	.... 250	00Ernest Rioux	.... 275	00Febien Bernier	.... 600	003.	The two lowest tenders were considered to be equal and the contract awarded to Robert Rioux at $148.50 per annum.



FAIRBRIDGE FARM SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MU'NN:
1.	Has the Department of Immigration, or any other department of the government, made any arrangement with the Fairbridge Farm School, or Major M. F. Trew, or the Child Immigration Society of Great Britain for the purpose of training English boys and girls to enter farm life in Canada?
2.	Has the Department of Immigration, or any other department of the government, given any assistance, financially or otherwise, to the Fairbridge Farm School, Major M. F. Trew or the Child Immigration Society of Great Britain for the purpose of buying one thousand acres of land on Vancouver island for the pur-

pose of erecting buildings thereon, and for the purpose of organizing agricultural training of English boys and girls?
3.	If so, from which English institutions will be taken English boys and girls who will be sent for training to Vancouver island?
4.	What persons or society will choose the English boys and' girls to be sent for such training?
5.	Will the said English boys and girls be examined by the Department of Immigration, or the Department of National Health, as to their physical, mental and moral fitness to be admitted into Canada?
6.	What will be done with the pupils after they have finished their training, and wall they receive assistance therefor and to what amount from the Canadian government?
Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The Department of Immigration and Colonization, acting on an application from the British Columbia government, entered into an arrangement in March, 1934, with the Child Emigration Society of Great Britain, for the establishment in the province of British Columbia of a branch of the Fair-bridge Farm Schools, to be used for the purpose of training British boys and girls in Canada.
2.	No.
3.	It is not yet known to the department from what sources the boys and girls will come.
4.	The society will put forward the children for examination by oversea officers of the Department of Immigration and Colonization and the Department of Pensions and National Health.
5.	Yes, by officials of both departments.
6.	The children will be brought out at or about ten years of age. They will be kept in the Fairbridge training centre until they reach the full age of sixteen years. The society then becomes responsible for finding suitable placement for boys as farm workers and for girls as houseworkers. They have not been promised and will not receive any financial assistance from the dominion government.



HAZELTON, B.C., POST OFFICE

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: X. What was the total gross revenue in the Hazelton post office, British Columbia, for the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive, giving each year separately ?
2.	What salary and other remuneration did the postmaster receive, at that place, during the said years, giving each year separately?

Questions


Arthur Sauvé: 1 and 2.
Fiscal year-
1929-	30.. ..
1930-	31.. ..
1931-	32.. ..
1932-	33.. ..
1933-	34.. ..



POST OFFICE PHILATELIC AGENCY

Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	What revenue was derived by the philatelic agency of the Post Office Department from the sale of used postage stamps during each of the fiscal years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2. By what authority did the philatelic agency procure the right to sell used Canadian postage stamps?
3.	What was the source of supply of these used postage stamps?
4. On what date did the said philatelic agency begin to operate?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	1930-31, nil.
1931-	32, nil.
1932-	33, $19.97.
1933-	34, $135.91.
2.	There is nothing in the statutes which prevents the Postmaster General from disposing of any marketable asset from which revenue for the department can be derived in the ordinary course of Post office business.
3.	Post Office Department forms 7, 8 and 9 P. (Labels to which are affixed postage stamps used to prepay postage on printed matter mailed in bulk).
4.	September 13, 1932.



THEFT OF WOOD-BISHOPTON, QUE.

Mr. LAFLECHE:: What is the name and place of residence of the solicitor to whom the Department of National Defence has assigned the handling of charges which said department preferred against Placide Doyon and Jos. Nadeau, of Marbleton, Wolfe county, for the theft of wood on government property at Bishopton, Quebec?


Mr. STIRLING:: No solicitor was employed by the Department of National Defence in this case.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	What was the total amount guaranteed by the government under unemployment and farm relief legislation since August 7, 1930?
2.	To-whom were such guarantees given and on whose behalf?
C2582-87}
Gross		Other remuneration
revenue	Salary	(allowances)$2,300 66	$1,122 00	$240 252.104 57	1,169 80	220 282,110 19	1,131 34	233 542,045 69	975 52	214' 471,821 21	960 52	219 27


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the information which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre seeks to secure by this question will be given fully in a return now in course of preparation as the result of an order of the house moved by my hon. friend. In the circumstances I would suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I asked for a return and this information was deliberately omitted by one of the officials of my hon. friend's department. Other information was given, but the amount of the guarantees was deliberately omitted and a very facetious reply was given by some official of that department. I object to that, and that is why I asked this question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The information I just gave my hon. friend is in conformity with the advice given me, that the return is in course of preparation and has not been brought down. My hon. friend must be referring to some other return. In those circumstances I would ask that the question be passed as an order for return.


BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS-QUEBEC
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	In what counties, in the province of Quebec, have restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis been established, pursuant to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?
2.	When were such areas established?
3.	What is the total indemnity paid by the government in each county thus organized in restricted areas for the above purpose?
4.	Has the government or the Minister of Agriculture received any petition, in due form, requesting the establishment and maintenance of a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis in the county of Joliette?
5.	If so, when was such a request made?


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


COLTER SIDING, N.B., RELIEF CAMP
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What supplies for the unemployment relief
camp at Colter Siding, New Brunswick, w-ere purchased from March 1, 1934, to February 1, i935?	,
2.	From whom were they purchased:
3.	Were tenders called or invited for such supplies?
4.	If so, who tendered, and what was the amount of each tender?



PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURES

Mr. MICHAUD:: What amounts were expended by the dominion government for public works in: (a) the county of Bonaventure, Quebec; (b) the county of Restigouche, New Brunswick; (c) the county of Gloucester, New Brunswick, luring each of the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MITCHELL:: For a copy of all instructions issued by the Minister of Pensions and National Health to unit officers, medical examiners or headquarters staff between March, 1933, and July 1, 1934.



CANADIAN WHEAT QUOTA

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the announcement made by the Prime Minister just before he sailed from England in December, 1931, in regard to a quota for Canadian wheat.



CACOUNA, QUE. WHARF FOREMAN

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions and other documents, respecting the appointment of a superintendent or foreman in connection with works at the Cacouna wharf, since bhe month of August, 1930.



CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (for the Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish a board to be known as the Canadian grain board with power to purchase, receive and take delivery of wheat, oats, barley, rye and flax-seed, or any one or more of such grains for marketing and to sell, store, transport and market such grains, and to provide for the appointment of such clerks, employees and assistants as may be necessary, and to provide for their remuneration and for the expenses of, and arising out of, the operations of the board.
(Mr. R. Weir.]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government when I may expect to receive an answer to the question put to the government on February 22, Hansard, page 1179, concerning imports from U.S.S.R.?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg the
hon. member's pardon for not having answered the question sooner. I shall have the matter looked into and answer to-morrow.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.



DESTRUCTION OF FOOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the government an article appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, March 2. This is a statement made by the Bishop of London, Doctor Winnington-Ingram before the assembly of the Anglican church, that among some of the anomalies existing in the economic world were wheat burned in Canada, coffee destroyed in Brazil and barrels of herring thrown into the sea. I believe such a statement, one affecting this country, should be corrected. We may be doing many foolish things in Canada but I hope we never do anything so foolish as to burn our wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would the hon. member
submit his question.?


Thomas Reid: I am just drawing the attention of the government to the statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
no right to make a statement.


Thomas Reid: I shall now ask the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon. member to ask his question.


Thomas Reid: Well, if other hon. members
would leave me alone I would ask my question. Will the government take steps to see that such a report is corrected and contradicted?

Italian Consul General



REPORTED STATEMENT OF ITALIAN CONSUL GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government whether or not they are prepared to reply to the question- I asked on February 28?


Right Hon.   S@: Is the hon. member referring to the question he asked about the Italian Consul General?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I have risen twice in attempts to answer the question but on both occasions other hon. members have spoken ahead of me.
The hon. member for East Hamilton inquired on Thursday regarding a report in the Ottawa Citizen of February 25 of an address given at a dinner in Ottawa on February 23, by the Consul General of Italy. I had the matter brought to Mr. Petrucci's attention. The following letter has been received from him, dated March 2, 1935:
Consolato Generate TJi S.M.IL Re D'ltalia A1 Canada
Ottawa, March 2, 1935.
Dear Sir:
I note the inquiry in the House of Commons to which you have called my attention.
I regret that the report of my address has given rise to misunderstanding of the purpose and meaning of my remarks. Nothing was further from my mind than to suggest that Italian citizens of Canada should urge "The abandonment of Canada's democratic form of government." I explicitly declared that I did not favour any propaganda. My address gave an analysis of the corporate state, and was mainly concerned with the new economic policies which were being worked out in Italy. I added' that I found that much misunderstanding prevailed on these points, and suggested to my hearers that they might well endeavour to explain the real meaning of the new and interesting experiments that are being made, and which may have something of interest to any people in the present unsettled state of social organization. This suggestion was prompted by a friendly desire to make my country and its recent progress better known to Canadians, and to contribute in this way to still closer understanding between our countries. I added' that the Italian men and women around me were indebted to Canada for their prosperity and expressed the hope that they would always do honour alike to Italy, the country of their origin, and to Canada, the country of their adoption.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
L. Petrucci,
Italian Consul General.
This letter is addressed to O. D. Skelton, Ph.D., M.A., Under Secretary of State for
External Affairs. I am satisfied upon inquiry that the Consul General had no intention of interfering in Canadian affairs. It is only fair that allowance should be made for the difficulty which besets new comers in dealing with the finer points of English speech. I can assure the member for East Hamilton that the government of Canada would not countenance any intervention by a representative of a foreign government in Canadian affairs, or any support from outside to movements for social or economic change in this country. We have our own problems to solve and are entirely capable of solving them by the tried and tested democratic methods which are our heritage.
WESTERN POULTRY MARKETING On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture on Friday last, and I understood him to say he was prepared to answer it to-day.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say the returns are not yet completed. As soon as they are completed and a decision made, I shall reply.
SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albe-rni):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) if it is his intention soon to introduce amendments to the Shipping Act? He knows some amendments are rather badly needed.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration. We are expecting further developments in the other dominions, and they will have to take place before amendments are brought down to the Shipping Act as uniformity is sought in such legislation.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE On the orders of the day:


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I understand some requests have come from all sides of the house for an opportunity to see the film called "Lest we Forget," which is to be shown on Thursday evening next in the Capitol theatre, under the auspices of the Canadian Legion. We have considered the matter, and it is the intention at six o'clock on Thursday to move that the house do adjourn until the following afternoon at three o'clock.
C. N. R.-Refunding



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. EDGAR N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the Canadian National Railways, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year, 1935, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have only one observation to make, namely that the language of the resolution makes abundantly clear the purpose we have in mind. It is proposed to follow the usual practice of introducing a bill founded upon the resolution, which bill after second reading will be referred to the committee on railways and shipping.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Stanley (Calgary East) in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1935.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the bill was read the second time and referred to the committee on railways and shipping.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 1, consideration in committee of Bill No. 10, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, two members of the house having done me the honour of replying to the observations I delivered on Friday last, I consider it my duty now to reply to them. The first one is a brilliant lawyer who poses as the champion of the French Canadians. This is how he commenced his speech:
I shall not attempt to follow' the arguments of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. 
Roberge). Everyone knows that every year the old gentleman repeats arguments along that line.
Is the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) aware that this country has only two official languages, English and French? According to my information, ad hoc means that I present measures of no value. It is possible that they mean nothing to the hon. member for Dorcester, for I know how little interest he takes in the farming class.
My first speech of the present session was delivered on the 12th of February-and related to the change of the interest rate. The bill had been introduced by the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Coote), and I asked the government to have a measure adopted fixing the rate of interest at 4 per cent, in order that, after deducting the 1| or 2 per cent contributed by the provincial government, the farmers of the province of Quebec would have to pay only about 2 per cent interest. I wonder if the hon. member for Dorchester and the hon. member for Compton will be pleased to inform their constituents that the farmers cannot obtain money at 4 per cent!
On the second occasion on which I spoke during this session, I asked the hon. Minister of Colonization (Mr. Gordon) to grant to farmers' sons an amount equal to that granted to them by the province of Quebec. That proposal also, according to these hon. members, is worthless. Well, I ask them to go to their respective counties and say that the federal government is doing nothing for the sons of farmers and is opposed to all federal aid. I continue, following word for word the speech of my genial colleague:
Everyone knows that the old gentleman ...
It is true, Mr. Chairman, that I am old in political life. I have been actively engaged in politics in Megantic County since 1896, which is nearly thirty-nine years ago. Allow me to state, Mr. Chairman, that never in all that time has a Conservative been elected in that beautiful county. The hon. member for Dorchester is still rather young and is incapable of distinguishing between the provincial and the federal government, for three quarters of the speeches he delivers in this house are devoted to provincial matters. That is probably one of the .reasons why he was not chosen as provincial leader of the Conservative party at the great convention held at Sherbrooke.
Further on, Mr. Chairman, at the foot of the page, appear these words:
This legislation has received the approval in Quebec of the bishops and the general approval of the unions of Catholic farmers all over the province.

Farmers' Creditors Act
No one has more respect than. I have for the opinion of the bishops and no one is more anxious than I am to help the farmers. To mention a well known fact, Mr. Chairman, and to show you what has been accomplished in the county of Megantic to help the farmers, I shall mention what has been done in my parish since 1922. We established the Pure Bred Cattle Young Breeders' Union and the Potato Growers' Association which have an organization beyond comparison in this country. We established the Fowl Breeders' Association which ships 15,000 to 20,000 chicks per year. We have the Farmers' Association which has bought a clover and timothy threshing machine. We have the Farmers' W ives' Club, the Farmers' Club and a demonstration farm which I secured from the dominion government since I represent the county of Megantic.
Mr. Chairman, it is on behalf of all those associations that I asked that the rate of interest be set at 4 per cent, in order that the farmers and the small investors may be protected; that I also asked the government to present a measure providing for a 5 or 10 year moratorium which woidd allow our small investors to live without fear, and also oui farmers to remain on their land in the meantime, without being disturbed if they paid their taxes and interests.
A little further on, at the foot of the page, I read the following:
I have news from my district, where the farmers have suffered perhaps more than the farmers of the county of Megantic. I have a letter here from one official receiver who tells me that at the present time fifty per cent of the farmers are unable to meet their debts.
Now here is a county represented by a lawyer, where fifty per cent of the constituents are on the verge of bankruptcy. I live in a farming district, such as that represented by the honourable member for Dorchester, and in eight parishes of the beautiful county of Megantic, out of a total population of more than 2,000 farmers, only one took advantage of this legislation. Moreover, let me tell you how the farmers of my district meet their obligations. The names of those who owe tax arrears for three or four years are sent to the county council, in order to make up the list of sales for taxes. On December 1st, il asked the secretary how many sales were to be held in my parish. He told me that the names of twenty farmers were to be sent to the county council. On January 15, I made further inquiries and he told me that there remained only two; last Monday, there remained one. As the sale is
to be held on March 6, I hope that last case will be settled and there will be none left. That is how an old country merchant can protect the farmers in his county.
At the foot of the page here is what the member for Dorchester says:
I am a lawyer, Mr. Speaker; I cannot forget that, and I say that the creditor has just as much right to be protected as has the farmer.
I also say that the creditor has just as much right to be protected as has the debtor.
In order to protect the debtor, one must come to his aid and this assistance cannot be rendered to him through opposing a 4 per cent rate of interest, as was done by the hon. members for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) and for Compton (Mr. Gobeil).
Again, on page 1339:
Nevertheless I urge the Minister of Finance to continue his negotiations with the attorney general of Quebec in order to find ways to help the farmers.
The proper way to, help the farming community is easily found: Let the dominion government fix the rate of interest at 4 per cent-the provincial government is prepared to pay half of that rate-and let them give our farmers, through the moratorium act, the assurance that they will not be disturbed for five or ten years; you will see at once an improvement in conditions.
And again, on page 1340:
I realize that in the future some people may have difficulty getting money from rentiers.
Mr. Chairman, we have there a confession on the part of the hon. member who states that he realizes that in the future it will be extremely difficult for a farmer to borrow any money from the smaller rentiers.
Let us see now how the hon. member for Dorchester looks after his electors and how he deals with them in this house. On page 1339, he said:
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Quebec there are creditors who do not possess even an elementary sense of justice, and who have thus acquired many farms in my district.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that a man who claims to be as much of a patriot as the hon. member for Dorchester should not speak disparagingly of his province in this house. But the hon. member went further than that: during the last electoral campaign, in the province of Ontario, he went in the constituency of Cochrane-North and spoke against a French-Canadian. Mr. Abel. The French-Canadians experience great difficulties in obtaining representation in the Ontario Legislative Assembly, but this courageous man
Farmers' Creditors Act

who poses as a champion of the French-Canadian race went there and helped Mr. Abel's opponents.
May I now briefly refer to my hon friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil). On page 1341, he made the following statement:
Just now I know that the hon. member is using his frank to mail out thousands of copies of the remarks he made last week, some of which were just as bad as what we have heard to-day.
So, according to this statement, the hon. member of Compton claims that I made a worthless suggestion in this House when I was urging a subsidy of $300 for the sons of farmers; he claims that, when I insist on obtaining money at the rate of 4 per cent interest for the farmers, my suggestion is of no value. I would ask of him that he repeat the same statement to his own electors.
He said: "Just now I know that the hon. member is using his frank to mail out thousands of copies. . ." It is not usual with me, Mr. Chairman to make personal remarks; and this is the first time that I make any in this house. But, is the hon. member for Compton now in a position to give the house such information owing to the fact that one of his daughters is now employed as a stenographer in the House of Commons? I would ask the hon. Speaker of this house and the clerk to investigate the matter in order to find out who keeps the hon. member for Compton so well informed, and I insist on the guilty party being punished accordingly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On March 1, when the second reading of the bill was about concluded, the hon. member for Yegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) put some questions which I told him then I would answer in committee of the whole house. The first question was: How many of these cases are settled in the office of the official receiver? We can only give such information as is of record in the head office at the moment, and the figures which were given are on the whole much less than they would actually be if the returns were all in and up to date. An instance that arose in the office this morning would indicate that the statement I have made is accurate. One of the official receivers was in this morning and in the aggregate, in the list of settlements recorded at head office, he is shown as having had seventeen in his district whereas as a matter of fact there were over forty, the balance above seventeen not having come into the office and not being yet a matter of record.
The actual reported settlements made by official receivers as shown by figures at head 
office to-day are: British Columbia, 3; Alberta, 228; Saskatchewan, 143, Manitoba, 112; Ontario, 288; Quebec, 316; New Brunswick, 1; Nova Scotia, 1, making a total of 1,092.
The second question submitted by my hon. friend was: What proportion are sent to the board of review? The number referred to the board of review in Quebec as at date March 1, according to figures as disclosed at head office, was 763, of which 97 have been heard. In Ontario there have been 228, of which 106 have been heard. In Manitoba there have been 141, of which 51 have been heard. In Saskatchewan there have been 222, of which 90 have been heard. In Alberta there have been 276, and of these 102 have been heard. In other words, a total of 1,630 cases have been referred to the board and there have been 446 hearings.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Hearings
before the board?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. The rest of the information which the hon. member sought is as to the number of proposals that have been received. I must point out that the records in the head office must of necessity be behind the actual figures, because distance sometimes means many delays. The official receivers have in many instances been so busy in dealing with actual settlements and meeting with debtors and creditors that they have not had sufficient time to fill in the necessary forms imparting to the Central office the information sought. But as of March 2, the following is the number of proposals in hand:
Number of
Province-	proposals
Prince Edward	Island	 57
Nova Scotia	 3
New Brunswick	 8
Quebec	 1,167
Ontario	 446
Manitoba	 492
Saskatchewan	 752
Alberta	 640
British Columbia	 20
Total	 3,585
It will be recalled that in the course of my remarks at the conclusion of the debate on the second reading, I announced that the estimate in the head office at Ottawa is that at the moment there is actually a total of upwards of 7,000 proposals in process of consideration before the several official receivers.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Before the minister passes that point, I should like to ask him a question. I think he said that there was a total of 1,092-was it decisions?

Farmers' Creditors Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; those were actual settlements before the official receivers.


Edward Joseph Garland: Cases that are already dealt with?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Settlements that are all
closed and that were arrived at, as my hon. friend will realize, by mutual agreement between debtors and creditors.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is this number included
in the second number that the hon. gentleman gave us of 1,630 now before the boards of review?	,


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; I think it follows
that inasmuch as these are actual settlements arrived at between debtors and creditors before the official receivers, they would not go on appeal before the board of review, so that the number as given, namely 1,630, would be included in the 7,000 odd but not in the 1,092.


Mr. HANBURY:: Will the minister say
whether all the 1,630 are included in the 3,585, the total number of proposals?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Wilfred Hanbury: Could he tell us how
many farmers altogether there are in Canada? He has given us an estimate of 7,000 proposals.
_ Mr. RHODES: The figure I have in mind is 728,000, but I would have to have that verified. I have no statistics concerning this before me.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
the number of farms of ten acres and over.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the hon. member
for Bow River is correct, but I would like to verify the figure from the records.


Wilfred Hanbury: The information is, I
presume, approximately correct, because I have a great deal of confidence in what the hon. member for Bow River has to say in this connection. The point I wish to make is that under this legislation which has now been in effect for a year-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Wilfred Hanbury: -we have a total number of proposals of 7,000. The total number of farmers is approximately 780,000. In other words, under this measure we are legislating for less than one per cent of our farm population. I think the legislation is desirable, but I wish again to point out to the minister that I believe the time will arrive very shortly when the fact that we are keeping
on our statute books legislation for the benefit of a very small proportion of the population will work to the disadvantage, of those we are attempting to help. Has the minister given any consideration to the suggestion which I made to him that in the form ,of an amendment to this legislation some definite date should be set at which the legislation would be concluded?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend was, I
know quite inadvertently, in error when he said that this legislation had been in effect for a year. As a matter of fact it was first proclaimed in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba on September 1 of last year. That is the date of the proclamation. It went into effect in those three provinces first. But my hon. friend will bear in mind that following that there had to be machinery set up of an entirely new character and obviously that could not be done in a day. Then the act was proclaimed in Quebec on October 1 and in Ontario on October 1. Only on November 1 was it proclaimed in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and the same statement I made a moment ago with respect to the establishment of the necessary personnel to bring the act into operation obtains with respect to the latter provinces. This is a very different matter from an act having been in force for a year. I can express my view only for what it may be worth and that is to say that the number of those who have availed themselves of this act has far exceeded anything that I had anticipated, certainly in such a limited period of time.


Wilfred Hanbury: I asked the minister
whether the government had given any consideration as to setting a date for the conclusion of this legislation. I am not saying how soon that date should be.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The government has
reached no decision in that matter for the very obvious reason that the act has been in operation for only a comparatively short time and the question when it will be concluded must be determined by experience in the operation of the act and by judgment from the circumstances as to how much longer it may be required to be in operation.


Mr. COOTE:: I think the first meeting of
any board of review in western Canada was not until some time after the new year, so that really very little advantage has as 'yet been taken of the act. Quite obviously it has not been in operation for a long period of time.
Farmers' Creditors Act

I was going to ask the minister whether he had any idea how long it would take the boards of review to hear the cases that are now before them. This question might perhaps better come under clause 2, but I have some. doubt whether the change that is being made in that clause, changing the sixty-day period to ninety days, will give a really long enough period. In many cases more than ninety days are certain to elapse between the time the farmer makes application to the official receiver and the date on which the board of review can give a decision in his case. The board has before it now sufficient cases to keep it going for months.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend does not object, I would prefer to discuss the question of the ninety-day period when we reach that clause. I know there will be some other questions with respect to it, and I should like to deal'with them all at once. My hon. friend is right in indicating that it was only in December that the board of review started to function in the western provinces, and while there were some cases heard in December there were no decisions rendered until after the turn of the New Year. The hon. member asks how long it will take the board to dispose of the cases now before them. That is a very difficult question to answer, because some cases may take much longer than others. I am advised that the largest number dealt with in any one day by the board has been ten. But I must pay this tribute to the assiduity and fidelity with which the members of the board of review have addressed themselves to their task. I am informed that in Alberta the board are sitting from nine o'clock in the morning until midnight. Under those conditions they should quickly clean up the cases now before them. But it must be borne in mind that a new lot is coming along all the time, and under those circumstances, until the act has accomplished its purpose there will of necessity always be some accumulation of arrears.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I have no desire to delay the passage of this bill through the committee, but I would like to make one or two observations. At the outset I say that I approve of this amendment, as I approved of the act last year. The minister said the act came into force in Ontario on October 1, last. Of my own personal knowledge of the part of the province I come from I am glad to be able to tell the minister and the government that a great many farmers have availed themselves of the help afforded by the act. In my own home town two weeks ago the official receiver addressed a large gathering of farm-

ers from the surrounding country explaining the act, and I am glad to pay my tribute for once at least to the government-


Mr. COTNAM:: For the first time.


Frederick George Sanderson: -for this act has alleviated the difficulties of many farmers who found themselves in debt. I do not say that it cures all their ills, but it does afford a measure of relief not only to those directly taking advantage of the provisions of the act, but I am advised and on inquiry find the information is correct that many farmers who find themselves in difficulty, invoke the official receiver to act as arbitrator between creditor and debtor, without formally seeking relief under the act. A conference takes place and an agreement results whereby the debtor is relieved to some extent, temporarily or otherwise, of his worries. Another feature is that many farmers who are in difficulty do not like to publish it to the world. People in such circumstances are often very sensitive about it. Many people, farmers especially, find themselves in difficulty for the first time, and they do not want even their neighbours to know about it. Often they get some relief through this act by merely putting their case before the official receiver who perhaps takes it up and arranges a settlement, though it may be only temporary. So I am glad to commend the government for this act and for this amendment. I have no criticism of it to offer at all; I am in favour of the amendment and shall vote for it.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) seemed to make a point of the small number of proposals that have come forward under this legislation. To me it seems a remarkable response to have something over seven thousand cases brought to the attention either of the official receiver or the board of review since this act has been in effect, a matter of some three months. I do not think it is incumbent upon the minister or the government to set any definite time for which the legislation shall last. Its usefulness is not confined to those particular cases which come before the official receiver or the board of review for consideration; to my mind many cases have been disposed of satisfactorily to the parties concerned without even coming before the official receiver. I have in mind a particular case. As executors of an estate in the west three of us approached the official receiver in our judicial district to have the interest rate on a mortgage reduced. The mortgage was for $1,300 on a quarter section, at 8 per cent interest. We found on approaching the

Farmers' Creditors Act
official receiver that it would be necessary to take out letters of administration before he could proceed with the case. Rather than go to that expense we decided to write directly to the mortgage company and ask them if they would voluntarily reduce the rate. They replied that they would, and it was reduced from 8 to 6 per cent, and we did not go any further in connection with the official receiver. I think perhaps there may be scores of such cases settled satisfactorily to all parties without coming formally before the official receiver or the board of review.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To give the committee a
little more of the picture, I might indicate that the number of upwards of seven thousand which I mentioned includes only those proposals which have been actually formulated and documented; it does not include the many cases which have been settled, in some instances through the intervention of the official receiver, in others merely through the existence of the act. But settlements effected outside of the act have been just as efficacious as if they had been the subject of proposals formally recorded under the act; the case in point mentioned by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) illustrates that. Then in addition there are hundreds and thousands of cases in which preliminary interviews are being had with the official receiver which in the large majority will ultimately result in proposals being actually formulated. Of course there are other cases in which official receivers, either because - of the hopelessness of the situation or the unfairness of a given proposal, have refused to proceed with a proposal which in the nature of things they knew would not ibe acceptable. I give that additional information to make clear what the figures I mentioned actually mean.


Edward Joseph Garland: This is
interesting, but I do not want to be in any confusion. I understood the minister to say that as of March 2 the number of proposals under the scheme totalled 3,585. Is that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the number they
have received at head office, but I am advised by head office that owing to the circumstance that there is an inevitable delay in receiving reports by mail, as many take some days in transit, and further that many of the official receivers are so busy holding meetings between debtors and creditors that they have not time to fill in the necessary reports to keep the information up to date, it is the opinion of the central office, having in mind
the usual arrearage, that the number of actual proposals now before the official receivers is upwards of seven thousand.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then the seven thousand is purely an estimate at the present time?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, based on experience of the lag between the actual formulation of proposals before the official receivers and the entering of the records in the central office.


Mr. DUPRE:: I find the attitude of some
Liberal members from the province of Quebec very strange, and since- I represent a district in that province I think I should say a few words in answer to what was said last week, particularly by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) and the hon. member for La-prairie-Napierville- (Mr. Dupuis).
The purpose- of this law is to help the farmer who is in financial difficulties. Is there anything wronlg in that? The purpose of this law is to help the farmer who cannot meet his obligations. We have created a system by which the farmer who is in debt goes to his creditors in order to discuss a settlement, to find a remedy to enable him to meet his debts, to adjust his situation, to turn over a new leaf, to start life ane-w, to keep his farm which is the patrimony of his family, and everything that is dear to him. I think some illustrations of what has taken place in the province of Quebec under this legislation will be of greater benefit than any theoretical analysis of the measure itself. I have before me a report in regard to the working of this legislation in the province of Quebec, which states that up to the end of January 9,290 farmers had interviewed receivers. 1,703 proposals had been filed and 226 settlements had been reported as having been voluntarily arrived at before the receivers as between the farmer debtors and their creditors. Over 600 cases had been brought to the attention of the board of review, and up to Saturday, February 16, the board had dealt with 65 cases. It had been successful in most cases in so conciliating the farmers and their creditors that arrangements have been made which were satisfactory to both parties. Further information is to the effect that to the first of this month the board have dealt with 100 cases, instead of 65. The net result in respect of the 65 cases I have mentioned has been a reduction in capital debt of about S100.000 and there also has been a substantial reduction in- the carrying charges, which means that the cost of production will be decreased to that extent.
In order to answer the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville and the hon. member
Farmers' Creditors Act

for Megantic, who spoke of the plight of the farmers of Quebec, and in order to indicate the cooperation that is being developed as between debtors and creditors I should like to refer to one case that was heard by the board of review in Hull, Quebec. The farmer had requested a reduction in his interest rate from six per cent to five per cent, as well as an extension of his mortgage indebtedness. When the creditor who held the hypotheque came before the board of review he consented to the extension and at the same time went further than the farmer had requested by reducing, on his own initiative, the interest rate from six per cent to three per cent.
The board of review is definitely proceeding on the assumption that the principles of conciliation should be applied and that while every reasonable consideration must be given the claims of creditors, at the same time it is absolutely essential to restore the credit of the farmers. Consequently it is in the interests of all concerned that the indebtedness be so rearranged as to insure that the farmer again will be a good credit risk. This legislation, however, is not functioning only to reduce and so arrange liabilities that the farmer may be able to meet them; it is re-establishing-


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Mr. Chairman, I
rise to a point of order. The other day when the hon. member for Megantic was reading from his notes he was called to order, and I should like to direct your attention to the fact that the Solicitor General is doing exactly the same thing to-day.


Maurice Dupré: I must direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that I took the trouble to state that I had before me a report concerning the activities of the board of review. It is this report on which I am commenting and from which I am giving some extracts. Perhaps the hon. member was not here when I made that statement.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon) :: I must say that in my opinion the point is not well taken.


Mr. McPHEE:: Is my hon. friend quoting from a government return?


Maurice Dupré: This is a report which is at the disposal of all hon. members; it has been issued lay the Minister of Finance. Any member can read it, but hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to have done so, because everything they have said' is contrary to what we have heard from the board of review.


George Washington McPhee: Would my hon. friend state where he obtained this report, because I have no such report.


Maurice Dupré: I cannot answer everyone at the same time, so first I will answer my hon. friend from Rimouski. I have before me a report in connection with a few cases dealt with in the province of Quebec.


George Washington McPhee: My hon. friend has no right to quote unless it is from a public document. If it is a return which was tabled in this house he has a right to quote from it.


Eugène Fiset: My point of order was that the Solicitor General was not only reading from what he called an official report but that he was also reading his own comments from his notes. That is exactly what the hon. member for Megantic was doing the other day; that is the point to which the hon. member for Compton objected and the point to which you, Mr. Chairman, also took exception.


Onésime Gagnon: For the benefit of members of the opposition I may say that it has been decided time and time again in this house that a member has the right to consult notes in making his speech.


Eugène Fiset: Not read from them.


Onésime Gagnon: Therefore, I do not understand why the Solicitor General should not do what any other hon. member is allowed to do, namely to consult his notes.


Mr. VENIOT:: I rise to a point of order. A similar reason was given when only a few days ago the hon. member for Megantic was speaking from this side of the house, and at that time the chair drew the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he should not read too copiously from his notes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where do you draw the line?


Peter John Veniot: Yes, where shall we draw the line? If the chair objected to the hon. member for Megantic reading copiously from his notes, I do not see why we have not the right to object to the Solicitor General reading copiously from his notes.


Mr. GIROUARD:: I am surprised to note the stand taken by the chair to the objection raised by the hon. member for Rimouski. Last Friday when the hon. member for Megantic consulted his notes he was told that he was reading his speech. I would observe however that he was doing only what the Solicitor General is now doing, merely consulting his notes. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I dispute your authority to decide that the objection taken by the hon. member for Rimouski is out of order.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Onésime Gagnon: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy, and to close the discussion I shall ask the Solicitor General to make his speech without consulting his notes. It will be the first time in the House of Commons an hon. member has not been allowed to consult notes, but the decision may please the opposition.


Eugène Fiset: He was reading from them.


Maurice Dupré: Continuing to read from the report, which I have in my hand-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Washington McPhee: No, the chair has made a ruling on that point. The Solicitor General is quoting authoritatively certain statements from a report which has not been tabled and is not properly before the house. We have no means of knowing whether or not the statement is authoritative. I submit he must desist from reading, or show that it is a public document tabled in the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Surely the hon. member does not go the length of saying that a minister of the crown is debarred from quoting any document which does not happen to be an official document. If that is his statement he will find no precedent for such a decision. I am not stressing the point of order, but I do not think the statement made by the hon. member should go unchallenged. He will find no authority for the position he has taken. The rules say only that if a minister does quote from a document he must upon request lay it upon the table,-that is, an official document.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We do not know what this report is.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It may not be a report; I do not think it is, in fact.


George Washington McPhee: The Solicitor General said it was.


Wilfred Hanbury: And gave the Minister of Finance credit for it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the Minister is under a misapprehension. I did not follow him closely, but what I understood him to say was that he was referring to a statement handed to the press and having to do with the operations of the act. Naturally from time to time the press asks for such statements for the purpose of informing those who are interested in the operations of the act, and so that those people may be informed as to the progress being made. I have risen only because I do not wish the hon. member
for Yorkton to labour under the misapprehension that what he has stated is a correct interpretation of the rule.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The rule is explicit, indeed, to the effect that an hon. member cannot quote from any outside authority commenting on any subject matter in the present debate. If the hon. member is quoting from an official document of the house he should inform the committee as to what the document is, such document having been tabled previously. Otherwise he is out of order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is citing a well known rule which has reference to comment upon legislation. In the present instance, however, the minister is not referring to this legislation at all. What he is reading refers to the operation of the act, and does not deal with this bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same point prevails. It is a comment referring to the operation of this particular act, and therefore referring to the present debate. For these reasons I say it should not be quoted.


Onésime Gagnon: May I draw the attention of the hon. member to the observations contained at page 104 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the house, if it can be done without injury to the public interests. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.
Therefore, if the Solicitor General is quoting from a memorandum he is not obliged to deposit it on the table of the house.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister is not telling the committee what he is quoting from.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I direct the attention of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to the rule which he had in mind, as it appears at page 101 of the aforementioned rules and forms:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
The Solicitor General certainly was not reflecting upon any proceedings before the house, nor was he denying a statement made by any member.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He was referring to it.
Farmers' Creditors Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Merely citing from a newspaper report-


Peter John Veniot: Was he not commenting?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Not certainly in the sense of the rule. The comment had no reference to the operation of the bill before us. As a matter of fact I have no doubt it had reference to the subject matter of the bill, but not to the bill itself-which is a vastly different thing. He was dealing with the question of the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Peter John Veniot: Was he not out of order in dealing with that matter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have risen simply to indicate that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is going a little beyond the rule.


Eugène Fiset: May I direct the attention of the chair to the fact that the discussion is out of order. To begin with the point raised is not that the Solicitor General is reading from a report but that he is reading from a document which he has in his hand- not only the report he has mentioned, but also his own comments. Therefore I say he was reading his speech from written or printed notes. That was the point of order I raised. He has no right to read a written speech. That was the point raised a few days ago in connection with the observations of the hon. member for Megantie. I believe the rule which applied to one should apply to the other.


Mr. GOBEIL:: It started with the Liberal whip.


George Washington McPhee: With all due deference-


Onésime Gagnon: Just a moment. I have already stated to the hon. member for Rimouski that the general rule is that a member has the privilege to consult his notes. Therefore if the Solicitor General is simply consulting notes my ruling would be that he is in order.


Eugène Fiset: But, Mr. Chairman, will you decide this further point: Outside of consulting his notes has the Solicitor General the right to read his personal comments on those notes? Has he the right to read a printed statement? That is the point which was raised by the hon. member for Compton only a few days ago respecting the remarks of the hon. member for Megantie.


Maurice Dupré: I might satisfy the hon. member for Rimouski by stating that I was reading from a report but I have not my own

comments written down. I have only a few notes I had intended to use at the end of my speech.


George Washington McPhee: I believe the Solicitor General said that possibly the report from the Department of Finance which he held in his hand would prove better than any words of his how the act had operated in the province of Quebec. Then he proceeded to read what I understood to be a report of the Department of Finance. If my understanding is correct I say such report ought to be public property before any hon. member should have the right to quote it as an authority.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has been published by the press. I believe it appeared in the press some weeks ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Comment on press reports is out of order. I think the minister should inform the committee where he got the document, where it came from, and who published it.


Maurice Dupré: This is a compilation of a few cases which have been dealt with by the board of review in the province of Quebec.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By
whom?


Maurice Dupré: What I want to tell the
house is how these cases have been dealt with in the province of Quebec. This information comes from the people who were appointed by the board of review. I want to show the house that the comments that were made last Friday by the hon. member for Megantie and the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville were absolutely unfounded. The first case is one coming from the judicial district of Beauce.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise
to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The minister is reading from a report, and I submit that in all fairness the committee is entitled to know the nature of the report, who prepared it, and whether it is an official, ministerial document or otherwise.


Robert James Manion: Speaking to the point of
order, Mr. Chairman, may I quote rule 315 which you have already quoted, and which seems clear enough?
A minister of the crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the house, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table.
The Minister of Finance has stated, and the Solicitor General has stated, that this

Farmers' Creditors Act
is a general report on the workings of the act which was given to the press by the Department of Finance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: By
whom?


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Finance
has already stated that; I heard him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: He stated it a few
moments ago, and if the Solicitor General is willing to lay the report on the table of the house, which he is


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He has
not said so. You are saying it for him.


Robert James Manion: He can say so, and then
he can go on quoting from it.


Maurice Dupré: I have no objection to
laying it on the table. It is simply a report that has been issued to the press and maybe some of the members have already read it. The first case I want to mention was in the judicial district of Beauce.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I
ask you, Mr. Chairman, if the minister is going to lay this on the table under rule 315?


Onésime Gagnon: I submit that the hon. member ought first to ask the Solicitor General from what he is quoting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did,
and I never got an answer. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) answered for him.


The CHAIRMAN:: It was stated that
the hon. gentleman was reading from a report which was given to the press, and therefor I submit that he is in order and can proceed with his speech.


Maurice Dupré: For the third time I wish
to say, Mr. Chairman, that the first case is from the judicial district of Beauce. A farmer had a mortgage on his land, and the creditor intended to have the land sold by the sheriff, which would have meant that the farmer would have been left entirely destitute. A meeting of creditors was called, and the creditor compromised the amount of the mortgage, reducing his claim by $500 and reducing the interest rate as well. To indicate how good feeling had been restored between the two, may I say that the creditor, wdiose original intention had been to have the land sold through the sheriff, had come
to the meeting by rail while the farmer had come in his rig, but after the meeting was over, the two returned home in the farmer's rig the very best of friends and with the best of understandings between them.
Case No. 2 comes from the judicial district of Bedford. A farmer had a mortgage debt of $6,500 and ordinary debts amounting to $2,475. In addition to his ordinary debts he had endorsed notes for his son to the amount of $2,600. The farmer asked for a reduction in the mortgage, and in the interest rate, and also asked for a reduction in the ordinary claims. A meeting was held and the creditors could not agree, but later realizing that if the farmer was not- assisted he would not be able to pay the ordinary creditors and that they would lose everything, a second meeting was called and the mortgages were extended, the interest rate was reduced from six to four per cent, and the ordinary creditors agreed to accept 25 per cent of their total claims, $5,075, payable in five yearly payments without interest. All were satisfied with the arrangement.
Case No. 3 came from the judicial district of St. Hyacinthe. A farmer had taken over his father's obligations as the latter was growing old. He faced liabilities of $7,000 besides a very heavy mortgage. He applied to the official receiver and made a proposal to his creditors. The creditors, numbering about twelve, who did not know one another, met and were at first very ill disposed, but the true situation of the farmer was put before them, and after discussing it fully, an arrangement was made with which everybody appeared pleased. The arrangement was ratified by the court. The debtor obtained a reduction of $5,000 in his total liabilities. If he had been sold out by the sheriff the creditors would have received very little, if anything. The official receiver stresses the tolerance of the creditors towards the debtors which is developing as a result of this legislation.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: May I ask how much of, a reduction was made in the first mortgage in case No. 3 which the minister has just given?


Maurice Dupré: I have not got that information. The farmer faced liabilities of $7,000 besides a very heavy mortgage, and he obtained a reduction of $5,000 in hia total liabilities.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The minister cannot give any information as to what the reduction was on the secured claim?

Farmers' Creditors Act


Maurice Dupré: I have not got that information.
Case No. 4 comes from the judicial district of Hull. The debtor owned some land free from any encumbrance. A few years ago he purchased another piece of land.
Mr. MePHEE: Surely this was never given to the press. It must be a public document, and should be tabled.


Robert James Manion: The minister has said that he would table it.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is he going to table his whole speech?


Robert James Manion: This is not his speech. He is quoting from the report, which he is going to table.


Maurice Dupré: A few years ago this debtor, desirous of enlarging his estate, purchased another piece of land of the same size as the first. Then unfortunately the depression came and he could not make his payments, and he found himself with both pieces of land mortgaged for more than their value. He had a meeting of his creditors. The creditor who had sold him the second piece of land took this land back and released the piece of land which the farmer originally had. The farmer now has this first piece of land free of any charge and has regained confidence, while a few weeks ago he thought he would have to lose both pieces of land. The creditor is also perfectly satisfied.
Case No. 5 is in the Richelieu judicial district. Last fall a farmer came to the official receiver and informed him that his liabilities totalled $6,100, plus two years' interest., and that he had offered his sole creditor to pay four per cent per annum, but the creditor insisted upon five per cent or otherwise the farmer would have to leave the farm. The farmer made a proposal and a meeting of his creditors was called. After mutual explanations the mortgage creditor agreed to reduce his claim by $800, and to leave the balance of the principal for five years at three per cent. The other creditors accepted two per cent per annum, and they all parted the very best of friends.
Mr. MePHEE: Is that in the report?


Maurice Dupré: Case No. 6 was in the Abitibi judicial district. The official receiver of the district reports that it is a very interesting case. The creditor accepted a mortgage for a period of five years, reducing the interest rate to three per cent during the five years. The mortgage had been in default. The official receiver says:

I thought it would be practically impossible for me to bring about any kind of arrangement between this farmer and his creditors. But after the arrangement was made I had the pleasure of seeing them shake hands and express mutual satisfaction at the arrangement. I could not help congratulating both of them.
We have heard members on both sides of the house asking for a reduction in interest. This legislation will enable the farmer to apply to the receiver or to the board of review and secure reduction in his interest charges.
On Friday we heard the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville say that the farmers were sorry that they were required to humiliate themselves, as they must do, to take advantage of this legislation. Well, the point I want to make is this, that there is absolutely nothing compulsory in this legislation. This is a mechanism created for the benefit of the farmer. If he wishes to use it in order to reduce his liability he is at liberty to do so, and if he does not wish to avail himself of it, he is equally the master of his own actions.
Then I heard, also on Friday last, the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville qualify this legislation as socialism. As was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville seems to confuse socialism and social legislation. This is the kind of social legislation that we have inaugurated in order to relieve distress and to take care of the farmer and of the working man, and the appellation or qualification of socialism does not disturb us. This is good legislation based on what has been called by high authority social justice-based on the principle of a more just and equitable distribution of wealth. What has been said of the working man is that he must have sufficient wages to supply his family with their ordinary needs: he must have an ample sufficiency for his living. The same must apply to the farmer; he must be enabled to bear the family's burden with greater ease and security, being freed from that hand to mouth uncertainty which is the lot of some of the farmers and working men.
In his remarks the hon. member for Megan-tic made certain statements which I have translated almost word for word. He said that there was never a law passed by this parliament so harmful to the rural class as this one, except the law of conscription. He intimated a few lines further on that this legislation imposes on the farmer the conscription of capital. Then later on he says: "This legislation is the most unjust that has ever been adopted in this house. It destroys the credit of the farmer; it establishes the conscription of the money that the small village

Farmers' Creditors Act
rentier did possess in the beautiful province of Quebec that we inhabit." A few minutes before that, at page 1337 of Hansard, he said: "Mr. Speaker, I am opposed not only to the conscription of money but also to every kind of conscription, and it is the principle which is at the basis of all laws that this government has caused to be adopted since it has been in power and by which it has done so much harm to the rural class and to the working man."
Now my point is this. Here is a law that was qualified last week by the hon. member for Megantic and by the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville as infamous, arbitrary, vicious; and still this is the law which was voted unanimously last year when it came before the house. Moreover, a few minutes after the hon. member for Megantic made these utterances about the vices of this law, how infamous it was and so forth, this bill was adopted unanimously by the house. This is indeed a very strange action. If the utterances of the member for Megantic indicate the sort of electoral arguments that our friends opposite are going to use in the next campaign, I say to them, very well, we accept the challenge.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was accepted before.


Maurice Dupré: But I say this, that the
province of Quebec and the electors of Canada at large must know of this attitude of the Liberal members from that province. If our opponents are to call our legislation infamous, vicious, arbitrary, as bad as conscription, and vote for it afterwards, then the province of Quebec must know. What our friends opposite seem to forget is that the grip of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, in both the federal and the provincial fields, no longer exists. It was easy for them to have recourse to such tactics in the past because conditions were quite different from what they are today.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Why is the hon. gentleman referring to the members on this side? He mentioned one name, the hon. member for Megantic. I hope my hon. friend is not very anxious to fall into such a sophism.


Jean-François Pouliot: The member for Megantic is a good member.


Maurice Dupré: I suppose the inference I
am to draw from the observation of my hon. friend from Kamouraska is that he does not approve of the declarations of the hon. member for Megantic-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: No, it does not mean
anything of the kind.


Maurice Dupré: -nor of the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville. But if he does not approve, and if hon. members opposite do not approve of those utterances they are at liberty to say so and I invite them to say 60.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the hon.
member looking for trouble? If he is, he will
get it.


Maurice Dupré: We should know the truth.


Thomas Reid: You are putting that view as
the view of all here.


Maurice Dupré: What the hon. member for Vancouver Centre seems to show is that he is not thoroughly au courant with what takes place in Quebec. While he on the one hand might in his own province be speaking in favour of the legislation, saying it is good, in our province on the other hand some members sitting on the same side of the house as he does will come and repeat the utterances delivered in this house by the hon. member for Megantic and the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville.


Thomas Reid: That is their privilege.


Maurice Dupré: In closing, I might say this to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre: Recourse to such tactics was very easy in years gone by when there were no French
Conservative members, but now conditions are changed, and tactics of that sort will not have any chance in the years to come.


George Washington McPhee: The hon. member has concluded his remarks and he has not yet tabled the document from which he read. I would ask now that he kindly table it.


Thomas Reid: He said that it was available to all members.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It should be tabled forthwith.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think the point of order is well taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my colleague the Solicitor
General desires to table the document, there can be no objection, but I submit he is not called upon to do so.


Peter John Veniot: He agreed to do so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is another matter. I simply wish to establish the precedent that a minister is not called upon to table other than an official document; that is all he is called upon to table if he cites it, but he is not called upon to table other than an official document.

Farmers' Creditors Act

Mr. MePHEE: For the peace, order and good government of this house the Solicitor General had better carry out what he said he would do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Solicitor General distinctly stated that this was an official document


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: -available to the members and issued from the department of his colleague the Minister of Finance. But the Solicitor General said that it was an official document and the Minister of Railways said that it would be tabled.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Did my hon. friend not hear my colleague state that it was a report and not an official document?	[DOT]


Thomas Reid: And available to the members.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, available.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was a report from the Department of Finance and available to all members. The Minister of Railways said three or four times in the course of the debate that the document would be tabled. I think under standing order 41, paragraph 315, when this purports to be a public document the minister is constrained in all decency to table it, and the hon. member for Yorkton is in order in asking the minister to table a public document from which he has quoted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre, quite inadvertently I am sure, made two mistakes. He said that my colleague the Solicitor General had said first that this was an official document; second that it was a public document.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said that it was published in the press.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is not a public document. According to my hon. friend's contention, every newspaper would be a public document.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said that it came from the Department of Finance.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We will deal with the first two statements first. My colleague the Solicitor General did not say that it was an official document or a public document; he said that it was a report and issued by the Department of Finance. It is quite true he said that. I rose at once to correct that, because my colleague I was sure was inadvertently in error. What happens is that from time to time in all departments of government the press come asking for information

as a matter of public interest with respect to the operation of different acts. That is how this statement to the press emanated in the first instance. It is in no sense an official document; it is in no sense a public document.


Peter John Veniot: Then it cannot be depended upon as a correct report.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is another matter
entirely. We are dealing now with the question of procedure. It is neither a public nor an official document and I think the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will bear me out that when he rose I said that I had no objection to my colleague laying the document on the table. I merely wish to guard against the establishment of a new rule which has not hitherto obtained and should not now obtain, that because a minister of the crown reads from a paper it must ipso facto be laid on the table.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No one said so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The rule only requires that a public or official document which is quoted by a minister shall be laid on the table; it goes no further than that. I submit without any doubt in my mind that this is neither an official nor a public document. If my colleague desires to lay it on the table, I am quite content.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is the most extraordinary situation that has arisen during the time I have been a member of this house. We have had three statements. The first was from the Solicitor General who proceeded to read to the committee a document. When hon. members on this side asked the Solicitor General what document he was reading from, he said that it was a document from the Department of Finance. I accept absolutely the statement of the Minister of Finance. He corrected his colleague and said that it was not from the Department of Finance or issued under its authority. When we on this side asked, as we were entitled under the rule, that the document be tabled, the Minister of Railways took charge and three times stated that the document would be tabled immediately the Solicitor General had finished. As soon as the Solicitor General had finished, the hon. member for Yorkton asked that the document be tabled. We are now having excuses from the Minister of Finance why the document should not be tabled. The Solicitor General in courtesy to the committee should table the document and then we shall be able to say whether it is a public document or not.



1C35

[Stage Direction]
Farmers' Creditors Act
Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Finance says that only an official document must be tabled. This may not be an official document in the sense that it does not have the signature or authority or prestige of any head of a department or a minister of the crown, but it is an official document if the statements we have heard here this aftepfioon are correct, that it was issued with the consent and authority of the Department of Finance, going to the newspapers with authority to issue it as correct. In that sense it becomes an official document. It was authorized by the department, otherwise the newspapers would not issue it. Having been authorized by the department and issued in a newspaper with the consent of the department, it becomes ipso facto an official document.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While I have the greatest respect for my hon. friend especially after he has celebrated the fiftieth anniversay of a happy wedded life, I cannot allow him to make a statement of such a nature without rising to protest. In the first place I have stated that this was not a document issued by the Department of Finance.


Peter John Veniot: Authorized.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I took pains to say that a long time ago, so that the hon. member by no stretch of the imagination can say that it is an official document. I do not know that any good purpose will be served by the document being laid on the table, but if my colleague the Solicitor General desires to table it, I have not the slightest objection.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Railways promised that it would be tabled.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I wish it however to be clearly understood that it is not an official document and not a public document.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the Solicitor General prepared to table the document now?


Maurice Dupré: Certainly. I have no objection whatsoever.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the Solicitor General to table the document now in order that we may have an opportunity of seeing it? When I heard the Minister of Finance say that the document had no importance whatever I understood that he knew of it, and that he gave judgment on that paper after having seen it. Though it may have no importance in the eyes of the Minister of Finance it might have importance in the eyes of opposition members and other hon. members of t2582-884
the house. When the Solicitor General said, "I make it available to members of the house and to my colleagues," and when the Minister of Finance first rose what he said was not wry clear. I thought he had resigned in the meantime and that was why he was not a colleague of the Solicitor General. But now that the sky is clear may I ask the Solicitor General kindly to table this paper?


Maurice Dupré: Certainly.


Thomas Reid: Coming back to the bill, I
would like to ask a question.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me, Improbus
labor omnia vincit. I shall not speak at great length but I have a word to say in regard to my hon. friend the Solicitor General. When he speaks of the people of the province of Quebec he and some of his colleagues on the other side of the house speak of them as if they were ignorant people, not familiar with current politics. The fact is that the people of the province of Quebec have never taken such interest in politics as in the last four years. They are familiar with every measure presented before this house, and the matters they discuss are exactly the matters discussed in this house. With regard to the conscription issue may I tell him that a long time ago, the first year after I was elected, I asked the then Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) to give me full information about "Ti-noir Desjardins," the man who had been paid by the Department of Justice to cause a revolution in the province of Quebec by shooting at the sons of the farmers there just as he would have shot at game. It happened after the war, and I thought the House of Commons should learn what has been done by the Tories in the province of Quebec, after the war was over, after the Germans and the English and the French had ceased fighting in the field, that there were spotters, paid by the Department of Justice, shooting at the sons of farmers in the province of Quebec. And what was the answer of the then Minister of Justice? He told1 me, "Let the past be past, and not bring this issue up again." That was said by the hon. gentleman whom the Tories are always accusing both in the house and outside of resurrecting conscription. That is the whole story. I w'ant to get that information, I will get it some day, even if it takes years to bring to light this thing that the Department of Justice, then the department of injustice, did to the farmers' sons of Quebec.
But we will not speak about it any more now. For my part I mention outside of the
Farmers' Creditors Act

house, only the questions I put to the government and the Prime Minister and the kind of answers I received. The witness for that is the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), whom I met at the last by-election ia Restigouche-Madawaska when I went to speak on behalf of my hon. friend beside me who tvas elected there by a majority of 6,500. All I had to do was to take several issues of Hansard and read the questions I had put to the government about many matters and the refusal of the Prime Minister to answer. The answer of the people of that county was that I should have had answer, and they confirmed that by a majority of 6,500 for my hon. friend here. We have enough to say about this government without going back to the wrongs of past Tory governments. They are to be judged according to their policies, they will have to defend them. But the statements of the Solicitor General and the hon. member for Dorchester about the people of my province were most unjust. Let them come to a joint open meeting anywhere and discuss these matters before the people of Quebec and defend their policies. I invited the Solicitor General and the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to come to St. Johns after they had invited us to meet them in Quebec, but when I went there I was alone with my hon. friend from St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheau-me), neither the Solicitor General nor the hon. member for Compton came to face the people there.
.Mr. SANDERSON: A few minutes ago I understood that the Solicitor General tabled the document which was read. Was it tabled; if not, where is it?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I understand that the paper is in the possession of the clerk of sessional papers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It should be in the custody of members of the committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: It was tabled, where has it gone to?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cotnam); It has gone to the clerk of sessional papers.
Mr. SANDERSON; When will it be back in the committee?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: It is open for inspection and examination by any hon. member.
Mr. VENIOT; It has no right to go to the clerk of sessional papers until this committee is done with it. It should remain on that

table during this discussion and until this committee rises. I protest, and demand that the paper be produced to the committee now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Perhaps it is under the table.


Peter John Veniot: I say to the members of the govgfhment and the minister having this bill in charge that unless the document is produced the bill will not pass as readily as he might expect.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course my hon. friends realize that the officers of the house have no doubt followed the usual procedure.


Peter John Veniot: It is not the rule.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If not, it is a question that should go to the committee on privileges and elections and be very carefully scrutinized. The constitution itself is in danger; if members of the committee miss the enlightenment to be afforded by the contents of this document! My hon. friend the member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) whom I hold in such great esteem, was becoming choleric to such an extent that I felt prepared even to wreck the constitution to satisfy entirely his desire that all the proper procedure should be complied with. I understand the document has now been brought back and laid upon the table, and I hope it will not be spirited away. After my hon. friend has read it with that great care which I know he will bestow upon it I hope there will accrue to him an even greater measure of wisdom to add to that which he now possesses in such great abundance.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Finance may be able to add to the wisdom of his humble servant, but I am sure it will not be from this document. But I insist that I am right in saying that when during a debate it is asked that a document be tabled, that document should remain on the table until the committee rises. It is then it goes to the custody of the clerk of sessional papers, but until then there is no right to take it from this committee until we dispose of it. That is the point I make, and the Minister of Finance will not deny that right and privilege. My experience in parliamentary procedure has been about as long as that of my hon. friend and I do not have to have any lessons on that from any member on the government side.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I assure my hon. friend that he has taken a wrong interpretation from my remarks. In my innocence I was trying to indicate that I thought perhaps the matter was not of such great moment as circumstances

Farmers' Creditors Act
would suggest, but that if it were the wishes of my hon. friend from Gloucester and all the conventions with respect to what should be done in regard to documents should be respected in every degree. May I say to my hon. friend that it was in no spirit of levity that I paid him the tribute of saying he was possessed of a very great amount of wisdom. I made that statement in all sincerity, and I am quite prepared to agree with my hon. friend that he knows very much more than I do-


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: -but I do not know that that has very much bearing on the matter under discussion. I hope that we may be able to make some progress from now on.


George Washington McPhee: Mr. Chairman, we now have the document which we obtained after a process as hard as extracting a tooth, and we find that it is not the document it purports to be. The Solicitor General said that instead of asking us to take his word for what happened he would read from the official report of the Department of Finance the record of what has happened in the province of Quebec. I think on reference to Hansard that will be found to be exactly what he said. This may be a report, but by the subterfuge of reading a public document the Solicitor General has read his whole speech into Hansard by quoting this document verbatim. He might as well have tabled a copy of Hansard. I submit that my hon. friend, who is Solicitor General of this dominion, should have regard to the peace, order and good government of the country and should be very careful not to state what is not the fact so far as this report is concerned.


Maurice Dupré: In reply to my hon. friend I may say that this is the document from which I read a moment ago.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: Mr. Chairman, the board of review for the province of Alberta had several sittings in the city of Lethbridge before we left to come to Ottawa, and we had the opportunity of attending and listening to the proceedings. I fancy one would be struck first of all by the informal nature of the hearings. There we found an atmosphere of cooperation and conciliation. The atmosphere of the court was lacking, neither was there any feeling of opposition or antagonism. The members of the board listened very attentively and gave precedence to the representative of the farmers. This gentleman, Mr. McLeod, made it his business, wherever possible, to secure from the farmer
whose case was before the board, just what amount of machinery he had at his disposal, and also tried to form an estimate of his ability to carry on his farming operations. I think the gentleman representing the creditors, Mr. McQuaig, and the representative of the farmers, Mr. McLeod, are sitting on the board of review of our province not as the representatives of one class or another but as men imbued with the one aim, which is to help the farmer get out from under his heavy load of debt and see daylight ahead.
It has been suggested bv several members that we should have a lawyer to present the claims of the farmers to the board. To that suggestion I am opposed. It would bring into that informal hearing the atmosphere of a court, which is not objectionable in any way but whiclf is not the atmosphere in which this act will work to the best advantage. It would mean also a great deal of delay, for the lawyer would endeavour to put forward the best possible case on behalf of his client, and cases which now may be settled in one hour would take at least one day. So I do not think it would be in the interests of the legislation to agree to this suggestion. There appears, however, to be a lack of cooperation between the farm loan board and those in charge of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. We find that several farmers in our neighbourhood have the opportunity of compromising with their creditors, but they are unable to secure any advances, because in our part of the country the banks are not lending money. Both these acts come1 under the Department of Finance, and I am almost persuaded that it might be in the interests of the farmers of western Canada if we had one head administering both acts. I might say also that in Alberta we have had several farmers who have made unjust claims. Some of these men have not been playing the game, and they have been very effectively told by the chairman of the board that their cases were rejected. It has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that this is not desirable legislation-


Wilfred Hanbury: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I did not make that statement in connection with this legislation. I was referring to the farm loan bill.


John Smith Stewart: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that this act was undesirable also, but I accept his correction. So far as the people of my riding are concerned, and I think I can speak for the people of southern Alberta, I believe this is most necessary legislation. When I was
13S4
Farmers' Creditors Act

speaking in connection with the farm loan bill I directed attention to four cases in my riding which had come to my attention, concerning very deserving farmers who could not possibly get out from under their load cf debt. If we could secure cooperation in the administration of these two acts, whether through unification of administration or otherwise, no doubt it would be of benefit to those coming before the boards of review.
The other evening while speaking on this bill the hon. member for Willow Bunch attempted to capitalize-I think for the benefit of himself and his party-the unfortunate situation in which the farmer now finds himself because of the depression. Well. I might tell the hon. gentleman of a few instances which have come to my knowledge in the constituency which I have the Ifonour to represent. I might also say to him that many reasons can be given because of which this unfortunate depression situation has developed, and one is the lack of policy on the part of the Liberal government from 1921 to 1930. If ever a government lost the market for our agricultural products it was the government of hon. members opposite which held office from 1921 to 1930. To the extent of at least 60,000,000 bushels of wheat per year we lost the European wheat market. Between 1921 and 1930 there was an increase of 39,000,000 acres in the acreage of wheat sown in Europe. The policy of the government supported by the hon. member for Willow Bunch was to pay no attention to the trend of agricultural development in Europe, but rather to increase the wheat acreage in Canada from 22,000,000 to
27.000.	000. Consequently when this government took office there was a surplus of wheat. The wheat carry-over began in 1925 and extended to 1930. This government took hold of the wheat situation and every year since 1930 has sold more wheat than was sold by the Liberal government during the last year it was in office. The last year the government supported by the hon. member for Willow Bunch held office, it sold
157.000.	000 bushels of wheat. In every year this government has held office we have sold more than that. I believe a great deal of the distressed conditions in which the farmers find themselves to-day can be laid at the loor of the Liberal party.
Further, the hon. member for Willow Bunch [DOT]upported the Liberal government which between 1921 and 1930 lost our markets in the United States, a market in which we sold in 1921, 8190,000,000 of agricultural products, and in the year the Liberals went out of

office only 893,000,000. In short, in their ten years of office we lost 8100,000,000 per year of our agricultural market in the United
States.
The hon. member for Macleod seems to support the idea that the farmers of Canada are in a worse position than the farmers of other countries. He told about an old cow being sold for nineteen cents. It is a wonder he does not tell some of the things he reads in the Lethbridge Herald, because I assume he reads that publication. Those articles tell another story. I wonder if he read the story about the German who had been taken prisoner by the French and who some years after the close of the war, in 1923, came to Canada. In 1934 he produced 39,000 bushels of grain, although he had come to Canada with no possessions in the world. I wonder if the hon. member has heard about the gentleman living in New Dayton, in the southern part of my constituency who sold his grain in 1933 for $4,500 without even hauling it to the station. So able was he as a farmer that this year he was fortunate in selling his half section at a large increase over the amount he had paid for it in 1929. Around the town of Warner we are selling land at a considerable increase in value, despite the fact that the farmers have been operating under these unfortunate circumstances.
I do know that man}' of the farmers in Alberta are satisfied with the actions of this government. To bear out this point may I quote from a publication which I believe would have the support of the hon. member for Macleod. This paper, the United Farmer, contains a report of the proceedings of the legislative assembly at Edmonton, and I find the following credited to one Donald Cameron, the U.F.A. member for Innisfail:
Donald Cameron said he held no brief for the Bennett government, but it had at the last session put more advanced legislation on the statute books than had' been put there in one session by any government since confederation.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order. Is the hon. member speaking to the bill?


Thomas Reid: It is a budget speech.


Frederick George Sanderson: Has he not been out of order for ten minutes?


Mr. McINTOSH:: A hundred miles out
of order.


John Smith Stewart: I am simply meeting the points brought up by other hon. members.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Chairman, I insist upon a ruling.


John Smith Stewart: I shall now pay attention to the bill.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I believe the hon. member is following the custom which has been observed throughout the discussion of this bill. The hon. member for Temiscouata, sitting on the opposition benches, spoke on a variety of matters, including .conscription in the province of Quebec. In fact, none of his speech was relevant to the bill before us. In view of the fact that much latitude has been given I do not believe any great objection could be taken to the remarks being made by the hon. member for Lethbridge.


Frederick George Sanderson: You rule, then, that
the speech is quite in order?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: In order, in comparison with the speeches which have been made on the bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: In comparison?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I do not say it is in order, but I do say there has been very wide latitude allowed during the discussion.


Frederick George Sanderson: It must be either in
or out of order.


John Smith Stewart: official receiver to ask that the private corporation arrive at a fair compromise in order that the farmer may see daylight ahead. I hope the minister will accept this suggestion in the spirit in which it is offered, being an endeavour to help those who are unable to help themselves at the present time and to whom the right of effecting a settlement under this act is denied.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask the minister how many proposals have been made under the act, province by province?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the break-up of the 3,585?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is as of March 2, and represents only the actual proposals which are of record here: Prince Edward Island, 57; Nova Scotia, 3; New Brunswick, 8; Quebec, 1,167; Ontario, 446; Manitoba, 492; Saskatchewan, 752; Alberta, 640; British Columbia, 20.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: May I ask how many cases that came before the official receivers were settled, province by province?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend was
probably not in the house when I put all these figures on the record earlier, but I am quite content to do so again. The total number of actual settlements effected between debtor and creditor before the official receivers as recorded at head office here is 1,092, although that does not by any means represent all the settlements, as I pointed out at an earlier stage; British Columbia, 3; Alberta, 228; Saskatchewan, 143; Manitoba, 112; Ontario, 288; Quebec, 316; New Brunswick, 1; Nova Scotia, 1.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the settlements that were made before the boards of review?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My information is that practically eighty per cent of the cases which come before the boards of review are settled amicably without resort to a decision which is not acceptable to one or other of the parties. I also gave the number of cases which have been referred. Does my hon. friend wish me to give that again?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, not if it is on the record.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, it is on the record.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: When the resolution was before the house, the minister will remember that I inquired from him on the orders of the day with regard to counsel for the farmers before the boards of review. I said that the
[M*-. J. S. Stewart.]
loan companies and corporations would be represented by eminent counsel and I intimated that it was my own opinion that if the farmers could also be represented by counsel it would be better. The minister said that he would be quite willing to take up that matter when we were in committee on the bill, and also suggested that if it could be demonstrated that the farmers actually needed counsel before the boards of review he would not be opposed to it. That is the meaning I took from his remarks. Would the minister be good enough now to amplify his statement of a few days ago in that regard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very happy to
do so. When representations were made to me by one or perhaps two farmers' organizations-I have particularly in mind the representations that were made to me by the Saskatchewan branch of the United Farmers -I felt it was very doubtful whether those who were speaking for the farmers were making a request which was really in the interests of the farmer. I will speak to the committee just as frankly as it appears to my own mind. I had this feeling. In the board of review you have a judge of a superior court as chairman; then you have a prominent barrister who as a matter of fact in every province, so far as I am a ware, commands the respect not only of the bar but of the public as well. So in a board of three you have two men who are trained in the law. In addition to that the registrar, with possibly one or two exceptions, is a man trained in the law. It is true that numbers of the loan companies have been represented by counsel, but this is what happens in practice, and what I rather felt at the time would happen. You find the farmer before the board of review, and you find a lawyer representing the creditor. The chairman, the creditor's representative, and also 'the registrar, are men trained in the law, and instinctively all of them prepared to advise and to protect the farmer. But more particularly I had this in mind, that if you have a lawyer on one side and engage a lawyer on the other you are going to revert more or less to the atmosphere of a court of law, and the spirit of this act would be lost sight of, namely, conciliation and compromise, added to the circumstance that instead of settling cases as they have been, in an hour, under existing conditions, you would have them prolonged for a day. I was struck with a remark made by an eminent member of the bar who is a member of this house in connection with this very bill on second reading, when he referred to the traditional delays of the law. If you

Farmers' Creditors Act
13*17
had a lawyer engaged for the farmer I doubt whether, on balance, as good results would be reached, because the measure would be law and not equity. But there would be the further damage to the interest of the farmer, that instead of having cases disposed of as expeditiously as possible they would be prolonged for days and weeks and months, not individual cases but hundreds of cases which are now before the boards of review. That was my feeling and I thought that experience had justified that point of view, for this reason, that the tendency has been less and less on the part of those interested, particularly in farmers' organizations, to demand counsel. As a matter of fact, no representations have been made to me in recent weeks to that end. Furthermore, as indicating the character of this body, may I point out to my hon. friend that the loan companies are finding out that they are not being advantaged to any great extent by spending large sums of money in legal fees, and the tendency on their part is less and less to engage counsel, with the result that ninety per cent of the cases which actually come before the board of review are settled as a matter of agreement between debtor and creditor. Under these circumstances I believe-and I am only expressing my own view-that we should do the farmer a disservice if we engaged counsel for him at the present time to appear before the boards of review. But when I made the reply to my hon. friend-it was the reply which I made to the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan branch-I did it in good faith. If experience should indicate that it would be to the advantage of the farmers that counsel should be engaged, they would be, and I may say now that they will be. But I have every reason to believe that the feeling is now more or less prevalent, even among the farmers themselves, that they are better served and protected under this method than they would be if counsel were engaged.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I want to thank the
minister for his very courteous and complete reply. I am sure it is a privilege to ask questions in committee of the house when the minister is directing the work of the house. Now, the question I passed on to the minister actually grew out of a request from a municipal council, every member of which was a farmer, and the minute I got it I passed it to the minister. I thank him for the reply he has given. There was another question growing out of that. The minister will remember, I am sure, that on Monday. February 25, on the orders of the day, I inquired with regard to the liquidation of
mercantile debts. I stated that the farmers are having their debts adjusted but the retailers and business men of the nation are not, under this bill, and my question was whether more adequate debt adjusting machinery would be introduced by the government. The minister on that occasion said that the question involved major policy but that he would consider it and when the bill was before the house in committe, or at some other stage, he would give an answer or make a statement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think my statement on
that occasion had reference to the hon. member's query with respect to counsel, because I did not-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: At page 1151 of Hansard the minister will find his brief answer to my question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am right in my recollection, 'because at page 1151 I find that I gave this answer:
That is a rather comprehensive question to be submitted without notice. It will require an answer involving major policy. The question will be considered and an announcement made as and when a decision is arrived at.
So that it was not that I was to make an announcement with respect to that question while we were considering this legislation. The answer I gave is the answer which would usually be given in those cases where the consideration of policy at the time might be in hand. Certainly, in any event, it is not an answer that would be required in connection with this bill because this bill by its very title indicates that the act is a farmers' creditors arrangement act. If it were determined that the principle applicable here should be given wider application, that would have to be by a separate act, or the title of this act would have to be changed. That is the only answer I can give on that score at the moment.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Can the minister state
whether or not there is a possibility of legislation in that direction?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On reflection my hon. friend will realize that I could not answer that question. I really cannot.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The reason I bring up
that question is briefly this. Since the amendment to this act has been before parliament and the country I have received quite a number of communications from business men, mainly from retailers, asking whether there is any possibility of the government introducing legislation to help them; and of course, not knowing the mind of the
Farmers' Creditors Act


Mr. GERSHAW:: May I ask the minister
something about the position of the preferred creditor. That is, would the board of review have power to cut down the first mortgage?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The board of review would have and has power to cut down an amount due a preferred creditor.


Mr. SPENCER:: A few days ago when
we were discussing this bill, someone on the government side-I thought it was the Minister of Finance, but I may be wrong-stated that more than 7,000 applications had been made under this act. I took a note of the figure at the time; I thought that the act was getting under way nicely. The figure of 3,585 the minister has given us, of course, goes back only a few weeks. Has it increased to 7,000 now or is this a more recent figure?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure my hon. friend
must have been out of the chamber when in reply to a question raised by the hon. member for Bow River I indicated that those figures emanated from the central office here. While the number I have given to the committee of the proposals received, aggregating 3,585, represents only the recorded number in the central office, the estimate given to me was that the actual number of proposals which have been formulated and are now in the hands of official receivers or on their way here, is upwards of 7,000. The hon. member for Bow River asked whether that was more or less a guess. I told him it was based upon experience due to the usual lag in the estimate of numbers, but I find out now from inquiry that I could have gone much further. The estimate is based upon this: a comparison between the letters coming from the official receivers indicating the number of proposals they have formulated and the actual number of proposals which are in hand and credited to the same official receivers. The discrepancy in some cases is very marked due solely to the fact that while they have reported so many proposals as having been formulated, they have not had time to do the clerical work and send their reports back to the central office, so that the figure can be safely relied upon of upwards of 7,000 proposals actually formulated and now in the central office or in the hands of the official receivers.	.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the exact date
of the figures?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The figures are as of March
2'


Frederick George Sanderson: What will be the cost of administration of this act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Frederick George Sanderson: What would be an
average amount month by month?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would be a fair
estimate of the month by month cost of administering the act for salaries.


Frederick George Sanderson: That would be about
S300,000	a year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It will be at least that.


Frederick George Sanderson: What remuneration do the official receivers get? How are they paid?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They receive $150 a month.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is that a straight salary going on yearly?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, they are appointed
and paid only by the month. Their appointments are not yearly; they can be determined at any time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: When did the board of
review officially get under way in Saskatchewan? What is the exact date?
Mr. RHODES! I am told that the first meeting was on December 22 of last year.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the minister what salaries are paid to members of the board of review?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The chairman is not paid
any salary; he is paid expenses. The other two members receive S25 per sitting day.


Edward Joseph Garland: All I can
.say is that in my opinion both the official receivers, whose position is an extremely important one, and the members of the board of review are certainly not overpaid. I hope the government can secure properly qualified men at that rate of pay.
There is just another point I want to raise. The statement made by the hon. member for Lethbridge impressed me as raising a matter of considerable importance. I know something of the situation in that locality and I am wondering whether the minister can give any assurance to the committee that it would be possible under this act to take care of collective obligations such as have been incurred by individual settlers on uncleared land in the Lethbridge northern district. Many of them are undoubtedly heavily encumbered and if they are not permitted to take collective action, then their position is such as will not enable them to come under the operation of this act. Is there any way in which the procedure could be changed so as to facilitate collective action of that kind? I am sorry the hon. member for Lethbridge
has left his seat; I listened with interest to what he had to say. I noted a quotation he gave from an alleged statement by Mr. Cameron in the local house and I think he gave it as of some date in February of this year, stating that it appeared in the United Farmer. I have not had time to go carefully over every column, so perhaps I should not arrive at any conclusion, but I have glanced through the various copies for the month of February and I do not find the statement. I wonder whether the hon. member referred to 1934 or 1935. It surely must be 1935. Perhaps we could get that information. Could we have a reply in regard to the Lethbridge northern district question?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The case referred to by
the hon. member for Bow River as well as by the hon. member for Lethbridge presents some difficulties, but I may say to my hon. friend that for some little time now a conference has been going on 'between the official receivers in that area and representatives of the irrigation companies in the hope that something may be worked out. and if so, representations will be made to the Alberta government enabling, if not all, at least a portion of those cases to be taken care of. My hon. friend will be the first to realize that this is a difficult matter to deal with. If it is possible to deal with it, we shall do so.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Stanley in the chair.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether representations have been made by the government of Alberta that provincial lands subject to agreement of sale, should be permitted to come under the operations of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As far as I am aware there has been no communication from the province of Alberta- on that subject.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may not have put my question correctly, or the minister may have misunderstood me. On the front page of the United Farmer of February 15 last I find a report of a session of the legislature of Alberta in which the following appears;
Replying to charges made by D. M. Duggan, Conservative leader, that the government (of Alberta) had never, so far as official records at Ottawa show, made any attempt to persuade the federal government to include the farmers
Farmers' Creditors Act

who hold land from the Department of Lands and Mines, under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, premier Heid stated before the house adjourned on Tuesday that on three separate occasions the government had taken steps to make such representations to the federal government.
Has the minister any record of that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no knowledge of any communication coming from the government of Alberta. It may be that they have communicated with the Prime Minister; as to that I cannot be sure, but I shall make inquiry and before the bill passes the house 1 will give a specific answer to my hon. friend. Of course my hon. friend will appreciate that there is nothing in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to prevent a board of review from making a finding with respect to these lands.


Edward Joseph Garland: I thank the minister for his statement. I asked in order to clear up the charges made by Mr. Duggan in the provincial house. I notice that the despatch says also:
At the dominion provincial conference in January, 1933, ... the then premier had taken the matter up and he had again urged it and taken steps to present the matter before Ottawa at the provincial conference later, when the Hon. M. A. McPherson, attorney general of Saskatchewan at the time, was appointed to go to Ottawa and take the matter up with the government on behalf of all three prairie provinces.
However, I rest the matter there until the minister has an opportunity to look into it.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister tell the committee whether any communications have been had with the provincial governments in western Canada in regard to including the arrears on school lands in the class of debts which may be dealt with by the board of review? Many farmers in western Canada purchased school lands under agreement of sale from the Department of the Interior at Ottawa, while these lands were under administration by the dominion. I have been informed that the board of review have no power to deal with arrears owing to the government under school lands agreements, and the attitude of the provincial government I think is that they cannot do anything about the matter without legislation at Ottawa. I wondered whether the matter had been discussed at any conference between the western governments and the dominion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the question of school lands may have been discussed. The Department of Justice is at present dealing 
with the question whether it would be competent for the provinces to pass legislation to consent to a reduction in the amounts due on school lands. I will have a more succinct answer before the bill leaves this house, but may I point out, notwithstanding that, that it still is competent for the board of review to make findings in reference to and dealing with school lands, as with respect to all other crown lands. As I understand it is only that one point that is being dealt with, whether it is competent for the provinces to consent to a reduction as far as school lands are concerned.


George Gibson Coote: I understood from a member of one of the western boards of review that they understand they have no power to deal with arrears owing on school lands. In discussing that with some of the ministers of western provinces they seemed to think it would be necessary for the dominion government to pass certain legislation, because under the agreement by which the natural resources were turned over to the western provinces they were bound to carry 6ut certain trusts and felt that as long as they were bound by that legislation it would be necessary for the dominion government to pass amending legislation to give them power to allow any compromise to be made.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That may be so as far as the point concerning the competency of the provinces is concerned, but it has no bearing on the general statement that the crown is bound by a decision of the board of review, and that its findings would cover school lands as well as others.


Thomas Reid: Would the same statement apply to dyked lands? I know in British Columbia those who went before the official referee in an endeavour to get a compromise felt there was a difficulty there. There will probably be in the neighbourhood of from $400 to $600 dyking taxes as part of the settler's debts. It was thought that the dyking commission had no right to reduce the taxes, and if they were reduced on one it might affect all the other taxes owing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As far as I am aware no limitation is imposed upon the authority of the board of review to make findings affecting lands, whether of the crown or of companies or private individuals. That holds whether the lands are held by the crown in the right of the province, or in the right of the dominion; and I think without question it includes the lands mentioned by the hon. member for New Westminster.

Farmers' Creditors Act


George Gibson Coote: There has been considerable difference of opinion in western Canada as to whether the board of review has power to cancel taxes. In some cases the taxes in question have been assigned by a municipality to a bank, and while I do not know as to the correctness of this I am told the banks have challenged the right of the board of review to cancel any taxes that have been assigned to them. I wondered whether the minister is in a position to express an opinion on that point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Our view is that the board of review has full right to deal with the question of arrears of taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Stay of proceedings.
George Gibson Coote: I think the minister was
going to say something on this section in regard to the reason for the change from sixty to ninety days. I think he was also going to give the committee some idea as to whether ninety days is sufficient for a stay of proceedings in the case of a man making a proposal. It seems to me there have been cases already where the proposals were made for more than ninety days, in which decisions have not yet been given by the board of review. If that is so is ninety days long enough for a stay of proceedings?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As the committee is aware
the old provision fixed the stay at sixty days, and toy experience that time was found to be too short. As a matter of fact in many cases, owing to the congestion of work, it will be found that ninety days is not sufficient time, but my hon. friend will, bear in mind that it is competent for the court to renew the stay for a further period. On the one hand we have to consider the question of protecting the rights of the debtor in the matter of the stay of proceedings and on the other hand we must consider the right of the creditor not to be prejudiced 'by what has happened in some cases in which the proceedings, if not frivolous in character, at all events were not bona fide proposals which could foe entertained. In one instance the court voided a stay of proceedings. In a genuine case, however, if ninety days does not prove to be a sufficiently long period there is nothing to prevent the court from extending the period for a further time, the situation being that a genuine case would not be prejudiced by reason of that circumstance.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister say what the procedure would be? It seems to me there might easily be a conflict of opinion between the court and the board of review.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The practice is for the
official receiver to make the application.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: There would be no
expense to the farmer in regard to the application for an extension of the stay?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No expense to the farmer.


Mr. SPEARMAN:: At what point in the
proceedings does a debtor making a proposal come within the provisions of the bankruptcy laiw and void his protection under any provincial legislation? As I understand it the bankruptcy law itself applies only after the proposal has been confirmed and filed with the court. Up to that time, and even after the proposal has been made but while it is still under consideration, any provincial legislation still would be available to the debtor, would it not? In Alberta they have legislation which prevents court proceedings unless and until the creditor has received power from the board to proceed in the courts. I assume that legislation still would be available up to the time the proposal was accepted and confirmed, so that the man making the proposal would not have voided his protection under the provincial law until his proposal under this act was confirmed and filed in the courts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The creditor would have
to-


Alfred Speakman: Quite apart from any
periods stated in this act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is dealing
more particularly with the question of bankruptcy?


Alfred Speakman: I was dealing with this question. Until the proposal has been accepted and filed in the courts the applicant, the man making the proposal, does not come specifically under this law, or does he? He has not voided the protection he already has under the provincial law until the proposal has been confirmed by the court?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As I understand it, the
moment a proposal is filed with an official receiver under the act, from that moment the stay of proceedings becomes effective.


Alfred Speakman: Yes, but I was referring to the other point, that apart from anything in this act providing for a stay of proceedings in some provinces the debtors
Farmers' Creditors Act

are now under the protection of provincial legislation under which proceedings can take place only by permission of certain courts or tribunals. As I understand it the protection of that provincial legislation is not voided by the debtor until the proposal has been agreed to, confirmed and filed in the courts as a completed proposal. Is that a fact?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the board of review should decline to formulate a proposal, to sanction a proposal or to make a proposal of their own, in that event it is competent for the debtor to apply to the provincial debt adjustment board. But if the board of review takes action then, as I understand it, it is not necessary to invoke the provincial statute.


Alfred Speakman: In my province, for
example, the creditor himself must make application to the provincial debt adjustment officials for the right to proceed in court. In other words all1 farm debtors are protected against proceedings except under special permission granted to the creditors. My question was whether this provincial protection remained until such time as the proposal was not only made but was accepted and filed in the courts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I may not entirely apprehend the position taken by my hon. friend from Red Deer, but as I understand it if a proposal has been filed before an official receiver; if there is not a settlement made and the matter goes before the board of review, then until the board has taken aclion the matter under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is one for the board of review to deal with. Provincial legislation cannot intervene, and the debtor will come under the operations of the provincial debt adjustment board only after such time as the board of review refuses to bring down a finding approving of the proposal or submitting a proposal of its own.


Alfred Speakman: Then there is a really an interim. Until the debtor makes a proposal and files it with the district official he is of course, as at present, in those provinces where there is provincial legislation, under such provincial legislation up to that point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Alfred Speakman: Then after the proposal has been filed he is protected, except in breach of the provisions of the proposal then filed under certain conditions, that is, if the breach has been due to something within his own control-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is right.


Alfred Speakman: But after the proposal has been filed with the official receiver and prior to the time it is confirmed and filed with the courts, when it is binding, that is the interim of which I was speaking. During that interim, as I understand it, he is not under the protection of the provincial legislation but is protected solely by the stay of proceedings which was sixty days and now is to be ninety days. Is that the position?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The provincial law would
remain in abeyance from the time the proposal was filed. Of course, in the event of the ninety days herein provided expiring, and no new period arising, then he would come under the operation of the provincial debt adjustment act.


Alfred Speakman: That was my point,
namely that in provinces where there is provincial protection a man is not protected either under the provision for sixty days or ninety days on the one hand or by the provincial legislation on the other until such time as the proposal has not only been filed but finally confirmed and filed in the courts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, but
as the minister is aware one cannot compel a farmer to go through bankruptcy. However, if he takes protection under this act, if the board of review as the ultimate court under the act decides that a certain compromise is just to all parties concerned, and if the farmer does not consider that it is just or that he can comply with its terms and refuses so to comply, he may then under this legislation be put through bankruptcy. In that way he loses the protection of the present bankruptcy law and the debt adjustment acts of the respective provinces. It would be well to have that point clear.


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
good deal of interest in this point. Rightly or wrongly I have gained the impression that once a farmer places himself under the control of the board he is there for weal or woe. He either ends in bankruptcy or has an adjustment. If I am not correct in my understanding I should like to be given the proper information, but that was the impression I gained from the information given the committee last year when the bill was presented to the house. In one sense the legislation afforded a cheap way for the farmer to go through a bankruptcy court, an opportunity which had not been afforded him until the bill was introduced. It was intimated that at little or no cost to himself be rcu.'d become a

Farmers' Creditors Act
bankrupt and avoid the difficult situation of having his creditors pursue him all his life. If I am wrong about it I should like to have my impression corrected. If a farmer can refuse to accept an adjustment made by the board, then it is news to me.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The impression held by
the hon. member for West Edmonton is quite correct up to this point, that if the farmer fails to live up to the terms of the finding, then he does go into bankruptcy. That is quite true.


Edward Joseph Garland: Irrespective of whether he accepted it or not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, quite so. The finding of the board must be binding upon both parties. The provision in this respect is to be found at subsection 3 of section 3 of the original act passed last year:
In any ease where the affairs of a farmer have been arranged by a proposal approved by the court or confirmed by the board as hereinafter provided, part I of the Bankruptcy Act shall notwithstanding section 7 thereof thereafter apply to such farmer but only failure on the part of such farmer to carry out any of the terms of the proposal shall be deemed to be an act of bankruptcy.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It continues:
Provided that such failure shall not be deemed an act of bankruptcy if, in the opinion of the court, such act was due to causes beyond the control of such farmer.


Edward Joseph Garland: But we
have to go back a stage farther than that to find out just how the matter works out. We will suppose Tom Jones goes to a receiver at Calgary and makes a written proposal offering to compromise on his obligations. In such event the secured and probably the unsecured creditors would be consulted. They may disagree with the proposal offered by the farmer and say that they will not accept it. Thereupon the farmer may say, "well, that is my rock bottom proposition; I cannot do any better than that because it represents the limit of my capacity to pay, and I certainly will not enter into any other agreement." Under this act, once a farmer has made a written proposal any secured creditor may pursue the matter through to the board of review and secure a finding by that board which would have the effect of forcing the farmer into bankruptcy, in the event of his not accepting the finding. Let us have the matter clear.


Charles A. Stewart: That is my understanding of it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member is quite right; he stated the situation accurately.


George Gibson Coote: The difficulty is that there may be so many cases waiting for a hearing by a board of review that a case to be heard by it may have to wait ninety days before a decision could be rendered. If the official receiver neglected to ask the court for a stay of proceedings, although a man had done everything he could legally do to have his case heard, and although it may be held up only because of a long list of cases awaiting the action of the board of review, he would be helpless to protect himself against any creditor who might desire to take action against him. I mean by that that he is left in the hands of the receiver, absolutely. I was told by one of the members of the board of review in Alberta that on some days they can hear only three cases, although they put in long hours. Some cases have required that much consideration, if the board wished to be fair to both debtor and creditor. No good purpose would be served in going ahead with this legislation unless the board of review had plenty of time to see that decisions were carefully made. If they are going to give the same consideration to these cases that an ordinary court would give, in many instances they will not be in a position to deal with more than three or four in a day. This afternoon I asked the minister if he could tell how many cases were awainting the decisions of the board of review, and I dare say he may not be in a position to give accurate information on that point. It does seem to me however that according to the figures he gave this afternoon there must be a good many cases in Alberta and' Saskatchewan. I doubt whether in some of the western provinces the board of review would be able to hear in less than ninety days some of the cases which have lately come before them. Therefore I raise the point whether or not ninety days is a long enough period for a stay of proceedings.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On March 1, 276 cases had been referred to the board of review in Alberta, and on that date 102 had been heard. While in the earlier stages it is true that only three cases could be heard by the board of review in one day, they have more recently been able to speed up their work. That has been brought about through the experience they have gained and because they are sitting longer hours. They have heard as many as ten cases in a day, so that the hon. member will readily appreciate that the arrearages could very easily be overtaken in a period of time shorter than three months. He speaks about the possible negligence of a registrar in arranging for aD
Farmers' Creditors Act

extension of a stay of proceedings. I think we must assume that the registrar will not be negligent in his duties. While in some cases renewals may be necessary, on the other hand I have had a great many objections from creditors who say they believe the period of three months for a stay of proceedings is too long. On balance therefore, I am inclined to think we have perhaps gone as far as we should, bearing in mind always that the bona fide debtor will not be prejudiced by reason- of the fact that this period can be renewed. On the other hand we must be fair to the creditors and not put them to the unnecessary expense of having to go to court where proceedings are taken under this act only for the purpose of delaying the creditor in the application of his remedy where the proposals are such as could not ultimately be entertained by the board. It seems to me that on balance, three months is a reasonable period.


Alfred Speakman: That was my reason for asking the question. Where a proposal is made and the ninety days expires before further action is taken, and for some reason the application for extension of time is not properly registered and has lapsed, at the expiration of that time would the provincial legislation have full force and afford such protection as would have been afforded had the proposal been before the board? I think it should. The man in such a case is not under the protection of the federal law, and [ should imagine he ought to remain under the protection of the provincial law until such time as the full process has been completed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mv hon. friend is quite correct. But even assuming he did not have the right to resort for his protection to the provincial debt adjustment act, in the case instanced by my hon. friend from Macleod it would still be quite competent for him to go before the court and ask for a stay of proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that the steps to do so had not been taken prior to the expiry of the three months period.


George Gibson Coote: It does seem to me that only in a very few cases would a decision be given by tire board of review within ninety days after the farmer had made his proposal. It takes some time after the proposal is first made for the official receiver to notify the creditors and get them to a meeting and get the debtor there, and sometimes they adjourn for a second meeting. The board of review have so many cases on their waiting list that I doubt whether many of them are disposed of within ninety days. If the minister assures us that there is protection through

the official receiver applying to the court for an extension, or through provincial legislation, I certainly do not want to labour the point. But I do submit that not many cases passed on by the board of review will be wound up within ninety days of the first proposal.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend need have no anxiety, certainly so far as Alberta is concerned, because we will assume that the three months has elapsed and that no proceeding has been taken. The creditor before he can sue has to go before the provincial debt adjustment board for a permit before he can proceed at all.


Alfred Speakman: That was my question. Must he? And I understood the minister to say he must.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Furthermore they have a list of all the proposals filed before the official receivers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not understand that last statement of the minister. Do I understand that in the event of a decision from the board of review pending and not yet delivered, and the ninety days granted for stay of proceedings having elapsed, the operation of the provincial debt adjustment board will act on behalf of that man? I do not think so.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the ninety days period has expired, then before the creditor can sue in the province of Alberta he must go before the provincial debt adjustment board to get leave to bring action, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a proceeding then pending before the board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Mr. IRVINE:: But would he not be under the federal act the day after the ninety days had expired? Would not that be the time the federal act would come into force so far as his creditors were concerned?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, so far as his application is concerned, but not so far as a stay of proceedings is concerned, and that is the point we are discussing at the moment. The stay of proceedings operates for only ninety days


Edward Joseph Garland: My understanding is that the moment the farmer places himself under the operation of this act he at once ceases to be a ward-shall we call it?- under the debt adjustment board of the province, or has exhausted his right to be a ward until the procedure under this act has been pursued to its ultimate conclusion.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Alfred Speakman: That was not my
understanding as I followed the legislation in this house and in the province. My understanding was that part I of the Bankruptcy Act came into force in the case of an individual farmer only after the proposal had been confirmed and filed with the courts. Up to that time he could commit no breach of conditions until the proposal had been filed with the court. Until the proposal had been filed with the court and the operation was complete he would still be exempt under part I of the Bankruptcy Act and therefore would be subject to the court procedure of the province in respect to proceedings by creditors. That was my understanding, and I am glad that in large measure it has been confirmed by the minister.


Mr. DAVIES:: Mr. Chairman, as one who
in the course of the practice of his profession has had considerable experience with this a-ct in Alberta, may I take this opportunity to confirm the views expressed by the Minister of Finance? He has put it correctly. When the ninety days stay of proceedings under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act has lapsed, the debt adjustment board in Alberta still has to issue a permit for proceedings under the provincial act. To my knowledge the representatives of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in Alberta are closely cooperating with the debt adjustment board officials of the province. I know personally of instances where the space of time having elapsed the debt adjustment board officials first got in touch with the official receiver's office, and upon learning that proceedings had not yet been concluded or that a stay of proceedings had not been extended, refused a permit to issue for proceedings against the debtor.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Before this clause carries I should like to say a few words as I did not have the opportunity to speak on the previous clause.
I wish to shed a different light on this measure as well as on the act which is amended by it. I have just found in my letter box a letter from a good farmer in the province of Ontario, in the part adjoining Quebec, who happens to be the creditor of another farmer. He protests strongly against the enlargement of this legislation. As he points out, he has saved a little money by living a frugal life year after year, and he lent a few dollars to some of his neighbours. One of them has spent his money in luxury. He is the proprietor of two automobiles; he has a piano in his house. He refuses to pay his debt, and now he is putting himself under the protection of this legislation. As

my correspondent says, "I have three boys whom I have to keep, while that man who is spending his money foolishly has only one boy. If he secures accommodation under this law he will be able to get along with his boy but I will be ruined and my three boys will be on the dole list. Why? Because I have saved for twenty years and because I have raised my family with economy and honesty."
I draw the attention of the house to the trend of all this legislation. I do not know the conditions in the western provinces. I presume that a large number of farmers there are indebted to lending companies. But with us in Quebec and in the part of Ontario adjoining Quebec, a very large number of creditors w'ho will be ruined by this law are farmers, small retired farmers living in villages, who have put by a few hundred or a few thousand dollars-a few thousand, very rarely -which they have lent to their fellow citizens living in the same parish, in the same village, relying upon the old traditions of honesty. I well remember the time when money was lent not only without mortgage but without note; money was lent from hand to hand and was always paid back, because the law of honesty was there, much stronger and more effective than any law that can be passed here or in any legislature. What is happening with this law?-and the tendency is increasing. The honest farmer who finds himself in difficult circumstances can hardly obtain credit. Money lenders, whether private citizens or lending companies, tell him that they have no more confidence in the farming community. They say, "If we lend you our money what will happen next year or two years hence? You will go bankrupt. We therefore refuse to give you credit." On the other hand the dishonest farmer takes advantage of this situation. I am afraid that at the rate we are going, making this tendency so much easier, we are fostering dishonesty among the farmers. We are ruining the credit of honest farmers; and at the same time we bring ruin to a large number of individuals, and a very useful class in our community, people who have worked steadily for twenty or thirty years, educated their families in the old traditions of thrift and honesty, and who have helped in their little sphere of action some of their neighbours, some of their fellow farmers, by lending them money. We are ruining one class financially and the other morally.
I do not want to add any more at this time. I suppose my protest is perfectly useless, as it was against another piece of legisla-

Farmers' Creditors Act

tion; because on the eve of an election the temptation, I am afraid, is to look for votes, and to look for votes especially among those people who give their votes according to their interest or their dishonesty. But I protest in the name of the old class of honest, thrifty farmers in my province. I admit that a good deal of extravagance has been going on in the last ten or twenty years, even in Quebec; yet Quebec has preserved more of the old domestic virtues of thrift, honesty, and sparing for old age; and now we are helping to destroy that spirit, we are helping to ruin a class of people who are preserving that spirit. I believe it is wrong economically and socially and for my humble part, although my voice may remain unsupported, I protest against this kind of legislation and against enlarging it all the time, making it easier for the dishonest debtor to cheat his honest creditor.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the general tenor of what my hon. friend from Labelle has said I find no quarrel, but let me point out to him that he has proceeded to draw a general deduction from one isolated specific case.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not isolated.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is a truism that no law nor any lack of law will make an honest man out of a dishonest man.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I admit that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This law is designed to take care of the honest farmer who is in difficulties. Now, in the instance referred to by my hon. friend, it will be time enough for the farmer of whom he speaks and with whom I have every sympathy-it is a worthy case- to cry after he is hurt, to use an old and homely phrase. I venture to believe that farmer has not had a hearing or a decision handed down by the board of reviews. If the circumstances are as related by my hon. friend, and I have no reason to question that they are properly related, I venture to say that if a proposal is formulated by the creditor and he eventually goes before the board of review, the good sense of the board of review will refuse to penalize that creditor for the benefit of the thriftless debtor of whom the hon. gentleman has spoken. His case would be strong enough if he would come into this house and say that the man had been injured because of a finding of the board of review. No doubt there have been instances, I know of instances, where dishonest farmers have attempted to defraud their creditors by using the machinery of this act which was intended to be applied

only to the honest, needy, deserving farmer who could benefit by its provisions. But notwithstanding that fact we have to look at the picture in the large and see what the act is designed to do, and my hon. friend will be the first to admit that it is designed to deal with a class of farmers of whom I have spoken; and when my hon. friend speaks of our amendments enlarging the act, it does so to the extent of extending the stay of proceedings to ninety as against sixty days. It is a difference in degree and not in kind. So far as I am concerned, my hon. friend must remember that I have been resisting the appeals of my hon. friend from Macleod to have the period extended. I told him I thought we had gone as far as we could in limiting it to ninety days. However, let me say this to my hon. friend from Labelle. If in the operation of this act he should find that it does become subject to abuse in practice in keeping with the fears expressed by the farmer of whom he has spoken, it will be his duty to bring the matter to public attention with a view to having a remedy provided.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I thank the minister for his explanation, which I will bring to the attention of my correspondent. I hope it will be effective all through. My hon. friend said that we cannot by law make dishonest people honest. That I quite admit. But we can by law induce honest people to become dishonest, and I am afraid we have done it in many respects. I could point to what has been done in connection with many of our so called social laws adopted since the war. There is no doubt about it in connection with many circumstances arising out of the war, with regard to the adjustment of soldier's claims, the enlargement of the soldiers' pensions legislation and the reversal of the most elementary principle of law in regard to evidence, when we have allowed soldiers to make claims on account of illness which, occurring fifteen years after the war, they attribute to the war itself, forcing the government to prove that it did not originate in the war. I remember, in the previous parliament, giving an instance of horrible frauds committed in that way by some returned soldiers. My remarks are general and go beyond the scope of that clause, as I explained, because I was not here when the first clause was discussed. But I thank the minister again for his explanation and I hope the press at least of Quebec will make it quite clear that in such cases as this the attention of the board of review should be directed to the necessity of protecting the honest people,

Farmers' Creditors Act
whether they are creditors or debtors, and not helping the dishonest at the expense of the honest.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would like to get back for a moment to the question of the relationship of the debt adjustment board of the province to the creditor coming under this act. As I followed the statements of the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Athabaska regarding a farmer whose case is being reviewed, and indeed upon whose case a decision is pending but has not yet been filed with the court, and where the ninety days' stay of proceedings has elapsed, I am now informed by both these hon. gentlemen that the debt adjustment board of the province would necessitate the creditor going to that board to apply for an order to take court action. Does that imply that the debt adjustment board under the debt adjustment act of the province would then have power irrespective of the decision of the court to prevent the operation of this act in the case of that man? Or if such power does exist at all, is it not simply the fact that the creditor would be taking temporary advantage of some anomaly in the relationship between the two acts; that his action at that time could be merely a perfunctory one and not at all binding; that this law must be binding to its conclusion upon the creditor who goes under it and that the debt adjustment act of the province cannot apply to such a man once he has gone under the operation of the act? Is that correct?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have only this to add to my original statement in answer to the hon. member for Bow River: Once this act is invoked it continues in operation to its ultimate conclusion when a finding is brought down by the board of review. But let us assume that prior to the finding of the board of review the ninety days' period has elapsed and the stay of proceedings has therefore ceased in favour of the debtor; in that event, if there is no move on the part of the registrar of the board of review on behalf of the debtor to have the stay of proceedings renewed, it would be competent for the creditor to go before the debt adjustment board of Alberta and apply for leave to bring action. But in practice what would happen would be this, that if for no other reason, that would serve to notify the officials under this act that such a proceeding had been taken, and I have no doubt the result would be that the registrar would apply to the court for a renewal of stay of proceedings and would be granted it. I hope that answers my hon. friend's question.
<)'!582-89}


Edward Joseph Garland: Almost.
There is just one point. Is it correct to say that the provincial debt adjustment act could not override the operation of this act once a farmer had placed himself under it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so. This act takes precedence and overrides entirely the provincial debt adjustment act up to the end of the period excepting only in the instance that I cited.


Alfred Speakman: In that case the federal act for the time being is in suspense.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Only so far as the stay o( proceedings is concerned.


Alfred Speakman: That is what I mean.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Board may confirm proposal.
Mr. BUTCHER:: With regard to the proposed amendment in section 4, I would like to suggest this to the minister: Would it not be necessary or advisable to make the same change in section 2, subsection 3, and sections S and 10 of the original act? The words are "approved by" in each case. Section 2, subsection 3 reads:
In any case where the affairs of a farmer have been arranged by a proposal approved by the court or confirmed by the board as here inafter provided-
And so forth. Section 10 reads:
Whenever a proposal has been approved bj the court.
Is it not necessary to change the words "approved by" to "filed in" in those sections also?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Would my hon. friend state that point again? I have not got the full force of it.


Harry Butcher: By the proposed amendment in section 4 of the present bill, the words "filed in" are to be substituted for the words "approved by" in subsection 6 of section 12 of the original act. But in section 2, subsection 3 of the original act, the opening words are:
In any case where the affairs of a farmer have been arranged by a proposal approved by [DOT] the court or confirmed by the board as hereinafter provided, part I of the Bankruptcy Act shall notwithstanding section 7 thereof apply to such farmer-
And so on. Should not the words "approved by" in that subsection also be changed to read "filed in"?
139S
Farmers' Creditors Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think I have my hon. friend's point. Subsection 3 of section 2 is quite right in its wording in calling for the proposal to be approved by the court. But the section which we are amending has reference to the decision of the board of review, which is a different matter, and in using the words "filed in" we want to make it clear that there is no question of appeal; that the action of the board is final and that the board's decision once it is filed in the court is final.


Harry Butcher: Then with reference to section 10 I would suggest that the minister take the matter into consideration because it seems to me that the words "filed in" should be substituted for the words "approved by" in each case, that is to say in subsection 3 of section 2 and sections 10 and 8 of the original act.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If we had the words "approved by" inserted in clause 4 of the bill, we would open the door for a county court judge to sit in appeal on the decision of a board of review which is presided over by a supreme court judge. That would be an anomaly of itself. But we wish to make it clear that there is no question of appeal from the decision of the board of review. That is final; the matter is closed by filing the decision in the office of the clerk of the county court.


Harry Butcher: But that is exactly what I think will happen under subsection 3 of section 2. I think the words " filed in" should be substituted for the words "approved by" in section 2, subsection 3, of the original act. Perhaps the minister will consider that at his leisure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would not for one
moment attempt to pit my knowledge of the law, which is meagre, against that of my hon. friend, because as I stated in the house the other day, I have not practised law for twenty-five years and have almost forgoten that at one time I was titularly at least a lawyer. But I have had the Department of Justice go over this bill very carefully. It was intended that the settlements of the official receiver should be approved by the county court, but it was not intended that a decision of the board of review should be subject to approval of the county court. The mere filing of the decision in the office of the clerk of the court was a finality to the proceeding. The two cases are entirely distinct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
George Gibson Coote: Before the bill is reported
let me say that I have repeatedly urged upon the house the necessity for providing some general act to limit the rate of interest on farm mortgages. I think hon. members will recall that when this act was being passed a year ago I with many other members urged very strongly on the Prime Minister that it was necessary to give to all farmers some protection in regard to interest rates. This legislation I am sure will not benefit more than ten per cent of the farmers, In other words at least ninety per cent will not take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Many farmers are still paying interest at the rate of eight and even nine per cent per annum. I still feel very strongly that we should include in this act some provision for reducing rates of interest on all farm mortgages. What I am anxious to do is to prevent a great many farmers who are included in the ninety per cent of which I spoke from being forced into a state of bankruptcy through the payment of too high interest rates. Almost every agricultural country in the world except Canada has passed legislation of this nature, reducing rates of interest on farm debts.	Canada
should not lag behind in this respect. Anyone who has collected interest at the rate of eight or nine per cent during the last five years has had in almost every case purchasing power greatly in excess of the purchasing power of money at the time the loan was made, so that a reduction in the rate of interest during these latter years would not have been a reduction in the purchasing power of these people.
For the purpose of bringing this matter before the committee I wish to move an amendment to the bill. Before doing so I would draw attention to section 17 of the present act which reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law, whenever any rate of interest exceeding seven per centum is stipulated for in any mortgage of farm real estate, if any person liable to pay the mortgage tenders or pays to the person entitled to receive the money, the amount owing on such mortgage and interest to the time of payment, together with three months' further interest in lieu of notice, no interest shall after the expiry of three months' period aforesaid, be chargeable, payable or recoverable in respect of the said mortgage at any rate in excess of five per centum per annum.
The purpose of that, I think, is clear; that if any mortgagor can get the money and

Farmers' Creditors Act
tender it in payment to the mortgagee, the mortgagee must accept payment of his principal, or thereafter be content with interest at five per cent per annum. It seems to me that there was very good reason for placing the rate at five per cent per annum; the government felt that five per cent was a fair rate under the circumstances. Of course few farmers have been able to secure the full amount of their mortgage to tender payment of the principal sum so as to get the rate of interest reduced to five per cent. I do not think we should be working much hardship on any person; on the other hand it would be in the interest of the great majority, and we should be following much the same line as has been followed in almost every other country in dealing with farm debts, if we passed legislation effecting a reduction in the rate of interest on farm mortgages. In order to bring the matter properly before the committee I move:
That Bill No. 10, an act to amend The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, be amended by adding the following section thereto:-
6.	Section seventeen of the said act is amended by adding the following subsections thereto:-
(3)	No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate, or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
And because I believe that this should be retroactive and should cover the past four years of very low prices I have added another subsection:
(4)	Where interest at a rate in excess of five per centum per annum has been paid from and after the first day of January, 1931, on any mortgage or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate, the difference between the rate of five per centum and the amount paid or collected shall be credited on any arrears of interest outstanding, and if there are no arrears, then the difference shall be credited on the principal of the mortgage or agreement.
In support of my amendment asking for a reduction in the rate of interest during the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, may I point out again that the average farm income in Canada, which was approximately $1,600 in 1928 and $1,500 in 1929, fell to $740 in 1931, to $660 in 1932, and in 1933 to $640. Anyone reading these figures will realize that it was much easier for a farmer to pay even ten or twelve per cent in 1928 and 1929 than five per cent in these later years. Because of the very difficult situation in which the farmers have found themselves in the last five years due to the very low prices received
for their products, prices over which they had no control, I ask favourable consideration of this amendment by the committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was not in the house last year when section 17 was added to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, but it will be apparent to any draftsman that it is a section which has no relation whatsoever to that act. I have no doubt that the reason it was placed there was that it was not thought advisable at that stage of the session to introduce a fresh amendment to the Interest Act. But that is where a section of this kind ought to go. However, section 17 is there.
Now, may I point out that the proposed amendment-of which the hon. member for Macleod was good enough to give a copy in advance, for which I thank him-makes a provision which calls for an expenditure of public money. It is no less public money by reason of the fact that it comes from the farm loan board, for the principal comes out of the public exchequer. Therefore his amendment calling as it does for the expenditure of public money, is out of order, and it would be necessary to raise that point. But may I point out to my hon. friend that at the present moment he has a bill before the banking and commerce committee dealing with the rate of interest, and there is no reason why the whole subject should not be comprehensively dealt with there, so that any action taken by the committee on banking and commerce would be uniform. That would deal with the matter as one of interest and not as one affecting this bill, because I submit that it has no bearing whatever on this bill. The compromise of the debts of a farmer has no relation whatsoever to the question of interest, because it is a matter of compromise. Whether the interest is one per cent or twenty-five per cent would make no difference in the adjustment of the debts. Under the circumstances I hope that my hon. friend will not press his amendment but will take the course I have suggested; otherwise I shall have to raise the point of order which I have mentioned.


Edward Joseph Garland: Whether rightly or wrongly I am not going to say now, of course, but last year by section 17 of this very act the government itself did bring this question of interest within the scope of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Unfortunately they placed in the act a weapon that was most unworthily used in some cases by unscrupulous persons who alleged, of course, that the government had reduced the interest rate to five per cent. Those who studied the clause realized, of
Farmers' Creditors Act

course, that in itself it was practically useless, and I doubt if a single case has been adjudicated under it. The clause provided, as the hon. member for Macleod has pointed out, that where a debtor farmer tendered the payment of all the principal due, all the arrears due and all the interest due plus three months' interest in advance, after the three months had elapsed no rate of interest higher than five per cent could be collected. When you make a statement of that kind to an average farmer audience in western Canada it is greeted with scornful laughter, and quite properly so. The clause is worthless. I congratulate the hon. member for Macleod on endeavouring to introduce into this act the very principle that the government protested it had in mind last year, the general reduction of interest rates of five per cent, in keeping with the action taken in other countries. It is not my purpose to-night to stress the necessity for that; it has been shown again and again in other years as well as this year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would
the hon. gentleman read section 17?


Edward Joseph Garland: It will be read in a moment. I could tell hon. members of men who came to Canada from other countries; I have one in mind at the moment, who came here with some $35,000. He entered into the purchase of land under an agreement of sale; he operated as a scientific farmer, sparing himself neither in physical toil nor in mental effort. He worked twenty-five years without leaving his farm, but at the end of that time it was found that he owed $63,000, half to the Canadian Pacific Railway and half to the Bank of Montreal. Two years ago his life insurance policy, his last realizable asset, was sold, and the proceeds were divided equally between the bank and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. That result, of course, was due in large part to climatic conditions over which neither the debtor nor the creditor had control, but at the same time the ruthlessness of collection by the creditors and the extortionate rate of interest charged in relation to the productivity of the farm had no small bearing on the man's ultimate collapse.
I hold in my hand a statement which I gave the house last year, but which possibly has been forgotten. It is the result of research work carried on by Doctor Win Allen and Doctor Hope of the university of Saskatchewan. After two years of study they found that if the farmers of Saskatchewan had wanted to pay the interest on the farm debt- the interest only-according to their investigation it would have required four-fifths of

the entire wheat crop raised and sold in that province. If they had wanted to pay their taxes-with which we are not concerned at the moment-it would have required two-fifths of the total wheat crop raised and sold. So if the farmers of that province had endeavoured to pay interest and taxes alone it would have required one-fifth more wheat than they raised and sold. Exactly similar conditions prevail, varying only slightly in degree, in the three western provinces where grain is the principal source of revenue.
A few days ago the hon. member for Macleod again	drew vividly	to the	attentionof the house the collapsed financial condition of agriculture. He must have made it apparent to every hon. member who listened to	him that it	is impossible	foragriculture	to continue to pay	even	fiveper cent,	or certainly	more	than	five
per cent. I think he is exceedingly conservative in placing the figure at five per cent; if I had my way I would eliminate all interest from the time this depression commenced, and I would not restore it until we had price levels analogous in some degree with those of 1926. The figures quoted by the hon. member for Macleod are worth putting on Hansard once more. He stated that the total farm income in Canada for the four pre-depression years amounted in round figures to $4,012,000,000. In the four years of the depression that total income was only $1,740,000,000, so there was a decline in income of $2,268,000,000 during that four year period. These figures are significant; they tell a story, more vividly than words, of conditions that must be dealt with by this parliament and that must be recognized by this government. The proposal made by the hon. member for Macleod, even if it were out of order-and I contend it is not-ought to be accepted by the government and introduced as their own measure. If they are not willing to accept it as an amendment from this section of the house let them accept the principle and bring in the amendment themselves.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Bow
River is too shrewd to have misunderstood my position. I am not dealing with the merits of the interest question at all. I have stated time and again that I should like to see interest rates as low as they can be reasonably made, but the question of interest does not arise in connection with this bill at all; it has no reference to it. The hon. member says section 17 was placed in the bill last year by the government. That is quite true. The only explanation I can offer is that at that stage of the session it was thought

Farmers' Creditors Act
perhaps unwise to attempt to amend the Interest Act, but the bill was altogether silent on the question of interest. That would have no bearing upon the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. The settlement is made in the first place by compromise between debtor and creditor, and it does not make any difference whether the rate is ten per cent, seven per cent or two per cent; it is a question of settlement. Then you come to the board of review, who make their own terms with respect to interest. So the question of interest has no bearing on the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act whatever. The government has taken a stand so far as its general policy with respect to interest rates is concerned; we have come to the point where we have received many complaints from savings bank depositors that the rates of interest are too low. That is just an aside. I have told the hon. member for Macleod and I now tell the committee that the question of interest is one that should be dealt with in connection with the Interest Act, and my hon. friend from Macleod now has a bill dealing with the question of interest which is being considered in the banking and commerce committee. I am not trying to evade responsibility, so far as the government are concerned, in dealing with the question of interest on its merits. But having regard to the question of propriety, so far as the committee is concerned there is no question about this amendment being out of order. It is one of the cardinal rules of the house that only at the instance of the crown, by way of message, can a measure be submitted involving the expenditure of public money.
Mr. HA'NBURY: In what way would that involve an expenditure of public money?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Because the amendment
provides not only that there should be a certain fixed rate of interest, but that where more than five per cent has been paid an amount shall be returned to the borrower.


Wilfred Hanbury: To the one who holds
the mortgage. It may be a private individual it does not necessarily have to be the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This will affect mortgages made under the farm loan board.


Wilfred Hanbury: But is it not a general
provision affecting all mortgages, and not necessarily only farm loan mortgages?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Even so, it will affect the
farm loan board.


Mr. HEAPS:: Could the minister explain
how government money is involved in this transaction?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have done so often, and I do not know whether I can do it any clearer. All the money which is lent under the farm loan act comes out of the public exchequer, and if the farm loan board has to hand back four years' interest, that money would have to come out of the public treasury.


William Irvine: I am not quite clear
whether we are now discussing the amendment or the point of order. I shall assume however for a moment that we are discussing the amendment. I understand-and if I have the wrong impression I hope the minister will correct me at once-that the legislation of last year called the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, now being amended, had as its objective not only the protection of farmers against what might be described as unfair foreclosures, but also the possible reduction of farmers' debts. If that was the intention of the act then I believe the minister will have great difficulty in excluding a discussion of interest rates, because the debts of a great many farmers consist almost entirely of interest. More than fifty per cent of most debts of long standing is composed of interest which those farmers have been unable to pay. Therefore if we are effectively to enable the farmers to reduce their debts, the most direct way to do it would be reduce the interest rate, the chief cause of a growing debt which cannot be paid. That fact in itself disposes of the minister's objection to the effect that the proper place for the amendment would be as an amendment to the Interest Act. Since the amendment has for its objective the reductions of farmers' debts I suggest it quite properly comes up for consideration at this time.
Under the act which was passed last year of farmer may offer a mortgage company the complete amount of his mortgage, even though it may not be due, and if the mortgage company does not feel inclined to accept the payment the farmer must from that time forward obtain his loan at the rate of five per cent. That is alll very well, but the principle involved is that a man able to pay on his mortgage can get it at five per cent, whereas the poor devil who can pay nothing must continue to pay seven or eight per cent or, in some cases, ten per cent. Surely there is no common sense in an arrangement like that. Certainly when passing legislation such as that now before us we ought to be fair
Farmers' Creditors Act

enough to arrange it so that the man who has very little will receive favours equal to those received by the man who has more.


George Gibson Coote: The hon. member for Bow
River thinks that when I placed the rate of interest at five per cent I set it too high. I believe I should plead guilty to that charge. I know such a rate would prove to be a heavy burden upon the farmer, but the rate of five per cent is mentioned in section 17 of the act passed last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read
the section.


George Gibson Coote: I read it before, but I shall do so again:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law whenever any rate of interest exceeding seven per centum is stipulated for in any mortgage of farm real estate, if any person liable to pay the mortgage tenders or pays to the person entitled to receive the money the amount owing on such mortgage and interest to the time of payment, together with three months' further interest in lieu of notice, no interest shall after the expiry of three months' period aforesaid be chargeable, payable or recoverable in respect of the said mortgage at any rate in excess of five per centum per annum.
2. The provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any mortgage heretofore or hereafter made and whether or not the principal sum is due and owing at the time such tender or payment is made.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who moved that last year?


George Gibson Coote: This is a section of the bill introduced by the government at the last session. When the matter was under discussion last year I believe hon. members will recall that we spent the greater part of a day trying to persuade the Prime Minister to change this section so that the rate of interest on any mortgage should not be more than five per cent per annum from and after the passing of the act. I still feel strongly that that should have been done. I believe, further, that the preamble to the act introduced last year would justify our including some provision for a general cut in the rate of interest on farm mortgages. The act passed last year was to deal with one thing only, namely farm debts. The first half of the preamble reads as follows:
Whereas in view of the depressed state of agriculture the present indebtedness of many farmers is beyond their capacity to pay; and' whereas it is essential in the interest of the dominion to retain the farmers on the land as efficient producers....
It seems to me one of the things we need to-day is a general reduction in interest rates, so that those farmers may be kept on the
IMr. Irvine.]
land as efficient producers. Interest rates of eight and nine per cent will in the course of the next four or five years, if we continue to receive low prices, drive into bankruptcy a number of farmers who are still solvent. Present rates of interest are too high and are more burdensome to the farmers than the amount of the debt. We could reduce the amount of the debts by one-quarter, without touching the rate of interest, and not give the farmer as much relief as we could give by reducing the rate of interest. I do not believe we would be working a great hardship on anybody. We would not be cancelling any savings; we would simply be reducing to five per cent the rate of interest to be collected, and in most cases the five per cent would have as great purchasing power as the eight per cent charged in 1929.
Then the minister raised the further point, namely that in effect the amendment would call for the payment of moneys out of the public funds. Perhaps I am not learned in the law-I will admit that-but it does seem to me that the minister's observations could not apply to the amendment. It simply states:
Where interest at a rate in excess of five per centum per annum has been paid from and after the first day of January, 1931,-
And since that time we have had these extremely low prices-
-on any mortgage or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate, the difference between the rate of five per centum and the amount paid or collected shall be credited on any arrears of interest outstanding, and if there are no arrears then the difference shall be credited on the principal of the mortgage or agreement.
Therefore it would not be necessary to return any money to the mortgagor. The amendment simply means that money which has been paid and credited to interest would in some cases have to be credited as payment on principal. It seems to me that in that case there is no provision calling for an expenditure of public money. I may be wrong, but at any rate that is my present view, and I hope the chairman of the committee will hold a similar one.
Then, in regard to the other point, I admit quite frankly that the matter of interest rates is now before the banking committee in the form of a bill which I introduced, but that deals with interest rates in general. In none of its provisions does it relate specifically to the rate of interest on farm mortgages. It seems to me therefore that this committee would be in order to deal with the rate of interest on farm mortgages, and that we may properly do so when we are considering the

Farmers' Creditors Act
bill having for its purpose the amending of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I trust that upon reflection the minister will see the reasonableness of my suggestions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from Macleod seems to think there is a distinction between giving up several hundreds of thousands of dollars of money on the one hand, and paying it on the other. Well, there may be, but I do not see it myself. Here is the effect of this amendment of my hon. friend, in its actual concrete results. I am not stressing the point of order which I think is very clear. The farm loan board of Ontario has out today something like S55,000,000, the Saskatchewan board has out 818,000.000; the Alberta board has out some 812,000,000, and at the present moment the Saskatchewan board is lending money to farmers at six and a half per cent. H my hon. friend's amendment were carried it would mean that the farm loan board of Saskatchewan would have to hand back one and a half per cent of all their mortgage money covering the last five years, and in the last three years alone it would run into many hundreds of thousands of dollars. So it is idle for my hon. friend to say that this would not work a hardship. It certainly would, but I make that observation in reply to the statement of my hon. friend who seems to think that in a matter of dealing with a few hundreds of thousands of dollars or a few millions it would not do any harm at all, that they do not pay it-they just credit it. Yet the fact remains that you are out just that much money, whether you pay it or credit it. I hope the committee in its judgment will be disposed to reject this amendment, if only on the ground of equity and justice. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under the rules of the house it is not competent for my hon. friend to move it.


Onésime Gagnon: Does the hon. member press his amendment?


George Gibson Coote: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have your ruling whether it is in order or not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I just want to say one word, Mr. Chairman. I am in absolute sympathy with the amendment moved by the 'hon. member for Macleod, and ordinarily speaking I would support it if it were moved by the government. On the other hand, I must agree with the Minister of Finance that the amendment is out of order as it either inferentially or directly affects the revenues of the crown.


Edward Joseph Garland: If it is ruled out of order, the fact that it is out of order does not permit the government to escape responsibility.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We are not trying to.


Edward Joseph Garland: The matter is now on its doorstep, and I am hoping that before this session is closed the government will have accepted the idea proposed to-day by my hon. friend from Macleod.


Mr.   Gapon@Deputy Speaker and Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: My
ruling is that for the reasons given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) the amendment is out of order as being moved upon the initiative of a private member instead of a minister of the crown, according to May, page 511, as quoted in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms at page 165, paragraph 555.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the amendment has been found to be out of order, but if I have your permission, sir, I wonder if I might move the first part of it now as an amendment to the bill. It occurs to me that if the second part of the amendment is out of order perhaps the first part is in order. Therefore I would move that section 17 of the act be amended by adding the following subsection thereto:
No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
The committee will see that I have left off that section to which objection has been taken on the ground that it would necessitate the expenditure of public money. I still feel that this is a matter which we might very well deal with; as a matter of fact I think we should deal with it now that we are considering the question of farm debts. I therefore move this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and hope that it will be accepted.


Alfred Speakman: I should like to say a word in support of this amendment. I frankly confess that in spite of having full sympathy with the amendment previously proposed by the hon. member for Macleod I kept quiet because even before the Minister of Finance had spoken I was convinced that it was out of order because of its application to loans made by public bodies. But I do not think that objection applies to the amendment that has just been proposed. It might be considered under two aspects, and I shall not dwell upon either.
Supply-M arine

First there is the question of the merits of the case itself; that is, the relation of that reduced interest rate to farm prices and farm income and farm purchasing power. That has been so well argued that I shall not deal with it at all. But may I point out this one fact. Such action would perhaps do more to safeguard the creditors and make many doubtful debts sound and payable than any other action that could be taken. It has been pointed out before that one of the chief factors in increasing the risk in lending money, the risk of non payment, is the fact that in many if not in most cases the rate of interest is higher than can be earned by the money. To reduce that rate to a more reasonable point would go further than almost anything else could go in safeguarding the ultimate rights of the creditor and making possible his ultimate repayment.
The point has been raised, however-the minister has not discussed the merits of the question-as to the relation of this question to the present bill now under discussion. It has been suggested by the minister that this is not the proper place to deal with such a subject, but that it should be dealt with under the general Interest Act. Well, we are ruled largely by precedent in this house, and action taken at one time unchallenged and passing into law becomes a precedent which governs the application of that principle for the future. To my mind when the government last year introduced the principle of interest regulation in relation to this act, it was not done by accident; it was not done haphazard; it was not merely attached without any possible correlation; it formed a very definite part of the whole plan. It seems to me that such an amendment could find no better place than in an act the purpose of which is to reduce debt and to reduce interest and to bring debt and interest within the payable range of the farmer. I shall not stress that point, which is appreciated I am sure by every hon. member. I only hope the government will look favourably upon this amendment. Lacking the assurances that general and drastic action will be taken in respect of the Interest Act itself, I do hope that the government and this committee will consider favourably the application of this principle to the particular type of debt with which we are dealing under this act, mortgage debts owed by farmers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Again
on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Chair ruled that the entire amendment moved by the hon. member for

Macleod was out of order. As such, both subsections 3 and 4 fall by the same ruling of the Chair. Do I understand that any hon. member has moved a new amendment? If no new amendment has been moved, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that your ruling places out of order all the subsections of the previous amendment. On the other hand, if a new amendment has been submitted to the Chair I would with respect submit that subsection 3 by itself is in order, reading:
No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
I do not think that that does directly, although it might inferentially, affect the revenues of the crown in the years to come. But I submit that unless some other member has moved a new amendment, the entire amendment that was originally moved by the hon. member for Macleod has fallen by the ruling of the Chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I may be permitted, it was intended that the committee should rise at nine thirty. Before moving that the committee rise I might say this. I think my hon. friend has in mind the well established rule that if an amendment is partly bad it is all bad. Otherwise what would happen is that if hon. gentlemen moved an amendment and it were ruled out of order they might keep picking at it until they found something that was in order. However, I am not now dealing with the merits of the question. The government assumes full responsibility; we have to take a good deal of responsibility and a little more will not help us or hurt us one particle. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping $43,572.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the reason for the reduction?


Alfred Duranleau: During the last fiscal year we incurred a special expenditure for the removal of some derelicts. That expense will not have to be incurred this year.

Supply-National Defence


Thomas Reid: What are the miscellaneous services here mentioned?


Alfred Duranleau: This includes necessary provision for examination of masters and mates, in the sum of S14,612; navigation schools, $5,960; temporary relief to distressed seamen, $2,500; investigation into wrecks, $5,000; registration of shipping, $2,000; removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $9,500; inspection of live stock shipments, $4,000.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister given further consideration to the proposal to inaugurate schools for seamen in other parts of the country? Last year he gave us a list of schools and they were mostly in the eastern provinces. We appealed to him then to give consideration to other ports, especially on the Pacific coast.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think we have increased the number of schools.


Thomas Reid: How many are there?


Alfred Duranleau: We have schools at Halifax, Yarmouth, St. John, New Brunswick, Quebec and Prince Rupert. We also give a grant to the navigation school in Queens university, amounting to $500. These are the same schools we had previously.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister received any appeals from Vancouver and New Westminster for schools?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose there were, but during the depression we did not think we ought to increase expenses. It may be that in the future we shall do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $402,692; contingencies, $45,948.
Thomas Reid: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister certain things that are happening in connection with the unemployment camps under the jurisdiction of vhe Department of National Defence. Last year when this subject was under discussion I called the attention of the then minister to certain matters in connection with supplies to the camps in British Columbia, and to-night I want to refer particularly to the two in my constituency at White Rock. Last year I made an appeal with regard to the purchasing of supplies for these camps, pointing out that when the camps were under the jurisdiction of the provincial government that government had a policy of purchasing supplies from farmers round about. They would purchase fresh milk, fresh vegetables, potatoes, beef, pork, and so forth, paying the prevailing
wholesale prices. After the camps came under the jurisdiction of the dominion government that policy was changed and the supplies were purchaser by tender or contract from wholesale firms in Vancouver. I pointed out last year that an injustice was being done the farmers in that the government was paying three or four prices for the goods they were purchasing from the wholesalers, and the then minister informed me that if the farmers would club together or if an organization of them would submit prices to the government they would be taken into consideration, but that under the circumstances it was deemed in the best interests to purchase supplies for the camps from wholesalers. I pointed out, however, that it was difficult to carry this out. This year I made it my business to pay a visit to those camps. Last year I had paid one or two visits to them, but just prior to leaving for Ottawa I paid another to see what was being done in the matter of supplies. One of the first things I examined there was potatoes and other vegetables. I have brought along with me to show the committee a sample of the potatoes they had in those camps, and am sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat because I think the exhibit of potatoes I have on my desk is well worthy of his investigation. The farmers in the fall of last year were unable to sell their potatoes in any quantity. First-class grade 1 potatoes, were being sold for $5 a ton landed in the city of Vancouver. As for second grade potatoes, there was practically no sale for them, but if any were sold, the most any farmer received was $3.75 a ton. I was very much surprised when I visited the camp to find out that the government was purchasing potatoes from a firm by the name of F. R. Stewart. I may say to the committee that is one firm which should be investigated, because it is part and parcel, I believe, of a United States combine that is operating on the Pacific coast and squeezing out the lifeblood of the farmer. I was greatly surprised to find that the government was paying $24 a ton for potatoes a sample of which I now hold in my hand and which I am going to send across to the minister, because such stuff at the price is a positive disgrace. I took from the camp a sample, namely, these three potatoes which I am now passing across the floor; I took them into Vancouver and placed them before one of the dominion government inspectors. He, believing that I had a few tons to sell, said, "Mr. Reid, those potatoes are not worth much; you could not sell them at this time." I replied, "Supposing I were selling them and someone wanted to
Supply-National Defence

buy them; what would they pay me?" He said, "You would probably get $3.50 or $3.75 a ton landed in Vancouver." I said that I was much obliged for the information. The potatoes were grade 2, or perhaps grade 3, and that is what the dominion government is paying $24 a ton for. One farmer who lived in the vicinity, on hearing that the camp was out of potatoes, went to the camp foreman and asked if he could deliver a few tons. The foreman said, "Well I am very sorry, but you will have to take the matter up with the purchasing agent." The purchasing agent in turn said, "Well, F. R. Stewart is supplying the camp with potatoes." So this farmer telephoned Mr. F. R. Stewart, who said to him, "Well, do not send the potatoes to the camp; bring them in here and if we can take them we will take them from you." Mr. Stewart took a few tons for which I believe he paid the farmer $5 a ton landed in Vancouver, and this firm in turn took the potatoes out to the same district and charged the government $24 a ton for them. I think I am right in drawing this matter to the attention of the committee. Last year also I drew to the attention of the committee and the former minister what was happening in regard to the purchase of supplies.
A similar situation prevails with regard to milk. They are purchasing tinned milk when they are right in a district where fresh milk is easily procurable. I understand they are paying about $12 a ton for vegetables when all the farmer was getting was about $4 a ton for carrots, $6 a ton for turnips and about $9 a. ton for cabbage, which is the highest priced vegetable there. But these vegetables are all taken out of the district where the camp is, trucked eighteen to twenty miles into Vancouver, and then taken right out again to the camp. I would not feel so strongly about this were it not for the fact that I had already appealed to the government in regard to this sort of thing. It is high time that we had a number of hanging posts throughout the country, because any man who takes advantage of the people when such suffering is going on should be drastically dealt with. I can now understand the feeling that prevailed in days gone by when they hanged the sheep stealers.
I also complained last year, not publicly in the house but otherwise, regarding a firm that got a contract for supplying tobacco to the camp. The men there by the way are receiving between $5 and $6 a month and all their clothing, and I think I am correct in saying that they are allowed one and one-quarter cents a day for tobacco. The firm

that got the contract for tobacco last year got it I believe at a price of forty-five cents a pound, and the local firm in my city complained to me that the Imperial Tobacco Company had undercut everyone else and obtained the contract at a price away below cost of production. The men in the camp receive one and one-quarter cents, so they got one and one-quarter cents worth of tobacco a day, and the price then was forty-five cents a pound. But I was greatly surprised when I visited the camp to find out that by some juggling the price had been jacked up quite a bit without any of the other firms being given a chance to bid again. The result was that the men in the camp were of course getting less tobacco than before. It is high time that a thorough investigation was made into the matter of purchasing supplies in those camps.
It was stated in the provincial house-I have not the exact facts before me, but I have the information on the authority of engineers who have looked into the matter- that the purchase of all clothing and the total overhead expenditure coupled with the 5 to 6 dollars a month given to the men is costing the government in the neighbourhood of from $30 to $40 a month to maintain each single man in those camps. That statement was made in all seriousness in the provincial house by those who have investigated the matter, although the figure they gave was a little higher than the one I am now submitting. I got this figure independently before I came to Ottawa. When one looks over the long list of stuff which is supplied to these men and realizes the nature of the firms that are supplying it, if they are supplying it along the same line as that firm is doing with regard to potatoes, I can well understand that the cost to the country would be high to maintain those single men in the unemployment camps. Those matters are very serious and, as I say, this is not the first time I have drawn them to the attention of the Minister of National Defence.
I am not at all sure whether the single unemployed transient comes under the minister's department or under the Minister of Labour, but I might as well complete the story that I have, because this is affecting all the municipalities and cities in British Columbia; and the situation is becoming very much worse due to the actions of and a ruling that was made under the Department of National Defence. Rules were made regarding transient men, but a new rule was issued last fall I understand whereby men must be physically one hundred per cent

Supply-National Defence
perfect before they are taken into the camps. I have the case of two brothers who came I believe from Alberta; they were transients of course coming from one province to the other and were looking for work. When they arrived in Vancouver they were told that the first thing they would have to do would be to go before a doctor to be tested before they went to those camps. The two of them went before a doctor. One of them was pronounced one hundred per cent perfect, but the doctor said that the other had certain imperfections in his teeth and he was denied access to the unemployment camp. The relief officers who have been handling the affairs for the cities and municipalities complain very bitterly about the number of men who are coming from other provinces and who must first undergo a medical examination before being accepted in the camp. It seems strange the men must be one hundred per cent or thereabouts before being accepted in these [DOT]camps, and that those who are not are simply thrown on the street. Were it not for social organizations and the charity of the cities and of the provincial government, it is hard to say just what might happen to those single transients who are moving from one province to another. This movement has been the cause of a great burden on the various cities and the government of British Columbia. They have come into that province by the thousands. I was at the boundary last fall when a Ford car with a family of eleven in it was on its way to British Columbia, and these people were not there long until they were on relief. The youngest of that family was aged nine. I have seen many schoolboys piled into a car but I never knew of as many in a Ford as on that occasion. Then we have people having their fares paid to British Columbia; I think that practice should be brought to the attention of the government. Many of these people have come into the province and some have been placed in the camps. I have under my hand an affidavit as to the fares of two being paid by the city of Winnipeg to British Columbia. That is one of the most despicable practices that is going on at this time; they are just trafficking in human life. If they find that people have a notion of going somewhere they say, "We will gladly pay your fare." I do not know how many have been sent east, but my guess is that the majority have gone west on account of our more equable climate. We knew this practice was being carried on by many cities, but this was the first person
we had who would make an affidavit. The others were rather scared, but this one in Surrey made affidavit that the city of Winnipeg gave them their fare to British Columbia. They soon become a charge on the municipality. I think these matters should be brought to the attention of the government. But I want to stress particularly these matters which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, with regard to supplies and tobacco and the inspection of the men before they are taken into the camps. I brought this up last year but was told: "Oh well, we would rather deal with a firm that can supply us for two or three months than with individual farmers." It is no wonder the men in those camps are discontented and have lost heart, because every man there knew that the government was paying $24 a ton for potatoes when farmers in the district could not sell them. They knew that the government was paying a high price to the wholesaler for vegetables and other supplies, and I suppose they must have said to themselves: What is the use of our doing anything when the government allows this graft to go on? I appeal to the minister to have this practice stopped, and go back to the former method of purchasing fresh milk and other supplies from the farmers and give them some benefit. I did not hear many complaints when the provincial government was purchasing supplies direct from the farmers. It seems idiotic to have them trucked in to the wholesaler at Vancouver and then for that wholesaler to truck them back at a price that I say should not be allowed him.


Mr. MUNN:: I also have a little story to tell in regard to the relief camps in my riding. I have wondered many times how long the present system will be carried on. I have made the statement in British Columbia and this house, and I am going to make it again, that the way those camps are conducted is a disgrace to the people of Canada and an insult to the majority of the boys housed in them. They would not be there if they could get a job; it is not that they are looking for something easy. After last session I made investigations-not by sitting in my office in an arm chair; I visited the camps and talked to the boys. Plenty of them are ablebodied fellows; all they needed was a square deal to get some results. On July 25 last I wrote to the then Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). I would like to place on Hansard my letter and the minister's reply:
Supply-National Defence

Dear Mr. Sutherland:
In my federal riding of Vancouver North you have three relief camps under your department. One is located at Squamish, one located at Halfmoon bay and the other at Pender harbour.
These camps are favourably located for having some really worth while work done on the roads, but under the present system of 201 cents per day, they will never finish the job they are working at.
The road from Squamish to Britannia, about seven miles, would' be wonderful value to the Squamish valley, where there are a lot of settlers and they have no market except by railway or steamship. If this piece of road from Squamish to Britannia was finished, it would give the farmers and settlers in the Squamish valley access to the mine at Britannia, where they have a mine in operation employing on the average 1,000 men, and all their supplies shipped in by water. So I think you can see at a glance it would be a job worth while if this road could be finished. May say that Britannia mines have ore in sight for many years. This alone would justify the building of the road.
There is a highway from Gibsons landing, to Pender harbour all completed except about two miles, which is located between the Pender harbour camp and the Halfmoon bay camp. If this were completed it would be of wonderful service to the travelling public.
The present system to me is an insult to humanity. I visited the camps and there are plenty of able-bodied men who would be able to build these two connecting links and open up these roads in a short time, provided they were given a reasonable deal.
My suggestion would be that you make an exception of these three camps and pay the minimum wage, which would be 40 cents per hour, work them say five hours a day, and five days per week, charge them &0 cents per day for board and let them pay for their own clothing.
I can assure you if this were put into effect there would be a different atmosphere, everybody would be satisfied, and you would create some work which would be of lasting benefit.
Might say they have accommodation at Squamish for about 130 men. The other two camps can handle fifty or sixty men, which would be enough for their smaller job.
I have been in the construction business all my life and I know whereof I speak, and if you could adopt the suggestion as outlined, you would get results and there would be three relief camps in British Columbia being paid a reasonable wage and I will guarantee you will get good results.
I hope you will give this your prompt and careful attention.
The minister replied on July 31, saying: Dear Mr. Munn,-
I thank you for your letter of July 25 regarding the camps which our department is maintaining in your riding.
It -would be impossible to have one system of organization in connection with certain camps and not in others. I realize fully the difficulties existing at the present time. Please be assured that your letter will be given every consideration.

I have had no further word, and the camps are still there. In those three camps to-day I think there are between three and four hundred men. They have caused a good deal of trouble, and it is not surprising that there should be dissatisfaction: they get twenty cents a day and indifferent board, and the hon. member for New Westminster has told about the tobacco and other luxuries that they have to buy with that twenty cents a day. I protest very emphatically against that system. The government should change it and there should be a clean-up in those relief camps without any further delay. It is a disgrace to the people of British Columbia and of Canada and an insult to the boys housed in them.


Mr. MacINNIS:: I wish to add a little to what has been said by the two hon. members who have preceded me. Living as I do in the city of Vancouver I have been in touch with men from the unemployment camps during the last two or three years. Instead of conditions in the camps improving, as they should if the department administering them would benefit by experience, they are getting worse and worse. About the Christmas season of last year some seven or eight hundred of the men left the camps and came to Vancouver. In one instance at least their transportation from the camp to the city was paid; the -men from the other camps came on their own. This became quite a problem in the city of Vancouver; they had their own relief troubles and could not -offer to look after this additional burden. However, they could not very well turn down the men because to do so without having some agency to provide for them would be rather a serious thing for the city. Some members of the council of social agencies took up the case on behalf of the -men and arranged for meals and beds for a few days, until such time as they could get in touch with the provincial government and have them approach the federal government in the matter. I was advised of the situation very early in the proceedings, and with several others I interested myself on behalf of the men. We found it very difficult to get anything done. However, after coming here to Ottawa we found why that was so: the reason was that the attorney general of British Columbia had been advised by the Prime Minister of Canada that no provision whatever should be made for the men but that they should be forced through starvation to go back to the camps, regardless of what the conditions in the camps were.

Supply-National Defence
One of the things for which the men were asking was an investigation into camp conditions. It seems to me that even though these men are on relief they should not lose all their rights of citizenship. They are on reilef through no fault of their own; it is the fault of society, and that being the case I believe when they make repeated complaints those complaints should be investigated. We took the matter up with the city council of Vancouver; we took with us a delegation of the men to state their own case to the civic authorities. The men did not say conditions were bad in all camps; at least they said some camps were worse than others. I was going to say some were better than others, but I think I should put it the other way about. I am not saying whether or not this is true, but true or not I think it is sufficient basis for an investigation. One of the men told us that in his camp conditions were fairly good. They had a good cook, who was feeding them fairly well. But after some little time the superintendent came around and told the cook that he was exceeding the per capita allowance, and that the food would have to be cut down. Evidently the cook was a fairly decent individual; he refused to cut down the food. He said, " I cannot feed the men on less than I am using now. I am careful, but I turn back cheap food, poor or tainted meat and poor vegetables that come to the camp. I cannot do better than I am doing." Well the superintendent, or whoever it was, said, "You will have to do better." The oook replied, " I cannot do it," and he threw off his apron and said, " Get somebody else." Somebody else took over the job, but evidently whatever this man was he was not a cook. After he had been there a few days the men found that there was less sugar on the table than had been usual. After a few more days the sugar disappeared altogether. Then a little later the dried fruits disappeared also, and the men were wondering what was wrong. For a time the flunkies who cleaned up the camp at night were given tea and toast after they had cleaned out the buildings, but this also was discontinued; they were turned out as soon as their work was finished and the doors of the cookhouse were locked. The men knew there was something wrong and they began to make investigations of their own. One of the men came into the camp one morning and said, " I have found it, boys. They have a still here; they are making home brew. That is where our prunes, our figs and our sugar have been going." The home brew was being made in the fire buckets.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Did the men get their
share of it?


Angus MacInnis: No, it was all saved for
the higher ups. The men went to the foreman of the camp; they showed him the mash and said, "What are you going to do about it?" "Well," he said, "we will have to call in the provincial police." They called in the provincial police and showed them this mash; the police took the pails and dumped it out. The men said, "What are you going to do? Are you not going to prosecute somebody?" The police replied, "Well, there is no evidence." This may or may not be true, but that statement was made before the council and mayor of the city of Vancouver; in my opinion it should have been investigated but there has been no investigation. After considerable negotiation better counsel prevailed; the authorities did not accept the dictum of the Prime Minister that nothing should be done. On the promise that an effort would be made to get an investigation into their complaints, the men went back to camp quietly.
On Friday of last week I w'as in the city of Kingston, where I addressed a meeting which was attended by quite a number of men from one of the relief camps, and as usual these men had a number of complaints. The hon. member for New Westminster referred to the potatoes in one of the British Columbia camps. If my information is correct British Columbia camps are not the only ones where they have poor potatoes. The man who spoke to me said you could take the potatoes that were put on the table at that camp and if you squeezed them they would squirt water like a syringe. He also said that you could scrape the mould off the meat with a knife. In my opinion these are statements that the government Cannot afford to have broadcast without investigation. A young fellow from a camp near Toronto told me they were fed sour potatoes in that camp. He complained to the person in charge, and that person told him he was an agitator and that if there was any more of it he would have to get out. As soon as a man makes a complaint in a camp he is an agitator. In my opinion the people of this country ought to thank God that these men have enough manhood to complain, and I think we ought to take some notice of their complaints. The men themselves admit, of course, that there are agitators in the camps, but they say that every man who makes a complaint is not an agitator. They say that the camps are not the place for the men who are habitual
Supply-National Defence

agitators. Possibly the men are sick, either mentally or physically, and should not be in the camps. I suppose those camps cannot be abolished immediately, but surely we are not going to have them from now on. Young men reaching the age of twenty-one years are entering the camps, and old men are dropping out. Any government which does not clean up this situation has failed, I do not care what else it has done, and I would say that the sooner the government gets busy and tries to do something the better it will be for the Dominion of Canada.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have another point
in mind, and it has to do with men who suffer accidents while in relief camps. In Ontario there is a workmen's compensation board, but men in camps who suffer accidents do not come within the jurisdiction of that board. Injuries suffered by civilians in the employ of the federal government are dealt with under legislation for government employees' compensation, and the government should consider action which would protect men who are injured in unemployment camps. I have in mind a young man who lost four fingers while operating a circular saw. I need not tell the government about the serious disability under which that young man will have to labour for the rest of his life. Under present regulations the person in question cannot be compensated, because he is working in the camp at Kingston which has in hand a project in connection with a college. Could the minister tell us whether this matter of compensation is being investigated? The family of the boy have seen me, because naturally they have had some cause for worry. Undoubtedly in after life due to the loss of his fingers he will be working under a disadvantage, and because of that handicap I - believe the government should make some provision for him. Certainly something should be done in the province in which they have the best workmen's compensation legislation in the world. Could the minister give hon. members some assurance that machinery will be set in motion whereby these young men who have suffered accidents and are unable to follow their normal work will receive compensation equal to what they would have received had they been in private industry?


Grote Stirling: Let me hasten to assure the hon. member for East Hamilton that the matter to which he has referred is being considered, and an arrangement has been arrived at between the departments of justice, labour and national defence with regard to the
LMr. Maclnnis.]
adjudication which shall be given in cases of accidents within camps. Probably the settlement will be along the lines of compensation offered under workmen's compensation legislation in the provinces. I need hardly say that the statements made by the hon. members for New Westminster, Vancouver North and Vancouver South will be most carefully investigated. Some of the representations the department has already heard; some have already been investigated, and no evidence has been found to justify them.
The committee will recall that the Department of National Defence comes into the picture because it has certain officials scattered throughout the dominion capable of taking over the work of overseeing camps. The provincial government approached the federa. government requesting assistance in the handling of the relief problem, and' as a result of agreements with each of the provinces the dominion government made it its business to look after the single homeless unemployed men. These men were placed in existing camps taken over from the provinces or in new camps built by the Department of National Defence. The men were given sustenance, fuel, shelter, and an allowance of tobacco in weight but not in price, as the hon. member has said. Work was provided for them under conditions which were considered reasonable. I have had many opportunities to visit the camps in southern British Columbia. I visited them during the last summer and fall, and the summer and fall prior to that. I have taken meals in them and have talked with the men; I have observed the work they were doing and have come to the conclusion that the camps-every one of them-bore a favourable relation to the camps in which I myself had worked in earlier years. The food was excellent, the conditions for sleeping were excellent, recreation facilities were good, and for men who unfortunately for the time were unable to find gainful occupation I would say they lived under reasonably happy surroundings. We must remember the dominion government comes into the matter simply to assist the provinces. Our work is one of assistance, not one of substitution of the task devolving upon the provincial governments.
The hon. member for New Westminster has raised the difficult problem of supplying the camps with the various kinds of foods. Obviously from the point of view of the taxpayer it is desirable and necessary that costs of camps be kept down to a reasonable minimum. When the average for all camps throughout Canada is struck it will be found that they are being run at an extremely low figure, and yet the balanced ration offered in

Supply-National Defence
each camp from the Atlantic to the Pacific is such that I personally could not complain. In my visits to the camps of which no notice had been given, I was handed meals which were most satisfactory in quantity and excellent in quality. I believe that from the point of view of food the men in the camps have very little to grumble about. The question of supplies by contract is one which offers some difficulty. There is no doubt whatever that the farmers in my constituency would like to be in a position to supply more beef, vegetables and other requirements than so far they have been allowed to supply, due to the system of contracting. Speaking more particularly about beef may I say that hon. members will undoubtedly realize the difficulty with which superintendents are faced when they attempt to arrange the supply of beef, especially in hot weather. Suppose we have a camp of one hundred men which requires a certain quantity of beef so many times a week. Farmers in the neighbourhood may have beasts to kill, but it does not follow that they are in a position definitely to guarantee that on a certain Wednesday they will be able to supply the camp with so many pounds of fresh beef. On the other hand, where you have firms who buy from the farmers, they have their own refrigerator arrangements and can definitely undertake to supply on such and such a day of the week so many pounds of beef for that camp. That is a means of getting over the difficulty which exists in endeavouring to buy comparatively small quantites of beef on certain days of the week.
The hon. member for Vancouver South has raised the question of the difficulties which occurred in the British Columbia camps in December. I think perhaps that situation has been adequately ventilated. The main point he makes is that investigation by a committee has so far been refused. The reason for that refusal is this: At any camp in Canada it is possible for a man having an objection to lay that objection before the foreman. If he is not satisfied with the reception he gets from the foreman he can take it to the superintendent of that group of camps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The evidence is very much the other way.


Grote Stirling: If he is not satisfied with the reception he receives from the superintendent he can take it to the officer of that district. In the case of British Columbia, however, remembering that the dominion government is in this picture to help the province by agreement on terms laid down, the provincial government has been requested to send 92582-90
its representative into any or all of the camps and make up its own mind whether there is room for an investigation or not. So far as my knowledge goes, that investigation has not so far taken place. But the view taken by the department undoubtedly is that while we welcome visits of individuals, responsible men or ordinary citizens, we are not prepared to receive committees which will go in and investigate conditions and make their reports to we don't know whom.


Edward Joseph Garland: The mere existence of these camps indicates a collapse in the system of which the members of this house should take cognizance. To say that in a system of society in which the potential productivity is almost beyond computation we have to shove men away in this sort of regimentation certainly does not imply any praise of the mentality of those who are the governing force in the country. It may be it is the only course they are able to follow at the present time ,and under the present system, but the time has surely come when in the light of conditions they must reconsider the whole position of camps of this kind and determine definitely whether or not they must accept as permanent a condition of unemployment involving the continuance of this sort of thing if the present system continues.
But I rose not to make any generalized statement on this question, as that can await a more appropriate moment, but rather to draw the minister's attention to some complaints that have come to me. While I cannot vouch for their accuracy I feel it incumbent on me to pass them on to the minister and to his department.
It is alleged that men are drifting into the cities from these camps as they are being ejected, devoid of means, poorly clad, and with no prospect of even obtaining a meal, refused by the dominion, provincial and civic authorities; and that at the moment of the writing of this document to me, namely, January 25 last, twenty-eight men are being fed in the city of Calgary from contributions gathered from relief recipients in the city itself.


Grote Stirling: Would my hon. friend say what camps they came from?


Edward Joseph Garland: I can tell the minister one in any case before we get through. This is regarded as a callous attitude on the part of the authorities. Again I say the action may be justified. I leave it to the minister to investigate the facts.
With regard to camp No. 3, project 155, Seebe, it is alleged that one tent is supplied for ablutions in which 128 men take turns at

Supply-National Defence

two tubs for all purposes, washing, bathing and washing of clothes. I took this matter up with the department in the form of a question. I find that this is their reply to that charge, and I would ask hon. members to note it carefully:
Accommodation is temporarily being provided by using two contractors' tents, one for ablution and the other for laundry purposes, containing ablution basins, twelve wash tubs, one hand washing machine and two vacuum washers. Regular ablution hut now erected and fittings being installed.
I have no doubt at all that that is being done now, but I would ask the minister to find out whether the complaint registered was accurate at any time. Evidently the conditions are being improved in that regard.
The second complaint is that the water supply at that point is a hole in the ground; that the water seeps through into this hole, apparently a dug well, and that the same water used for washing purposes is also used for culinary purposes. Perhaps that is put the wrong way round, and that what is meant is that the culinary water is used for washing purposes. The reply to that complaint which I received from the department was this:
At present water hauled from spring by team in forty-five gallon drums. Gravity system from spring one thousand feet away under construction.
I would like to know whether it is a spring that the water was being taken from, or is the complaint well founded that the water was taken from a hole in the ground?
The next complaint is that these men have been called out to work when the temperature has been as low as twenty below zero. I think the department admits when it replies that the men are sent out in such temperatures to cut firewood.
The fourth complaint is that in the bunk-houses, if the men hang up their clothes at night, they will sometimes be found frozen to the walls in the morning. The department admits that the inside walls of all huts were very cold during cold spells.
The next complaint is that men making complaints either for themselves or on behalf of others are immediately ejected from camp, and that their lives are placed in jeopardy by reason of the fact that certain of their camp clothes are taken from them and that they are transported in open trucks in subzero weather and dumped into the cities and summarily disposed of. They are placed on a blacklist and denied entrance to any other camp should they desire to go there. They are cut off entirely from relief and told to fend for themselves. Obviously, if this is

true it must undoubtedly be one of the causes of crime. The official statement of these men is that this has come to be an alarming situation and is growing to such proportions that we cannot cope with it. I received this communication from the United Workers' Council of Delegates, Calgary. They go on to request that I take the matter up with the department in the hope that some action will be taken in connection with these complaints. I hope the minister will look into that too.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I desire to substantiate from personal knowledge all the remarks that have been made by my friends from British Columbia, the hon. members for New Westminster, Vancouver North, and Vancouver South. During the Christmas season we spent three whole days in the city of Vancouver and met a delegation from these men in the camps. Twelve hundred in round numbers came to the city of Vancouver, and I was greatly impressed by the exceeding fairness of the three spokesmen of these men who appeared before us. There was a complete lack of extremism, a complete absence of exaggeration in their statements, and a reasonable plea for fair play from the authorities.
The minister was exceedingly fair in his presentation of the case this evening, and I assure him at once that I am not going to impute the slightest blame to him because he has not been very long in charge of the department. But I suggest to him that he can do a tremendous amount to humanize the national defence camps in Canada. I am speaking with particular reference to British Columbia. What the hon. member for New Westminster said in regard to supplies is abundantly true, especially in the Kamloops area, where supplies have been bought from favoured contractors at prices higher than are charged by local farmers, and that in numerous instances. That is wrong, as I think the minister will agree. He mentioned the question of an investigation. Now, we promised these men in Vancouver that there would be an investigation, and after all, when three men are speaking for a number of men as in this instance, and when they ask for an impartial investigation, there is nothing unfair about such a request. The minister said that the provincial government had been asked to investigate; he is correct. And he is also right in saying that they refused to investigate and, I think, correctly so, because the provincial government has no jurisdiction whatever in regard to this method of handling relief. This is completely a national method, the only one that is completely national. We

Supply-National Defence
promised these men in all sincerity that there would be an impartial investigation. A committee from the council of social agencies in Vaueouver approached us, and I would ask the minister to appoint his own commission, one single commissioner in his own department, to investigate the complaints. I am satisfied, after listening to the representations that have been made, that he would find the complaints fully justified. I am sure that the minister, who is an exceedingly fair minded and humanitarian gentleman, will be the first to see that these practices which the men complain of will be remedied. He said that those men who were blacklisted and fired could go to the foreman, the superintendent or the local officer. Well, they were fired inside of five seconds without seeing the foreman; they were fired by the straw bosses in the camps without a moment's notice, without packing their clothing or having an item of food, and they were sent away to live or die. That was done, not by my hon. friend but under the jurisdiction and control of the department over which he now presides, and every word said by the bon. member for Vancouver South is abundantly justified by the evidence we heard. I appeal to the minister to appoint his own commissioner and send him to British Columbia, and I am sure that he would find justification for these boys' grievances.


Thomas Reid: May I point out to the minister, in connection with the purchase of supplies, that when the provincial government handled these camps the cost of meals-and I saw the figures before I left-ran from twenty-four to twenty-six cents per day for three meals for a man, averaging roughly eight cents per meal. Now the meals provided for the men in the camps under the jurisdiction of the provincial government were as good as if not more ample than the meals now provided by the dominion government. Before this item goes through I think we should have a statement from the minister as to the total cost of the men in the oamps, segregating meals from clothing and other supplies as well as tobacco. I say this because I take a great deal of pride in the accuracy of any statements I make to this house, and the statements I have made this evening are not hearsay; they are based on first hand information from the records of the camp itself-not what someone in the camp told me. I have seen the men supplied with meals both under the dominion and under the provincial jurisdiction, and I know that the province had no difficulty in getting meat. In regard to keeping meat fresh, so far as the camps in White Rock are concerned, there is
92582-90J
no difficulty because they have a freezing plant of their own, and the animals can be killed and the meat hung up and kept indefinitely. So that the question of keeping supplies fresh does not enter into the matter at all. When the provincial government was buying supplies locally there might be individual complaints, but apart from that the farmers supplied the rations such as fresh milk, vegetables, potatoes, pork, meat and other necessities, at reasonable rates, and I maintain that the price was a little less than the dominion government is now paying for the men in the camps. I submit that we should have a detailed statement of the whole cost, segregating clothing from the food supplied the men; and we might have the figures for the various provinces so that we might make a comparison.


Grote Stirling: Certainly the matter to
which the hon. member for Bow River drew attention will be investigated. It was the subject matter of a question which he placed on the order paper some weeks ago and which was answered. It will be gone into more fully, he having drawn it to the attention of the committee. He mentioned one point with regard to water being obtained from a hole in the ground. Water frequently is obtained from a hole in the ground, and when we are discussing the relief camps it should not be forgotten that there is a medical officer, one of whose duties is to keep his eye on the purity of the water required in the camp. I remember one of the camps not very far from where I live-fifty miles north of where I live-on the borders of a lake. It did not draw its water from that lake, and of course there was local gossip immediately to the effect, "Here is the dominion government laying two thousand feet of pipe down the hillside when it could have taken water from the lake." The reason the water was not taken from the lake was that there was a medical officer attached to the camp. My hon. friend from Vancouver Centre raises the point once more of an investigation, and he states, as his reason for emphasizing the request for an investigation from Ottawa, that the responsibility is that of the dominion government. Now that is precisely where I differ from my hon. friend; the responsibility is that of the provincial government; the dominion government comes into the picture, let me repeat, in aid of but not in substitution for the work done by the provincial government. My hon. friend from New Westminster has raised the question of costs, and I think he
Supply-National Defence

said, if I understood him rightly, that the ration cost to the government was 24 cents a day.


Thomas Reid: From 24 to 26.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps I might read to the committee, in order to put it on the record, the expenditure per man day on relief to September 30 last. This totals $1.30 per man day and includes, so far as I am aware, everything that can properly be charged to the relief camp.


Thomas Reid: That is roughly $31 per man;
$1.30 per day would be roughly $31.


Mr. STANLEY:: Figure it out for yourself.


Thomas Reid: I can figure it out as well
as anybody over there.


George Douglass Stanley: I would not think so
from the looks of you.


Thomas Reid: If anyone looked at you they would have another opinion of you. I don't like those remarks and I won't take them either.


George Douglass Stanley: I have listened to remarks the most exaggerated and unfair and what I consider-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Douglass Stanley: From my own personal
knowledge I can say that I have never listened to a more exaggerated statement made in this house than the hon. gentleman has made to-night, nor than another statement the hon. member made in regard to the empire agreements, altogether erroneous statements. Again to-night he is repeating the same thing.
While I am on my feet may I have this opportunity of saying something in regard to the statements made by the hon. member for Bow River. The statements were made in the press before the city council of Calgary, and the medical health officer of that city accompanied by two other representative citizens, one the president of the unemployed associations of that city and the other an alderman, went out to investigate the charges which were made. Not the statements which the hon. member has made to-night, but those which appeared in the press, the reported gist of which the hon. member has repeated to-night, were investigated, and the medical health officer reported to the city council that the statements were altogether exaggerated; that the camps after a most thorough and careful examination were found to be healthy, the food was found to be splendid; the sanitary conditions were found to be excellent and the camps were quite desirable. He

pointed out several drawbacks because of the transition period through which they were passing in establishing the new camps, but otherwise the camps were quite desirable.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member for East Calgary will do me the justice of remembering that I made no statements. I quoted, as I carefully pointed out to the minister, remarks for which I did not accept responsibility and merely asked that they be investigated.


George Douglass Stanley: I endeavoured to make it appear in that way in my remarks. The gist of the inquiries which the hon. member made was taken from reports in the press and investigated by this special committee of which I have spoken.


Thomas Reid: I take the strongest exception to the remarks of the hon. member for East Calgary. I can tell him that many members may make statements in the house, but the statements I have made this evening I can challenge any hon. member, even the minister, to dispute. They were given to me right from the camp. It may well be the remarks I made regarding the medical profession are pinching my hon. friend a little hard. The statement with regard to the Ottawa agreements I will deal with at some other time, but so far they have not been controverted. It is true one member attempted to controvert them and said that I had made a mistake in regard to the question of butter, but it did not affect my argument at all. But the statements I made regarding the economic conference agreements were made from the government record, and as to the statements I made with regard to the camps, I will put my seat in jeopardy along with his if he cares to dispute them. I got my facts directly from the camp. I was told by the man in charge that the price paid for potatoes was $24 a ton, wdiile as I have stated the farmer was getting $5 a ton for grade number one and $3.75 for grade number two. Will he undertake now to say that my statements are wrong?
When I mentioned the price of tobacco the minister took me to task and said that tobacco was provided. Perhaps 1.3 cents is all that is allowed each man, and it may not be allowed in cash, but those statements were taken down by me just a few days before I left for Ottawa and I repeat that they were given to me by the man in charge of the camp, an appointee of the government.


Grote Stirling: Perhaps I may be permitted to finish the statement I was endeavouring to make. It is $1.30 per man day.

Death of Armand LaVergne


Thomas Reid: I merely asked if that took in everything including clothing.


Grote Stirling: Yes, I have said that in this we have included everything that we think can properly be included in the relief camp cost.


Thomas Reid: My statement would be correct that I thought it was about $30 a month.


Grote Stirling: I do not understand my hon. friend's arithmetic, but if he will allow me to continue, perhaps he can clear it up himself. This amount of $1.30 is made up as follows:
Expenditure per man day
Item	on relief
Land	
0.6	centsProject materials	
12.1	centsTransportation	
3.1	cents
Accommodation:
(a)	Skilled tradesmen	
0.8	cents(b)	Materials	
9.2	centsSubsistence	
27.3	centsMedical care	
4.8centsAllowances to supervisory staff..	11.7	centsAllowances to labourers	
16.3	centsClothing	
16.0	centsTobacco	
1.3	centsEquipment and tools	
7.1	cents
Maintenance of equipment and
tools	 1.4	cents
Ordnance equipment such as bed's, mattresses, diningroom
and kitchen equipment	 8.2	cents
Other charges:
(a)	Hire of skilled tradesmen 2.6 cents
(b)	Miscellaneous	
5.8	centsStationery	
0.7	centsExpenditures chargeable to projects as a whole	
1.0	centsTotal	
$1.30


Wilfred Hanbury: Does that also include
Sundays or is it just working days?


Grote Stirling: The whole man-days
right through.


Wilfred Hanbury: Sundays as well?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The minister stated a few minutes ago that the care of the single homeless men was very largely a provincial and not a federal responsibility; that therefore any investigation into conditions prevailing in those camps in British Columbia and in other provinces could very well be conducted by the provincial authorities and that the assistance rendered by the minister's department was not in substitution but in aid of provincial relief. I wish to take the most strenuous objection to that statement, because I saw that stated in several telegrams which passed between the
Prime Minister and some of us in Vancouver during the negotiations to which I referred previously. Rightly or wrongly the Department of National Defence and the federal government have assumed in those camps the sole and entire responsibility for the care of those single homeless men. When accusations are made, rightly or wrongly, in regard to malpractices in those camps I suggest to the minister that his immediate duty is not to ask any provincial government to investigate them but to send his own commissioners out to those camps in British Columbia and other provinces and to assume the complete burden of investigation. I am certain, if the minister does that, it will assist him in the future administration of this very difficult problem. The minister and the government are wrong in trying to shelve their obvious responsibilty in regard to those camps. Rightly or wrongly the Department of National Defence assumed complete control over those men and to-day they are charged with entire responsibility for their care. To try to shift the responsibility to the provincial government is an evasion of the responsibility this government must assume and maintain in days to come. I am asking the minister in his own interest to investigate conditions in those camps and I am certain this will help him and his department in the administration of the whole system in future days.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 5, 1935