1935-07-03

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago to-day, at the first of our morning sittings, I had the pleasure of extending to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) my best wishes and those of all hon. members of the house on the celebration of another birthday anniversary. This morning I should like to renew those good wishes and, if I may be permitted to do so, to renew them not only on my own behalf biut on behalf of all hon. members of the House of Commons.
During the last year my right hon. friend has had I think, his full share of trials and joys. Perhaps the greatest of the former has been the serious impairment of his health in that period of time. I wish him nothing more sincerely and nothing better to-day than that in the year on which he has just entered his health may be fully restored and that he may have before him many years of service to his country and great public causes.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have so many matters to think of in these days that I have very little opportunity to think of the coming and going of birthdays. I realize that I am passing another milestone to-day and I am very grateful to the right hon. gentleman for the terms in which he has referred to my having reached another birthday. I think I can say with some frankness what most of the members of this house must realize, that the last five birthdays have not brought .me any very great joy an'd that if the high expectations of those who sit opposite are realized my next birthday will be much happier. On the other hand, however, it well might be that the birthdays of some others may not be as joyful if that event should happen.
The greatest joy that I have had, coloured as recent days have been by sadness and sorrow, has arisen from the thought that in my older age I have been able to render what some may not regard as useful service but at least some service to a country that has done so very much for me. I am conscious also-

Questions
yesterday perhaps more than I ever have been-of my impairment of health and strength, not in the general physical sense but because of the condition of my heart, which does not permit me to participate to the extent I should like in what may foe called the rough and tumble of parliamentary life.
I am grateful to my colleagues and those who sit on this side of the house for this beautiful basket of flowers, which contains all too many roses, and to the right hon. gentleman and those who sit around him for the kind terms in which he has referred to my having reached another milestone in life's journey. Whether or not we are privileged to meet together on another occasion to celebrate an event so auspicious remains for time to disclose.



B. C. RELIEF CAMP STRIKERS TABLING OP TELEGRAMS EXCHANGED BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AT OTTAWA AND REGINA

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the promise made yesterday I now table the telegrams sent to and answers received from the premier of Saskatchewan with regard to the Regina situation, as well as those received from the attorney general of that province, including those addressed by him to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). It may be, the minister tells me, that one telegram is not included in this return ; he is checking it up, and if it is not here it will be produced.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What rates of interest are now being given by the commercial banks to (a) deposits of individuals; (b) deposits of corporations?
2.	What rate of interest is the government allowing the banks on the amount left in the note circulation redemption fund?
3.	In view of .the fact that the banks have reduced the amount of interest allowed to their customers, is it the intention of the government to reduce interest allowed to the banks on the above funds?
Mr. RHODES;
1.	Announcement of changes in interest rates on deposits, effective June 1st, was made by the chartered banks in a statement which appeared in the press a short time ago. The personal savings rate continues at 2 per cent. Variations are made in the rates allowed on current accounts and on savings accounts of
firms, institutions, corporations and organizations.
2 and 3. Three per cent, fixed by the Bank Act.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD DECISIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUBOIS;
1.	How many decisions have been reached to date by the Canadian Farm Loan Board with respect to the 248 loan applications received at the provincial bureau of the board at Quebec, from April 17, 1935, to May 27, 1935?
2.	How many of those 248 applications have been granted and how many denied to date?
Mr. RHODES:: 1 and 2. The Canadian Farm Loan Board advise that at date of last report from the Quebec office, June 25, seven of these applications had been rejected and the remainder are either awaiting receipt of additional information from applicants or are in process of appraisal.


LONDON, 0NT. PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. SANDERSON:: 1.	How many tenders were received for the construction of the new federal building at London, Ontario; was the lowest tender accepted, if not, how many tenders were lower than the one accepted?
2.	Was any additional amount of money awarded to the contractor as a result of finding quick-sand or spring pockets in the soil where the foundation was to go; if so, how much additional money did the contractor receive?
3.	Do the specifications allow for any extras, or was the contractor to be responsible and abide by his tender?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	(a) Eight
(b) and (c) Contract awarded to the third lowest tenderer at the price of the lowest tender.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) $32,183.20 authorized.
3.	Contract provides for the payment of unforeseen additional work at unit prices.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	What is the date of reemployment of each member of the staff of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Quebec, mentioned in answer No. 1 of sessional paper 377?
2.	In addition to the above-mentioned persons, were other persons employed since April 19, 1935, at the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Quebec?

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	What are the names, occupations and salaries of such new members of the staff of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Quebec?
4.	From April 19, to May 20, 1935, what persons worked at the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Quebec, and how many days did each such person work and what duties did each such person perform?
5.	When were letters, received' at the
provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, from April 19, to May 20,	1935,
answered ?
6.	When were loan applications, received at the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Quebec, from April 19, to May 20, 1935, considered?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 'Return tabled -herewith.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD-P. A. ANGERS
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Has Mr. P. A. Angers, notary public, superintendent of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, been dismissed?
2.	If so, what was the date of his dismissal?
3.	How long was Mr. Angers superintendent of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, at Quebec?
4.	What salary did he receive as superintendent of such bureau?
5.	For what reasons was he dismissed?
6.	Who replaced him?
7.	What is the date of appointment of his successor ?
8.	On what date did Mr. Angers' successor assume office as superintendent of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, at Quebec?
9.	What salary does he receive?
10.	Who was in charge of the provincial bureau of the Canadian Farm Loan Board, at Quebec, during the interval between Mr. Angers' dismissal and the assumption of office by his successor?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.



DUTIES ON JAPANESE GOODS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I
asked a question of the Prime Minister with respect to trade between Japan and Canada. He promised to make a statement to the house, and I am wondering if it could be done to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the new Japanese Minister has taken office and we are exchanging views with respect to certain phases of the situation. I am afraid I cannot make any fuller statement at the moment than that I made the other day. If I am in a position to add anything to what I have said, I shall do so gladly before the house rises.



LOAN TO NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN ERANQO-IS POULIOT (Tem-isoouata): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) if he will answer to-morrow my question of yesterday respecting the guarantee 'to Newfoundland.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; I regret I had not an opportunity to peruse Hansard this morning but I shall be happy to submit an answer to-morrow.



ALCOHOL TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) if question No. 20 will be answered to-morrow?


Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):: I shall try to have it
done.



MORTGAGE CREDITS FOR FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, June 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 120, for the purpose of establishing in Canada a system of long-term mortgage credit for fishermen-Mr. Stirling-Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
On section 6-Conditions for loans.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, where will we get the money for this purpose? During the campaign of 1930 the right hon. Prime Minister said there would be reforms in taxation. When the last government was in power more taxation was possible. In 1933, according to press reports, the Prime Minister stated that Canada was near the limit of her credit, and in the following year, 1934 after imposing heavy taxation he said that Canada had reached the limit of her credit. Therefore I say that is ample proof that the government has exhausted Canada's credit. That is all I have to say. I do not see how they can get more money.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I find myself more or less in sympathy with the objects behind the bill, and particularly is that true of hon. members representing shore fishermen. Hon. members from constituencies adjoining fishing grounds must be well aware of the desperate condition under which fishermen are living. But those of us who know the particular requirements of fishermen cannot, I fear, get very much hope from any of the provisions in the bill. Our fishermen do

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
not require any large amount of money. All that the boat fisherman needs is a small amount, possibly S50, S75 or $100 at the beginning of the fishing season so that' he may fit out his boat, gear and other equipment. They require, further, a ready market for their product.
In a cumbersome way this bill seeks to deal with a very simple question. Of course there is no doubt that under the provisions of the bill a large amount of money could be raised, but it is when we come to the distribution of the money among the fishermen that I see great difficulty so far as possible benefits are concerned. Evidently the bill is drafted along the lines of the farm loan legislation. Those of us who have studied the matter do not believe that the farm loan board is adapted to provide money for fishermen and the machinery set up by that board cannot be used to their advantage.
I repeat that this bill provides only a very cumbersome method of financing, and the fishermen I represent are not in a position to avail themselves of its provisions. Any fisherman who has security sufficient to enable him to comply with the provisions of the act would not have to avail himself of those provisions. He could secure any financial assistance he required either through the banks or through private agencies. Then, there is no provision in the bill for marketing. My view is that if by more simple means we can attain the objects sought by the fishermen there is no necessity for the cumbersome method provided in this measure. The ordinary fisherman wants fifty or seventy-five or a hundred dollars in the spring, and that is all he wants. That enables him to secure his boat, fix up his nets and get his plant. There should also be some provision for insurance against the loss of his little plant, which everybody knows is quite apt to happen because of the hazardous nature of the fisherman's calling. We used to have a very simple method of assisting farmers in the purchase of their seed in the spring. An amount of money was provided and placed in the hands of a responsible party who advanced seventy-five or one hundred dollars to the farmer, taking his notes, and repayment being made when the harvest came in the fall. There is no reason why such a procedure could not be adopted in dealing with the fishermen, and particularly the boat fishermen of whom I speak. I do not wish to delay the house. All I want to do is to go on record as expressing with some reluctance my own view which is that this bill will not be of any assistance to the fishermen I have the honour to represent in this house.


Mr. RALSTON:: I rise to say just a word or two in regard to this bill. I do not think I can add very much to what the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton) has said. I have been disappointed in the provisions of the bill in so far as they appear to be cumbersome. The particular feature which has given me concern is that this bill makes as a sine qua non, a condition precedent to the fisherman getting the benefit of the loan, the possession of real estate. Now among the fishermen with whom I am acquainted, generally speaking if a man has a house and lot free of any encumbrances so that he can give a first mortgage on it, he probably will not find very much difficulty in getting whatever credit is necessary in order to purchase a boat or to purchase gear. It seems to me that the bill misses entirely the essential, that the security should 'be in connection with the property which is being purchased, in connection with the facilities that are being required.
I thoroughly agree with the desirability for something of this kind. I have brought to the attention of the house and the attention of the minister on more than one occasion the necessities of the fishermen, particularly those who have lost their gear on account of unusual storms. These men find themselves with earning capacity, with willingness to work, with ability to work, but without capital and in some instances they are young men who have no property of any kind, while in other cases they may be married men whose property is mortgaged in so far as it can be mortgaged for previous obligations. That is why we have to damn this bill with faint praise. That is why I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has found it necessary to take the stand he did. I am going to support this bill. I will do anything I can to heLp make it a success, but I feel that it puts a fundamental barrier in the way of a fisherman getting the assistance that he needs when it required that in order to get the benefit of the law he mu^t have real estate, and real estate free so that he can give a first mortgage upon it.
I agree with my hon. friend that the amount the fisherman requires is not large. My hon. friend mentioned seventy-five or one hundred dollars, but I have known fishermen to want three or four hundred dollars. The boat builder will give a man some credit if he has property, but if the government will not trust him unless he has property the boat builder can hardly be expected to do so. It is the same with regard to gear lost on account of storms. We have had terrible storms on the south coast of Nova Scotia in the last year

Mortgage Credits jor Fishermen
with a tremendous loss of gear, leaving fishermen simply strapped, and there is no possibility of insurance such as a man would have in connection with a house or store or factory if destroyed by fire. These men are left absolutely to shift for themselves, and the only way they can get a living is by going shares in somebody else's boat. Naturally they can make very much more themselves by fishing independently, and naturally it means the production of fish is cut off to that extent.
I do feel that the bill lacks the assistance which should be provided for a most deserving class. I cannot forbear saying that in view of what is being done along some other lines I feel that a bill more generous in its terms, more easily applicable, more simple in its administration, and one which would impose less requirements on the fishermen,, could have been devised than the one before us.


Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on a previous occasion the difficulties connected with granting loans to the participants in any industry are great. The government has given a great deal of consideration to this endeavour. Is it desirable or not that loans of small amounts should be granted to fishermen? It is decided that it is desirable to do so within certain limits. The question immediately arises, what shall the security be? The government has decided that it will go so far as to offer fishermen provisions similar to those which have been granted for some years to the farmer, but that is as far as the government thinks it wise to go.
It has been suggested that the machinery which would have to be made use of is cumbersome. Well, the machinery has been set up. It has been in use for the farmers for a considerable number of years. It has been somewhat simplified by the amending bill of this year, and it is thought that with that machinery, with a chief executive officer in each province now who will represent the views of the Canadian farm loan board sitting at Ottawa, with the assistance of a loan advisory committee in the locality whose chairman shall be that chief executive officer, and associated with them shall be those from the locality and consequently knowledgeable in this matter, it should not be cumbersome in its operation. But this is as far as the government proposes to go.


James Layton Ralston: I just want to say that
I think the minister has missed the point entirely when he says that we are doing the same thing for the fisherman as we have done for the farmer. The farmer by the very

nature of his calling has a piece of land which he can mortgage, but the fisherman may not have a piece of land at all, no more than he may have a diamond ring or a bond. What I am pointing out is that this bill requires a fisherman to have something which he does not need to have to carry on his calling, whereas you require the farmer to have the very thing which it is necessary for him to have to be a farmer at all. The minister may be right that it is necessary to provide some test, but the test should not be that a fisherman should have a house and lot before 'he can borrow money in order to buy a boat. I think the thing to be done if this scheme is to be undertaken at all is to provide for security being taken on the gear or on the boat which is being bought, with a certain provision for depreciation and the country running a certain amount of risk. I do not think this bill will assist very much although I want to see it get off to the very best possible start.
May I .point out that I think there is entirely too much machinery in this act, with the number of inspectors and other people who have to inspect these properties and go over the credit situation when the most that can be loaned is one thousand dollars. It seems to me that we have cluttered it up a good deal by trying to adapt it to the farm loan act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Privilege of His Majesty as to loans.
Grote Stirling: There is a slight typographical error to be corrected in subsection (3). On line 10 the word "to" should be inserted after the word "given." The clause will then read "or given to the board." I shall ask my colleague to move this amendment.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Grote Stirling: Subsection (4) wjll have
to be corrected by deleting the word "of" in line 17 and the word "thereafter" in lines 23 and 24. This change is consequent on the necessity for removing the words after the dates mentioned in the amending acts and these two words should have been deleted at that time.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
On section 10-Local loan advisory board.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: I believe the minister
had some remarks to make on this section.


Grote Stirling: The remarks which I had in mind have since been made. I wanted to explain that under the amended Canadian Farm Loan Board Act the chief executive officer in the province under consideration will be the chairman of this advisory board of three. The local loan advisory board will be capable of giving advice with regard to land values and individuals making applications for loans and I see no reason why there should be complications in the handling of the matter. The central board in Ottawa will have its contact through the chief executive officer in the province in question who will be supported by advice from two assistants who in a fishery province would be in all probability men versed in fishery affairs.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The section reads:
The associate members of such local board shall hold office at the pleasure of the board, and shall be paid such fees as the board may by regulation prescribe.
This section does not say that the salaries or fees will be fixed by order in council and I am afraid the machinery will be cumbersome and there will be many officials nominated or appointed with no control over the salaries or fees paid. I am afraid there will be a lot of patronage extended.


Grote Stirling: I would point out that
this section is copied from the bill which amended the Canadian Farm Loan Board Act, and that amendment was accepted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That section may be
necessary in the farm loan act but I do not think it is in connection with fisheries. It may be necessary when you are dealing with the examination of titles of vast properties but when you make a loan to a fisherman you are making a loan to a man who has hardly anything.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
Natural Products Marketing Act-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Has the minister given al'l the information asked for by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser)?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Yes.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I understand that this vote is to assist the cheese industry and to prevent too great a proportion of the milk produced in the country being manufactured into butter and thus putting us on an export basis. Am I correct in stating that the minister has decided to bonus the production of cheese?


Robert Weir: In great part, yes.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: How will this bonus be paid and how much per pound will be paid?


Robert Weir: It will be paid through the cheese factories directly to the farmers who take their milk to the factories. The first payment will be for July and will be on a basis of one and a quarter cents per pound. That is what is contemplated at the present time; it will be at least that. We shall be influenced to a certain extent, as to whether it will be a cent and a quarter or a cent and a half, by the latest reports for June with reference to the continued decrease in the production of cheese and increase in the production of butter, but it will be at least one cent and a quarter.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Through what medium will the producer be paid, and what proof will he be required to give that the cheese has been manufactured1 from his milk?


Robert Weir: The cheese factory will have that record and they will have to give an affidavit to that effect. At the same time the cheese inspectors of the Department of Agriculture inspect well over ninety per cent of all cheese manufactured, and that also will be a check on the accuracy of the statement submitted by the -cheese factory itself.	_


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I understand that the bonus in connection with the production of milk will start from the first of July, 1935.


Robert Weir: That is the intention.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: What is the estimated production of cheese for the present month, July, in connection with which the bonus will be paid?


Robert Weir: The decrease in the production of cheese up to June 15 has been eighteen per cent as compared with a year ago. If that should continue, my information is that the quantity manufactured in the
4174	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
remainder of the year would be less than 60,000,000 pounds, so that it is estimated at between 60,000,000 and 75,000,000 pounds.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: On, the entire production of cheese for the rest of the year from the first of July up to the first of January- because cheese is produced somewhere in Canada up to that date-the government contemplates giving a direct bonus of from 1| cents to li cents to the cheese producer in Canada on the strength of vouchers produced by the several cheese factories, which bonus will be returned to the various producers through this medium.


Mr. BEAUBIBN:: Will this bonus apply to all the producers of cheese in Canada or only to those who come in under the marketing act?


Robert Weir: It will apply to all producers in all the provinces-that is, to cheese in cheese factories.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. It is contemplated that from H cents to li cents will be paid on every pound of cheese manufactured from the first of July to the end of the year. Is that right?


Robert Weir: It is contemplated that farmers sending milk to cheese factories will receive for the month of July and for each month thereafter in this year a bonus of at least li cents a pound on the cheese manufactured from their milk. It may be found necessary to increase it from li cents in order to divert a greater flow during the months when the volume will be greatest, but it is hoped not.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: Is it anticipated that funds for the purpose of this bonus will be derived from other sources than this vote of $1,000,000? In other words, is it the intention to tax fluid milk in different milk sheds in order that the cheese producer may be bonused, or will a government bonus be adhered to entirely?


Robert Weir: There is no thought of any levy being made on other farmers supplying whole milk to their markets in the cities or on any other farmer in the dairy industry.


William Alexander Fraser: Is it not true that a year ago it was necessary for the manufacturers of butter, through an arrangement, a mutual arrangement I believe, to dump some millions of pounds of surplus butter on the export market at less than the internal price?


Robert Weir: Part of it was exported at a loss and part at a profit.


William Alexander Fraser: Suppose we once again find ourselves in that position in connection with butter which has to be dumped on the export market and sold there at less than the internal price. I understand that this cheese bonus applies to all cheese, whether consumed internally or exported. WTiat would be the policy of the government to meet a situation which undoubtedly will arise in connection with surplus butter for export? Is it intended to apply the bonus to the butter producer or only to the producer of cheese?


Robert Weir: The purpose is to prevent that contingency arising. If it does arise it w'ill have to be considered on its merits.


William Alexander Fraser: There are other branches of agriculture and horticulture as well that are suffering. The fruit growers in my riding, indeed in the province of Ontario, not only lost an annual crop but in the winter of 1933-34 they lost their entire orchards after twenty-five years of planting and careful attention. These fruit growers have been absolutely wiped out; they lost their orchards. They are not in a position to produce any apples and it will take a lifetime or the better part of a lifetime to reproduce these orchards. I am strongly of the opinion that if we are to come to the assistance of the manufacturers of cheese, and if we are to do so with public funds, the fruit growers of Ontario have a justifiable case to present to the Department of Agriculture, and to submit a plan whereby the government should pay them so much a tree for every tree lost or frozen out, in view of the fact that their livelihood has been wiped out. Is there any reason why these fruit growers should not, under the precedent, ask for a bonus year by year until they can reproduce their orchards?


Robert Weir: That is not a matter of marketing.


Mr. EULER:: On general principles I am
opposed to bonusing. I rise now just to ask the minister why cheese in particular is singled out for payment of bonus out of the general taxes of this country. I do not see where we are going to stop. If it is proper to bonus the cheese producers, why is it not just as proper to bonus the producers of any other product of this country whether it is a natural product or not. Man does not live by bread alone. It is just as necessary for the producers to make a living out of producing

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
manufactured articles, for example, or any of the other products of the farm, such as beans, carrots, apples or anything else. Why is cheese singled out for the granting of a bonus? Can cheese not now be produced at a profit to the producers? I would like to have some reason given for handing out public money in this way.


Robert Weir: In the first place
manufacturers are being and have been bonused for a number of years-


William Daum Euler: The hon. member is speaking of the tariff.


Robert Weir: -under the government of hon. gentlemen opposite just as under our own.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Much more so by the
present government.


Robert Weir: Cheese was selected, as I stated last night, for this reason. The value of our dairy industry is estimated at from 8175,000,000 to 8200,000,000 per annum; it is one of the greatest of the agricultural industries. The difficulty with the dairy industry I can perhaps demonstrate better by putting on record certain figures that will give a picture of it from 1920 to the present time, so that members of the committee will see what the trend has been. This statement shows the production of creamery butter in Canada by years:
Year:	Pounds
1920	 111,691,718
1925		 169,494,967
1926		 177,209,287
1927		 176,978,947
1928		 168,027,039
1929		 170,810,230
1930		 185,751,061
1931		 225,955,246
1932		 214,002,127
1933		 219,232,546
1934		 233,047,500
There has been an almost proportional decrease in the production of cheese in Canada, and I will give this for the comparative years:
Factory Cheese Produced in Canada
Year:	Pounds
1920	 149,201,856
1925		 177,139,113
1926		 171,731,631
1927		 138,056,908
1928		 144.584.619
1929		 118,746,286
1930		 119,105,203
1931		 113,956.639
1932		 120,524,243
1933		 111,146.493
1934		 99,754,500
It will be seen that one of the largest jumps in creamery butter production took place in
1931. The effect of the United States government raising their tariff against our milk, cream and other dairy products in the 1929-30 session of congress was such as to shut out from that country the equivalent of 52,000,000 pounds of cheese. Those products were turned back into this country and had to be marketed here because the market it had prior to 1929 and 1930 had been shut to it. The result is that the greater part of these products has gone into the production of butter.
Last night the question of consumption was raised. The following shows the changes in the consumption of butter, not only per capita but also for the whole dominion:
Per capita Total
Year'	pounds	pounds1925	
27.36	256,248,60919<>6	
28.44	267,014,5551927'	
28.72	273,431,070ig28	
28.54	280,657,0761929." "	
29.26	293,434,0361930	
30.59	312,224,4881931	
30.76	319,191,8851932	
30.49	320,367,5191933	
30.18	322,319,6721934	...	30.92	335,029,401
The year 1934 shows the highest per capita consumption we have on record.
On top of the difficulty that has arisen because of the market of the United States being closed to our dairy products, there has also been a tendency throughout the world, especially for countries marketing their products in the United Kingdom to produce more butter than cheese. For example, imports of butter into the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1934 were 9-9 per oent greater than during 1933 and 83-3 per cent greater than during 1924. That is, from 1924 to 1934 imports of butter into the United Kingdom had almost doubled1. At the same time imports of cheese into the United Kingdom during the calendar year 1934 were only 3-4 per cent greater than during the calendar year 1924. It is evident that the effect of the ever-increasing imports of butter into the United Kingdom is best illustrated by the effect this had on the world price of butter. The average price of Australian butter in London during 1933 was only T35 times the average value of Canadian cheese, tout with a 9-9 per cent greater import of butter into the United: Kingdom in 1934 than in 1933, the average price of Australian butter had further fallen and was only 1-28 times the price of Canadian cheese. Anyone familiar with the cheese and butter industries will realize this spread between prices for cheese and butter is out of line. On account of the disparity in the prices of
4176	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
butter and cheese at London, it is desirable as far as possible for this country to export surplus dairy products in the form of cheese rather than in butter. In so doing it will not enl'y avoid breaking the entire domestic price structure 'by exporting a small surplus of butter, but will avoid' a break in the price of cheese.
Milk fat in cheese delivered to Montreal for export is worth about twenty-seven cents per pound as compared with twenty-one and a third cents peir pound for fat in butter delivered to Montreal for export, on the basis of the present export values. That simply means that we get a greater value for every pound of butter fat in cheese we export to the United Kingdom at present United Kingdom prices than we would for fat exported in butter. As was stated yesterday, and agreed to by the hon. member for Northumberland, through tariffs we have been able to increase the price of butter to the dairy farmers of Canada.. During the last year alone, talking the months of July, August, September and October, when there was the greatest production, it is conservatively estimated that the increased value to the dairy farmer due to this protection, in connection with creamery and dairy butter, amounted to $8,146,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: How do you arrive at that?


Robert Weir: The price per pound received in Canada as compared with the world price for butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell the farmers that.


Robert Weir: I think hon. gentlemen will find that the farmers are quite aware of the benefit they have obtained. The problem before us is this: If we allow any considerably greater quantity of butter to be produced in Canada, due to the transfer of milk from cheese to butter, the result will be that the dairy industry in Canada will be on the export market for butter for a considerable period, and the price received will be much lower than it is at the present time. Take, for example, the London price per pound over a period of years as compared with the price at Montreal:
December 19, 1931 December 10, 1932 April 8, 1933.. ..
London	Montreal
cents	cents
17.78	22
13.67	21.25
11.41	26.50
If at those dates our farmers had been selling their butter on the export basis, western 
farmers would not have received half what they did receive for their -creamery butter. No one will dispute this fact, -that if there is any considerable increase in the production of butter we will be forced to take a lower price for our butter -because we will be on the basis -of the world market. This is what will happen: People will leave the cheese factories and go into the making of butter. Then they will realize that the price of butter has become -comparatively lower than the price of cheese. They may then return to the manufacture of -cheese, but they will find -that the factories have closed and the equipment has become useless, and in addition they will find that the market they have built up in the United Kingdom has been lost.
There is another point in -this connection; it is that it would fit -better into the plans of the government of the United Kingdom if we did not increase their difficulties by shipping a greater quantity -of butter, because that is really what is flooding their market more than anything else. They would -prefer that we hold the market we have in the United Kingdom for cheese. One of the principal reasons, however, is that to export cheese rather than butter -will give the farmers a considerably better return -per pound -of butter fat. For a number of years those interested in the dairy industry, including the manufacturers of butter and cheese, have been very much worried by the world tendency to materially increase the production, of butter. So much has that been- so that some four years ago we had a number of meetings with manufacturers of butter in different parts of Canada -who were aiming at something along these lines, but at that time it was impossible for them to get a sign-up of one hundred per cent of the whole dairy industry in -order to -put into effect some system of equalization that would prevent the ruin that -would inevitably follow if our farmers had to compete in the open market with other farmers having much greater natural advantages.
I repeat what I said at the outset of my remarks; the value of the dairy industry to the country is estimated at from $175,000,000 -to $200,000,000. We feel that the value of this industry is so much greater than that of many other branches of agriculture that, while those concerned in it are trying to work out a solution of their own under the Natural Products Marketing Act, this assistance should be given in order to prevent an upset in that industry.


William Daum Euler: To me this seems like paternalism gone mad. In the first place I take it that this bonus is being given in order to

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
compensate for the loss of the export market for cheese; at least that is one of the reasons. In reply to my statement the minister said that manufacturers had been bonused for many years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Someone says "hear, hear," but I should like to point out that after all protection to the manufacturer-and I hold no brief for the manufacturer, though I have been regarded as a high protectionist which is absolutely untrue since I have never supported high protection in my life, even for textiles as my hon. friend and colleague from South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) would say- is not in the form of a bonus because the manufacturer has lost the foreign market. According to the statement of the Prime Minister, by which he does not always abide, I contend, this protection is intended to give the manufacturer at least a fair opportunity in his own market. With that I have no fault to find if the principle is lived up to. Apparently, however, this is a bonus which is to be given in order to compensate for the loss of the foreign market.
When I say this is paternalism gone mad it seems to me we are going pretty far. When the farmer is producing too much butter we are going to force him, or at least tempt him by a bonus of one and a half cents a pound, to produce more cheese instead of butter. Then if you do not watch him closely he may produce too much cheese, and you will have to give him another bonus on butter in order to get him back into the production of butter. I do not like to make any accusations so far as elections are concerned, but the idea is in my mind at least that the thought is not entirely absent from the minds of the government that this conceivably might have some little effect so far as the votes of the farmers are concerned. They are human; the government is human, and I imagine this proposal is not without its election aspect.
I do not see where this sort of thing is going to end. As I said before, if you are going to bonus the farmer with regard to cheese you are just as likely to bonus him with regard to butter or perhaps with regard to the production of chickens. It may be that we are acquiring too great a taste for chickens; I notice chicken dinners for tourists advertised all along the road. People may eat too many chickens and that may interfere with the production of beef cattle, or ducks or something else. Then you will have to bonus the production of cattle, ducks, geese, turkeys and so on, because the balance
will have been destroyed. That is exactly what is happening here. In their ignorance the farmers are producing too much butter. By the temptation of a bonus you are going to get them to produce more cheese. What argument is there against the application of this principle to any other production, I do not care what it is? It need not be only natural products; it might well be something else. It may be said that this is only another million dollars after all, and apparently it does not amount to very much nowadays. I was going to say this government but I will say this country had a deficit last year of $117,000,000, and I will very much miss my guess if we do not have a deficit for the coming year of another $100,000,000. If you are going to extend this system of bonusing all along the line I for one do not know where you are going to end. It may be that the remedy will be what is sometimes suggested by my hon. friends in what is called the southeast comer, the extension of social credit or something of that sort, which will produce all sorts of moneys so that there will be no deficits at all. I am not yet prepared to go that far.


Mr. HEAPS:: I guess not.


William Daum Euler: I have a fairly open mind, but I will not go as far as the hon. member would go. But if we are going to maintain our present system then I say the government ought to make some real effort to balance the budget, and they are not going to do it by this procedure.


Mr. MYERS:: As a practical farmer I have listened with a great deal of interest to the lengthy discussion centred around the proposed bonus on cheese. To a great extent I sympathize with hon. gentlemen opposite because, to be frank, I am opposed to bonuses of all kinds. In this particular instance, however, there is an excuse for it-


William Daum Euler: Not a reason.


John Howard Myers: -and as a practical farmer I propose to make some observations concerning that excuse. Dairying is the foundation and backbone of good agriculture in any province of Canada or any part of the world. Forty years ago in the province from which I come-and I believe the same condition obtained in other provinces-private dairying was carried on. I shall make a distinction between public and private dairying, because up until about forty years ago only private dairying obtained. Then what might be described as public dairying came in.. When Professor Robertson of the Department of
4178	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
Agriculture, a gentleman who I am suie is known to you all, came to our province what did he teach us about public dairying? We did not hear anything about butter making; it was cheese making, and only cheese making that we were taught. Cheese factories were established at intervals throughout the different provinces.
Why did we depart from the making of cheese and go over to the making of butter? As a farmer I shall proceed to tell you why. In the first place, when we began making cheese we sent the whole milk in cans containing fifteen or twenty gallons each to the cheese factories. It was there placed in big vats; the -curd was separated and made into cheese and we got back from those cheese factories a by-product known as whey. Coupled with the dairy industry in Canada is hog and poultry raising. The whey from the cheese factories returned to the farm was practically good for nothing. I believe I would be correct in saying that in connection with the raising of calves it would do more injury than good, and in raising hogs it is of very little use. That is my opinion of it, and I believe the minister would back me up.
Then we proceeded one step farther. We realized that we weTe finding difficulty in raising hogs and calves. At that time the making of butter in public factories came into vogue. We continued sending our milk to those factories in large cans. The making of butter however was different from the making of cheese. The milk was skimmed in the factories by means of a large De Laval separator. We got back from those public butter factories not whey but skim milk, a product which was considerably better for the raising of calves and hogs. That is why the change from cheese to butter production became popular among Canadian farmers.
Then we proceeded one step farther. About thirty years ago the hand separator came into use on farms, making it possible for farmers to separate milk each morning and evening. By that process the farmer had the by product right at hand-, and they were able to feed the warm skim -milk to calves and pigs. This procedure was found to be more advantageous to the farmers than the process of making cheese or butter in public plants. That is *why there has been a tendency down through the years for farmers to divert more milk from the making of cheese to the making of butter; they placed a very high value on the skim milk by-product extracted on their own farms.
As the minister gave the figures he indicated that the make of butter has steadily increased until it has reached the point where it has
(Mr. Myers.]
almost become a burden. It is possible that we may be going too far, because while the output of butter has increased the make of cheese has steadily declined. As the minister indicated there is still a good market in the old country for cheese, in fact a better market for that product than there is for butter. The trouble is to get the farmer to return to the making o-f cheese for the reasons I have indicated. That is my excuse for supporting the bonus, a procedure which I believe will offer some compensation to the farmer for the loss of the skim milk by products. The bonus of one and a -half cents per pound will enable him to buy other food for his hogs and calves. I am sorry to have taken the time of the committee, but I thought I should place the explanation before hon. members and indicate why ,1 feel free to support the measure.


William Daum Euler: Is this a flat rate of one and a half cents on all kinds of cheese?


Robert Weir: On factory cheese.


William Daum Euler: It does not include Limfourger cheese, then?


Mr. EDWARDS:: That hits home.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What is the total amount
of over-production of butter in cold storage?


Robert Weir: Does the hon. member mean the present storage of butter?


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, the over-production.


Mr. HACKETT:: It does not mean overproduction.


Robert Weir: The hon. member
refers to the stored butter during the winter period when production is less. I believe I can give the information to the hon. membeT a little later.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the minister-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: I was on my feet.


Mr. BOYES:: I should like to make a
few observations on the item before the committee. I thank the government very much for the item of a million dollars placed in the estimates for the benefit of the cheese industry.


Mr. YOUNG:: You had better thank the
taxpayers.


Frank Boyes: I heartily agree with the
explanation made by the minister, but I must disagree with the hon. member for North Waterloo when he states that we may ove-rd-o

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
out efforts. I do not think it is possible to overdo the giving of bonuses or any other possible assistance to the farmers of Canada.


William Alexander Fraser: You
ought to get some votes for that.


Frank Boyes: In years past governments
have been more inclined to look after industries other than agriculture. But this government has taken more interest in the farmer than any previous government that has ever been in existence.
So far as this million dollars is concerned, if I had any criticism at all to offer, which I have not, I would rather see it two million dollars than one. The farmers of this country who are producing milk and cheese have been receiving from sixty to eighty cents a hundred for their milk, and I think we will all agree that it is not possible for farmers to produce milk at a profit at that price. When this bonus is paid on cheese I contend that it will not only be a benefit to the farmer who is producing milk for cheese purposes but to those who are .producing milk for the purpose of manufacturing butter, and for manufacturing condensed or powdered milk. If it were not for this bonus, in view of the way that milk is being now diverted from the cheese factory to the creamery, it is possible that butter would soon be on an export basis, and if that were the case we would have to expect a lower price for our butter, possibly five or six cents a pound. But with this bonus on milk for use in the manufacture of cheese our farmers will receive both direct and indirect benefit. The creamery patron will receive a benefit from the fact that butter will not be put on an export basis, and it will also benefit the man who is sending milk to the condensing factory and the powdered milk factories which I contend have held down the price of milk just as low as possible, basing their price upon the export article, which is cheese. With a little increase to the cheese factory patron I ftel that the farmer who is now supplying milk to the condensing factories will no longer continue to send milk to those factories unless the factory pays a higher price.
While I quite agree, Mr. Chairman, that this might have been brought down at an earlier date it seems to me that it is not too late at the present time. I contend that we are on the right road, and that this bonus on cheese is only a start in the right direction. Any other lines of agriculture where prices might be low may be given assistance in the future. I think we cannot overdo such assistance. I do not wish to delay the house. I heartily support this measure and I only 92582-265
hope that in the future the provision will be greater instead of less.


William Alexander Fraser: In view of the statements made by the minister this morning in connection with the value and volume of the dairy industry in Canada I would ask if he is satisfied in his own mind that by using this equalization or bonusing fund of one million dollars he is going to change the trend of .production, distribution and sale of $200,000,000 worth of dairy products originating on Canadian farms. Is it possible, Mr. Chairman, that by the payment rightly or wrongly of this million dollars the minister hopes to change, first, the trend of production from butter to cheese with all the ramifications that were mentioned in connection with the production of both articles by the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago, and, secondly, does he hope to change the trend of distribution of $200,000,000 worth of dairy products, because you must affect both cheese and butter to accomplish the objective on the export and internal market? If the minister is not satisfied that one million dollars will do this job will he indicate to the committee how .much money he expects annually will be required to accomplish what he stated this morning?


Robert Weir: The butter in
storage on June 1, 1935, was 5,784,943 pounds-


Abraham Albert Heaps: That would equal our consumption for how long a period?


Robert Weir: The consumption is roughly a million pounds a day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: So with five millon pounds in storage that would be five days' consumption.


Robert Weir: Replying to the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) it is not felt necessary to change the whole picture but that a slight change in the picture will have the effect that we desire, and I do personally think that this million dollars spent in the way that has been outlined will be sufficient inducement to more farmers to send their milk to the cheese factory so that they can hold the market that they have, and it will draw from that milk4 which is being manufactured into butter sufficient to keep us from going on an export basis in regard to butter. I would like hon. members of the committee to keep in mind, rather than what might be called political or economic theories, this fact, that while we are sitting here there are hundreds of thousands of farmers in the country who are having a very difficult time carrying on, and especially those in the dairy industry.



Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Mr. SANDERSON:: You are a little late coming to that conclusion.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Five years.


Robert Weir: It boils down to this: Are we in favour of making an effort along the principles that have been adopted by both parties in the past of giving a subsidy, or assistance to prevent the price that the farmer gets for his butter and dairy products reaching such a level, because it would reach the level of the world market, that it would be impossible for him to carry on? If conditions should arise that have arisen, and there is every reason to believe that they may do so this year, it would mean that our dairy farmers in Ontario would be getting nine and ten cents a pound for their butter, and those in western Canada seven and eight cents a pound. That is the practical problem that is in front of us. Hon. gentlemen opposite have themselves voted on occasion for subsidies, protection, shelter behind which people could reap a benefit that every person in the country helped to pay for. The issue at stake is not simply a matter of bonusing cheese to help the cheese industry along but to assist the butter industry, the evaporated and condensed milk industry, the fluid milk industry, the whole dairy industry. In that this proposal differs from a straight bonus by which one product alone would benefit.


William Alexander Fraser: I wish to thank the minister for the explanation he has just given of what he anticipates will be possible by the payment of this one million dollar honus, and the results that he expects not only in the cheese industry but in the diversions of milk from the butter factory to the cheese' factoiy, affecting as the minister said the whole industry right from the production of the fluid milk to its ultimate consumption. I -was very much impressed by the statement made by the minister as to the effect which this bonus will have between now and October 1, the date when he indicated it would be unnecessary to go further when the date when the desired results would be accomplished.	[DOT]


Robert Weir: I desire to correct
the hon. member; I did not make such a statement.


William Alexander Fraser: I understood the minister to say that he anticipated that by October 1-


Robert Weir: I stated that we
believed that SI,000,000 would be sufficient to pay a bonus of one and a quarter cents per

pound on every pound of cheese manufactured between the present date and March 31 next year.


William Alexander Fraser: May I
point out that we are now in the first week in July and June and July are the two best pasture months for the cheese industry. These are the months when there is the greatest flow of milk to the cheese factories. In most areas in Canada, particularly in the east, the pastures dry up after August 1 and the deliveries of milk to the cheese factories decrease. I think even hon. members opposite will agree that it will be impossible to get the dairy farmer to divert his milk from the creamery to the milk factory between now and the time his pasture will be dried up. The cheese factories have been open for some time and they are equipped to take care of the anticipated supply of milk which would naturally flow in 1935. As I said, we are in the first week in July and I contend that it will be impossible to divert any great amount of milk to the cheese factories.
The minister used very effective and impressive language to describe the disastrous position of the dairy industry of Canada. I am quite satisfied that no hon. member will deny the truth of that statement. I shall not go into the ramifications of international trade or of the policies which might have improved the position of our dairy farmers but I do wish to say that it seems to me to be a very belated date for the government to bring in a policy of cheese bonusing. The dairy industry has been in its present position, as far as price is concerned, for the last two or three years, so why was not this scheme brought forward before? I have stated from my place in the house that from an economic standpoint and from the experience of other countries this scheme is wrong and does not improve the conditions of the dairy farmer. I submit that it will prove a boomerang to the industry as is illustrated by the butter industry. Because we have held up the price of butter over the world market price we are now faced with a surplus and in order to readjust the flow of milk we are going to pay a bonus on cheese. This seems to be a belated policy, belated not only in the life of this government but in the year 1935. I notice the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) has just taken his seat. I always endeavour to learn from those who know more than I do and on several occasions I have heard the minister use the phrase, "rolling the pork barrel." If there was ever an instance of pork barrel rolling, it is this vote

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
of 81,000,000. This thing is wrong in principle and is simply an example of pork barrel rolling in an endeavour to get the dairy vote of this country.


Mr. PICKEL:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to direct the attention of the committee to cartain facts in connection with this cheese bonus which have not yet been mentioned. The production of dairy products in Canada is far in excess of what we can consume and we are faced with the problem of getting rid of our surplus. When we compete in the British market with New Zealand, Denmark and the rest of the butter exporting nations we receive the lowest grading and1 lowest price for ouir product. But when we sell a pound of cheese the situation is different, we top the market. There is not a country on the face of the earth which can compete with Canada in the manufacture of cheese.
M>r. YOUNG:	Then why bonus it?


Follin Horace Pickel: On May 1 Canadian cheese in London was worth fourteen and a quarter cents while New Zealand cheese was worth only eleven and a half cents per pound. Does that say anything?


Edward James Young: It says that we do not need a bonus.


Follin Horace Pickel: We should encourage the
manufacturing of an article which we can get rid of in the world's markets. We cannot get rid of our butter so let us make cheese. The hon. member from the province down in the gulf (Mr. Myers) gave several1 reasons why our farmers had ceased to make cheese and had gone into the production of butter, but there is another cause which he did not mention. The commission men do not want our farmers to make cheese as they cannot manipulate the price of that product. Brices are received every morning by cable from London and they cannot regulate cheese prices as they do butter prices. For the past few years the price of butter in Canada has been higher 'than in any other part of the world but during the past six months prices have risen considerably -in the United States because of artificial stimulation. For the past three years we have been getting from five to ten cents per pound more for our butter and from ten to fifteen cents a dozen more for our eggs.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the best dhiry
country for the sale of eggs.


Follin Horace Pickel: It is a question of getting
rid of our surplus. Since I have been in this house I have done everything I could
to get ;the government to encourage the manufacture of cheese and1 I think this is the best piece of legislation which has been brought forward in the past five years. We should try to -interest the farmer in the manufacture of cheese so that he will be making an article which he can get rid of at the best price in the world.
Another reason why the farmer should divert his milk from butter production is the procedure followed by city distributors. During the summer producing season these men will pay the farmer 18, 19 and 20 cents a pound far his butter and they then use the cold storage warehouses which are subsidized by the government to store that 'butter until next winter when they will get 30 or 36 cents per pound for it. In the west they have been buying eggs all spring at 5, 8 and 10 cents a dozen, and next December we shall be paying 45 and 50 cents per dozen for the same eggs. The cold storages were built, presumably, for the benefit of the farmer, but they have worked' -out to the advantage of the distributor. They have not done the farmer any good; they have done him damage. Let me tell the -committee something of the efforts that were made in the eastern townships a number of years ago to encourage the making of cheese. It was in the day of the late Sidney Fisher, Minister af Agriculture, and through the efforts of one man in that section, Mr. Foster, we had a cheese board established, one of the largest in the dominion. Everything was working nicely and we had legislation passed by which the distributors in the city had to come to the factory and examine the cheese and grade it at the factory, leaving an accepted cheque for it before it was m'oved. The minute that was done the distributors began to fight it. Fifteen or twenty of them would come to Cowansville every Saturday and meet the salesmen at the board, and they would feast them, wine them and dine them and then take them round the comer and say, "If you will sell off the board we will give you so much more." The farmers fell for that and inside of two years there was no longer a cheese board.
The farmers individually are the brightest people we have in the country, but collectively they are the greatest lot of nincompoops who ever wore shoe leather.
Mr. BROWN1:	That is why they fell for
New Zealand butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman said
he wanted to get rid' of the markets of the world with regard to the dairy industry.
4182	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Follin Horace Pickel: I did not catch what the
hon. gentleman said.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understood the hon.
member to say that he wanted to get rid of the markets of the world with regard to the dairying industry.


Follin Horace Pickel: You are dreaming.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was listening carefully to what he said and Hansard will show what he did say. At any rate, -there is a very important factor to toe considered in -connection with the sale of cheese, and that is the home consumption of cheese. People eat less cheese in Canada to-day, according to the official figures put on Hansard last year. I will not read them again, but last year when I spoke in answer to the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Boyes), who spoke this morning, I quoted from the government returns showing that people in Canada were eating much less cheese than they had done before. I would therefore offer this suggestion to the minister, and if he is thrifty he will accept it. My suggestion is to reduce the vote toy $975,000, which will be a considerable saving to the -country, and use the other $25,000 to advertise cheese. We should have a slogan, "Eat more Canadian cheese." For a time on the railways there were cards advising people to eat more Canadian cheese; it was on every menu. Instead of bringing forward plans which will never succeed, the minister should do something to advertise cheese. The minister himself, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance,, and every other cabinet minister, in every speech they make, should advise people to eat more Canadian, -cheese. The result will be an increased demand with an increase in price and we shall get rid of the superfluous board. It is easy to do that. Most of the advertising would be done by the ministers themselves and by -members of this house. If this were done we could save this $975,000, by which amount I suggest that the vote be reduced.


Robert Weir: There is a -good deal in what the hon,. member has said, but I disagree with him in one particular. The record shows that in- 1934 more cheese was consumed in Canada than in any year since and including 1925. Perhaps this was due to a good deal of speaking and discussion, such as the hon. gentleman suggests. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser) said that- the months for the large production of cheese were May and June-


William Alexander Fraser: Excuse me.


Robert Weir: -the important pasturage months.


William Alexander Fraser: ' I did not say May; I said June and July.


Robert Weir: Yes. The information w,e have is this. Grading by months, for 1934-35, gives us some estimate, and in June there were graded 155,628 boxes, whereas in July there were graded 196,524. I admit that some of the -boxes in this July grading would be -cheese manufactured in June; we have no accurate information as' to the precise production in each month. But -the next month will clarify it, so far as June is concerned. In August the gradings were 219,050 boxes. The grading is supposed to be absolutely completed (before the middle of the following month. In September the figure was 153,432 and in October 155,182. It will ibe seen therefore that- the largest proportion of cheese is produced from the first of July on. There is another matter I want to discuss and that is the question as to why this was not done before. I said that- in 1933 efforts were made to keep as far as possible from reaping the disastrous effects of going on the world market with the price of butter as it was then. In 1933, toy a voluntary agreement, we could have got off our domestic market some of the surplus that was threatening us, but our efforts in that respect failed because some of the people who had entered into the agreement the year before did not live up to it. This year we had hoped that there would not be the falling off in cheese that did take place, and it was because of the very rapid fall in -production up to the middle of June, over eighteen per cent, and the increase in fat going into the production of butter being practically the same. I was rather -disappointed, particularly in my own case, that any hon. member should suggest that I above all persons should think of any political significance in connection, with this matter when everyone knows that my whole aim is to help agriculture, as my hon. friend from Melville also wishes to do.


William Alexander Fraser: Would not the best way to adjust matters be the way that was followed in 1933? You produced toio much butter and you put a certain amount on the export market, though it is quite true that some of it was at a loss. The farmers, even with the 1J cents, will send their milk where they choose and where they think it will be most advantageous to them to send it, as they have been in the habit of doing. Even with this bonus there will be a large surplus of butter at the end o-f 1935, according to the minister's own

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
figures. And by the time the butter season is over I will vouch for it that there will be a surplus of butter in Canada of between
25.000.	000 and 30,000.000 pounds.


Robert Weir: If the hon. member gathers from my figures that we estimate a lhrge carryover at the end of 1935, let me assure him that there will not be such if this scheme has the effect we hope it will have.


William Alexander Fraser: 
Robert Weir: If we did what the hon. gentleman suggests we would but aggravate the condition that we are trying to correct; that is, if we bonused the export of butter, the tendency would then be to increase the production of butter.


William Alexander Fraser: I did not suggest bonusing the export of butter.


Robert Weir: To get rid of it either at a profit or a loss.


William Alexander Fraser: But not to bonus it.


Robert Weir: But some person has to take up the loss if the butter is exported, because if it is taken out of this country at a loss, we cannot expect those engaged in the manufacture of it to stand the loss.


William Alexander Fraser: What about other producers or manufacturers? If I play the stock market, I pay the shot; the government does not.


Robert Weir: The hon. member has also lost sight of this fact, that there is not any talk of withdrawing from the world market. The idea is rather to maintain our position in the world market with that product for which a market has been established, which market can be maintained to a better advantage for the dairy industry if we do not encourage the production of butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was economically unsound?


Mr. TUMMON:: Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
world market of 8-14 cents, it will be seen that the amount received exceeds $8,000,000 considerably.
What do we want to do? Do we want to reduce the price of butter or the price of milk given to the producers who send it to the butter factories? We must move off the market a certain percentage of the milk or we are going to have that reduction. Those who have been producing the five or six per cent of the total milk production and sending it to the cheese factories have for the past three or four years stood the brunt of stabilizing the dairy industry in this country. I consider it is high time that the responsibility should be shifted somewhere else instead of upon those who have been sending their milk to the cheese factories.


An hon. MEMBER,:: The Tory policy.
Mr. TUMM'ON: Not as a result of Tory policy. The hon. gentleman has been talking about New Zealand butter. Let him consider the average price of butter in Canada over world price when the New Zealand and Australian treaties were in force and compare the average price in Canada over world price since and he will find that the average price is greater than the average world price of a few years ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell that to the farmers.


William Ernest Tummon: The fact is that it is not a fair proposition to ask the people who are supplying five or six per cent of the total milk production of this country to stabilize the entire Canadian industry; the responsibility must be put somewhere else, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his attempt to do this.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about the present ligh price for butter in the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention to go on with supply in the afternoon or to take up one of the bills?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I imagine we will continue with what we are doing now.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.



RADIO BROADCASTING


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the motion adopted on the 28th June, 1935, with respect to the Senate amendments to Bill 99 be rescinded and the following substituted' therefor:-
^ Resolved, that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house disagrees with their amendments to Bill No. 99, an act respecting radio broadcasting, for the following reasons:-
(1)	Bill 99 purported to amend The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, only to the extent that chapter 35 of the statutes of 1932-33, an act to amend The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, assented to on the 23rd May, 1932, should continue in force until the 31st March, 1936.
(2)	The amendments proposed by the Senate would have the effect of limiting the duration of the life of The Canadian Radio Broadcatsing Act, 1932, to the 31st March, 1936.
(3)	It is desirable that Bill No. 99 should be redrafted or amended so as to provide that The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act, 1932, should remain in force indefinitely, but that the amendments made by chapter 35 of the statutes 1932-33 to such act should continue in force until the 31st March. 1936.
And this house respectfully suggests that the Senate should take the appropriate action to that end.
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the Senate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, after discussion with the law officers it was found that there was a question as to whether or not the proposed amendment that left this house was inoperative to accomplish the end sought for the reason that it did not, in sufficiently clear terms, indicate that the purpose was to maintain in operation until March 31, 1936, the amendments adopted in 1932. The Senate, misconceiving for the moment the purposes that we had in mind, adopted as an amendment a provision that would have terminated the life of the main act, passed in 1932, on the 31st March, 1936. After having had the matter carefully looked into by the law officers it is believed that this motion will enable the Senate to adopt an amendment in accordance with the terms of the bill introduced here as Bill No. 99, which will remove any doubts as to the effectiveness of the legislation to accomplish the end proposed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask leave of the house to lay on the table copies of the convention of commerce between Canada and Poland executed this day. With similar consent I would move for

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
leave to introduce a bill without notice, for the purpose of having the bill printed so that it may be before the members of the house to-morrow. The bill relates, of course, to the convention. If the motion passes, enabling me to introduce the bill without notice, I will indicate what the bill is and what its purposes are.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I move that the bill be read a first time. The convention which I have just tabled, and copies of which I have sent to the right hon. gentleman opposite, is a convention with respect to trade and commerce between the republic of Poland and the Dominion of Canada. The bill proposed is to give effect to it, in the ordinary five-section bill, ratifying and approving the convention itself.
Motion agreed to and Bill No. 121, respecting the convention of commerce between Canada and Poland, read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smith (Cumberland) in the chair.
M iscellaneous-
Natural Products Marketing Act-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Mr. RINFRET:: I listened with a great deal of attention to the discussion of this item last night and this morning, and I feel that I must say a word in order to register my protest against this vote. The minister has been very industrious; he has striven very hard to show why the government were proposing this item, but in my opinion he has completely failed to indicate why there should be a premium for cheese rather than for sausages, potatoes or any other farm product. There is one reason, however, that he has not advanced, and the more I followed the discussion the more convinced I became that it was the real reason for this item. It is that the government feels very uneasy on the eve of an election as to the attitude it will take concerning the price of butter. I do not wish to deal with tiresome subjects, but it is known to very hon. member that in 1930 the question as to the price of butter was a very dominant factor in the victory of the Conservative party of that day. In those sections of my province in which I travelled it was in my opinion practically the only reason for the election of Conservative candidates. The
city population resisted very well the appeals made to it on labour and unemployment questions, at a time when unemployment was less serious than it is to-day. But in the rural parts of Quebec the butter question was the predominant one and appeals made by hon. members opposite indicating that if elected they would raise the price of butter were in my opinion the main reasons why the Liberal party lost many seats in that part of the country. I believe the same observations would apply to other parts of Canada.
I do not wish to turn from the item before us. May I observe that the government having failed to indicate why it would .place a premium upon cheese and not upon other products indicates that it wishes to have some argument to present to the farming population and to make its position easier due to the fact that instead of rising, as was promised in 1930. the price of butter has declined about ten cents per pound. That condition has obtained for the last four or five years.
The Minister of Agriculture has said that this vote offers the farming community an opportunity to make use of their .milk. It is a curious attitude to take, and we are surprised to find the minister telling the farming population, "We promised we would raise the price of your butter; we have failed to do that, the price having been reduced one-third of the 1930 price, an amount of ten cents, but we are going to do something else. We will help you not to produce butter and will make provision whereby you may use milk for other purposes." For these reasons it is proposed to spend $1,000,000 to induce the farming population to use surplus milk in the manufacture of cheese. As was well said yesterday by an hon. member from Ontario on this side of the house, such action would mean that the Canadian taxpayer will have to pay part of the price of the cheese we sell on the British and other markets. I say that is a wrong policy. Not only is it wrong in practice, and would lack effectiveness, but it is wrong in its inspiration.
If hon. members would look through the supplementary estimates they would find many millions of dollars provided for no purpose other than that of putting into practice reforms suggested by this government, not for the sake of reform but for the sake of having a political program to offer the Canadian electorate. Here is a million dollars which is not spent for cheese-unless we say that the retention of power is in itself a form of cheese. This session of parliament, with its very pretentious program of reform will cost

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 not to help the farmers, not to help this or that class but, in plain words, to make it easier for the government to face the electors or at least to alleviate the defeat in store for them.
I have discussed this matter; although I am not a rural member, especially in the last few months I have been travelling, and I have learned that the farmers do not expect very much from expenditures such as this one. But they will help the Conservative candidates in Missisquoi and Compton, and in other places where promises were made to the dairymen. Those candidates will be able to say, "Well, we have not been able to help you in securing a good price for butter; world conditions have been responsible. But we are doing the next best thing: We are taking money from the pockets of the taxpayers to pay towards the cheese which you will produce." That is a very bad policy. As a matter of fact, in a general way I will say that all these artificial reforms are bad. There is only one way tc help the community at large and that is to work towards a normal return to business conditions. But if you have to spend a million dollars to help one industry and another million dollars to help another part of the same industry you are simply replacing one evil by another and getting nowhere by way of social reform or improvement.
I shall not speak much longer, but after listening carefully to the explanation of the minister I must say he has not given a single reason why the money should be spent for cheese any more than for potatoes, sausages or anything else. Before sitting down I should like to make this suggestion. I suggest that he spend only $500,000 for cheese, and when the market becomes flooded with cheese he will have an other $500,000 to help the farmers in another direction. We would have to go on like that forever. As soon as he has overproduced one commodity he will have to spend another sum of money to improve another branch of the industry. I say that policy is all wrong. We should have good tariff conditions and good government, and I do not believe these millions of dollars being spent to enable the government to deceive the people by a program of reform which taken all in all, will never have any very good effect, will relieve the situation.
I believe the government is spending money in a very irresponsible manner and I must protest against it.
Mr, WEIR (Melfort):	The hon, member
for Athabaska (Mr. Davies) asked for information, and I take this first opportunity to 
give it to him. He asked for the amount of cheese produced in 1934 in the different provinces. These are the figures:
Pounds
Prince Edward Island	 340,000
New- Brunswick	 350,000
Quebec	 21,721,000
Ontario	 73,497.000
Manitoba	 1,130,000
Saskatchewan	 750,000
Alberta	 l,286'00fl
British Columbia	 678,900


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has told the committee he does not like artificial methods, and among those methods he includes the stabilization scheme in aid of the dairy industry now before the committee. As to the general proposition I do not take exception to his expression of opinion, but I believe the hon. member will admit that the whole woild is in a state of dislocation. There come times in the health of the individual as in that of a nation, when it is necessary that he have recourse to extraordinary means. Stimulants in times of crises are admitted by all to be not o-nly wise but necessary. The hon. gentleman has not denied that it has been necessary to expend large sums of money in the city over whose municipal government he presided with great dignity for a period of two years. Some time back it would have been a source of astonishment to the hon. member had he known that it would be necessarjr to vote millions of dollars to provide for the sustenance of thousands of people in the prosperous city of Montreal. That is not the lot of Montreal alone but the lot of every large agglomeration of population throughout the civilized world. If it has been necessary to apply artificial means of sustenance to the urban population; why not to the rural? We know what has been done in England; we know what is being done in the United States. It has been necessary to resort during a period of disequilibrium to extraordinary methods. I have no particular desire, Mr. Chairman, to be drawn into a political controversy on this question. My hon. friend knows well that there has been set up in his province and in mine a dairy commission. He knows that the government of that province has fixed a definite price for milk, and he knows that, having fixed the price, that government has also fixed the quantity that may be sold at that price and has made no provision for the balance that is thrown back into the pot to be disposed of as best it may. These extraordinary measures were to meet extraordinary circumstances. We are confronted with many forces

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
flowing from disequilibrium. To meet them the country has paid large sums on account of unemployment. Suggestions are made to the house embracing reforestation, the building of highways, housing and other works which are not immediately necessary, to help those temporarily embarrassed. Should we not in fairness to ourselves and to the nation consider whether the proposal now engaging the attention of the committee is not worthy of approval?
I shall not waste much time on those lighthearted gentlemen who tell us that butter was worth so much five years ago or that our national revenue was so much five years ago. Every gentleman who is familiar with even the rudiments of economics and current affairs-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You did not say that in 1930.


John Thomas Hackett: My hon. friend knows
very well that the volume of trade between Great Britain and France which in the year 1930 was 1,300 billion francs shrivelled to less than 400. He knows that as well as all hon. gentlemen. So I am not going to waste much time in discussing what everybody who wishes to be serious already appreciates and is willing to admit.
Some reference has been made to promises about butter. My sins of omission and commission may be many, but I made no siuch promises. It is true that butter sold at a much higher price in 1930 than it is selling at now, but a point which I think hon. gentlemen should not overlook is that whereas in 1930 butter was selling at the world price, plus one cent duty-there was a spread of about one cent and a fraction-the spread under the present administration has been vastly increased until for the year 1934 the average price of butter in Canada was 22-29 cents, whereas in London, where the world price is fixed, it was but 15-65 cents. I draw this in all fairness to the attention of hon.. gentlemen opposite. The price of butter has gone down but there is a substantial increase in the price of Canadian butter compared with the world price of the same commodity. I do not mention these facts to score off anybody. But I am anxious to bring home to the people who wish to deal with this matter seriously an all important fact.
Now let us consider for one moment something that has been brought up not infrequently during the debate. Something has been said about tariffs; something has been said about manufacturers. Is it not a fact that the manufacturers, the industralists. the professional men, are all organized and organized for their own benefit? I do not say that they are organized for their own benefit exclusively but they are organized so that their affairs may be conducted in an orderly way. In my own profession, for instance, rules have been enacted for its government. There are rules which discipline members of the bar and there are means of exacting a certain level of conduct from each of them. There are other rules which apply to emoluments. That is true also of the medical profession; it is true of organized labour, whether it be railway labour, the iron workers or the garment workers. Wherever we go in professional and industrial life we find organization and a measure of discipline and a measure of control. Broadly speaking it is true that the only element of our population which is not organized, the only element which is at the mercy of wind and wave, of greed and exploitation, is the primary producer. Never has the primary producer of this country been willing to yield u,p enough of his individuality and his so-called liberty to reap the benefits of discipline and order. I believe that this government has enacted a measure, the marketing act, which affords to the primary producer the opportunity to give himself a labour union, the opportunity to give himself a professional organization, that from it may flow discipline and the benefits which come from order and hierarchy. I submit this to the committee; if the farmers organize under this act, as already groups have done-we have been given details with respect to the producers of different commodities, apples, potatoes, chickens; the milk producers in British Columbia, who have all sought the shelter of the marketing act and are satisfied with it-if the dairymen of this country will organize, and it is a vast undertaking because this industry is represented in every province and in every section of every province in the dominion, it seems to me they will benefit and that we should afford to them while in process of organization a measure of. succour and support. They require assistance, they require encouragement, until equilibrium is reestablished.
So long as my memory runs,, the farmers in the southeastern counties of Quebec have shipped their dairy produce in the form of sweet cream and fresh milk to the industrial centres of New England. Without a moment's warning a dyke-the Hawl'ey-Smoot tariff-was raised which dammed back that generous stream until it flooded out the farmers living in that locality. TV hile we had that ready market it was possible for

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
us to import butter from Australia aind New Zealand1 to good advantage, but when that market was taken away it was necessary that something be done for these farmers. While some hon. gentlemen regret that tariffs in this country are so high, most hon. members -I make one exception and bow low to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young)- admit that evil though they may be, they are a necessary evil. We have had to enact tariffs to preserve the life of our industry and the standard' of living of our industrial workers. If that is a sound argument for industry, I submit that we should do something to protect this vast section of the community which is not protected. I submit further that while these changes are being brought about it is doing scant justice and providing rather skimpy generosity to vote a million dollars for the stabilization of the greatest industry in Canada.
I do not see how any hon. gentleman who is even remotely familiar with the dairy industry can question the wisdom of exporting our surplus in a form fhat commands a premium in the worlds market. At the present time our cheese-I admit that there are certain accidents as to age and scarcity tending to raise the price-brings four cents per pound more in Great Britain than the cheese of our rivals for that market. Hon. gentlemen opposite have stated that out butter is of an inferior quality and does not bring as good a price in the world maiket as does the commodity produced by our competitors.	If that be true, and I do not
think it is questioned, is it not in the interests of the dairymen-dairying is the principal part, wheat notwithstanding, of Canadian agriculture-to make at least an effort during a moment of .trial to stabilize prices and to bring about some measure of relief? I think it was the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraseir)) who asked if a small amount like $1,000,000 would be adequate for the stabilization of this vast industry. That is a fair question, the answer is that only a small fraction of the total production of butter goes into the export market and it is that- small fraction which raises havoc with prices. ' Our price here is the price of our demand plus our protection until we have a surplus and then we must take the price that is offered to us in the markets of the world.
\\ e have come to the assistance of different elements in the country. We have voted millions in aid of industrial' employment; we have voted other millions for this and that activity, but because this vast farming industry happens to be unorganized it has been 
forgotten in the past. It seems to me that there is a promise of brighter days for the farmer if he will avail himself of the possibilities of the marketing act and is given some encouragement and stimulus while efforts are being made to bring him under that act.


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: Does the hon. member not remember that we shut out imports of butter from Australia because it was being exported to this country under a plan similar to that proposed and supported by the government?


John Thomas Hackett: No.


William Henry Moore: Oh yes, the Patterson plan.


John Thomas Hackett: As I recall the Patterson plan,, it was one under which the producers of butter contributed to a fund a certain amount per pound produced and a certain amount per pound was taken from that fund and applied to each pound1 exported. Even were I to grant the premise of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore), which unfortunately I cannot, the situation is entirely different. The scheme which is outlined here is one by which assistance is given to the producer whether or not his product finds its way into a foreign market.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I have no desire to be supercritical of this vote and I do not intend to criticize it until I find out how it is related to the marketing act. It is usual for a marketing scheme to be set up before you pass a vote of this kind. I happened to be in Leeds and Lanark counties during the week-end and I discussed this matter with a number of farmers, but they did not seem to understand it at all any more than I did. They told me that they had asked for a bonus of two cents per pound on all cheese exported, and I suppose this vote is the answer. After reading this designated vote one could easily conclude that it was for organization purposes under the Marketing Act rather than for a subsidy to cheese. Would the minister give an anxious inquirer the connection between this vote and the marketing act? I think every hon. member is sympathetic towards the dairying industry, as that industry is so closely allied to the health of the people and the fertility of the soil. This industry means practically to the east what the wheat industry means to the prairies and it deserves our close and sympathetic attention. I have no doubt that if provision were made for a straight subsidy of one and one half cents

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
per pound on all exported cheese the minister would not be able to find an objector, but it is a different thing when this matter is brought in in this furtive and mysterious way. I am really in a dilemma and I wish the minister would disentangle me. .


Robert Weir: It is intended that a great part of this vote will be expended under the provisions of section 9 of the Natural Products Marketing Act, but a scheme would not be set up, as the hon. member will appreciate, until the money is made available. When the money is made available it is intended to set up a scheme to equalize the dairy industry and provide assistance to those farmers who send their milk to the cheese factories.


William Richard Motherwell: I rather suspected that was the situation although I did not know. Section 9 was one of the most objectionable sections of this bill so far as the *opposition were concerned, and instead of making the bill more acceptable to us the minister is endeavouring to make it more objectionable. And the same remark may be made with regard to the amendments he brought down; two of them were very objectionable. Now we have him invoking section 9 without the farmers having taken any initiative whatever. Under section 9 the minister has authority, if he considers that any product is prejudicially affected under the marketing conditions that surround us, to take the initiative himself and work through any local board ior agency he desires, and he instructs the central board to proceed as if it had been asked for. What is the matter with the Ontario dairymen that they cannot ask for something which on the face of it is so good? Why should the minister have to come to the rescue and ask for it on their behalf? That is the point I am concerned about. If he will bring down a straight subsidy to the dairy industry, especially the cheese industry, there will not be much comment upon it; but I cannot understand why he should proceed in this mysterious way on his own initiative in one of the oldest districts of Ontario. Why cannot the dairy industry in this province take the initiative instead of the minister doing so?


Edward James Young: Last week the minister introduced and passed through this house a bill amending the marketing act, which provided that a fund be set up to be raised by a levy on the commodity concerned, and the explanation he gave of the use to be made of
the fund was identically the same as the use to which this million dollars will be put. Is this million dollars a substitute for the fund he proposes to raise by that levy, or is it in addition thereto?


Robert Weir: It is in addition thereto, not a substitute. The bill to which the hon. gentleman refers was not introduced for the purpose of setting up a fund. When I was asked as to what use might be made of the section, I said it might be used in this way.


Edward James Young: Then there will be more than one million dollars available for the purpose. In addition to the million voted by the taxpayers, all those engaged in the dairy industry will be subject to a tax which they will have to pay or go to gaol.


Robert Weir: No; the hon. member is confusing matters. There is no levy, there is no tax of any kind associated with this million.


Edward James Young: Then I must ask the minister to explain again the bill he brought in the other night, because when we asked for an example of the way in which the money would be spent he used the very illustration of butter and cheese and said that the money so levied would be used to bonus the farmers to stay in the production of cheese and not to go into butter.


Robert Weir: If they submitted a scheme to do it that way.


William Richard Motherwell: I remember distinctly that the explanation the minister gave was as the hon. member for Weyburn has stated, and I expressed my lack of understanding of the whole intent of that bill. That was why I thought that this vote of one million dollars was for an entirely different purpose. I hope the minister will help me out in my understanding of it now. How is it that the Ontario dairymen do not take the initiative themselves in setting up a marketing scheme, instead of the minister stepping in himself and doing it for them. Can they not take on a good thing when they see it without waiting for the minister to do the taking on>, just before an election, though that is incidental? I do not mind that; you can pack this chamber full of bills and votes of this kind and it will not save these hon. gentlemen from their impending doom, so that that does not concern me. Selfpreservation is the first law of nature and we concede them the right to hang on to every straw they can get their claws on

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
between now and election time. But I do not want to be put in the position of an unfriendly critic of this million if it is going to the dairy industry and they want it through a marketing scheme. They cannot want it very ardently or they would have organized themselves under the marketing act. They want two cents per pound straight bonus on their cheese as far as I can make out, and here under an item entitled Natural Products Marketing Act we have $1,000,000. No wonder no one understands what it is for.


Robert Weir: I regret from what was said the other night, that hon. members should have gathered the impression that this million was to be used in addition to or in conjunction with any levy made, because I am quite certain that I did not say so, and if they will read my remarks they will see that I did not say anything that would convey that impression. The hon. gentleman asks why the dairy farmers of Ontario have not submitted some scheme under tile marketing act. They have, in conjunction with the dairy farmers of every other province in the dominion. But, as I 'have stated, the difficulty of organizing an industry in which so many people take part, hundreds of thousands of farmers, is such that it cannot be done in a very short period. Hon. gentlemen would seem to give the impression that little advantage has been taken of the marketing act to date, and the- thing I have always kept in mind, especially while in committee in the house, ife the great contrast- between the opposition advanced against the measure when it was introduced and what has actually been taking place among the great farming population of Canada, who have been taking advantage of it. The board was set up only inAugust, and already there is under the administration of the marketing act, and taking advantage of its provisions, over $43,000,000 worth of annual business. Not only that, but there are applications from farmers to have provision made to enable them to make use of the act to be extent of a further S240.000.000. In other words, the producers of $280,000,000 odd of produce have applied to come under the administration of the act without any effort on the part of the dominion government or of the marketing board to lead people to take advantage of its provisions. It is simply the natural outcome of what has been taking place, and the thoughts that have been in the minds of farmers throughout the country for years. We had men who devoted the greater part of their lives, without thought of reward of any kind, to the development of a cooperative marketing system among the 
farmers so that they would by voluntary effort be able to rid themselves of what they regarded als a great deal of unnecessary waste and cost in getting their products to market. Every hon. member who is a farmer must have in mind the names of some of these men. We had Mr. Morrison of Ontario, Mr. Wood of Alberta, Mr. McPhail of Saskatchewan and many others, whose great regret was that, although they realized that they had accomplished a great deal in- the way of voluntary cooperation, the forces for which they had laboured so long and unselfishly were still unorganized to such an extent as to leave themlselves a ready prey to those who were more concerned with their own selfish interests and Who were ready to take advantage of the unorganized farming community. The fact that that work had been done and that the farmers were anxious that a further step should be taken is evidenced by the number of applications that have come in-applications to the extent of $280,000,000 of agricultural business apart from wheat.
I was the first to state in this house, when I moved the resolution leading to this act, that there would be many obstacles which we could not foresee. No one could expect otherwise in a change in the marketing of the products of the farm, and which was to take the place of a system that had been built up but was regarded by the farmers as not giving that service which it should. Therefore I maintain that it is a great and undoubted proof of the feeling on the part of a great body of farmers in this country that in this short period, especially in view of the misrepresentations by great sections of the press and also by hon. members opposite as to the benefit that can be derived from the Natural Products Marketing Act, these farmers have availed themselves to this extent and expressed themselves as being strongly in favour of it. I am not talking of men of academic minds as has been suggested here, but as I am making this statement I have in mind men not even friendly to the old pool organizations, wheat, live stock or otherwise, but men who through their own individual effort, rugged individualists as some hon. members might prefer to call them, have made a great success of farming even against the obstacle of poor markets. These men have offered the best they have and have given freely of their time during the past months, especially in the winter season, to see if they could formulate some scheme. They have finally agreed in the three western provinces, where they have the greatest proportion of live stock in this country, upon a

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
scheme that they believe will be of use in the marketing of their products. These men are actual farmers, men who own and control up to five or six thousand head of cattle. One sheep rancher in British Columbia who at first was opposed to the marketing act because of the .misrepresentations he saw in the press and heard from the platform, is now one hundred per cent behind it. This year his marketing of lambs and ewes will be up to 6,000 head.
When I stand here-and I have sat here through weeks of hostility because it cannot be described as anything else-the thing that is foremost in my mind is this great movement among the farmers that cannot be denied, that cannot be stopped, because what the farmer wants more than .anything else is a greater pride in his occupation, and the only way in which he will get that is by having more power in the administration of his own business. Nothing will stop him from getting this. What has been the opposition to this measure? The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for weeks opposed it and his opposition has been proved to be unwarranted. One of the points on which he laid the greatest emphasis was that there would be a restriction of production. There has been none. Another point he raised was that there was a great fear in his heart that the farmers, if they united and organized themselves, would injure other bodies in the community. They have not shown any evidence of attempting to do that; all they want is to be let alone, to progress quietly, to go forward and organize themselves, so that they may be able to market their products to better advantage.
Then we had the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), the former Minister of Public Works, and I remember reading an account of some of his speeches early last fall when he ridiculed the number of licences that would have to be issued to license producers from one end of the country to the other, a statement which was very far wide of the mark.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was just quoting the
minister's statement as to the number that might be issued. It is on Hansard.


Robert Weir: When the measure
was in its final stages, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) said that it was only a political measure; that it would never be put into effect, yet it was put into effect a month after he made the statement. The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) at a meeting at Wingham-and I happened to be there that day although I
was a little late to attend the meeting-made the statement that the act would never be put into effect although he must have known that it was in effect at the time he made the statement.
Yet in opposition to this great movement among the agriculturists of this country to take advantage of the act to make it possible for them to organize in their own interest, a right which has been given to other bodies in the dominion before, what have we had? Lawyers, chiefly from the cities; people who profess to be farmers and who to a certain extent are farmers but whose chief business is not farming but something other than farming. How many simon pure, bona fide farmers in the House of Commons, whose chief interest is farming, have opposed this measure? Few. The opposition against this great demand or cry on the part of the farmers themselves for this to be made available to them has come chiefly from lawyers from the cities by twisting a word here and a word there especially when they think this will be to their political advantage. To offset that we have applications from farming bodies. One of them is from the dairy industry of Canada which is composed of farmers and those specially interested in the welfare of farmers. They were desirous of coming under the act, but they were not able to organize within the short period that has been at their disposal up to the present time. The reason this vote is being given is to maintain the dairy industry as an entity, to use this sum of money to equalize the dairy industry so that there will not be the damage that is feared by those who are especially interested in the industry by reason of milk being swung from one product to another.
Before I take my seat, I cannot emphasize too strongly the discouragement that it has been to one whose sole interest is in agriculture-and I believe this feeling is shared by every hon. member who is a farmer and close to the heart of agriculture-to see the pitiable and scattered opposition that has been made to this legislation from the time it was first introduced.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not feel that I am guilty of ever having been hostile to this bill or to the farmers organizing themselves thereunder, but under this measure or vote are the farmers organizing themselves? It is the minister that is organizing them under section 9 of the marketing act and that is what I object to; as there is a vast difference. There is nothing I would like better than to hear that the dairy industry in eastern Can-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
ada had taken, action under the marketing act, because I know they need it and any advantage it contains. I was associated with dairying long before my hon. friend the minister was dry behind the ears, and I intend to remain so. The hon. gentleman I consider has done himself and the marketing act an injustice by his conduct in connection with this vote. There is an element of duplicity about it. I never dreamed that it was for the purpose as set forth by the minister. I thought he was going to go on with these twenty-six marketing schemes that are now under way and to flood the country with voting contests at the same time that the election was on. I said before that that would be unwise; if any schemes were to be voted on, that should be done before the election. But the minister is taking advantage of section 9 of the marketing act to set up schemes himself. I did not hear him say anything about it until now when I asked him about the matter, although he may have said something about it last night in my unavoidable absence. This seems to be a scheme proposed and instituted by himself. I do not know whether the local boards are established yet. Are the local boards or other agencies he is authorized to work through, yet in existence? The minister has authority to instruct the board, that is the central board, to operate this scheme propounded by himself through any local board or other agency that may be appointed; I forget the exact phraseology. Perhaps the minister has the act in front of him, and if he has, I am sure the committee would be enlightened if he would read the section. That is my criticism. I say again that I would be delighted to see the dairymen of eastern Canada organizing under the act in the regular way and of their own volition. But for the minister just before election to say to them: Here is $1,000,000 if you come under this marketing scheme, is neither ethical nor even good politics.


Robert Weir: My hon. friend is right in stating that I had not mentioned section 9. That section is just for the purpose of an emergency such as this while the dairy industry itself is organizing. The dairy industry has gone a long way in organizing under the Natural1 Products Marketing Act.


William Henry Moore: Will the minister please read section 9?


Robert Weir: Section 9 reads:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this act the minister may, if he is satisfied that the trade and commerce in a natural product is injuriously affected by marketing conditions 
through the lack of a local board, at any time propose a scheme for the marketing or the regulation of the marketing pursuant to section four of this act of such product in inter-provin'cial and/or export trade, and the governor in council may approve of such scheme ami authorize the board to administer such scheme directly or in cooperation with local boards, or through any agency which it may establish. Such scheme shall continue in force until terminated by the governor in council.
While this is in force those interested in the dairy industry are proceeding with their organization, as the hon. member for Melville has suggested.


Edward James Young: At page 3967 of Hansard, the night the bill referred to a moment ago was before the house, I asked the minister this question:
Mr. Young: In the event of the price of butter declining does the minister contemplate the board having power to order certain farmers to stop making butter and to turn their milk into cheese?
4.u^Jr' ^eir (Melfort): No; it does not mean that at all. If the dairy industry decided that it was in their interests as a whole, a fund could be set up through a levy on the producers themselves to be used to assist the whole milk producers, if that product were lower 111 price than other commodities in the industry, so that it would be to their advantage to continue producing the product rather than switching to the manufacture of another article which would force it on the world market and ower the price A great deal of work has been done in this connection and agreement reached so far as the dairy industry is concerned, but there is still considerable work to be done.
Now I must confess that in the light of the explanation the minister gave us that night I cannot see the difference 'between the functions outlined for that fund and those outlined for this million dollar vote we are considering to-day. I wish the minister would ' explain exactly what is the connection or the difference.


Robert Weir: It is not necessary that there should be either a connection or a difference between what was stated at that time and what has been stated to-day. The hon. member asked for an example of how the industry could be equalized or stabilized, and I gave him the example. I did not state that it was to be operated in conjunction with the item we are now considering, by any means. If the hon. member will re-read ' what he has read already I think it will be quite clear to him that at that time I was describing a scheme that might be set up by the dairymen, and I stated that the dairymen * were considering setting up a scheme but that need not necessarily have anything to do *>
with this item.

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act


Edward James Young: Then this is the position: We have enacted a law permitting the dairymen to make a levy on themselves in order to raise a fund for a certain, purpose, and to-day we are voting a million dollars of government money to be used for the same purpose. Am I right in that?


Robert Weir: For a similar purpose, but not in the event of the other scheme being endorsed!.


Edward James Young: The minister has stated that the dairymen, have made considerable progress in working out a scheme of this kind, yet he is putting through this vote of a million dollars. If the first scheme is to be carried out, why this vote?


Robert Weir: This vote is for the purpose of carrying on until the first scheme has been completed, and that will not be done for this season's make of cheese.


Edward James Young: I see; this is not to be repeated another year. The minister contemplates taking this million dollars, or the other fund to be raised in subsequent years in any other way, for the purpose of what he calls stabilizing the dairy industry. He proposes that if the price of butter should get out of line with world prices this fund may be used to encourage farmers to remain in the production of other kinds of dairy products instead of switching to butter?


Robert Weir: No, only to the extent that there may be danger of the production of butter being such as t-o put it, for a considerable period of time, on the world market level, and so bring down the price of butter to the world market price.


Edward James Young: In the event of there being a danger that the price of butter will get^ out of line? I wonder what success the minister has had hitherto in estimating what is going to happen to the market price of butter. Two years ago he and his officers estimated that we were going to have a surplus of foutteT in Canada. Fearing that the surplus would depress the price below the world level he appealed to those in Canada holding large quantities of butter to export it, to dump it on the world market and pocket the loss, and some of them did so. Then as the season advanced it was found that his estimate was all wrong, that there was no surplus of butter but that we actually had a shortage, and we had to bring back some of the butter we had exported. One year ago his officers went out
and announced from the public platform that we were going to have a surplus of ten million pounds of butter in Canada, which would have a depressing effect on the market. But before many weeks passed they had to revise their estimate, and at the end of the season it was found that we had a surplus- on the market of only one million pounds. We know what success our government have had in trying to guess what would be the price of wheat; as yet we do not know wha-t it is going to cost this country. We know they cannot estimate what the price of butter is going to be or whether there is going to be too much or too little. It is just possible that under this vote the minister may take that million dollars and use it to bonus butter as against cheese when market conditions .might actually require him to bonus cheese as against butter, because it is no more possible to estimate what is goin-g to happen in the cheese market than it is to estimate what is going to happen in the butter market. Is the minister sure as to what branch of the industry he is going to give this fund to? I do not think he can be sure at all.
Now we are launching on a policy of bonusing, and we are going to. start bonusing cheese. Have the potato farmers no claim for a bonus? I am told that the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island have been throwing out their potatoes because under the marketing act the government put those potatoes at a price -which the public would not pay, so they could not sell their product. I suggest that they have a legitimate claim for a bonus. If we are going to -bonus the cheese producers we have a right also to bonus the butter -producers, the potato growers and the wheat growers. We will be here to-morrow demanding a bonus on wheat. The fishermen also have a right to a bonus; the producers of pulpwood and all other primary producers in this country have a right to a bonus. So I think we -can safely take this as our slogan, that we will have bonuses for everybody or bonuses for nobody. All these schemes the minister has in mind have the same purpose in view; that is, to raise the domestic price above the level of world prices. In that I say he is pursuing a wrong policy and as -long as he continues to -pursue that policy we are going to have unemployment, we a-re going to have relief camps and we are going to have trouble of all kinds in this country. One-third of our exportable product is exported. One-fifth of the total wealth .produced in Canada is exported. One-fifth of our people depend absolutely on the export market for their living. When you raise domestic prices

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing Act
above export prices you put that oner-fifth of our population in a position where they cannot sell their goods on the export market because it costs so much to produce and to live in Canada.


Mr. BLACKETT:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Edward James Young: Yes.


John Thomas Hackett: Why did Great Britain
abandon free trade?


Edward James Young: Great Britain abandoned
free trade because she was ill advised, and my hon. friend's leader can tell him where that advice came from.
Here is what you are endeavouring to do; You are endeavouring to raise the cost of living in this country to the point where those of the population who depend on the export market will not be able to operate their business at a profit, where ithey will not be able to stay in business, where they will not be able to buy the products of your domestic industries, and as long as that condition prevails I say you are going to have distress among the primary producers, you are going to have unemployment among the industrial workers and relief camps and all sorts of trouble. I ask the minister to abandon this policy at once and get back to the point where all our prices will be based on the prices of export commodities. Then you will be giving employment to the men in the cities, because then your primary producers will be in a position to employ these men in producing the things they want to buy.


Robert Weir: If I have a clear
understanding of it, what the hon. member lias in mind as to what should be done is this: The party of which he is a member, if they are returned to power, will cancel any duty that may exist against butter coming into this country. If they state that they will not cancel the duty against butter coming into Canada then I say they have no choice, if they are assisting the 'butter industry, but (to assist the cheese industry as well. If the hon. member is conscientious in what he states, however, he simply means that if his party is returned to power he will do his utmost, and no doubt his colleagues will support him, to cancel any tariff that may exist against butter coming into this country.


Edward James Young: We are not going to confine our tariff reductions to butter, I can tell my hon. friend; we are going to reduce tariffs all along the line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Secretary of State
Adjustment of war claims:	Secretary of
State-further amount required, $15,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Would the minister explain this item?


Mr. CAHAN:: Certain litigation under the direction and control of the Department of Justice is being carried on in reference to reparations claims. The deputy Minister of Justice informs me that in connection with two suits now pending, Rex V. Hatfield and Logan and in re extradition of Hatfield, the sum of $15,000 will be required. This is the further amount required.


Mr. REID:: Can claims still be made on the reparations fund?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no reparations fund. All the funds which have been placed at the disposal of parliament have been expended. There is no' such thing as a pending reparations fund. This item is in connection with litigation arising out of what are alleged to be illegal payments made some years ago out of the reparations fund.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with printing amendments to the Election Act (governor general's warrant of October 3, 1934), $20,000.
Mr. OASGRAIN:: What is this for?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The chief electoral officer
found that the sum of $20,000 was required for the printing and publication of the Dominion Elections Act and the forms issued by him under that act.


Mr. GRAY:: Has the minister had a communication from the Dominion Franchise Commissioner regarding the lists mentioned on Friday last?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, I have had communications with him. If the full lists are to be typewritten and distributed the estimated extra cost would be $120,000. However I had a consultation this morning and I am hoping that in rural districts it may be sufficient to use the printed lists as printed up to April last. The names which have been removed could be obliterated by an ink line, and typewritten additions made. I believe that would be sufficient for rural districts. As a matter of fact for a great number of the rural districts hon. members will receive a new printed list before such a compilation by the registrar could be prepared. We will make every effort to satisfy requirements. The lists are coming in from rural districts, and in the twelve received this morning there are only a few changes in each sheet. Certainly the changes

Supply-Miscellaneous
in lists for rural districts have so far been very few indeed. However we will endeavour to satisfy the requirements of hon. gentlemen; as to how best to do it is still under discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To cover cost of machinery and equipment for the public printing bureau, governor general's warrant of November 15,	1934,
Edward James Young: Is it the intention of the government to furnish hon. members with printed copies of the final drafts of bills passed at this session?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That would not come under this appropriation. As a matter of fact as they are passed in this house the bills are printed, and as the revised bills are1 printed after sanction by the governor general each department of government is in a position to supply copies to those requesting printed bills. I believe in almost every case that is true. If there atfe any bills, copies of which the hon. member would like to have within the next three weeks, I believe he would secure them if he would request such copies from the respective departments in charge of those bills.


Edward James Young: Not many days ago I was
told in the distribution office that these bills would not be printed1 until the statutes are published some months later. I went to the distribution office only a few days ago and asked for certain bills which had passed, and I was informed that they would not be printed until the statutes are published.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As a matter of fact I
would suppose that the distribution office would have less information about the matter than any other office to which the hon. member could have applied. The distribution office distributes bills only as required in the ordinary course of legislation. I know that the texts of the final draft of bills relating to my own department are printed. I know, as a matter of fact that through the Department of the Secretary of State we supply those bills to departments of government in the United States and England. I have never known the supply to be exhausted. The hon. member must apply however to the proper quarters. If they are bills relating to my department he would simply write the Under Secretary of State, and if applying to the Department of Agriculture he would write the deputy Minister 92582-266
of Agriculture. For their own purposes the different departments procure final prints of the bills as rapidly as possible after they have passed.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to support the hon.
member for W'eyburn (Mr. Young). A few days ago this question was raised and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) told us that we could obtain them from the clerk of the Senate. I ordered some, and found that I would have to pay $2 each for them.
I believe there is an act providing for the publication of statutes in which that fee is indicated. I say that when hon members of parliament go to their respective constituencies it surely is their duty and should be their privilege to have the acts which have been passed. People come to us and ask us what has taken place and we are entitled to know, we cannot know unless the bills are printed. They will not be obtainable for five or six weeks, and I say that that is too long. The cost of printing would be very low, because no more than a dozen of them would have to be reprinted.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the item carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No. Being Scotch I want to
know why I have to pay $2 for a copy of a bill.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Shall the item carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No; take a vote on it.


Charles Eusèbe Casgrain: We have not had a
satisfactory answer from the minister.
Mr. 'CAHAN:	If the hon. member wishes
a certified copy of a bill he will have to pay the clerk of parliaments a certain prescribed fee. But if he is content with a printed copy as issued by the departments to libraries and public bodies he may obtain such copies by spending the price of a postage stamp.


Alan Webster Neill: By waiting about six weeks.
I phoned the printing office twenty minutes ago and was told that it would be from four to six weeks before such copies would! be obtainable.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who told you that?


Alan Webster Neill: When I go home my constituents are entitled to ask me the meaning of certain acts, and I cannot tell them without going through the tremendous work of following up all the amendments made in this house and in the Senate. All bon. members are in that position, and I say it is a foolish and undignified one.

Supply-Miscellaneous


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: To whom did the hon.
gentleman apply? Who gave him this answer?


Alan Webster Neill: I phoned an official in the
printing bureau. I do not know what his name is.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman applied to officials of the printing bureau when he should apply to the minister in charge of the department. He cannot obtain that information by telephoning some secretary or minor official.


Alan Webster Neill: I will take the minister's
advice and apply to the Secretary of State now. When can we expect these things from the printer?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When the hon. gentleman
asks with regard to a particular department. As soon as this house is prorogued and the bills are finally assented to, each department of the government will have prepared for its own use the final prints, which are then available I understand to any member who makes a request for them.


Alan Webster Neill: In from four to six weeks.
Does the minister not know that there is an election coming on and that we have to go before the people and explain the mass of legislation, 120 bills, that we have passed, and that without them we may have to say, "Well, I do not know because amendments were made to these bills in the Senate and we will not get them for four or five weeks."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are some of them,
a certain number of private bills, for instance, which I think the hon. gentleman will not need to explain to his constituents, but the public bills are made available at the printing bureau as soon as they are requested by the several departments which have charge of these bills. In my own department they are out within ten days of the close of parliament and are then available, such bills as the Companies Act, the act dealing with copyright, the act dealing with patents, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
Emergency grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, ?50,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to say a word
or two in regard to the action of the government in refusing at this session of parliament to enact legislation giving to the blind people of this country pensions commencing at the age of forty. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the blind people of this country were led to believe by what this house had done through 
its committee this year that they would at this session of parliament receive at least certain benefits from pensions which I believe they are entitled to.
First of all we had a resolution before the house, which resolution was referred to a committee of this house, and on that committee members from the government side of the house sat in a majority. That committee reported in favour of some form of pension for the blind at the age of forty and over. When that report came before the house it was very sympathetically received on all sides, and I believe there was the feeling that the blind over the age of forty should receive a pension. When therefore it was announced by the Prime Minister last week that the government was taking no action in this matter I am sure that there was great disappointment on all sides of the house, and nowhere was the disappointment keener than among the blind people of this dominion. The disappointment would not have been so keen had the feeling not. been unanimous amongst members of the house, even among the government supporters themselves, that legislation was to be enacted granting pensions to the blind at this session of parliament. That was the feeling that was aroused on two occasions by a unanimous report from the committee on industrial and international relations.
It may perhaps be too late now to ask the government to bring down legislation at this session implementing the recommendations of that committee, but, Mr. 'Chairman, I cannot help at this time, in the very last hours of this parliament, saying how much I regret and how deeply disappointed I am that the government could not take definite action at this session to give the blind the benefits of a pension which is so long overdue. In most countries blind people are given special consideration. I do not need to say anything about their condition or about the particular difficulties which they are experiencing in these hard times in making a livelihood, but I wonder if we could not have some kind of statement this afternoon from the ministry or at least some assurance given to the blind people from all sides of this house. If the present government has not been able to see its way clear to bring in legislation implementing the report of the committee, my firm hope is that whoever occupies the treasury benches a year from now at least will see that the blind people of this dominion will get the pension which is so long overdue.

Supply-M iscellaneous


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I
understand it, this is not in any sense a substitute for a system of pension for the blind. I understand, and perhaps the minister will say whether I am right, that this application was made to the government over a year ago. I saw some suggestions in the press from other organizations that this was more <or less in the nature of an alternative, but my understanding is that this organization did press the government very sincerely and very persistently for legislation granting pensions to the blind), which has not been brought down this year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend is quite correct. Representations were made to the government by a deputation consisting of Captain Baker and Lieutenant Myers, speaking on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and my recollection is that it is a year ago or more that the representations were made. This has no reference to annual grants of any kind, nor has it any bearing on the question of pensions. The request was made solely with a view to assisting the institute in a very difficult period, as I explained the other day, to cut down a heavy overdraft which has arisen because of the circumstance that private contributions have in recent years been very much diminished. This is to enable the institute to carry on without curtailment of its work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was any grant made to the institute last year?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 No, this is an entirely separate and distinct government grant made for the specific purpose I have mentioned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not suppose the minister looks on this grant as in any way compensating for lack of recognition of the blind in other directions.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend could not have heard my explanation. I said that this item has no bearing on or relation to the question either of other grants or of pensions themselves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose this government is in power a year from now, would it then consider more favourably the introduction of a bill dealing with pensions for the blind?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is the one who is blind just now.


Thomas Reid: Might I ask if any of this money goes to the federation of the blind?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, it goes to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
92582-266J


Mr. McINTOSH:: Has the minister any further statement to make in connection with pensions for the blind?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have nothing to add to what was stated by the Prime Minister the other day.


Mr. COTNAM:: Mr. Chairman, as sponsor of the resolution urging that action be taken at this session to grant pensions to the blind, I am very sorry indeed that the government has not seen fit to take action this session to give these much needed pensions to the blind people of this country. That resolution stood on the order paper during the session of 1934 and was never reached or discussed at that session. The resolution again stood on the order paper all during this session. Various opportunities to discuss this matter have presented themselves and the blind people were led more or less to believe that some action would be taken at this session. Pensions for the blind are being paid in practically every civilized country and all countries in the British empire pay pensions to the blind or provide other goverment assistance. When this resolution was introduced there was no opposition from any quarter of the house and the press of the country was unanimous in its support of the proposal. As far as my information goes there was not a single editorial unfavourable to pensions for the blind.
We have about 8,000 blind people in Canada and had this resolution been adopted and a bill enacted it would have involved an expenditure by this government for the coming year of about $125,000 to $135,000. The total expenditure in the country would have been between $500,000 and $600,000. I contrast this with what has taken place in the United States during the recent session of congress. A federal bill was brought down which will involve an expenditure of about $3,000,000 in providing assistance to the blind. Some 25 or 30 states have blind legislation at the present time and where there is such legislation the federal government proposes to increase the pensions paid to the extent of $15 per month. Where no pensions are being paid the government will provide $15 per month towards the assistance of the blind and the maintenance of blind institutes. In the state of Massachusetts alone there are about 4.500 blind people receiving about $750,000 per annum in pensions. During the last twelve years this govcrnmnet has granted in aid of our 8,000 blind people about $158,000. I think it is a sad commentary upon the people of this country that they have been able to
Supply-Miscellaneous

assist the blind during the last twelve years only to the extent of $158,000. The provinces have contributed something in the neighbourhood of $100,000 to blind institutes. The supplementary estimates contain some large votes for different purposes. During the last five years this government has voted as federal assistance to the unemployed something like $160,000,000. This money was granted to people who have their sight, who have their hands and feet and are able to help themselves and yet we do not seem to be able to find half a million dollars to take care of blind people between the ages of 40 and 70 years. It is a sad commentary upon this House of Commons that we have seen fit to allow this resolution to remain upon the order paper during the session and then at the last moment decide that no action can be taken and that the matter must be shelved until some future date. The 'blind have suffered a great deal and they are considerably disappointed that something has not been done at this session.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) has shown that he is a very able speaker and I am somewhat surprised that he did not continue the debate on the C.C.F. resolution in February, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment and Social Insurance Act,
Jean-François Pouliot: This does not apply to those who are actually unemployed?


Mr. DONNELLY:: I thought the amount to be voted was to be $7,000,000. Is this $2,000,000 just for organization purposes or is it to pay for unemployment insurance?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This represents the amount which it is estimated will be required for the operation of the act during the balance of this fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of the comptroller of the treasury's office - further amount required, $80,000.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have a strong objection to make to this vote because of the manner in which returns have been made. I asked for returns showing the amounts received under various taxes imposed by this government during 1931, 1932 and 1933 and in half of the cases the necessary information was not available. The comptroller of the treasury's office is no good and I protest against this vote. This office has failed to give the proper information to hon. members and I protest against such a waste of expenditure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The office of the comptroller of the treasury is comparatively new, having been in existence only for about two years. The appropriation in the main estimates for this office was $1,576,851, an increase of $7,112 over the vote of the previous year. We are now being asked to vote an additional $80,000 and I think the minister should give the committee some explanation of why this additional amount is required. As I recall the comptroller of the treasury took over certain of the functions which formerly belonged to the auditor general.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, several of the departmental functions in connection with disbursements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The expenditures in that one branch are getting to be very large.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has control over all
the disbursements of the country.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This additional amount is due entirely to the anticipated extra expenditure and extra work in connection with the auditing of accounts under the Unemployment and Social Insurance Act and other legislation which has been passed during this session


Jean-François Pouliot: Eighty thousand dollars
more for red tape is pretty hard to digest.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I notice that in both the
main and supplementary estimates this item is put under the heading of "Miscellaneous." This is a very important department and it seems to me that we should have the same particulars which are given in connection with other departments.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not a separate department, ft is a portion of the Department of Finance although that may not be exactly correct. There could be a very marked improvement in the setup of our estimates in general. These things are not very easy to bring about. We have first the civil government estimates and then the estimates of the departments in various subdivisions. It would be much better I think if we could have all the votes of the individual departments kept under departmental headings where they could be shown. It must be remembered, however, that the functions of the comptroller of the treasury have to do with every department of government and possibly that may be the explanation. I will bear in mind what my hon. friend has said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-M iscellaneous
Allowance to the representative of the Department of Finance as a member of the Canadian farm loan board, during tenure, $1,500.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The other night my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) asked for some information with respect to the salary paid to the supervisor for British Columbia. It is $4,500 per annum.


James J. Donnelly: In western Canada there are some persons, whether connected directly with the farm loan board or not, who are going about asking farmers whether they want loans or want to have their debts adjusted, and these men are paid so much for every application. Are they paid out of this fund?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend may have in mind the officials under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


James J. Donnelly: I have both in mind. There are men going throughout the country asking farmers whether under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act they want to have their debts adjusted, and assuring them that they may have it done and, under the Farm Loan Act, receive a loan. They are being paid so much for every application. This is the propaganda that is going on. I know of two or three men who are travelling about doing this very thing, and I should like to know whether they are paid under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act or under the Farm Loan Act. This is not provincial.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no one in the employ of the farm loan board nor under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act who is authorized to give any such undertaking. No person representing either of these boards has any right whatever to say to any farmer what the hon. gentleman has suggested; all they could do would be to say to the farmer, "If you make application under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act you will be entitled to apply for a loan to the farm loan board." No one, however, has any right to make the statement that a farmer would as a matter of right secure a loan. I have endeavoured to make it clear in the past that the question whether the individual shall receive a loan must depend entirely on the merits and circumstances of each individual case. There are no employees of either department working on commission, and if my hon. friend will give me in confidence the names of the individuals I will inquire by wire immediately to see what activity is taking place there, because the course he suggests is entirely foreign to the proper authorization of either act.


James J. Donnelly: I thank the minister for his explanation, because I know of several men who are so working. The Conservative organizer in the last provincial election has been going throughout my constituency and I did not know whether this was his occupation or whether he was doing it for political purposes.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Is the official receiver under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act the representative of the farm loan board under the Farm Loan Act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No; he has no official contact at all.


Ross Wilfred Gray: In Ontario, at least in1 the western part, the official receiver is the gentleman who is handling the forms. I cannot say that he is doing as much as the men to whom my hon. friend from Willow Bunch has referred, but certainly he is giving the farmers to understand that they must come to him if they want loans; and as recently as last week I obtained some forms from the official receiver, who stated then that he was the representative of the farm loan board in that district.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There can be no objection to the farm loan board, as a matter of convenience, asking another employee, of the government, the official receiver for instance, to keep in his possession and make available to farmers the necessary forms. I can see no objection to that.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not abject; I asked whether that was being done and the minister replied no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It was not as far as I know, but I am .prepared to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. But I have no hesitation in saying ,-jhat no one, neither the official receiver nor anyone else, has the right to tell a farmer that he can secure a loan as a matter of right.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Is this representative of the Finance department a permanent official?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He is a permanent official appointed in virtue of an amendment to the act passed this year.


Eugène Fiset: Does not the minister think it is proper to have his name put in while he is given an allowance over and above his salary?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be, except for two reasons. The Farm Loan Act as amended provides for alternative officials so that it does not follow of necessity that the same official
Supply-Miscellaneous

will continue in the office. The other reason is this. I prefer not to put his name here at all because, he is receiving a salary out of proportion to the services rendered and this is a matter of justice to this official.


John Campbell Elliott: How many persons have made compositions under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and received loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have none of that information here but I will make inquiries and endeavour if possible to get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Economic Council of Canada Act, 1935,
Jean-François Pouliot: Has the economic council been appointed, and if so, who are the members?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The members of the council have not yet been named.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is a revelation. It was so necessary to have this economic council, this crutch was so necessary for the Prime Minister that he could not get along without it, and yet we have all the social legislation passed without the assistance of the council- most ridiculous, most absurd. If it was so necessary why did they wait so long to appoint the members of the council-and they have not yet appointed them. In their wisdom they have got along without the council; why do they not do the same in the future? All the reform program has been implemented with the exception of one or two matters. This is superfluous; it is pure extravagance, just as ridiculous as the stovepipe letter boxes and all official expenditures made in the same quarter. I hope this vote will be dropped; I will not stand for it at all. I say, it^is most ridiculous. What do we need a brain trust for if it has not yet been in action? Twenty thousand dollars is something; a family could live a long time on that sum. This is another red tape official expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund' to the present Canadian minister to France of an annuity at the rate of $3,000. to commence upon his retirement and to continue thereafter at the above rate during his lifetime, $3,000.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the occasion for passing this appropriation has not arisen, and I therefore move that item 414 be reduced in the sum of $3,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister mean that there is no intention of making a retirement such as is indicated in this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The present incumbent
of the position in question was appointed in May, 1911. A change of government took place in September of that year and he was continued in office. He was appointed a minister and he has now reached the age of sixty-seven. The British practice is that ministers retire at sixty. This provision was put into the estimates in order to provide for that contingency. The impaired hearing of the minister makes it impossible for him to function properly and unfortunately that has been the case for some time, but he has not resigned his post and this item is therefore superfluous.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that
it is not the intention to recall the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have nothing to say as to that.


Ernest Lapointe: Then I shall have to
say a word or two about the matter. This position in Paris is of course different from the others to this extent, that when the present incumbent was appointed, it was merely a commissariat; he was made a commissioner for Canada in France succeeding the late Mr. Fabre who had been there for a very great number of years. Mr. Fabre was the first appointee there and he was kept as representative of Canada until he died. Mr. Roy was appointed-and at the time I was a member of parliament-after the Laurier government then in office found difficulty in getting somebody because the position was not very attractive at that time and meant the absence of the appointee and his family from Canada and their settlement in France. In 1927 or 1928 the office was changed into a legation and he became the first plenipotentiary and minister for Canada in France. Mr. Roy has been there for the past twenty-five years rendering great sendee to Canada. I desire to read an editorial in the Montreal Star of Thursday, June 27. The writer was obviously under the impression that Mr. Roy was retiring, as I now understand he is not. This is the editorial which reads:
A Good and Faithful Servant
Hon. Philippe Roy, Canadian Minister to France, has without doubt richly earned the leisure and repose which his impending retirement, just announced, will bring to him. But there will be general regret, both in Canada and in France, that the term of his long service is drawing to a close.

Supply-Minister to France
To those whose memories carry back to an earlier day, the work which Mr. Roy has done for Canada in France is especially clear. The Canadian commissioner's office, before his day, was a small upstairs affair on a street little known to strangers in Paris, with an almost non-existent staff, with facilities so restricted as to cripple any work it might have hoped to do, either for Canadians abroad or for Canadian business. Mr. Roy changed all that. He moved the Canadian office to the Grand boulevard; he made it a comfortable and spacious place where the "Canadian errant" was made welcome and happy; he "put Canada on the map" of boulevardier consciousness; he was personally the soul of generosity and hospitality and, withal, a shrewd and able business man with Canadian interests always before his mind. How much of the betterment of Franco-Canadian trade was due to Mr. Roy's acumen and to his thorough knowledge of the opportunities for increased business between the two countries, it is, of course, impossible to estimate definitely, but there is no question that his services in this respect have been exceedingly valuable. The splendid Cite Universitaire project was very largely his plan, a contribution to an intellectual and cultural bond between Canada and France that cannot be estimated from blue books or trade returns. Mr. Roy has deserved well of Canada and the thanks of both French-and English 

speaking Canadians are due to him.
May I recall his services during the war? Mt. Roy was like a father to ail Canadian soldiers. His place, not only his office but his residence, was open to all members of the Canadian forces, and they all knew that as well as I do. He has always enjoyed not only the respect but the esteem and confidence of every public man in France in all spheres of national activity ovier there, and to think under the circumstances of retiring him compulsorily with a pension of $3,000 when one considers what is being paid by way of superannuation to judges or military men, is humiliating. However, he is not so old; he is only-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sixty-seven, two years
older than I am.


Ernest Lapointe: He is two years older
than the Prime Minister, but I am sure my right hon. friend in two years will still be able to fulfil his duties whatever they may be at that time.
Mr. DURAiNLEAU:	They will be the
same.


Ernest Lapointe: I know Mr. Roy very
well; I have always been an intimate friend of his and I know he is still able to fulfil his function, to do his work. His hearing is better now than it was a couple of years ago. I know the government can recall him; a plenipotentiary minister is subject to recall. He has to be persona grata not only to the
government that receives him but also of course to the government that sends him to the foreign country. But under the circumstances, especially at this time when the government is at the end of its term of office, just before a general election which may bring into power another government, to send to France a. minister representative of that future government does not seem the fair thing to do. Of course nobody knows the future, but if I have a share of influence in the future government of Canada, the man who under such circumstances would go there to replace Mr. Roy would be well advised to buy a round-trip ticket.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With much that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) has said I am heartily in accord. It must have occurred to him that considerations such as those to which he has referred were in the mind of the government of the day, for Mr. Roy has remained' in office since August, 1930, notwithstanding the fact that I have believed that at times his physical condition was not such, because of his poor hearing, as would enable him to function as he should like, he has remained there because, as the hon. gentleman has said, he has discharged difficult tasks with success.
I do not think anyone will quarrel with what the hon. gentleman has said, but I can only say that the difficulty has been the question of a pension. In Great Britain the rule is that career ministers and ambassadors retire at sixty. Some time ago we passed an order in council under which we retired those in the civil service who had reached the age of sixty-five. The banks and other institutions in this country adopted a regulation under which they retire their officials at sixty, because of the conditions referred to in the banking and commerce committee last year. No contribution is made by any minister to the superannuation fund, and any sum that is voted comes directly from the taxpayers. It is an extremely difficult thing to justify, and it was with great personal reluctance that this item was inserted in the estimates at all. Apparently I was wrongly informed with regard to the intentions of Mr. Roy; apparently he does not desire to leave his post, although he has attained the age of sixty-seven.
There must be some understanding with respect to all the ministers in the service of this country. My own view is that the English rule is satisfactory, and the provision for pensions in England would not entitle the present incumbent of the office at Paris to the sum here indicated, for he has been a minister for only a very limited time. It
Supply-Minister to France

is true that he served from 1911 to 1927-28 as high commissioner, but it was by his own choice that he went to Paris. He preferred that to remaining in Canada, which neeessi-tated leaving his practice in Edmonton for half the year and coming to the Senate. I think that is a well known fact which he himself has stated frequently. So far as the service is concerned it must be known to all members of this house that the only legation in which there was a vacancy when the government came into office, or where a vacancy has occurred since, was at Washington. Sir Herbert Marler, who was appointed to Tokyo by hon. gentlemen opposite, has remained there and no one has suggested that a change of government should result in a change of ministeis. I have not looked upon it in that way at all, but there must be times when the public service demands that those who hold office should surrender it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the hon. gentleman
is always thinking of the spoils of office; he thinks of them so constantly that he cannot even forget them in his dealings with some of his fellow members. Need I .mention that Sir Herbert Marler was appointed by a Liberal administration, but he has continued in office and is discharging his duties to this administration as faithfully as he discharged them to the last administration. I do not look upon a minister as being in quite the position suggested by the hon. gentleman. Far be it from me to suggest that a minister would want to remain in office who found it impossible to function because of his attitude of mind towards the government he was serving, and as conditions are it is difficult to transfer ministers from one point to another; there are so few of them. As I said a moment ago, of necessity .there must be an age when men should retire from these posts. In Great Britain that age has been settled at sixty; in this country we have fixed that age as sixty-five, and while it is quite true that technically the civil service regulations do not apply to ministers and sixty-five is not an age for compulsory retirement while seventy is, in experience in the older countries it has been found that the age I have suggested is reasonable.
I know there is not a member of this house who does not realize that those who hold office under those circumstances should not be easily disturbed.. But if, as is the case in some of our courts in Canada, men, are unable to hear and have to use devices placed upon their desks to enable them to hear what is said, surely it cannot be said that this is 
a proper discharge of their judicial duties. I find it difficult, I confess, to understand how men continue to sit as judges and to draw the public money under those circumstances. I am not ignorant of the fact a few months ago, at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association,, an eminent judge condemned both the hon. gentleman who has just spoken and this government for endeavours made to amend the Judges Act, and the condemnation against my hon. friend was greater because he succeeded and I did not.


Ernest Lapointe: My bill was better advised than the bill of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says his bill was better calculated to serve the immediate purpose than the bill we sponsored. I just put this to the committee: If a man holds himself out as an expert in any branch of human endeavour, and is so employed; if he ceases to be able to give that expert service for which he was employed, certainly he would find great difficulty in a court of law in recovering his salary, stipend or compensation. There is an implied undertaking on the part of those who occupy positions such as these that they are physically fit to discharge their duties. I realize that, for instance, with respect to the office which I hold. I think it must be perfectly clear that a prime minister, whoever he is, must be physically able to discharge his duties; if he is not he should retire. I think the same thing is true with respect to members of the judiciary and others. But in view of the erroneous impression which I had, and in view of the fact that Mr. Roy does not desire to retire, this item should disappear from the estimates. I should like my hon. friend to realize, however, that I regard this as an exceedingly generous provision for one who has held office as a minister for so short a time, and who has made no contribution to the superannuation fund. I could give cases so numerous as to weary the committee of efforts made to secure small pensions, or what might be regarded as adequate pensions, that have failed because of what I have just mentioned.
Now that we have an understanding of the situation I ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw the item from the estimates. I repeat, however, that I do think if the hon. gentleman will consider the matter carefully he will regard this as a much more generous provision than is usually made for those occupying positions similar to that occupied by the gentleman in question. I do not desire to detract in any sense from what my

Supply-Minister to France
hon. friend has said as to the services rendered by Mr. Roy in Paris. Apparently, however, I did have an entirely erroneous understanding with regard to his recognition of the limitations imposed upon him, by conditions over which he had no control, to further discharge his duties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister has indicated that he is largely in accord with what the hon. member for Quebec East has said respecting the Hon. Philippe Roy who is at present the minister representing Canada in Paris. I should like to join my hon. friend and the right hon. gentleman in their observations, and to add that I believe it would be impossible to pay too generous a tribute to the services Mr. Roy has rendered Canada during the time he has held public positions in Paris. I do not believe it would be fair to estimate an allowance to which he might be entitled simply by a computation of the time he has been minister. As has been mentioned Mr. Roy has represented Canada in France since May, 1911. That is nearly a quarter of a century, and includes the trying and difficult period of the war. During the whole of that period and indeed ever since he resided in Canada Mr. Roy's home, as is well known, has been an open house to Canadians. Especially during the war, the services of both Mr. Roy and Madame Roy were placed at the disposition not only of this country but also of France in a manner which could not have been excelled.
It is known, too, that Mr. Roy has held an unique position in Paris both as regards what he has done for Canadians who have gone to that city on official missions or otherwise, and with respect to the confidence he has enjoyed with the members of whatever government may have been in office in France. I do not believe any minister, of any government, at any time, has Shared to a fuller degree the confidence of the government to which he has been accredited than has the Hon. Philippe Roy in Paris. I would say, too, that confidence has been enjoyed in equal measure by different British ambassadors who have been resident in Paris. As is known, our country along with other countries has membership in the league of nations, and the minister at Paris has exceptional knowledge of many of the matters which have come before and which pertain to that body. In fact, to some degree he has been the one Canadian minister dealing with European affairs. I do believe that when the time comes to arrange his retiring allowance the government having to do therewith should feel more than justified in considering the entire time
Mr. Roy has served in Paris in a representative capacity as being equal to that which it would have been had 'he been a minister from the beginning.
Inasmuch as the Prime Minister has referred to the subject I should like to sgy that I believe both he and I are in entire agreement as to the time having come when, with respect to the diplomatic service of Canada, there should be some act of parliament governing the service, which would set out specifically the constributions if any to be made by those who are members of the service, on what basis retirement may be effected, and in what amounts retirement allowances should be granted. If the government had seen fit to bring in a measure of that kind we might well have discussed it, and possibly could have agreed upon it, and have taken action under it. I believe, however, that a measure of the kind might more properly be brought in at the beginning of a new parliament rather than at the close of an 'old one. I mention the subject at this time, however, so that no matter what the complexion of the new parliament may be there may come from this House of Commons an expression indicating that we do believe- and I believe I may make this observation for hon. members in all sections of the chamber-that if we are to continue to have a diplomatic service the whole service should be regularized as to appointments thereto and retirements therefrom in a manner similar to that followed in the British and other diplomatic services.
I must confess to some degree of relief and satisfaction at what I understood the Prime Minister to say, namely, that there was no intention to retire Mr. Roy at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not mention that at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend did not mention it? Well, I am glad there is opportunity to avoid misunderstanding about it, because what I am about to say should I believe be said at this time. The diplomatic service is somewhat different from other branches of the public service. I have heard my right hon. friend say-he said it expressly in connection with the London appointment-that in making an appointment to that position no government should be expected necessarily to retain the appointee of a previous administration, and that there should at least be an opportunity to a new administration of making an appointment of some one who would be persona grata to itself. That I believe was a perfectly sound point of view.
Supply-Minister to France


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was limited to political appointments, and did not apply to diplomatic appointments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that what my right hon. friend is contending for may be perfectly sound where diplomatic appointments are made under civil service requirements and in accordance with civil service rules. But I believe the circumstances are entirely different where an appointment is being made to the diplomatic service, of any person who has not up to the time of such appointment been in the diplomatic sendee, and where such appointment is not in the nature of a promotion within that service.
May I be concrete in my observations and for the moment assume conditions which may or may not arise. In the event of the Liberal party being returned to office I for one would feel that it would mean very much to the government of the day to have the Hon. Philippe Roy in the position of minister at Paris, even if his services were to be retained there for only a short time. He is more familiar than any other person could possibly be with the many matters about which an administration would wish to have full knowledge. He is familiar, for example with all that up to the present has been done in connection with the negotiation of trade agreements. He is familiar, too, with the personnel of, and enjoys the confidence of, members of past and present French governments, and particularly of persons whom a new administration might wish to meet or consult. For these reasons ahd many others he would, for a new administration, fill the position more effectively than any other person could possibly fill it. Assuming that Mr. Roy is to be retired at some time, however soon or late, I submit that it should not be until after a new parliament has come into being. At that time whatever administration may be in office could indicate its wishes and have them carried out as might be considered necessary. I would certainly feel, however, that if between now and that time an appointment were made to the position of minister in Paris of a person who did not enjoy to the same degree the confidence of a new administration that Mr. Roy has enjoyed, no obligation should or would rest upon a new ministry to retain the services of such person.
I have thought it well to make these observations so that there may be no misunderstanding or possibility of hard feeling in connection with anything which may or may not take place. From what has been said this afternoon I hope it will be sufficiently clear that

Mr. Roy is continuing in office to meet whatever fate may come to him sooner or later, and that the decision, whether sooner or later, which is to determine that fate will not be made until the people have spoken and have indicated the administration they wish to have in office during the next few years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must make one further observation. Frequently I have endeavoured to make it clear that in my judgment the position of high commissioner in London is entirely different from that of a diplomatic representative of Canada. One is surely a representative of the government and the other a representative of the Sovereign. The diplomatic representatives who serve us at Tokyo, Paris and other centres are not necessarily representatives of the government, in the narrow political sense. I have acted upon that. If the doctrine suggested had been acted upon we would have retired Sir Herbert Marler from Tokyo and Mr. Roy from Paris shortly after we took office. That has not been done. They have continued in their positions because they were representatives not of a government, but of the country and the King. So long as they continued to discharge their duties in a manner acceptable to the government their former political faith we believed should not be the governing factor in connection with their retention in office. We have acted upon that principle. I will admit that the right hon. gentleman opposite protbably would not have done it under similar circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend should not say that. It is not fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of what he said. Here we had Sir Herbert Marler, a former member of his administration. Just think what that means. Here was a' former member of the Liberal administration appointed to Tokyo, and yet we have not asked him to retire. Here was a former Liberal senator, a well known and a very pronounced Liberal, very strong in his convictions and in the expression of his opinions, and yet no effort was made to retire him.
In the case of the high commissioner at London I think that the position can be put very simply. HS under statute is a political officer. The statute itself indicates that he is a representative of the government, and as I indicated, in the very nature of things he is more closely in touch with the government a^hd with their policies and views than any man who occupies a purely diplomatic post. He has under the statute to deal with so many

Supply-Minister to France
matters that it is quite clear that that is so. It is an old story now but we certainly did inform Mr. Massey that we thought he should retire from the post to which he had been appointed in the closing days of the former administration, and he did retire accordingly.
I think on second thought most men would realize that that was a sound position. I feel perfectly certain that the present high commissioner in London in the event of a change in government wull regard it as his duty to retire at once, and I feel equally certain that whether he did or not he would be retired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood he had his passage taken already.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that the right
hon. gentleman has sources of information that I have not, but I have no such information as would lead1 me to any such conclusion. He usually comes to this country for his vacation, but he has not even yet applied for leave for his vacation. He usually takes it, if my memory serves me, in August or September, but as I say he has not even yet applied' for leave.
I make clear the distinction between the diplomatic position that a minister who serves his country occupies and1 the position of high commissioner. It never has been the case in England that a minister is retired because there has been a change of government, so far as I have been able to ascertain. If the minister is thought not to be the best available appointment for a particular position he is transferred to another post and somebody else takes his place. That is my information from inquiries.
There is just one thing I do want to say, and it is this:	It is not necessary to introduce a statute as the matter stands at present with respect to ministers. I suppose the right hon. gentleman did1 give some attention to it himself. The fact is that the regulations which are issued in Great Britain with respect to ministers and ambassadors are promulgated by order in council because they are the expression of the terms under which the sovereign's representative discharges his functions in foreign countries. I would put it this way. We had intended1 to promulgate such regulations and had prepared them accordingly, but in view of the fact that we had but three ministers and that we had passed the general regulations respecting our civil sendee we did not desire to seem to be endeavouring to press unduly, Shall I say. the views which we held as to the desirability of the general terms of the British regulations applying to our own country. The matter rests there.. If the minister does not
desire to relinquish his post under the circumstances to which I have alluded, that is a matter for him to consider. I do not think it is necessary to suggest that if anyone is appointed the practice which we have pursued would not be followed by hon. gentlemen apposite. We know their attitude of mind would not be quite ours with respect to that matter. We are perfectly certain that if we were to appoint anybody as minister he would be removed as quickly as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not like to enter
[DOT]into a controversy with my right hon. friend as to the status of the ministers representing Canada in foreign countries. He states that those who are diplomatic agents are in a different position from the high commissioner, and seems to suggest that it is not necessary that they should represent their government to the same extent as the high commissioner. Well, the ministers, like the ambassadors, are appointed by a commission under the great seal. They are not ordinary public servants. They are envoys, they are plenipotentiaries, sent to represent their country in a foreign country, and they are subject to recall at any time. I took the trouble to say that my right hon. friend might have done it. They are ambassadors, they are plenipotentiaries, and the country .that sends them surely can recall them at any time. Their country is forced to recall them and to issue what is called letters of recall when the country to which they are accredited desires that they be recalled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very seldom done. There has been only one case on the American continent.


Ernest Lapointe: So far as being forced
to recall them, that is very seldom done, but in the diplomatic service of any country which has a large number of ministers they are being recalled all t/he time. As a matter of fact, France since the opening of its legation here has had three ministers within seven years. Mr. Knight was recalled and was replace by Mr. Arsene Henry; Mr. Henry was recalled and was replaced by the present minister. Of course, the case is different with Canada because we have only three ministers, but the doctrine is the same. They are, under international law and practice, envoys, and may be recalled at any time; there is no doubt about that.
My right hon. friend has boasted of the generosity of his government in keeping Mr. Roy in office, an old former Liberal senator. Well, Mr. Roy wTas senator before 1911; when my right hon. friend took office Mr. Roy had been working for Canada for twenty years
Supply-Miscellaneous

in a foreign country, and I think everybody will agree with me that there was no party politics on his part in receiving Canadians while there. He has been working for Canada all the time. Surely his case is a little different from that of a gentleman who migjht be appointed on the eve of a general election just to find a position for him. So far as Sir Herbert Marler is concerned I must say that I do not know whether my right hon. friend could have easily found a Canadian to go as minister to Japan. When the position was created it was very hard to find anyone to go to that country and I think Sir Herbert Marler went there from a sense of duty to his country. He sacrificed himself and he has done so well that my right hon. friend has given him something which we would not have given him, a title. The conditions are not identical with those which would surround the appointment of a minister to France to replace the present minister on the eve of a general election. I agree with my right hon. friend that the minister represents the king but he also represents the government. The king appoints the minister upon the recommendation of the government and he negotiates for the government and represents the government in everything concerning the public business of his country in the foreign country to which he is accredited. I do not want to add anything to what I have said but I am sure that my right hon. friend will not make any change under the present circumstances.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
To provide, notwithstanding the terms of the Civil Service Act or any other act or law, for payment of honoraria to members of the public service-subject to allocation by the treasury board, $10,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) whose department is most affected by this item prefers that I should make the observations which he would desire to make. There are men in various departments of the public service who have rendered extra services to the country. Upon a former occasion the late Mr. Robb asked for an appropriation of a similar amount to provide for similar payments. In many cases these ^ men have assumed the functions of deputies. Take the case of one gentleman who will be covered by this vote, Mr. Pearson. Mr. Pearson is on the verge of a complete breakdown because of the extra work he did in connection with the price spreads commission. He worked many nights and sometimes well into -the next day. This amount is to take care of such cases and the principle

was adopted by the late Mr. Robb in dealing with exceptional conditions which arose in connection with public business.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not intend to take exception to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said but I do think it is desirable that wherever possible the name of the person should be specified.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Robb did not mention names in his estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether that was not done formerly or whether it is not being done at the present time, I think it would create a better feeling in the service generally to give full particulars of these special recommendations. In the case mentioned by the Prime Minister, I agree and I think every hon. member will agree that Mr. Pearson performed services which it would have been extremely difficult to have obtained otherwise. The mention of Mr. Pearson's name would not have made it less easy for the item to be .passed and I think it might have helped to avoid some of the feeling which is certain to arise among other members of the service where names are not specified and a general power is given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National research council-further amount required, $100,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The main
estimates contained a vote of something like $400,000 for the national research council and I should like to know what has made necessary an additional amount of $100,000 within the time which has elapsed since the main estimates were before the house.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I shall
be glad to give the committee full information. As the right hon. gentleman has stated, vote No. 284 in the main estimates provided an amount of $400,000 which is necessary for existing activities but which does not permit the council effectively to discharge the duties and responsibilities assigned to it. The supplementary estimate is required for four different matters.
First, it is to provide for pressing new activities. These include the transfer to the national research council of the testing laboratories of the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario; the investigation of problems of the building and construction industry, including research on building materials; the organization of a cooperative investigation in the field of aquicuiture, limnobiology, and fresh water biology; the coordination of work on the

Supply-Research Council
extremely important problem of silicosis; and to provide for any additional new problems which may arise or which may be assigned to the council by the government.
The laboratories of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario at present fix safety standards and test electrical equipment offered for sale in Canada, and their test is accepted by the fire underwriters. There is no such laboratory in any other province, at present the manufacturers depending largely on the underwriters laboratories in the United States. It is extremely undesirable that each province should establish its own laboratory, as this would mean duplication of equipment and operating expense and would inevitably lead to a multiplicity of provincial standards governing the manufacture of electrical equipment, with increased cost to the consumer. The national research council has consequently established a national laboratory for the testing of such equipment for all of the provinces except Ontario, which has its own laboratory. It is now proposed that the national research laboratories should serve the entire dominion in this matter, and although the attorney general of Ontario was at first opposed on the ground of provincial rights, he has changed his view and the way is now clear to transfer these provincial laboratories to the control of the national research council. It is considered expedient that prompt action should be taken in this matter.
The construction industry is the third largest in Canada, but only meagre scientific data are available regarding materials and practices used in construction in the dominion. Further, the use by architects and contractors of information secured from foreign laboratories adversely affects the use of Canadian materials. Considerable sums have been provided bv the British government for research in this field and much of this valuable information might be made applicable to Canadian conditions at comparatively small expense. There is also great need for definite information regarding Canadian building materials. The Canadian Construction Association, the Royal Architectural Institute, the Canadian Hospital Council and the Canadian Manufacturers Association have all urged that the national research council undertake work in this field. The council is convinced that both the industry and the public would benefit greatly by such work and that the expenditure would be extremely small compared to the benefits to be derived. This work is extremely important at a time when Canada is planning considerable expenditure on a housing plan.
Second, this vote is to provide grants in aid of research and also to provide for applications received during the coming year. During the four years, 1928 to 1932, the average annual expenditure of the national research council on grants in aid of research in laboratories throughout Canada totalled approximately $140,000. Owing to increased commitments in connection with the establishment of the national research laboratories, combined with a reduced appropriation, the council was able to allocate only S5.000 for this purpose this year, from its existing appropriation. It is therefore considered essential that this small additional amount be provided in order that the council may in some measure discharge its obligation to stimulate research work throughout Canada.
Third, it is to provide for general administration, including increased amounts required for the operation of the laboratories and publication, also for travelling expenses of council members, staff and members of associate committees with the object of coordinating and directing research work on main cooperative projects. For the purpose of coordinating and directing cooperative investigations on major research problems the national research council has in active operation more than twenty-five associate committees with a total membership of several hundred eminent scientists and business men, who are serving without remuneration in directing and carrying on this work. It is necessary that these committees should meet at reasonable intervals to report and discuss past work and future activities. The council has been able to provide for this purpose only $2,400 from its existing appropriation. It is clear that these committees cannot function efficiently unless this appropriation is increased.
It has been necessary for the appropriations for the operation of the national research laboratories to be reduced below the amount provided last year by $3,500, and it is considered essential that this allotment be increased in the interest of efficient operation.
It is also necessary that the allotment for the publication of the Canadian Journal of Research be increased to provide for the publication of the results of researches undertaken in the national research laboratories and in other Canadian laboratories. It is essential that the results of the researches carried on should be made available by publication.
Fourth, the vote is to provide equipment urgently required by the national research laboratories. More than $185,000 actually
Supply-Research Council

voted by parliament for equipment in the national research laboratories remained unexpended at the end of the year 1932-33. This equipment was urgently required but it was considered necessary to effect this saving, owing to the serious financial situation then existing. However, it was understood that necessary equipment would be provided in instalments from year to year, and in fulfilment of this understanding the sum of $25,000 was voted in 1933-34 and $30,000 in 1934-35. Therefore, of the amount voted by parliament in 1932-33 for equipment in the national research laboratories, there remains unexpended, at the present time, more than $133,000. They take the view that this amount has been standing to their credit, and they are asking to have a portion voted this year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister think that the financial situation has improved since 1932?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I certainly do. The national research council requests that part of these unexpended moneys previously provided by parliament for this purpose be voted this year to provide equipment urgently required in order effectively to carry on the work of the council. A detailed statement of equipment required by the council can be given if desired. The vote requested will be used for the purchase and installation of equipment listed and also such other equipment as may be necessary for the effective prosecution of new projects undertaken by the council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Governor General's Warrants, 1934-35
Expenses of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying (governor general's warrants of July 30, November 3, and December 10, 1934). $155,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What was the total cost of this investigation?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman will recall that part of it was under a committee of the house last year and part of it under a royal commission. The actual cost of the two was in the vicinity of $475,000 plus some printing, the actual amount of which I have never been able to get. I do not know that my department is specifically responsible for checking the matter because it did not come through us. The first part was entirely a House of Commons matter
rMr. R. B. Hanson.]
and was in last year's vote, but my understanding is that the actual cost of the whole, including the printing, which of course is under the printing bureau, was about $475,000. It may be a little more or a little less.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A half million, in round figures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A little less.


Mr. FACTOR:: There was a rumour among the commissioners-I -could never trace it- that the government succeeded in collecting arrears of taxes from certain corporations. Will the minister make a statement in that regard?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We do not generally deal in rumours, but I have it on good authority that as the result of the activities of the commission there was turned into the coffers of the country a very Large sum of money.


Mr. SPENCER:: Large enough to pay all the expenses of the commission?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is a matter of rumour; the money was not paid to me, so I do not know.


Frederick George Sanderson: I believe this question was asked the Minister of Finance not long ago and he said there was not.


Mr. GOLDING:: I asked the Minister of National Revenue that question on March 12, 1935. The question and answer were as follows:
Mr. Golding: Have any sums been collected by the income tax departments as a result of revelations before the price spreads and mass buying commission, and if so what is the amount?
Mr. Matthews:	I am informed that the
answer is no; no amount has been collected.


Mr. MANION:: That is four months ago.


William Henry Golding: If any sum has been collected the committee ought to have that information. This investigation has cost the country a lot of money and I would call the attention of the house to the fact that when 'the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) proposed a resolution asking for an investigation into the spread between the price received by producers and the price paid by consumers for certain goods and agricultural commodities-that resolution was

Supply-Governor General's Warrants
brought in on February 6, 1933-he suggested that the investigation be made through the research council. In view of the enormous expense in connection with this affair, I think that wa9 a very wise suggestion; and had it been acted on the same information could have been obtained at a fraction of the cost. Hon. gentlemen should pay some attention to the statements that- have been made inregard to the questions that were answered. Take some of the witnesses who were brought heTe. It is interesting to take the report of the proceedings and read the evidence given, by these witnesses, and then, to reflect upon the expense involved in bringing them here. We find that one witness coming from the west and giving evidence was paid-this was part of one day-S149.15, and it would not have required more -than a three cent postage stamp to secure from him all the information he gave. About all he did in a constructive way was ,to recommend that we should1 have a policy of inflation, and that is what we have had to a certain extent. Another witness brought down cost $150 or a little over, and the only constructive suggestions he offered were these two: first, that the farmer should not sell any of his products on the farm, and secondly, that we ought to have hogs graded on the rail, which has been in effect for some time, in Ontario at any rate, where it is optional. I should like this same gentleman to go to the farmers of Ontario'and tell them they should not sell anything on their farms; I fancy he would not get a very good reception. But the point is -that that evidence cost over $150, whereas all that was needed was a three cent postage stamp-and you would not have needed that.
I do not think the price spreads commission finished their work at all, because in my opinion they should have investigated some of the prices in connection with the commission itself. This was a price spreads investigating commission, and we have Mr. Sommerville receiving $150 a day and $15 expenses, and Mr. Parry receiving $35 a day and $15 expenses. I think they should have had an investigation there to find out the reason for this spread between these two prices. Further, Mr. Sommerville was paid for 196 days while the committee and the commission sat for only 124 days; in other words, he was paid for 72 days when neither the committee nor the commission was sitting at all.


Frederick George Sanderson: Including Sundays?


William Henry Golding: No; I checked that. I asked some questions in regard to this matter. The first was:
How many days did Norman Sommerville, K.C., act as counsel for the committee and royal commission on price spreads and mass buying?
The answer was this:
Mr. Norman Sommerville, K.C., acted as counsel for the committee and the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying for 196 days; 124 days of this period were spent in actually attending public sessions of the committee and the commission, while the balance of 72 days was devoted to interviewing witnesses-
Mark you!
-consultations with auditors, investigators, and in preparing the evidence to be adduced before the committee or commission.
The second question was:
What was his remuneration per day?
The answer was:
Mr. Sommerville's remuneration was $150 per day for the above period. This rate of remuneration was authorized by the committee and later confirmed by the commission. During the summer Mr. Sommerville-
Listen to this.

devoted a considerable amount of time to the gathering and preparation of evidence for submission to the commission, to consultations with auditors and investigators, and to interviewing of witnesses, but for this work no account was submitted and no remuneration paid.
The answer to the first question told us that for those seventy-two days when neither the committee nor the commission was sitting, he was paid, and it gave what he was doing during that time, namely, interviewing witnesses and having consultations with auditors and investigators. In the answer to the next question we are told that he was doing that during the summer and was not paid at all for that work.


John Thomas Hackett: Was that not in addition?


William Henry Golding: I can quite understand that may be the interpretation of the answer, but I was under the impression that this was an investigation, not a prosecution; and what I and the country would like to know is why those witnesses were approached, interviewed and no doubt consulted and prompted before they came before the committee or the commission.
1210	COMMONS
Supply-Governor General's Warrants


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


William Henry Golding: I have not any doubt
that is what happened. My opinion-and I think this is the opinion of the people generally-is that those witnesses should have come before the committee or commission without any interference whatsoever and given their evidence. Furthermore, we find a list of witnesses that were paid and a large number of witnesses that were not paid at all. If this was an investigation and the whole object was to ascertain the facts and the truth of the situation, one witness ought to be paid just as well as another; I think that is a fair submission. We have the spread between the fees Mr. Parry and Mr. Sommer-ville were paid. I would like to ask the minister this: What did the firm of auditors, Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle and Nash put in for the services of their auditors per individual per day? That is the first question.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Without
questioning the hon. gentleman's right to discuss this matter at all under this vote-


Mr. BROWN:: Why mention it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
hon. gentleman will allow me to continue, perhaps I can make the position clear; I do not know that it calls for any interruption at all. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman and the committee that the expenditures of the house committee and of the royal commission were not under the control of any department of government, and the information, if it is necessary, ought to be sought from the committee or the royal commission itself. We had no control over the amount paid to witnesses or to counsel-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, the
auditor general may have had some control, but I understand that in every case the committee voted the money; it was our duty to pay it and it was paid. So far as I am concerned, as minister of this department, I assume no responsibility for what the committee did in the way of expenditures. The house voted the money and it is a responsibility of every member of the house just as much as it is of the government. As regards the amount paid to the auditors, which of course was very large, I do not know how the amount was distributed to any particular

individual. That is not the way in which these services are charged for by an auditing firm. They do a job and charge a sum. No doubt the items for the auditors' work came before the committee; the committee must have thought they were satisfactory because my understanding is that the committee unanimously voted to pay these bills.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
question is not whether the committee did so; the point is that we are entitled to receive the information and the minister can get it from the auditor general who must have audited all these vouchers and receipts. Surely when an hon. member asks for information, he 'is entitled to receive it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I had
had any notice that this matter w'as coming up-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Get the information
to-morrow.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall be glad to get whatever information is available, but as a matter of fact the Department of Trade and Commerce had no responsibility for the expenditure.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I quite
appreciate that, but the House of Commons is entitled to the information.


Samuel Factor: May I as a member of the committee say that we were never consulted about the auditors' bills. The amount of , the counsel fee was fixed by the committee and the commission, but the fees of the auditors were never submitted to the committee or the commission. I do not know yet how they were fixed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The accounts were rendered to the committee and the commission and certified, and the auditor general paid them.


Samuel Factor: They were never submitted to the committee or commission for approval.


William Henry Golding: I want to thank the minister because I think he is fair. He has not the information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the minister bring the information to-morrow?
Progress reported.


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

Questions
Thursday, July 4, 1935