1935-02-20

QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Are there any regulations regarding maximum hours of labour in effect in connection with the work of members of the crew' of government vessels such as the C.G.S. Saurel and the C.G.S. Mikula?
2.	If so, where are these regulations to be found?
3.	What is the maximum hours that members of the crew of the C.G.S. Mikula are obliged to work per day?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	There are no regulations regarding maximum hours of labour in connection with the crews of the C.GB. "Saurel" and the C. G.S. "Mikula".
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The crew of this vessel maintains regular sea watches (which are uniform in all services) both when on stand by alongside the wharf and when operating in the river. Deck officers, engineers, oilers, firemen and trimmere are on the customary three watch system, i.e., 4 hours on duty and 8 hours off duty-seamen 4 hours on duty and 4 hours off. When on day work, alongside the Wharf, the hours are from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., with one hour for dinner.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT STEAMERS-DRINKING WATER
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Are there any rules or regulations in effect to provide that the drinking water furnished to members of the crew on Canadian government steamers should be subject to medical and sanitary inspection?
2.	If so, what are these regulations?
3.	Is water taken from the River St. Charles near Quebec considered by the health authorities to be fit for human consumption?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Regulations concerning water for drinking and culinary purposes on common carriers engaged in international and interprovincial traffic. Approved by order in council of 25th February, 1930, (P.C. 417).
Regulations concerning water for drinking and culinary purposes on vessels navigating on the great lakes and inland waters. Approved by order in council, 19th June, 1923, (P.C. 1091).
These have been passed in virtue of section 9, subsection (d), part II-An act respecting the Department of Pensions and National Health, (chap. 39 of the Statutes of 1928).
3.	No.


L'lLE-AUX-GRUES SIGNAL SERVICE
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Who is the night watchman for the signal service at l'lle-aux-Grues, in the county of Montmagny, Quebec?
2.	Is this employee in receipt of a salary during the winter months?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	There is no night watchman. Mr. Joseph Dancause is the night signal agent and Semaphore operator at llle-aux-Grues.
2.	Mr. Dancause is in receipt of a salary during the winter months.


FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What is the existing freight rate on grain for export from Georgian hay ports to Saint John and Halifax?
Questions


NEW GLASGOW, N.S., TOWN CLOCK
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ILSLEY;
1.	Has any sum been appropriated for the erection of a town clock in the town of New Glasgow under the special appropriation for public works voted in 1934?
2.	If so, has the erection of said clock been arranged for?
3.	Who were the contractors therefor?
4.	What is the price to be paid for the clock?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	The installation of a gable clock in the public building has been authorized.
2.	Yes.
3.	J. A. Hiltz, New Glasgow.
4.	$1,450 which includes a one-dial electric clock, a master clock and striking connection to bell on roof.


WOLFVILLE, N.S., POST OFFICE
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	What was the amount expended in repairs to the post office building at Wolfville, Nova Scotia, during 1934?
2.	Were tenders called for the work?
3.	If so, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?
[Mr. Coote.l


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Rate in cents
Commodity -	per 100 pounds
Barley and buckwheat	 10-24
Corn and rye	 8-45
Oats	 9-79
Wheat	 8-33
Rates expire March 31, 1935, unless sooner cancelled, changed, or extended.
To		To
Saint John, N.B.		Halifax, N.S.
C.N.R.	C.P.R.	C.N.R.miles	miles	miles....	12031173941	1267840	1181. .. 1129	927	1297836	, .. 1011	701	11794.	If tenders were called for different classes of work, who were the tenderers and what was the amount of each tender?5.	If work was not done under tender and contract, who was the foreman in charge of the work?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$2,045.
2.	Tenders called for general repairs and painting.
3.	General repairs: A. M. Wheaton, $1,200;
S.	L. Murphy, $1,400. Painting: A. M. Wheaton, $750; W. B. Murphy, $830.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Work not under tender consisted of repairs to heating system $45, and installing a radiator in customs long room $50. This work was done under the supervision of the district resident architect and the caretaker of the building.


PHILATELIC AGENCY
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department maintain and operate a philatelic agency at Ottawa?
2.	If so, what was the cost of operating the said agency in each of the fiscal years, 1931 to 1934 inclusive?
3.	What was the total revenue derived from the philatelic agency during each of the years, 1931 to 1934 inclusive?
4.	Does the philatelic agency sell used Canadian postage stamps to the public?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Prior to September 13, 1932, the work was done by employees who were also engaged in other duties, and no separate record of salary cost was kept.

Questions as Orders for Returns
September 13, 1932, to March 31, 1933, $5,007.64; April 1, 1933, to March 31, 1934, $9,828.
3.	Fiscal year 1930-31, $42,269.65; 1931-32,
$38,891.83;	1932-33,	$56,250.60;	1933-34,

4.	The Post Office Department does not as a matter of general practice sell used postage stamps, but occasional spare time of employees is utilized in salvaging a small proportion of cancelled stamps reaching the department through official channels and these are disposed of in limited quantities, when available, to individual applicants.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	What is the amount outstanding in dollars and cents, in connection with loans granted under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, in British Columbia, as at January 31, 1935?
2.	How many individual loans were granted:
(a)	what us the maximum amount; (b) wihat is the minimum amount?
3.	What are the names, addresses, positions and salaries, of the present officials connected with the said act in British Columbia?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	As at March 31, 1934 (later figures not available), $1,322,537.
2.	497; (a) $10,000; (b) $400.
3. George Sangster,	Victoria-provincial superintendent and member of Provincial board-salary $3,420 per annum. H. E. Tanner, Saanich, and Walter Paterson, Gordon Head, members of provincial board, $10 per day each when engaged in the business of the board, plus travelling and living expenses, with a minimum remuneration of $250 per annum. W. S. Palmer, Victoria, appraiser, salary $1,890 per annum. Miss M. Pearcy, Victoria, stenographer, salary $1,026 per annum.
In submitting the answer to this question I would observe that the practice in the past has been that information of a detailed nature in respect of the salaries of those in the employ of boards set up under the government has not as a general policy been given. However, in this particular instance I cannot see any objection, in the public- interest, to the information sought for being given. At the same time I thought it well to indicate what has been the practice and to point out that it should not be construed as a precedent for general information of this character being given.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I hope the minister will not construe that to be in effect
when he takes full control of the farm loan board-when the government of Canada will have full control of all officials.


Mr. RHODES:: We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
DIONNE QUINTUPLETS*


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Has the federal government contributed to the organization and upkeep of an hospital for the Dionne quintuplets?
2.	If so, what was the sum paid by the government?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to institute a system of family allocations for large families?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I might answer this question orally. The answer to the first inquiry is no; to the second, answered by No. 1; to the third, the intention of the government will be made known if and when a policy is announced.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the postmistress at Coulombe, Dorchester county?
2.	When was she appointed?
3.	Who recommended her to the department?
4.	Is she a married woman?
5. If so: (a) what is her husband's name;
(b)	is he a British subject by birth or by naturalization; (c) in the first case, where and when was he born; (d) in the second case, at what date was his certificate of naturalization published in the Canada Gazette?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any representations been received by the government to give the province of Ontario a national park in the Muskoka, Lake of Bays, Georgian bay district?
2.	Have any surveys been undertaken by the government with this end in view?
3.	In what provinces of Canada have federal parks been established to date, and where are they located?
4.	Will the new federal tourist bureau or national railways cooperate in encouraging the national development of these districts?


SUGAR FACTORIES
Mr. GERSHAW:: 1.	What was the total capital investment of sugar factories in Canada in 1932, 1933, and 1934?
Motions for Papers

2.	What was the amount of sugar produced from beets during 1932, 1933, and 1934?
3.	Has the government taken any steps to carry out the recommendations of the agricultural committee submitted in April, 1932, regarding the increasing of the facilities for manufacturing beet sugar?



MARKETING ACT

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Under the scheme adopted in the various provinces for the marketing of potatoes, in connection with the Natural Products Marketing Aot of 1934, what are the names of the officials of that board for the provinces of Nova Scotia. New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island?
2.	What are the duties of these officials: (a) are they members of the central board in Ottawa; (b) what salary are they receiving in their official capacity?
3.	What salary or remuneration, if any, did the parties receive who held meetings throughout Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, under the Natural Products Marketing Act of 1934, and reporting same to the minister in charge of said act at Ottawa?
4.	What are the names and addresses of each person engaged in this work of organization and the amount paid to each, including travelling expenses, hotel, office, and all other expenses in connection with the work?
5.	How is the money procured to pay the expenses for the operation of the board and its officials in each of the provinces named above?
6.	How were the men engaged in connection with this work selected in the first place and upon whose recommendation were they appointed?
7.	Can the local boards in each province carry on export and interprovincial trade independent of and without consultation or permission of the central board at Ottawa?
8.	Was the vote or poll of all the growers, taken before the board began operations?
9.	If not, *will there be a vote taken, and when ?



FLAX PRODUCTION

Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	What was the total production of flax: fa) in Saskatchewan in 1934; (b) in Canada in 1934?
2.	What was the total flax importation into Canada during 1934 from: (a) Argentina; (b) United States; (c) all other countries?
3.	What was the total flax importation into Canada during the month of January, 1935, from: (a) Argentina; (b) United States; (c) all other countries?
4.	What rate of duty per bushel is collected on flax importations?
5.	What duty was collected on the: (a) 1934 importations of flax; (b) month of January, 1935, importations of flax?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the posses-
[Mr. Gershaw.l
sion of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the construction of a public building at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, in the county of Montmorency, to the extent of $25,000 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the repairs to be done at the wharf at Baie des Rochers, in the county of Saguenay, to the extent of $5,500 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the extension of the protection wall at Baie St. Paul (Riviere du Gouffre), in the county of Charlevoix, to the extent of $8,800 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the wharf extension at Mani-couagan, on the north shore of the River St. Lawrence, to the extent of $100,000 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the wharf extension at La Malbaie (St. Etienne), in the county of Charlevoix, to the extent of $39,000 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
For a copy of all papers, correspondence, telegrams, and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, with reference to the reconstruction of the wharf at Havre St. Pierre, on the north shore of the River St. Lawrence, to the extent of $75,000 as mentioned in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936.
Sir GBOIRjGE PBRLEY: As regards Nos. 1 to 6 inclusive of these motions, the question was 'brought up the other day in the absence of the hon. member. The motions refer to items in the estimates of this year which have not yet been voted and I submit that it is not in accordance with the custom to bring down papers regarding estimates to be discussed in the house this session. The hon. member can ask questions when the estimates are before the house.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I put these motions on the order paper in view of the fact that these estimates will come up for consideration. In order to be in a position to discuss the estimates on their merits, it is necessary to have the information I ask for. I am not asking anything out of the ordinary routine of business; I am just asking for correspondence, documents and letters exchanged with regard to the matters affected. If the papers are not in my possession it may take a longer

Motions for Papers
lime to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Public Works when they come up and I shall be obliged to ask him to produce the documents. I shall be within my right in asking him.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: It has not been the custom to bring down papers in this house regarding estimates which have not yet even been discussed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I serve notice on the Minister of Public Works that when the estimates come up I should like to have all these papers.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: All right.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Nos. 1 to 6 dropped.



CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY PUBLIC WORKS

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all paylists and accounts for materials in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay during the years 1933 and 1934.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to point
out to my hon. friend that to comply literally with this motion would involve weeks of the time of stenographers. I have made inquiry and in the hon. member's constituency there are more than sixty different works to which this question relates. He is asking for the most complete and detailed information in regard to pay lists, etcetera, in connection with each and every one of those works. In view of the very large number of returns that are asked for, I suggest that my hon. friend if possible limit the scope of this motion, and if he desires details respecting any particular work, we shall be very glad to give him all information available. But I point out to him, as I think he will agree, that this motion involves a very large amount of wrork which will take a good deal of time and possibly the return might not be ready in time. I suggest that he let the motion stand and endeavour to reduce its scope.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I introduced this
motion because last year, the year before and even this year other motions along the same line were passed and at the time no exception was taken to them by the Minister of Public Works or the Prime Minister. There may be sixty constituencies where works were constructed, but in my constituency in 1933 and 1934 there were not many.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say that there were sixty works in my hon. friend's constituency.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Possibly the motion
might be allowed to stand until the hon.
member consults with the minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister
allow me to examine all these records in his department if I go there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that
my hon. friend endeavour to limit the motion to any particular work in which he is interested.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is interesting to know all the works and how all have been carried out.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-AUDITORS' REPORT

Mr. EULER:: For a copy of the report submitted by George A. Touche & Company, auditors of Canadian National Railways, amplifying and explaining the recommendation of said auditors in their report of 1934 for the writing off of one billion dollars or more of the capital indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. MANION:: May I just inform the
hon. gentleman and hon. members generally that I have asked the auditors to send me twenty-five copies of this report for the members of the committee. One copy will be tabled and members of the special railway committee of last year will get the others.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a statement showing the damages caused to certain wharves and breakwaters under the control of the Department of Public Works, during the month of December, 1934, in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay. Also a statement showing what repairs have been authorized and to what extent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a statement showing the expenditure authorized in the county of Clialevoix-Saguenay during the year 1934-35:	(a) in the regular
estimates; (b) under the Public Works Construction Act, 1934; showing the individual items and the nature of the work in each case.



CHARLEVOIX-SAGUENAY POST OFFICE SERVICE

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a statement showing, (1) the mail contracts awarded in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay by the Postmaster General during 1934-35, (a) without tender; (b) by tender;
(c)	contracts renewed, the names of contractors and amounts in each case; (2) the new post offices opened, new postmasters appointed, on whose recommendation in each case, the names of postmasters removed, for what reason, in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, during the year 1934-35.



Fishing Industry-Mr. Duff



GBONDINES STATION, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, and other documents, exchanged during the year 1934, in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Grondines station.



GRONDINES, QUE., LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Jules Desrochers: For a copy of all documents, telegrams and correspondence, exchanged during the year 1934, in connection with the change of lighthouse keeper at Grondines, Portneuf county.



GEORGES HENRI LAVOIE

Mr. ROBERGE:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence. reports and other documents, exchanged during 1931 and 1932, in connection with the dismissal of Georges Henri Lavoie as harbourmaster at Baie des Ha! Ha!



JOSEPH C. LEVESQUE

Mr. OASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, in the hands of the Post-Office Department, in connection with the appointment and dismissal of Mr. Joseph C. Levesque, former postmaster at Bagotville, during 1932; also the report of the post office inspector for Quebec, pertaining to the dismissal of Mr. Levesque.



FISHING INDUSTRY


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough) moved:: _ That, in the opinion of this house, the best interests of Canada demand that the burden of customs taxation be lessened on the instruments of production in the fishing industry, and to this end all articles required in said industry be free from customs duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is in my opinion one of the most important motions that have come before parliament for many years. It purports to deal with a matter affecting one of the greatest natural industries in Canada, an industry which perhaps has been more neglected than any other. For that reason I have no apology to make to the house or to the country for taking a few moments to lay certain matters in connection with this resolution before the government and the house generally. A few days ago the hon. member for West Edmonton. (Mr. Stewart) moved a similar resolution with regard to agricultural implements, asking this house to express the opinion that it is in the best interests of the agricultural industry that customs duties should be taken off the instru-

ments required in that great industry. My resolution asks that the burden of customs taxation be lessened on the instruments of production in the fishing industry. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) expressed regret that the motion of the hon. member for West Edmonton was moved; he said that while it might be "good party politics" he did not consider it "good national politics." Now, sir, I regret that the finance minister made that statement, because while he, the hon. member for West Edmonton, myself and other hon. members belong to different political parties and while on some occasions we may be termed partisans, yet I think we all come here, being the chosen representatives of the people, to serve not only our own constituency but Canada as a whole. Sir, I mention this because I think perhaps the Minister of Finance on mature consideration will agree with me that a matter of this kind, whether brought up by the hon. member for West Edmonton or by myself, is not a matter of party politics but of national concern, one which we at least consider to be in the interests of the people of this country.
The Minister of Finance in his reply referred also to the fact that negotiations were going on between this country and the United States of America to develop a reciprocal trade arrangement. I do not think I need at this stage dwell long on the fact that for a great many years, not only the thirty or forty years that I have been taking some interest in the public life of this country, but ever since I reached an age of maturity-


Mr. HACKETT:: When was that?


William Duff: I can understand the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett) asking such a question; children and some other people do ask questions of that sort.
Mr. HAlOK'ETT: Oh, you can do better than that.


William Duff: I admit I have a good deal to learn from the hon. member for Stanstead and other hon. members, but as far as my fiscal views are concerned I have no apology to make either for introducing this resolution or as to what I have stood for during my public and business life in this country. I have always been in favour of a 'better trade arrangement with the nation to the south, and therefore I have no regrets for having brought in this resolution, nor do I agree with the Minister of Finance that it might affect the negotiations which are in progress between the leaders of thought in this country, President Roosevelt and his cabinet. I think

Fishing Industry-Mr. Duff
my attitude a few days ago, when I had a motion, on the order paper with regard to a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, which, generously, may I say,
I withdrew after I found that this government was entering into negotiations with that country, shows that I am not open to the accusation of embarrassing either this government or the government of the United States. To use the words of several statesmen in this country, which have been bandied back and forth across the floor of this house, I do not wish to provoke the United States. I remember that the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Mandon) in my younger days, perhaps after I had achieved the years of maturity referred to by the hon. member for Stanstead, gloatingly referred to a remark made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that he did not wish to provoke the United States. Well, sir, history has a fashion of repeating itself. There is an old saying that birds come home to roost. It is rather strange that in this year of our Lord 1935 we have hon. members on the other side holding up their hands in holy horror and begging us not to do anything to provoke our neighbours to the south. If those negotiations do not reach what I and others of the same views would consider the acme of perfection in regard to a reciprocal trade arrangement, I do not want to be accused of putting any stumbling block in their way. Consequently, sir, I am willing to do any kind of penance in order to bring about a proper trade arrangement with the United States of America relating to certain natural products of this country.
Reading the newspaper on Monday last I was pleased indeed to see the report, which I hope is correct, of a speech made by the Prime Minister in New York last Saturday night. The utopian ideas expressed in that speech gladdened my heart. But after I came to consider them I wondered whether they were utopian ideas or Ethiopian. I wondered whether the Ethiopian could change his skin, or the leopard his spots, or the politically ungodly man change his ways. I remember, sir, that in the years from 1911 to last year the Prime Minister of this country, whenever the matter of better trade relations between Canada and the United States came up, always opposed it. Of course 1 believe that while the lamp holds out to burn the guilty sinner may return, and I welcome his accession to the Duff Reciprocity Club of Canada. I remember, sir, in 1911 when perhaps the hon. member for Stanstead had not reached years of maturity, the late Mr. Fielding and Mr. Paterson had come back from 92582-641
the United States with reciprocity agreements applauded by both sides of this house, it was afterwards said by the late Sir George Foster that he did not wish any truck or trade with the Yankees, and I remember that eminent exponent of western ideas, the present Prime Minister, going up and down western Canada saying that if we accepted reciprocity "we would become the back door of Chicago."


Mr. LAPOINTE:: He entered parliament by it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I heard someone say " hear,
hear." Perhaps it is a good thing the Prime Minister is not in his place; he might have some difficulty with the members sitting behind him due to the fact that some years ago, in his youth, the Prime Minister made the statement that he did not want Canada to be the back-door of Chicago.
It was only last year that I introduced my resolution on reciprocity, a resolution which you will remember was introduced also in 1933. If hon. members, especially those on the other side, will look at Hansard for last year at pages 73 and 74 they will see what the Prime Minister said at that time. No doubt you, sir, will remember that the Prime Minister asked us on this side whether we wanted reciprocity in hogs, in cattle, in butter and in eggs, and he went on to try to prove to us that a reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States was not necessary because at that particular moment the prices of hogs, butter and eggs were perhaps as high in Canada as they were in the United States. I am wondering what has come over the Prime Minister in the last few months. In a speech delivered a few days ago he said that he has been in a position to arrange for a conference with the United States government in order to discuss this matter for only a short time, because President Roosevelt only received his power from congress in May, 1934. But let me say, sir, that it is a well known fact-and I do not think I am giving away any political secrets-that even before President Roosevelt was sworn in his liberal government sent a delegate, an emissary or an ambassador to this country in order to approach this government in regard to this very important matter. That was in December of 1932. So while I welcome all converts to the faith, I cannot understand why the Prime Minister and his government, especially my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), now should be so afraid that if I discuss this resolution or if the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) discusses the question of lowering

Fishing Industry-Mr. Duff
the tariff-which I have favoured all my life -this will interfere in any way with the negotiations between Canada and the United States which are likely to take place within the next few weeks.
After the Prime Minister made his speech last year, in which he practically said that reciprocity was not necessary, the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding) referred to the fact that in 1930 this country had sold $15,000,000 worth of cattle to the United States, and I think we can all agree with the Prime Minister who now admits that one of our great markets is the United States of America. A few days ago the Minister of Finance deprecated the fact that the hon. member for West Edmonton had brought in his resolution. May I say to my hon. friend that if the resolutions brought in by the hon. member for West Edmonton and myself, asking for lower tariffs, might affect any reciprocal trade arrangement or understanding between the two countries, does not the minister think he should have disciplined the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) when he brought in a resolution with regard to the Ottawa trade agreements? 1 can tell my hon. friend that one of the things he is going to be up against when he goes to Washington next month, or whenever he does go-and no one is more qualified to discuss these matters with the President of the United States and his cabinet than is my hon. friend-is this very question of the Ottawa agreements. My hon. friend will not be faced with my resolution, because President Roosevelt knows that the Liberal party, and especially myself, always have been in favour of lower tariffs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: The minister will be faced
with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough, because nothing that has happened in the last number of years has so strained the relations between this country and the United States than have the Ottawa agreements.
The resolution moved by the hon. member for West Edmonton dealt particularly with the duties on agricultural implements. Perhaps the Minister of Finance was quite right when he said to the hon. gentleman that in view of the fact that we import a large volume of agricultural implements from the United States it might be as well if his resolution did not pass. But, sir, my resolution deals with a number of items, not only those which come-and should come in larger volume- from the United States, but also those items
fMi Y>uff.3
needed by the fishermen which are brought from other countries of the world. Consequently my hon. friend cannot accuse me of hindering any reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, since many of the articles to which I refer, and which the fishermen must use every day, come from Greece, Italy and other European countries as well as from Great Britain.
I should like to give my hon. friend a list of the articles coming from countries other than the United States; I have not time to do so but I want to refer particularly to one item. The fisherman must have certain articles with which to build his boats and fit up his gear, but in addition these vessels must carry certain articles of food when they go to the fishing grounds, and before my hon. friend brings down his budget I should like to show him what an intricate thing the tariff policy of this government has become. In fitting out for the fisheries, either deep sea or shore, a fisherman must secure certain kinds of provisions. Among these provisions is salt beef, which must be carried by every fishing vessel. I do not know whether or not the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough was so anxious to support the government in connection with the empire trade agreements for this particular reason, but nevertheless this is a very important item of food which must be carried by the fishing vessels. This salt beef comes either in 200 pound barrels or 100 pound half barrels. It is true that this beef is packed in Canada; it is also true that salt beef coming from the United States has to pay certain duties and taxation of other kinds. I regret to say that for some reason or other the fishermen prefer the United States brand of beef to the Canadian brand. I hold in my hand a statement from the manager of one of the outfitting and ship chandlery firms in which I am interested, protesting very strongly against the duties and taxes he has to pay on beef brought to this country for the fishermen.
I should not be surprised if the Minister of Finance and other members of parliament reply, "Yes, but beef, pork, lard, kerosene oil and some other articles can be purchased by the fishermen out of bond and consequently free of duty." That is true in connection with vessels of more than 50 tons, but the great majority of the fishermen who use beef sail in vessels of less than that tonnage. I am sure this will be a surprise to the Minister of Finance; I could not believe it myself, when I got it. The figures before me show what it costs to import a barrel of beef for fishing purposes into this country. The value

Fishing Industry-Mr. Duff
on beef, made up for duty purposes, on one barrel weighing 200 pounds is as follows:
200 pounds at 24 cents	$48 00
Less $1.80 value for barrels....	1 80

Value of one barrel beef for duty
(nearest dollar)	 $46 00
Duty on 200 barrels beef at 6 cents 12 00
Excise tax, 3 per cent on value of
beef and duty, $46 plus $12 ($58)	1 74
Value of barrel for duty $2, duty
on barrel 25 per cent	 0 50
Sales tax, 6 per cent on value and
duty ($2 plus 0.50), $2.50.. .. 0 15 Excise tax, 3 per cent on $2.50.. 0 08
50 per cent special duty on total
value beef $46; barrel $2 ($48). 24 00


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Duff: The constituency of the hon. member opposite is suffering because the Tory party of the United States put a high duty on butter. He should be the last one to laugh at me when I am seriously discussing a matter of vital importance, a matter which affects the real life blood of this country, and when I say that until such time as we obtain a proper reciprocal trade arrangement with the United States, Canada will never enter into her own.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not necessary for me to reiterate a confession of faith with respect to my attitude regarding trade relations between Canada and the United States. I do, however, wish to say to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and to the house that I take exception to his suggestion that the Conservative party is now or ever has been opposed to a trade agreement with the United States. I do not purpose interjecting a party flavour into any remarks I may have to make, and I assure the house my observations will be brief, but I cannot permit that imputation to go unchallenged. We may agree to disagree with hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to the merits of particular proposals. That is one thing. But it is not for them to say that the Conservative party is opposed, or that it ever has been opposed, to a trade agreement with the United States. I am prepared to say to my hon. friend immediately that I believe he is absolutely sincere in his desire to effect better trade relations with our neighbours to the south, but surely I have the right to expect from him and those associated with him that they will attribute to me and to those who surround me feelings of equal sincerity with respect to that same matter.


William Duff: I thought I did.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend says
he did I am prepared at once to accept his word, but the clear inference I drew from his

Fishing Industry-Mr. Rhodes
observations was that there was not that game favourable attitude, to put it euphemistically, on this side of the house as there was on the other with respect to a trade agreement with the United States.
I am going to resist the temptation, although I must admit that it is a very great one, to remind my hon. friend of the fact that during the nine years his government was in power we got farther and farther away from a trade agreement of any kind with the United States than in any similar period in Canadian history, and that the opportunities of effecting a trade agreement with the United States were made more difficult in that period by reason of the attitude of the United States regarding their tariff action against this country. In making that statement I find no fault with our neighbours to the south. They were dealing with their own tariffs in their own way, as they had every right to do. I might elaborate and embroider that attitude to a very considerable extent, but I do not wish to impart a party flavour to this discussion at all. I do, however, submit that it is only fair that I should not accept without question the statements of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guys-'oorough (Mr. Duff) which do not conform to our feelings and beliefs with respect to this matter.
Having said so much I do not think it is necessary, particularly in view of the attitude of the Conservative party towards trade relations with the United States as disclosed by the right hon. the Prime Minister last year, for me to make any further comment upon my hon. friend's suggestion that we are now converts and have changed our attitude in that respect.
My hon. friend alluded to a reference I made the other night to the effect that to discuss this matter at this stage might be good party politics but was not good national politics. That observation arose out of something which had been said by my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), and I can assure my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough and the house that in making that statement I had no desire to impute motives to hon. gentlemen opposite. That was farthest from my thought. All I had in mind was that this was not the proper time to discuss matters of this kind, and that was why I said it was not good national politics at this time.
Let me say to my hon. friend that in suggesting that I had said, even by implication, that we should not provoke the United States 
he was imputing to me words and thoughts which were neither expressed nor even conceived. I never used the word "provoke."


William Duff: I did not say you did. I said the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion).


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite so, but the Minister of Railways was merely quoting a remark of the right hon. leader of the opposition when he was taken to task for not having taken the tariff action which was called for in view of the action of our neighbour to the south.


Robert James Manion: And when no trade treaty was pending.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 

LAND SETTLEMENT


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government should take into immediate consideration the establishment of a five-year plan for settlement on the land of the young farmers of this country.
He said: I greatly appreciate this opportunity to discuss the basic industry of this country, namely, agriculture, and I think I am justified in taking a few minutes to point out the importance of the proposal I am making. At the beginning of my remarks I might quote that old maxim, that the source of a nation's vitality is in its rural population and that the foundation of its prosperity is its agriculture. In the last hundred years we have seen the industrial state superimposed on agriculture, and there is no doubt whatever that the condition that has resulted has created a burden of responsibilites and taxes which is weighing heavily on the agricultural classes.
I wish to point out some of the phases of the problem facing our rural population and to suggest what in my opinion is the way to solve that problem. The basic industry of all

Land Settlement-Mr. Bradette
civilized countries is agriculture-such countries as France, the United States, Japan and Russia, and I will not omit England, although England is highly industrialized. But generally speaking the basic industries and wealth of these countries are farming and forest activities. Even in England we have witnessed an agricultural revolution in the last three years. Under the dynamic leadership of the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Mr. Elliott, Great Britain is trying now to make herself almost self-supporting in regard to agriculture. Whether this is due to the trade agreements adopted in 1932 or whether it is the result of the industrialization of all the civilized countries, I am not prepared to discuss at the moment. The fact remains however that to-day in this country we find ourselves in a situation similar to that which exists in other countries. We are faced with an agricultural problem, and I wish to discuss some phases of that problem.
First of all I would make it clear that not only has the industrial state always to some extent superimposed itself upon agriculture, but governments, whether local or central, have worked to the detriment of the agricultural class. In this country we have on the one side the great industries and on the other the basic industry of agriculture, and though we have not had severe convulsions, we have witnessed a conflict in Canada between the agrarian class and the industrial, so much so that sometimes the conflict has been expressed in party lines. Only a few years ago we had the spectacle in this House of Commons of a very strong agrarian party, which had its rise in the feeling of the farmers, a feeling which they still have, that they were not receiving from the legislative assemblies and from the central government that attention which their problems deserved. And we have the same spectacle to-day. Quite often in the discussions that take plaoe here we have sensed a certain conflict between the two classes. We can see in the far comer the attempt to unify parties under C.CiF.'ism, when my hon. friends try to reconcile the interests of the agrarian and the working classes and they find it impossible to do so.
I think the house must realize that in the industrial development that has taken place, in the mechanization of industry everywhere and in Canada as well, there has been laid on the shoulders of the farmers an added burden. When the present government came into office in 1930 they realized at once, as others had realized in the past, that the even

balance between the urban and the rural population had been lost, and that is why we have seen inaugurated by the government the so-called back to the land movement. I am going to be outspoken in regard to that scheme, speaking from the point of view of a man who knows something about farming. During the war the appeals made to men were coloured by patriotic feeling; but to-day there is not very much poetry in the life of the farmer, the man who is trying to make a living out of the soil. We must be sensible, logical and practical in dealing with the problem; for the farmer does not live an arcadian life. For generations the agricultural class has been trying to get a living out of the "oil; but generation after generation we have seen all governments working more and more into the hands of the industrial state. We see this in the banking system, in connection with social questions, credit questions, the tariff and all the modern social activities converging towards one end, and working more and more, as I say, into the hands of the highly industrialized state.
It is true that during the present session there has been mention in the speech from the throne of the Natural Products Marketing Act. That was perhaps a debatable matter and .perhaps it may prove beneficial to the farmers as a whole.
The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was also mentioned. This is to some extent a step toward a solution of the problem, but from the discussion yesterday and on previous occasions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, I am sure everyone will realize that that measure, although I am and I believe Canada as a whole is in favour of the principle of it, will without doubt prove an added burden to the rural population without any expectation on their part to receive any benefits from it. I was rather astounded a few days ago when the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) said that the employers in industry tried to help their employees while the farmers at this time were trying to get cheap labour on their farms. It is all they can afford to pay their help; they have not the means with which to pay high wages to labourers to help them to till their soil, although they would like to do so.
To come to the back to the land movement, I maintained in the fall of 1930 and again in the year 1931 that unless the central government found it possible to spend large sums of money to make that scheme a real success, it was bound to fail, because in those days the government was claiming that the scheme was a success even if they did not spend a

Land Settlement-Mr. Bradette
single dollar in placing people back on the land. Since then they have found it possible to make a tripartite arrangement comprising the municipalities, the province and the dominion, each party advancing $200, making a total of $600 per family to take the unemployed from the urban centres and place them on the land. At that time I maintained that even if the scheme were not a complete failure, it would certainly not rectify the unemployment situation. Now, after four years of application of this scheme, I must state that it has not proved a solution of the present unemployment situation in the urban centres, for three simple reasons: first, under that scheme the urban centres tried to unload some of their responsibility on to the rural districts; second, there was no access to the people who were best qualified to take action under the scheme to get some of the land simply because the municipal organization or people in the unorganized rural districts could not claim any of the money under the back to the land movement; third, it was a recognized fact that there was unemployment in every section of the country and when you have unemployment in the cities, naturally you have unemployment in the rural sections. What happened under the scheme was that those in charge were left to their own initiative to find settlers and tne rural population had no access to the back to the land money. The government must find it possible to generalize the idea and not to attach too many strings to it. They have been taking people who have left rural occupations for ten or twenty years, who are in many cases now advanced in years, and are trying to put them back into farming. Such a scheme is bound to fail. I have seen in my section many fine men and women, splendid types of Canadian citizens, trying to carry out the scheme, but I have received visits from tens and hundred's of men; I have visited most of those settlements in northern Ontario and I an convinced that as soon as the industrial situation in the urban centres is rectified quite a number of these people will flock back to the occupations they had in the past. In the meantime, the population best qualified and equipped to take advantage of the scheme has been left severely alone.
In the past we have had many different schemes of colonization and I have before me at present a circular letter from Brigadier General Hornby. I admire his activities, but I say to the house that it is no use for him to try to bring rural immigration into Canada. There is no room for such
immigration and we need not fool ourselves in that connection. When I was sitting on the government side of this house some years ago I told the then ministry that it was an anomaly to bring people from Europe and try to put them into agricultural occupations. That situation applies more forcibly to-day than it did then. It is absurd to bring people from the old country and place them on the land under government supervision and on government money, while the rural population, the one that is best qualified, the one that has made faiiming a profession, the one that is fully equipped to carry on this occupation, is neglected. They should be given the protection and support they deserve.
I want to make my position on this point quite clear, Canada at the present time does not want any new rural immigration. It is fine sometimes to be idealists and to speak in terms of having 100,000,000 people in this country; but we must be realists; we must realize that new centres of population, so far as agriculture is concerned, are pushing back the available land not south, but north, thus meeting certain harder climatic conditions, for instance in the matter of early frosts. This applies not only to northern Quebec or northern Ontario but to British Columbia and the western provinces. I am making a very fervent plea because I speak from experience on this important question. It is absolutely no use at the present time to bring large numbers of people from Europe or even Great Britain and try to place them on the land. What will happen will be the same as occurred five or ten years ago; these people at the first opportunity will flock back to the urban centres. Such a situation should be avoided. I can remember very vividly a year after the war when with the very best intentions and with the close cooperation of the Ontario and federal governments we had the so-called colonization scheme in Kapuskasing. Settlers were placed there, the finest agricultural section in the country, under the guidance and supervision of both governments. They built homes and cleared some land on some of the richest soil there is in Canada. Returned soldiers, mostly from Canada and some from Great Britain went there with the best intentions; they wanted to devote themselves to farming in our section of the country. But what happened? Within only three years at the most, ninety-five per cent of them had gone away, showing that a great proportion of those people were not fitted for, not acclimatized to agricultural pursuits. Such schemes are bound to fail.

Land Settlement-Mr. Bradette
That is the reason why I world urge the government to turn their vision, their activities, to something better in the back to the land movement. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), under whose department the back to the land movement is, is not in his seat at the moment, but I know he is willing to listen to suggestions that will work towards a solution of the problem presently facing us. He is also familiar with the fact that that scheme cannot be practicable any longer; we have had experience with it. I remember also only seven years ago, when the Hon. Mr. Finlayson was a minister in the Ontario cabinet, he tried to take some people from the older sections of Ontario where the soil was unsuitable for cultivation and bring them to northern Ontario where the soil was better fitted for agriculture. Most of those people after one or two years left, because they were unused to their new surroundings. The same situation exists at the present time under the back to the land movement. We are studying agriculture from all angles and the same spectacle that was seen in the last hundred years, if not prior to that, will be seen in the future unless we treat the agricultural problem in a rational manner.
To-day what picture do we see so far as the rural population is concerned? We find in most of the agricultural sections of Canada the young sons of the farmers cannot get into their natural occupation, not having the means to establish themselves on the land. Agriculture is more than a profession, a craft; it is an art. A man must love the soil and be fitted to cultivate it, and he must be willing to make a certain amount of sacrifice, because notwithstanding all that may be done for the agricultural class they are bound to have to sacrifice more than other members of the social order. That is why I ask the government to let my resolution go before the agriculture and colonization committee. This is the scheme I have in view; I know it will involve a substantial expenditure, but I want the government to realize that the present unemployment insurance scheme will involve an expenditure of some six or seven million dollars a year for administration purposes only, from which, I repeat, the farmers will not get any direct benefit. They may get some indirectly through the increased buying power of the working class, but no one will deny the statement that the unemployment insurance act will be of no direct benefit to the farmer. I want the government to spend the sum of $20,000,000 in the course of the next five or ten years in placing on 
the land 20,000 young Canadians. I am basing my figures on these studies; the natural increase in population in Canada is 12 per thousand annually. Out of a total population of 10,700,000 people the natural increase will be 130,000 annually. If you take the division between urban and rural as 50 per cent that gives 65,000 born every year in the rural centres. Then if you take the division between the sexes as fifty-fifty you have 32,500 boys born every year in the rural centres. I believe I know enough of the rural situation to prophesy that if the government found it possible to promise to place on the land- crown land or otherwise-18,000 to 20,000 of these young people between the ages of 16 and 22, who are sons of farmers and whose natural occupation would be farming, and to give them a sum of $1,000 in five payments of $200 a year, requiring them to fulfil provincial regulations as to clearing a minimum of twelve acres in the first three years and building a house of standard size, we should find there the solution of our problems for which we have been looking for so long. Unless something drastic is done to preserve that fine, rural population it will be absolutely impossible for the government to solve the unemployment problem. What will the present unemployment insurance legislation do? It will simply accentuate the drift from the farms and rural centres to the towns and cities. What will happen to our young boys when they come out of the public and high schools and colleges? Those who at present are residing on farms will visualize the actual situation, the grind they will have to go through if they remain in rural occupations. They will realize that legislators are always working to increase the comfort and social advantages of the city population, and those young men and young women will yield to the superior attraction of the towns and cities and will thereby accentuate more and more the lack of balance between urban and rural populations. This scheme would apply to every province.
I know the house fully realizes the seriousness of this situation. I have some of my nephews in northern Ontario, and I know how it appeals to them. Under the present order not one in ten will remain in rural occupations, because our social legislation simply tends more and more to give leisure, corn-font and' security to the town populations. But we have in Canada the descendants of those who pioneered this country, and who have the same spirit as their ancestors. We have the descendants of the United Empire Loyalists who colonized Ontario and the shore of the St. Lawrence, and the new-comers,

Land Settlement-Mr. Bradette
and all that the majority of the sons of these people want is a chance to remain in their natural occupation, the occupation their ancestors had; but under the present conditions they find it almost impossible to continue to follow the calling of their fathers. I sincerely believe that if my resolution is given a chance to go before the agriculture committee some rectification of that abnormal situation will be found. The rural population has the same right to comfort and happiness and good living conditions as any other section. The young farmer has the same right to live as a real Canadian as any other section of the population. In considering this problem we must newer forget the fact that once people from the rural areas become established in the cities you cannot get them to go back. Can you visualize the sons of farmers who become civil servants, for example, thinking of going back to farming as an occupation? Can you visualize the sons and daughters of profess sional men taking to farming as an occupation? There is no comeback from the cities to the farms. Unless farming can be made interesting for those young people who have the natural inclination for it we shall not find a solution of our present problems. It must be remembered that the young farmer knows in his early years that if he stays on the farm he will never become wealthy, his name will never be known in his own land; but he does think, in most cases wrongly, that if he goes to the cities he may get riches, and his name become known. There is that great temptation for the rural population to find its way to the cities. I have no quarrel with the industrial state, but there should be closer cooperation between the two parts of the population. Surely we cannot expect to see prosperity back in our midst and a contented and satisfied population unless we make it possible for all sections of the population to be prosperous. We have all read with interest of the great experiment of Russia in her five year plan, trying in five years to industrialize a highly rural population. What happened? Those plans almost failed. Why? Because they forgot one factor, they forgot that agriculture is working with nature and Providence. I venture to prophesy that if Russia does attain to high industrialization it will mean her doom, for we realize to-day that industrialization alone is not sufficient. We have to-day the habitant in some parts and we have farmers in the rest of the country who within the next twenty years, if present tendencies continue, will become a peasant class. Under
our present educational system to be called a farmer is in the minds of many almost an ignominy. It is hard sometimes for the son of a farmer to find a wife, just because he is a farmer. Our educational system is at fanlt in that respect. Canada must necessarily remain primarily an agricultural country and we must preserve that fine population which produces the basic wealth of this countiy. But you have a new school of thought in this country. Last fall I read an article in Saturday Night which said that Canada was at the crossroads; that it would be much better for the farmers to fold their tents and go back into the cities; that Canada had to cease being an agricultural country, and that its future lay in industrialization. Can any member visualize what would happen to our country within ten or twenty years if such a thing happened to our agricultural population? It would be the doom of our country. Take the history of the past; once agriculture is neglected the country fails. That was true in Persia, Rome and' Greece of old; the moment those nations neglected agriculture they *reached the end of their civilization. The same problem exists at the present time in almost every country in the wotM; every country that neglected agriculture is paying the price.
I do not want to speak at any greater length on this important subject, although I will refer to it again when the back to the land movement is under discussion. Again let me say that the back to the land movement, which was inaugurated in all sincerity in an attempt to solve this important question, has practically failed to relieve the situation. Certainly it has not solved the difficulty so far as the equilibrium in population is concerned, and it has done very little to relieve the urban centres. That back to the land movement has not played the game with the population best qualified to remain on the land, and I ask the government to let this resolution go to the committee on agriculture and colonization, where it may be discussed in detail. We want to be fair. In connection with this (resolution I ask for the expenditure of $20,000,000 over a period of five or ten years. During this session we will pass one measure, the administration of which will involve the expenditure of $7,000,000, in order to help the workingmen of this country. The farmers have no quarrel with the workingmen; they would be quite satisfied to see the workers better looked after under the new act, but surely the rest of the population should be willing to give a certain amount of relief

Land Settlement-Mr. Roberge
and attention to those engaged in agriculture, who are ready to play the game with this country.
In conclusion let me say that unless we find it possible to implement this resolution, in part in least, we will not have prosperity in this country. There is no need for conflict between industry and agriculture; rather there is need for the closest possible cooperation between the two, because the happiness and prosperity of all the people are absolutely bound up with the application of this fundamental formula. The agricultural class appreciates the problems of the other sections of the population, but does that class in turn receive the same consideration of its problems? We hear of new deals and new orders of things. Many times these expressions are simply catchwords, sometimes used to blind the vision to reality. We must come to the crux of our problem; no class can prosper to the detriment of another class, and if by our study, our legislation and our effort we can restore prosperity to the primary producers, the farmers, then and only then will the prosperity of the whole country be assured.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Chairman, the resolution
now before us has for its object to help farmers' sons to establish themselves on the land, and it provides for a five year plan. I have on the order paper a similar resolution, but providing for a three year plan. My resolution reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government should study immediately the question of amending the Unemployment Relief Act. in such a way as to enable the Minister of Labour to accept the Vautrin plan in extending the same privileges to the family heads who establish their sons on abandoned farms.
This resolution being pretty far down on the order paper, I shall probably not have the opportunity of discussing it this year. I therefore take the present occasion to offer the observations I would have made in presenting my own motion.
Mr. Chairman, we have in the province of Quebec an act that provides for assistance to the farmer wishing to establish his son on an abandoned farm or on other land purchased by him. This act, which has been in force for three years, has given good results. For the first and second years, the government limited the grant to $300 to ten persons in each county. During the two first years, almost every county in the province of Quebec took advantage of the act, and, in the third year, the grant was made to twenty persons per county.

Last year, as Megantic county was without representation in the Quebec legislature, owing to the appointment of my colleague Mr. Laureat Lapierre to the post of sheriff of the district of Quebec, all applications from farmers came to me, although I was not in charge of patronage, and I forwarded them to the hon. Minister of Colonization. The popularity of the measure is shown by the fact that in the course of the year I received fifty applications, of which forty came from industrious people and were considered worthy.
Last autumn, the Vautrin plan was approved by the large convention held at Quebec and attended by hundreds of persons who had assembled to discuss the advantages of a colonization plan. The provincial government then raised to ten million dollars its grant for the establishment of farmers' sons and of unemployed men on farms or colonization lots. The limitation of twenty grants per county, fixed by the first act and in force since one year, was withdrawn and to-day the Quebec government makes the grant to any head of a family who wishes to purchase a farm for his sons, providing the farm be registered in the name of the son, that the latter settle upon it and that he be a bona fide farmer.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if the federal government contributed an equal amount to this plan, it would be much more advantageous, in many cases, than to send farmers' sons out to new land far removed from their families. To establish a son in the same parish as his father would cost much less, for many reasons. The first reason is that the son could use all his father's farm machinery. Secondly, he could borrow, during the first year, his father's horses to do his ploughing, seeding and other heavy work. That would make it unnecessary for him to buy farm machinery and would allow him to use his income to purchase a certain number of head of cattle which would make it possible for him to earn his living on his farm from the first year. The third advantage would be to put back into operation the abandoned farms that dot our beautiful Quebec parishes, while making it possible for the sons of farmers to remain near their families. Today, thanks to improved farming methods, the farmers of the old parishes of the province do not need so much land as formerly. Dwelling in an agricultural county, I am in a position to state that in my own parish, farmers obtain from the same amount of land twice the crop they harvested twenty years ago. My parish, like all the others of my county, still has unoccupied farms.

Land Settlement-Mr. Gobeil
It is for all these reasons that I urge the federal government to do its share and to contribute as much as the Quebec government towards helping fathers of families to purchase land for one of their sons. With this $300 grant, you will immediately find that farms will sell and that farmers sons, instead of leaving home, will in most cases remain in their respective counties, where they will be much happier near their relatives and friends than they would be in distant colonization districts.
I do not object to the grant the federal government makes to farmers sons settling on colonization lots, but I believe that the scheme I have just submitted deserves to be encouraged as well. For this reason, I ask the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon)- who also administers the Unemployment Relief Act-to have the act amended in such a way as to grant to fathers who wish to establish their sons on farms in our old parishes an amount equal to that granted by the Quebec government. I am convinced that once this scheme is put in operation, our abandoned farms will be occupied once more, farmers sons will settle upon them permanently, the federal and provincial governments will find that it costs less to establish these young men on farms that will provide them with a living from the first year, and that they will have to make only one grant. I repeat that this scheme will be less costly to our governments, for if you establish these young men in colonization districts, you will have to grant them each year ploughing and clearing bounties and even direct relief. There will be everything to build: roads, schools, churches; whereas, in our old parishes all that has already been done.
In my opinion, that would be one of the finest things the government could do tn assist the farmers of our province.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of taking up any considerable time, and I can assure hon. members my observations will be very brief. I speak more for the purpose of receiving enlightenment than that of offering any suggestions.
In an able speech the hon. member who sponsors the resolution (Mr. Bradette) gave credit to this government for the many measures it has passed and is now passing which will have the effect of helping the farmers. In addition to the reforms he mentioned he could have mentioned many more. In my view the important point to decide is as to
the responsibility shared by the federal and provincial governments, a point which should be determined so that the position of those governments may not be in doubt, and so that calls for grants may not be made upon governments not responsible for such grants.
The hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) holds the view that this government should create new centres of colonization. I had to ask myself the question: How could the federal government create new centres of colonization when in fact it has no land which could be used for that purpose?


An hon. MEMBER:: There is plenty of land.	[DOT]


Samuel Gobeil: 
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: 
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: I have received many letters from young men who are anxious to get a little assistance to start in farming. I think we all agree that farming is the oldest occupation of mankind; all down through the ages it has been the chief occupation of the race, and I certainly think that if assistance is to be given any class of people in the country it should be given to the boys and girls, the sons and daughters of the pioneers, to help them to be self-supporting and to become established.
In the district in which I live there are a great many of these young people who would like to become established and to start up in their immediate localities, and I think that is an important factor that should be kept in mind. They know something of the nature of the soil and of the difficulties to be overcome, and they are in a much better position to fight successfully against the elements, the disasters which are so common in the farming life, than are people who come from distant parts of the country.
We realize that there is a surplus of wheat, of cattle and so on. But many of these people who have been brought up on farms would not go in for mining the land but for making homes; they would go in for mixed farming and would try to provide for themselves nearly all the necessities of life so that they would not add greatly to the surplus and would be at least self-supporting. Surely the people of the country owe something to the young men and women; they owe them the opportunity of fitting themselves for the business or industrial life of the country. It seems to me therefore that steps along this line will help in that direction.
I have in mind the idea of the younger people settling in homes near the places of their birth so that community centres could be established. They would be close together and would be in a position to make use of the churches, the schools, the roads and so on, and medical and hospital attention would be accessible to them as required. In Alberta people have gone to distant districts and located on homesteads, and when they have been stricken in sickness they have cost the province many hundreds of dollars getting



Land Settlement-Mr. Howden
them down to some place where they can get relief. They have gone beyond the districts where utilities, roads, schools, bridges and so forth have been established and in that way have put the province to a great deal of expense. I do think that if community centres could be established, if the people born in the district could be helped to establish homes for themselves there, the social life of the farm would be made much more attractive and a great deal would be added to the contentment and happiness of the people who are trying to make a living at this occupation.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I
desire to go on record as being entirely in support of the resolution of the hon. member who has proposed it (Mr. Bradette). I know that a great many members of this house do not agree with the sentiment, and a good many of those who are themselves established in agriculture feel that an endeavour of this kind would be futile. But I would say for myself that back in the early stages of this depression, when factories were closing their doors all over the country and businesses were going to the wall, men and women being released into the ranks of the unemployed in hundreds and thousands, I was one of the early ones in the house to advocate a back to the land movement. I felt then, as I feel now, that it is the only movement that offers any remedy, immediate or permanent. We all hope that in the course of months or years, as the depression subsides in some degree, industry in all its branches will be going fully again and our unemployed will be to a large extent absorbed. But certainly it is very much better to have a family residing in the country than idling in the city. You cannot grow potatoes or cabbages on a boulevard; you cannot raise poultry or pigs in the city. But when you have established a family on the land, at least they have cheap shelter and as a rule they can obtain fuel and water; and with a little endeavour they can manage to have milk, eggs and poultry and whatnot without much expense to the state, all of which things have to be paid for one hundred per cent for those families that remain in the city.
I may be right or wrong, but as the matter presents itself to me I believe we shall always have extensive unemployment. It seems that as the years go by manufacturing and other urban industries are releasing more and more men all the time. How they will ever be taken up I have never been able to guess; I have not the remotest idea what 
we shall ever do with them, because as improvements are made in manufacturing machinery more and more men will be released. We abhor the idea of a peasantry, but this much we must say, that in the days of the peasantry the country was filled with peasants who managed to live and did not demand relief from governments. I think it is fortunate that we have the land, because I believe the time is coming when there will be hundreds of thousands of people back on the land. The advantage we have over the older countries at present is that they have their hundreds of thousands of unemployed, not knowing what to do with them; they have no land to settle them on and no industries that can engage them. In this country we have the land and we hope that the people can go back to it and make a living out of it.
I readily appreciate the fact that the resolution as proposed is on a very much grander scale. It contemplates the expenditure of some $20,000,000, proposing to start each individual off with $1,000. It is rather a large order to think of at the present time, but I sincerely hope that the time will come when it will be easy for the government to engage in such an enterprise. In the interim we in Canada have acres upon acres, sections upon sections of excellent land on which we can establish families, and all the cities are brimming over with bona fide agriculturists who are ready to go back to the land. I do not think we should wait for the time when we shall be able to give them $1,000. I think we had better send a lot of them back and give them what backing we can. It is true that in some parts of Canada the movement has not been a success, but on the other hand, in Manitoba we have established some 300 to 350 families on the land and I believe ninety per cent of the movement in that province has been a success. Most of them are doing well; most of them have taken the movement seriously and have no desire to return to the cities.
I do not know that I have much more to say, but in reply to the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who was wondering whether it was the business of the federal government to reestablish families or individuals on the land, I think he knows in the matter of the soldier settlement scheme alone the federal government already has an arrangement with the provinces by which men are sent back to the land. Hundreds of families have gone back to the land under this scheme, and when the time arrives there will be no difficulty in the way of this parliament,

Land Settlement-Mr. Vallance
if it so desires, making an arrangement with any or all of the provinces so as to send unemployed people back to the land.
I sincerely hope the good work which has been commenced will be continued and the wide open spaces which we have for hundreds, if not thousands, of miles in this Canada of ours, will some day be occupied in the profitable manner in which they can be occupied, by having people return to the land.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the sentiments expressed by those who have been participating in this debate. It seems to me that this is another illustration of what I choose to call "swivel chair farmers" advising the farmers. What do we find? We find that the mover of the resolution (Mr. Bradette) is a merchant lawyer. The next speaker is a school teacher; the next, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), a doctor and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), another doctor, all probably viewing this question not from their particular professional standpoint, but from the great national point of view. I propose to approach the problem from an entirely different angle; being one of those honest dirt farmers, I propose to deal with the motion as I see it from the farmers' standpoint. Why is a resolution -{ this character necessary?
That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that the government should take into immediate consideration the establishment of a five-year plan for settlement on the land of the young farmers of this country.
We admit in that motion that the farm is not attractive enough to keep on it even those who are raised there and we propose to make it a little more attractive. All legislation today tends to induce people to leave the farm. All one has to do to realize this is to look through the order paper. For instance, the reform legislation all tends to make the urban centre just a little bit more attractive for all the population of Canada and until you make the farm pleasanter to retain those who are born there, you will always have to deal with this problem.
During the years I have been in Ottawa I have been privileged to visit Montreal and Toronto, and it is amazing to me to find that the great executives of all the large corporations are boys off the farm. In the early years when I was first in the house, when the Manufacturers' Association used to give us little excursions out into various portions of Quebec and Ontario, we invariably found that 92582-651
the men who were and who are to-day the executives of those large businesses were all boys off the farm. The same problem as exists to-day existed then. The farm is not attractive enough for them. What do we find? We find those men who were raised on the farm are to-day advising their sons that the only place to go is back on the land. I was raised in a large industrial centre and I was engaged in industry until I attained the age of twenty-three years. I came on to the farm and for the last, well, twenty-nine years, I have got a living off it.


Ernest Lapointe: And stayed there.


John Vallance: Yes. I was rather disappointed when I heard the hon. member for St. Boniface talk about the glorious days when we had a contented peasantry. If one reads the history of agriculture in those countries where they had a contented peasantry, why were they contented? It was simply because they were ignorant. You will not find in any country a contented peasantry where there are the educational standards we have on this continent or even in the British isles. It is education that has created this situation. What is needed now to bring people back _o the farm is education, but along a different line. I am in favour of a scheme such as is suggested if it can be worked out, but not only should we do this but we should utilize the facilities we have now under the control of the federal parliament to encourage the boys to stay on the farm. The other night when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was on his estimates dealing with experimental farms, I suggested that we were not utilizing those institutions to the best advantage. We should take the boys my hon. friend has in mind in bringing down this resolution and give them short courses of instruction in live stock, cereals and other branches of farming. This would make agriculture more attractive and give the boys a better understanding of it. I hope I never live to see and I hope Canada never sees a contented peasantry as it has been known to exist in the past. I would be loath to think Canada would ever have that type of agricultural situation.
Everyone agrees that the day of farming on a large scale is over, and those who are engaged in it realize this. They know the thousands and thousands of acres that have been formerly run as a unit cannot be economically run to-day. Strange as it may seem, when one makes a review of conditions in western Canada one finds so far as farming is concerned that the man contented to

Land, Settlement-Mr. Coote
stay oa his 160 acres of a homestead is today, as we say in the argot of the west, at the top of the pile. But the fellow who has been farming thousands of acres now finds himself making application under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. You do not find any farmer with 160 acres making application under that act or to the farm loan board, and this proves that the large farm is not economical to run and is not a sound basis for agriculture. As one who has lived twenty-nine years in western Canada I have come to the conclusion that the day of the big farm is past.
Various schemes have been suggested; the Hornby plan was brought up to-day and I heard the sentiment expressed that those people should not be permitted to come to this country. I think that is a mistake; the Hornby plan should be accepted. I would remind the house, especially hon. members who come from western Canada, that when they look over the west they will find some of the leading, some of the best, agriculturists were not farmers in the old land. Under the Hornby plan it is proposed to take these people on approbation as it were, for a given period of years. If they are not fitted for farming and are not able to carry on without becoming a public charge they go back. One trouble we have had with all British immigration-and I speak as an immigrant- is that immigrants coming from almost any other country in Europe except Great Britain always find some organization to take them by the hand, but I at any rate never found any organization doing anything like that for the Britisher when he came to this country. He has been left to fend for himself. If we are to encourage British immigration it is time that some scheme such as that of General Hornby should be adopted. We can no longer allow promiscuous immigration.
As far as the present resolution is concerned I think it is good. I am faced with this problem right in my own home; I have two boys, and it would be useless to give either of them a farm. To give them $1,000 and set them up on a farm would probably be a mistake, you would be likely to find them in Montreal or Toronto some day. Man's natural occupation is the land, but those of us who stay with the land do so because of a natural bent and love of the soil and farm animals. No matter what money you give to an individual to put him on the farm, if he does not love the land and the stock and all pertaining to farm Life
[Mr. Vallance.J
you might as well throw your money in the sea. If we are going to adopt this scheme we must educate these young farmers. As I walk along the street I am approached from time to time, as doubtless other hon. members are, by boys asking for two bits or ten cents to get a cup of coffee; this continues in spite of the camps we have set up for unemployed, homeless, single men. I have talked to many of them and I find that most of them were raised on the farm. As I have mentioned to my friend the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke), if when I arrived in Canada conditions had been what they are -to-day probably I would be -one of these men. If we -bring in the immigrant we must take care of him. If we adopt this resolution we must handpick those who are to come under it. Every boy raised on a farm is not a natural farmer, and I speak with some knowledge of the problem. I propose -to give this resolution my support, with that proviso that the men are handpicked before the $1,000 or whatever sum it is to be is given to them.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: In considering a resolution of this kind we may well profit by the experience which the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities have had in connection with the land settlement scheme under which $600 per family was advanced, of which $200 was provided by each of the bodies I have named. I have here a statement from a recent issue of the Calgary pa-per, telling something of Calgary's experience with that .plan. I am sure that the city of Calgary in choosing the families which were settled under this scheme took care to see that all of them had had farm experience, that they were not sending out green settlers. But this dispatch says:
Whether or not the city of Calgary will continue to take part in. the joint dominion-provincial farm settlement scheme in 1935 will depend upon action taken at the meeting of the relief committee of the city council this afternoon.
The 1934 relief committee forwarded to the 1935 committee a resolution -advising against further participation in the plan.
A check-up of farm settlement reports to-day showed that of the 166 families who had been sen-t -back to the land under the plan, 35 had returned to the city and the entire 166 of them were still on relief.
That is whether they were still on the farms or had returned to the city, they were still on relief.
Under the plan, second-year settlers are supposed -to receive $100 per year as a sub-

Land Settlement-Sir George Perley
sistence	grant.	Last	year	this	amount was
found to be inadequate and the city was compelled to increase it slightly.
City officials stated to-day that the greatest drawback to the scheme was that the city has no guarantee that the farm settlers will ever get off relief. In the past it was shown that if the settlers could not get along on the amount	they	were	receiving	they merelyabandon their	farm,	come	back	to the city
and immediately apply for their regidar relief allowance.
I am not saying that under the scheme proposed by the hon. member for North Timis-kaming (Mr. Bradette) the majority of those placed	would	come	back	for	relief, but I
am citing this experience for the information of the house. I am sure that a good deal of care was exercised by the city of Calgary before any of these families were accepted for land settlement. I was told that by an alderman of the city, and was told by a department official of the provincial government in Edmonton that they would not accept any family unless they could prove that they had had a term of fairly successful experience on a farm previous to coming into the city. I believe it would be a splendid thing for Canada to get some of the unemployed in the cities back on the land, but I think they should be put on farms that are now occupied. There are roughly 700,000 farms in Canada. On the average I think I am safe in saying every one of those farms could make good use of the services of another man, but the farmers cannot afford to hire them. If a reasonable degree of prosperity were restored to the farmers I believe that at least one-quarter of them would hire a man, and in that way approximately 200,000 men now unemployed would go back on the farms to help the farmers who are now there. The farmer may be said to be employed to-day, but he has not what may be called an income. I know many farmers who are attempting to farm a whole section of land by their own efforts A man living not more than fifteen miles from me has farmed a section for the last three years without the help of a hired man. I know another case of a man who harvested 8,200 bushels two years ago with the help only of an eight year old boy; he could not afford to hire a man. The solution of the farm problem is to restore farm prices, restore the farmers' income, and when that is done most of these young men will find their way on to farms just in the natural order.
I am not going so far as to oppose this '[DOT]''solution, but I say that if such a scheme
is adopted it needs to be handled very carefully and there is no use touching it at all unless a measure of prosperity is restored on the farms. The experience of the soldier settlement board Shows that. What is needed is to restore farm prices, bring prosperity back to the farms, and then we shall not have to spend so much time talking about unemployment and farm settlement schemes and things of that nature.


Right Hon.   S@: 

BACK-TO-THE-LAND MOVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Family settlement-Farm Labour Placements-Relief Land Settlement As at December 31, 1934
Summary of Activities
Settled without financial assistance (October 1, 1930, to December 31, 1934):
Families settled' on farms-Department and railways	
Single men placed in farm work-Department and railways	
Total settlement without financial assistance	
Settled -with financial assistance (June 1,1932, to December 31,1934):
Relief land settlement plan-agreement, Dominion and provinces.. ..
Total land settlement and farm labour placements	
Families 15,589	Persons 77,945 33,842
15,589	111,787
3,948	20,657
19,537	132,444
Analysis by Provinces
Families settled on farms (without financial assistance):
British
Number of	Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba Ontario
families. . . .	996	4,812	3,498	1,631	1,652
Mari-
Quebec times Total 2,652	348 15,589
Farm labour placements (without financial assistance):
Number of farm
placements. . .	295	9,271	3,197	6,459
Relief land settlement (agreement-Dominion and provinces):
Number of families
settled. ...	52	588	930	574
10,947
2,174	1,499 33,842
Nova
Scotia
917	302	3,948
I place these figures on record simply to show that the results of the policy followed by the government have been at all events substantial. It will be noted that the first figures given are those which have arisen as a result of the colonization arrangements made between the railways and the government. Then later in the table are shown the figures which have arisen as a result of agreements between the dominion and the provinces.
As I said before, at the present time the government may act in this matter only in cooperation with the provinces, treating it as an unemployment relief measure. That is the plan which has been put forward by the Minister of Labour, the one which is in operation under the agreements as they exist, and which has been productive of at least substantial results.
The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) said-and I took down his words- "It is better for people to reside in the country
than to remain idle in the cities." I entirely agree with that statement, and I believe it would have the approval of every hon. member. I repeat however that this problem is world wide. The question is: How may we stem the tide of people who desire to go to the cities rather than live in the country? During my lifetime life on the farm has been made more pleasant and more comfortable in many ways. Farm communities now enjoy rural mail delivery, rural telephone service, electric lighting and many other improvements. But despite this fact the drift to the cities continues, the glamour of the city still appeals to a great many people. This is a problem the world must face, and one which is common to Canada and all other countries. We must consider the element of human nature and decide how life in the countiy can be made so pleasant that people will prefer living on the land and raising their own food to living in the cities. That is the practice which has been followed by the habitants of
[Stage Direction]
Sockeye Salmon-Mr. Neill
the province of Quebec, and I claim-I know -there are no more contented or happier people than the habitants of that province.
I believe that is all I have to say. I repeat that I am sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, because he is thoroughly informed in matters of this kind. During the last four years he has had such matters under consideration, and could have explained the situation to the house much better than I have done. So far as the government is concerned, however, if hon. gentlemen wish that the resolution be referred to the committee on agriculture, it seems to me there could be no objection to that being done.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, after the remarks of the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) it is my intention-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I point out that the remarks of the hon. member will close the debate.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I appreciate what the acting Prime Minister has said. All hon. members realize that in a forty minute period it is impossible fully to elaborate the points involved. If I understood him correctly, I believe he is content to allow the resolution to be referred to the committee on agriculture. Is that so?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then that is all I wish to say at the present time.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member move that the resolution be referred to the committee on agriculture.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would gladly make
that motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member could not do that; the resolution already appears on the order paper in his name. However it is not for me to suggest how it should be done.


George Halsey Perley: Who seconded the motion?


John Vallance: I did.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the name of Mr. Reid.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest the resolution be withdrawn on the understanding that it will be referred to the committee on agriculture?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
content?
ISir George Perley.]


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes, on the understanding that it will go to the committee on agriculture.
Motion (Mr. Bradette) withdrawn.



SOCKEYE SALMON


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the section of the special fishery regulations for the province of British Columbia which prohibits the export of sockeye salmon in a fresh condition, is against public policy and should be rescinded.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that this motion has been called, although I have always been ready to go on with it. As this is the last time it can be called this session I would suggest that the minister might have the courtesy to allow the motion to go to the committee on marine and fisheries.
I have just time to put the situation in a few sentences. The regulation to which I object prevents the fishermen from sending fresh sockeye salmon for sale to Seattle or on the American side when the price is higher there; but when the price is lower on the Canadian side it does not prevent the canners from bringing fish in from the American side. It is a very onesided policy. The canners, when the price is low on the American side, freely bring fish in, but when the price is lower in British Columbia than it is on the American side our fishermen have not the privilege of shipping out their fish. That is a gross discrimination against the right of a man to sell his product in the best market.
Many years ago, when this rule was first made, three main arguments were advanced in its favour, all of which have been removed by changed conditions since. The principal one was this: It was argued that because the Americans were allowed to use traps and seines and we in British Columbia below the mouth of the Fraser river were allowed to use gill nets only, it was necessary to have this embargo because theirs was a cheaper method of catching the fish. But both of these conditions have ceased to exist; for last year the United States passed a law prohibiting traps in the state of Washington and adjacent waters, and two years ago in this country we allowed the operation of seines in our section of these waters. So that argument has been totally done away with, and there is nothing left now but the condition that it is a onesided thing. Hitherto the price has always been higher on the

Mining Industry-Mr. Campbell
American side, but during the last few years the contrary occasionally took place and the canners did not hesitate to bring in fish to the extent of hundreds of thousands of fish, 208,800 fish coming in in 1934, and that cut the price down to our local fishermen; but when the reverse is the case and there is a chance for our fishermen to get a higher price in Seattle, this embargo prevents it. The more or less plausible reasons that were advanced in favour of this embargo at the time it was proposed have been done away with.
As it is almost six o'clock I cannot proceed further with my argument, and I would therefore ask the minister to allow the resolution to go to the fisheries committee where it can be thoroughly threshed out.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I join with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in suggesting that this question be sent for consideration to the fisheries committee. It is a very important question and time will not permit us now to develop the argument we would like to develop. I hope the minister will therefore accept the suggestion that this be sent to the fisheries committee.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-AIberni (Mr. Neill) introduces a resolution which suggests that this house should direct that a certain course be taken with regard to a regulation. That regulation was first instituted in 1894, but it was very considerably modified in 1932 for reasons which then existed. These regulations are due to come up for their annual revision in from two to three weeks' time, and at present suggested amendments are being received from the industry. I question the wisdom of asking the House of Commons after only seven minutes' discussion to give any direction to the Department of Fisheries with regard to what it should or should not do. I have, however, no particular reason for objecting to the suggestion that the matter should be referred to the committee on marine and fisheries. It can be discussed there and the committee can report as it sees fit.


Alan Webster Neill: I will amend my motion to refer the matter to the committee on marine and fisheries.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not understand that the mover can amend his own motion.


William Duff: The minister can move an amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member cannot amend his own motion.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat in favour of the resolution that has been moved by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). I think the matter is one that perhaps should be discussed by the committee on marine and fisheries, and I would therefore move that the matter be referred to that committee.


Mr. FR  ASER@Cariboo: I beg to second that motion, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. C. A. CAMPBELL (Frontenac-Addington) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the best interests of Canada demand that the burden of customs taxation be lessened on the instruments of production in the mining industry, and to this end, mining machinery, and articles required in the said industry be free from customs duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the time left before six o'clock will not permit me to place before the house all the facts I have before me. Briefly my reason for moving this motion is, not to embarrass the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) at all but simply to bring before the house the situation at the present time of the mining industry in Canada.
The mining industry in Canada embraces not only gold mining but the mining of all other metals, fuels, oils and gas; non-metallics; also sand, gravel, construction and quarry materials.
The taxes on the mining industry have mounted at such a rate that in some instances it is a question whether the industry can carry on or not. The only reason we have been able to carry on so far has been the advancement that has been made by engineers, research men and operators in the industry, by whose efforts costs have been lowered from year to year.
I should like in the few moments left to place before the house what has happened in respect to the rapid increase in taxes on the mining industry.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 21, 1935