1936-06-22

Mr. REID:: 1.	What persons have been invited by the government to attend the unveiling of the Vimy memorial on July 26, 1936?
2.	Have any Canadian pipe bands been asked to take part, and, if so, will the personnel consist of representation from the various militia units of Canada?
3.	Is the government taking any steps to look after any Canadian pilgrims who may suffer through illness or disability during their visit to England and Europe?
4.	In what way, and to what extent is the government cooperating with the Canadian Legion with respect to this national ceremony?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The following have been invited to be the guests of the Canadian government at the unveiling of the memorial: Sir Robert and Lady Borden; Sir George and Lady Perley; Sir Eugene and Lady Fiset; Lady Byng; Lady Currie. A number of invitations to be present at the unveiling will also be issued by the High Commissioner for Canada, London, England, and the Canadian Minister to France.
2.	Yes. One piper (selected by the officer -ommanding the regiment) from each high-
Questions

land regiment in Canada; and the drummers will be supplied by the 48th Highlanders of Canada.
3.	The hon. the Minister of Pensions and National Health has given authority to cover the pensioner-pilgrims during the official trip as if they were resident in Canada. All pensioner-pilgrims have been notified to this effect in detail under circular letter issued from the department under date of May 29, 1936. The honourable the minister has designated the 31 ex-soldier doctors who are accompanying this trip as pilgrims, as temporary medical representatives of the department, with power to act. The minister has also arranged for a certain amount of casual medicines for all pilgrims at departmental cost, and is sending a medical hamper with each ship.
4.	While the government is making the necessary arrangements for the unveiling of the memorial, there has been the closest possible cooperation between the government and the Canadian Legion. The Canadian Legion has not asked that any financial assistance should be extended to the pilgrims; but in fixing the date for the unveiling and in all other arrangements, the government has at all times had first regard to the requirements and convenience of the pilgrims.



INSPECTION OF CATTLE-VETERINARIANS

Mr. REID:: 1.	At what cities or towns will examinations be held for positions as temporary veterinary surgeons in connection with cattle inspection at the various customs ports?
2.	Who will conduct the various examinations ?


Mr. GARDINER:: No examinations are
contemplated to fill positions as temporary veterinary surgeons in connection with cattle inspected at the various customs ports, but the Department of Agriculture is holding an examination on July 8 to increase the number of accredited veterinarians. These veterinarians are not remunerated by the department but are paid for their services by the live stock owner who employ them. They are authorized to conduct tuberculin tests of export cattle and tuberculin tests of animals purchased for additions to herds under the department's tuberculosis control policies, and to collect blood for serological tests for Bang's disease of export cattle.
These examinations will be held at: Moncton, New Brunswick; Montreal, Quebec; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; London, Ontario; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Brandon, Manitoba; Regina, Saskatchewan; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Calgary, Alberta; Edmonton, Alberta; Vancouver. British Columbia.

An officer of the health of animals branch will be in charge of the examination at each of these points.



REVEREND HENRI LANCTIN

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was the Reverend Henri Lanctin at any time debarred by the Canadian radio commission from the use of the broadcasting station at Moncton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, for what reason or reasons?
3.	Was a formal complaint made against the said Reverend Henri Lanctin, and, if so, was such complaint investigated?
4.	If investigated did the radio commission find the complaint justified?
5.	Has the radio commission withdrawn the suspension, if any, against the said Reverend Henri Lanctin?


Mr. HOWE:: This is a matter for the
broadcasting commission. The Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission filed a return of papers in this connection, and evidently they thought that covered this question as well. If further information is required I shall be glad to secure it and give it to my hon. friend.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE- ALERT BAY, B.C., STATION

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been recently started at Alert Bay?
2.	Has it been recommended that a barracks should be built for their accommodation?
3.	Was there a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at that place about the year-1921?
4.	If so, when was it closed?
5.	Since then has there been any considerable increase in the number of crimes committed?
6.	Since then has there been any serious crime committed, and at what place?
7.	Is there a station of provincial police at Alert Bay?
8.	Is there any reason to suppose that they are not competent to handle the enforcement of the law in that neighbourhood?
9.	Before recommending the establishment of a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at that place, was the attorney general of British Columbia or the commissioner of police, for that province, consulted or asked if they were unable to handle the enforcement of the law in that place?
10.	On whose recommendation was the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police station at that place authorized, and what reasons were given.
11.	Were any steps taken to check up the accuracy of such statements?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	Yes. A detachment of the R.C.M. Police was reopened at Alert Bay on the 15th January, 1936.
2.	No.

Questions
3.	Yes. It was opened in the first place on the 26th January, 1920.
4.	26th April, 1924.
5.	No information.
6.	No information.
7.	Yes.
8.	They are believed to be competent to handle the situation, but the Department of Indian Affairs report that the members of the provincial police are too busy with other matters to attend to Indians who are considered federal charges.
9.	No, but the conditions complained of were investigated by the R.C.M. Police, and charges were laid and convictions obtained. This seems to bear out the contention that the British Columbia provincial police are too busy to attend to such matters. Furthermore, some of the Indians in the area have become hostile to authority and are alleged to be getting out of hand.
10.	In October, 1935, the representative of the Department of Indian Affairs in British Columbia requested the officer commanding the mounted police in that province to establish a detachment at Alert Bay, in order to protect the Indians in that area from the sale of intoxicants. As stated above, the conditions complained of were investigated by the R.C.M. Police and charges were laid against certain persons and convictions followed. After the investigation previously mentioned, the officer commanding at Vancouver recommended the establishment of a detachment at Alert Bay, principally to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquor to Indians, and to enquire into any infractions of the Excise Act.
11.	Answered by No. 10.



CANTERBURY STATION, N.B., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has Thomas J. McMullin been removed as postmaster of Canterbury Station post office, York county, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, for what reason or reasons?
3.	Was the said Thomas J. McMullin appointed by the civil service commission?
4.	Is the department aware that the said Thomas J. McMullin is a returned soldier who served overseas with distinction and bears a military decoration?
5.	Has the department received any protest or protests from any branch or branches of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League relative to the above change?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2.	In order to place the office at a more central site and to provide better accommodation and service.
3.	Yes. Before the office was removed from the jurisdiction of the civil service commission.
4.	Records show that Thomas J. McMullin is a returned soldier.
5.	Yes.



GOODS IMPORTED UNDER $100 EXEMPTION

Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What is the value of the goods brought into Canada during the month of May, 1936, by toui'ists returning from the United States, under the $100 exemption?
2.	Under what classifications do these goods come?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	$107,172.
2.	For the purpose of this item the following classifications of goods have been adopted:
Automobile accessories	 $ 2,643
Automobile tires and tubes.. ..	2,065
Boots and shoes	 10393
Clothing	 60,481
Foodstuffs	 115
Furniture and household appliances	 11,280
Miscellaneous articles	 20,195
steamer tashmoo Mr. CHURCH:
1.	Has the attention of the government been
called to a disaster in Ontario waters at Amherstburg on Friday, June 19, to the steamer Tashmoo conveying 1,400 passengers and which steamer struck a shoal in the Detroit river?	_
2.	Will an inquiry into the said accident be held by the wreck commission under the federal statute?
3.	Will the government consider some form of recognition to the captain and crew who showed great heroism?
4.	What steps, if any, will be taken to improve these navigation channels with a view to the public safety?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I answered this question
verbally on Saturday.



STEAMER KINGSTON

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to an accident which happened at Brockville on Friday, the 19th instant, to the steamer Kingston?
2.	Will an inquiry be held into the same?
3.	If so, in these inquiries will protection be given the captain and crew?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Answered on Saturday.



NIAGARA RIVER SHOAL

Mr. CHURCH:: 1. Has the attention of the government been called to a large sand shoal and formation at the mouth of the Niagara river on lake Ontario, partly on the Canadian side and partly on tb' American side, which sand shoal
Motions for Papers

is a menace to navigation and to the large steamers using the Niagara river ports and the new Welland canal?
2.	Will the government take steps to protect navigation in the interests of public safety?
3.	Will the government negotiate with the government of the United States regarding the removal of this shoal in the eastern entrance to Toronto harbour in the interests of navigation and public safety?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Answered on Saturday.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. MacNJCO'L (for Mr. Wilton):
For a copy of all letters and all correspondence from Hamilton business men to the Minister of National Revenue on making effective the $100 duty exemption on American goods coming into Canada.
Mr. DUNNING:: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton.) is not in the house, but if he were here I should like to request him to withdraw this motion, in view of the fact that I have received communications from the parties concerned stating that they do not think any correspondence addressed to me on a matter of public interest should be used in a manner which would be calculated to injure their business, and requesting me not to make their communications public. I feel a little embarrassed about it; I am quite sure the matter is not one of great importance to the hon. member for Hamilton West, and I am quite sure he would have withdrawn his motion on that representation if I had had an opportunity to speak to him.


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton West is not present, but the issue raised by the observations of the Minister of Finance would, I think, require further consideration. Inasmuch as we are at the end of the session it seems to me the question can be dropped for the moment, but I could hardly be taken as agreeing with what the minister has stated. Those who write letters on public questions to departments of the government must be prepared to accept responsibility for the communications they make, assuming they are in the public interest.
Motion dropped.



CANTERBURY STATION, N.B., POSTMASTER

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, affidavits or any other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department

regarding the dismissal of Thomas J. McMullin, postmaster at Canterbury Station, York county, New Brunswick.



SANCTIONS AGAINST ITALY NEWS BROADCAST FROM STATION 2RO, ROME, ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are called I desire to direct attention to a matter which may or may not affect the privileges of this house, or at least of parliament as a whole. At seven o'clock Atlantic standard time on Wednesday evening last there came in the news broadcast from Station 2RO, Rome, the station through which the Italian government sends its broadcasts, the following:
The Canadian council of ministers at a meeting held yesterday decided to favour the abolition of sanctions because they had proved worthless.
That was two days before the news was communicated to this house. It may or may not involve the necessity on the part of the government of making some inquiries; I do not know, but I think it is my duty to direct attention to it.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My right hon. friend is
quite right in directing attention to the communication to which he has referred. I had not personally known of the matter which he has brought to the attention of the house. If I had I should certainly have adopted the course which he has suggested and had it inquired into at once. It will be inquired into forthwith.



STAFF AT PORT OF CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe). On June 15 an order was passed for a return showing the seasonal and temporary employees nt Churchill. The minister was kind enough to write me a note stating that he had sent on the reference to Churchill. If it is not tabled to-day it certainly cannot be tabled during this session. I wonder if he would be kind enough to agree that when the return comes back from Churchill he will let me have the list of employees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The orders for returns go through the Secretary of State. I am sure if my hon. friend will write a note to the Secretary of State he will receive the list from him.

Railway Maintenance Work


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Perhaps I may add that my officer has had instructions to collect everything possible to-day, and returns will be tabled right along during the sitting. I shall direct the special attention of my officer to my hon. friend's request.



REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether he has any information to impart to the house or any statement to make in regard to the effect of the supreme court decision on the Natural Products Marketing Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, up to the present council has not had time to consider the matter fully, but the vote in connection with marketing is still to be considered and I hope to have some information at that time.



PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF OPINIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether it is the intention to print and publish the opinions of the Supreme Court of Canada on the matters referred to it by the government at the last session of the court.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the printed opinions be available for distribution to members?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, this has been arranged, and as soon as possible my hon. friend will be supplied with a copy.


Mr. HEAPS:: And all hon. members?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course.



RAILWAY MAINTENANCE WORK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe). Why have men from British Columbia been brought into the Peace River country by the government to work on the Northern Alberta railway when there are many hundreds of residents on relief at the point where the work is being done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is aware of the agreement entered into with the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways to absorb men from relief camps. It is pointed out that this work is in addition to maintenance work which would normally be done this season, and obviously in order to absorb 9,600 men from the relief camps it is necessary to distribute them in every part of the dominion. My hon. friend's position in that respect is no different from that of any other hon. member of the house.


Mr. D. A. CAMERON (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: I should like to ask the minister if the undertaking given in parliament that the employment of these men would not interfere with the ordinary maintenance work is being adhered to by the railways.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been suggested to me by some hon. members that this clause was not being adhered to, and I have stated to each of them that if they will give me the name of any man employed in this work last year who is not employed this year I shall be very glad to take it up with the railway. Uip to date I have received no names.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: By the time you get the names of the men the work will be pretty well all over.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: In the agreement between the government and the railways in connection with the employment of men from relief camps on maintenance work there is provision for overtime pay when overtime is worked. I should like to know whether the pay for overtime is at the regular rate of twenty-five cents per hour, or if there is a difference in the pay when the eight hour period per day is exceeded.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement covering this work has been tabled, and my hon. friend could very easily look it up. I am not able to answer offhand.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member wants to know what it means.


Angus MacInnis: The agreement says-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Angus MacInnis: I do not wish to cause any debate on the matter, but the agreement states that overtime will be paid at pro rata rate. I should like to know just what that means. Perhaps the Minister of Justice might answer.
Small Property Owners


Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I
should like to ask a question of the minister of transport, in regard to the agreement between the department and the railways in connection with the relief camps. In municipalities where there are large relief lists of registered men, and where railway work might be done ,on spur or subsidiary lines in connection with the department, is the department working in conjunction with the relief authorities in that division where they may want five or ten men for a short time? Is that being worked out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The agreement between the department and the railway speaks for itself. It covers one particular feature of unemployment relief, namely single unemployed men previously in the relief camps. I believe that a few hundred men required to fill up the quota have been obtained by the Minister of Labour from certain municipalities, but that course is not general in any sense. Only some six hundred men were involved.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The department is
working in conjunction with the municipalities in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.



SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Some
time ago the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers) introduced a resolution in regard to giving assistance to industrial workers in urban centres. It was discussed in this house and supported by many and accepted by the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret). It is understood that people in industrial centres are losing their homes as rapidly as people in rural centres. The government promised to give them some consideration or assistance by way of lower taxation or lower interest. I assume they cannot lower the taxation, but it is taxation and interest that is killing the people who are losing their homes. The Prime Minister said that day that the Secretary of State was not in the house but he would see that he would answer the question. That was a month ago.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will allow me, I
made a reply the day after the Prime Minister said I would take the matter up. The hon. member will find the reply in Hansard.


David Spence: Well, I am sorry; I happened to miss it in Hansard the next day.



PENSION ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 26, to amend1 the Pension Act.
He said:	The amendments are not of
great importance. For instance, the word "seconded" has been changed to "delegated."
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 82, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
He said: The only change made was the insertion of the word "registered" before the word "holder" in conformity with similar changes made in this chamber.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 17, respecting national harbours board.
He said:	The amendment requires that
the board shall open tenders in public. The previous amendment, which was rejected, provided that the minister himself must open the tenders in public. The change removed the objection, and I therefore ask that the amendment be accepted.
Mr. STEWART:: I understand that the
bill retains the essential feature of opening tenders in public.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
Miction agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consideration of a message from the senate insisting upon its amendment to Bill No. 97, to amend the Combines Investigation Act-Mr. Mackenzie King.

Combines Investigation Act
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as the house will observe, the senate insists upon its amendment to Bill No. 07, an Act to Amend the Combines Investigation Act. By the bill as it went from this house to the senate it was sought to have the word "documents" dropped from the act as it stands, because the presence in the act of that word, in the opinion of the chief commissioner of the Trade and Industry Commission, renders the act useless. The opinion of the chief commissioner, Mr. Sedge-wick in that regard was supported, as was shown when I referred to the matter for the second time in this chamber, by the opinion of the Department of Justice. However, notwithstanding the views as expressed in that official way, supplemented by statements at some length as to reasons why the fears of the Senate would appear to be unwarranted, and the grounds upon which the amendment had been insisted upon not well founded, the senate insist upon their amendment. Of course the effect of the senate amendment, as I have already said, is that of rendering the Combines Investigation Act worthless.
May I point out that this is the third time this chamber has requested that the clause in question in the Combines Act should not include the word "documents" in order that the act might serve the purpose for which it was intended. At the last session the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) then Prime Minister sought, this in a bill which passed this house and was sent to the senate, which bill contained a clause similar to the one which appears in the bill introduced by the present government. As the leader of the opposition has remarked, when the bill of last session returned from the senate it contained the amendment which the senate has now insisted should be made at this time. It was very late in the session and the government of that day permitted the senate amendment to remain, under protest.
At this session of parliament reasons were given in this house before the bill was sent to the Senate making clear wherein the amendment made by the Senate at the previous session rendered the Combines Investigation Act valueless. As a matter of fact it has not been thought advisable to proceed under the act since the Senate took their previous action. It will not be possible with t'he present suggested amendment to proceed under it, from now on, until the act is changed in the particulars indicated by this house.
For three times in succession within a year the Senate has refused in connection with the Combines Investigation Act to make a change which this house regards as imperative, and
has each time said so unanimously. May I point out that the last time we discussed the matter not only was the view of the government supported by the leader of the opposition but it was supported by the hon. member who leads the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In short, the view of the government was supported by all hon. members. Ordinarily I assume the next step would be to ask for a conference between this house and the Senate. Indeed it was suggested before the bill was sent over to the Senate for the second time this session that a conference might be asked for. However, from a reading of the debate in the Senate it would appear that no useful purpose could possibly be served by a conference. The bill was sent back to the Senate last Saturday afternoon, and before the evening session the Senate had taken its action upon it. Apparently the opposition in that house did not seek even to ascertain the views which had been expressed in this house on the matter. In fact, reference to the debate of that chamber will show that when the leader of the government in the Senate was about to put the motion that the Senate do not insist upon its amendment, the leader of the opposition in the Senate anticipated what the leader of the government was about to say and suggested that the words in the motion should be that the Senate insisted upon its amendment. When the leader of the government in the Senate sought to have further consideration of the matter and drew attention to the fact that the Department of Justice had given an opinion on the matter, as well as Mr. Justice Sedgewick, who is Chief Commissioner of the Trade and Industry Commission and, who as hon. members well know, was for years an eminent judge of the High Court of Ontario, the leader of the government in the Senate was told by the leader of the opposition in that chamber that he was not aware of any will of the Department of Justice in the matter, that he had not seen any opinion of that department, and to put the matter briefly that he the leader of the opposition was not going to debate the matter over again. The leader of the opposition concluded by saying, "I intend to resist the position of the Commons, and to stand by the position the Senate has taken." I might also point out that another member of the opposition in the Senate stated that it might be well for the House of Commons to try the matter again next year.
In these circumstances I can not see that any useful purpose would be served by a conference at this time. As I said the other day, the government has determined to carry out certain investigations which i' regards as

Combines Investigation Act
very much in the public interest, and which it had intended to have proceeded with under the Combines Investigation Act. But seeing that the act has been rendered valueless by the action of the Senate we will, in all probability as I indicated the other day, where other provisions of the act respecting the trade and industry commission do not suffice proceed with these investigations under royal commission between now and the .time the house reassembles. The Combines Investigation Act will need to have several amendments. These amendments will be considered between now and, the next session of parliament, and the amendments which will be sent from this house to the senate at an early stage of the next session will include the clause which, as I have said, this house has three times already asked should be inserted in the combines act in order to render that measure effective. But, with the position what it is at the moment, I certainly do not intend as leader of this House of Commons or Prime Minister of this country to go on my hands and knees to the senate to ask for consideration at least of the representations which this house has made to the senate with regard to an act which is so all-important >to the public interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I greatly deprecate the language the right hon. gentleman has just used. It is not seemly that the leader of the House of Commons should speak of one of the other houses, one of the three factors that constitute parliament, in the terms in which he has spoken. I think this is a case for the utilization of such conciliatory powers as we .possess, and our constitution has provided for a conference; that is the usual course. Why is a conference not held?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gave the reason.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason being that the suggested amendment had been rejected by the senate. But there is another method, the method of conference, and twice to my certain knowledge we have been able through that method to arrange matters, because it afforded the opportunity for an understanding. I feel quite certain there has been a misunderstanding in connection with this matter, and that if the Minister of Justice and others were to meet the representatives of the senate there would be little or no difficulty in having it adjusted.
Neither is it correct to say that insistence by the senate upon the amendment in any sense nullifies the powers of the combines act.

It does not lessen them in the least; it has to do only with what may be done in a criminal court. There is no restriction upon the power of the commission under Mr. Sedge-wick to make any inquiries it may desire to make. The only result of the action taken by the senate is that thereafter there is a limitation upon the use that may be made of the material thus secured: the witness can set up the plea or defence that it will incriminate him, and that will be the end of it. Now the law will stand as it did before we introduced the amendment into this house. It does not take out the section that we passed last session; it leaves it as it then was. The proposal we made in this chamber was that-
No person shall be excused from attending and giving evidence and producing books, papers or records, in obedience to the order of the commission, on the ground that the oral evidence or documents required of him may tend to criminate him or subject him to any proceeding or penalty,-
That is one phase of it.
*-but no such oral evidence so given shall be used _ or receivable against such person in any criminal proceedings thereafter instituted against him, other than a prosecution for perjury in the giving of such evidence.
That is the section we sent from this house. The senate struck out the section and left the act just as it was. In other words, the action which we took dealing with documents was nullified by the action taken in the senate. I cannot but think that if the Minister of Justice were 10 discuss the matter with a committee of the senate in the sense in which it was done in this chamber last Saturday, the result would be an adjustment of the difficulties; because I still think the senate is labouring under a misapprehension with respect to what the action is, and is confusing two terms. Apparently, when the leader of the government in the senate pressed his motion the senate had not before it the discussion in this house, and I think, had the discussion in this house been before the senate, whom I know to be reasonable men, they would have taken a different attitude from that which they have now taken.
I cannot think it is conducive to the conduct of orderly government to suggest that any one house of parliament goes on its knees to any other house of parliament. That is entirely beside the question. They have coordinate powers and jurisdiction except with respect to money bills; they are a part of the constitution of this country. A method is provided by which reasons may be given when we disagree with them or they with us; they are read to the chamber affected, and then appropriate action is taken. I think it

Combines Investigation Act
would have been better to have a conference rather than to send the bill back the last time, because when there has been a rejection once of a suggestion of the commons the next appropriate course is a conference. I recall several occasions upon which a conference has been held with satisfactory results.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
ask my right hon. friend whether we had a conference last year on the same point?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because, as the hon. gentleman will remember, when it came down-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
the last day of the session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was a few hours
before the time fixed for prorogation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have there
been conferences with this house this year on any other bills when the senate had rejected certain of their provisions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not that I know of.
That is why I say there should be a conference. Last year we had conferences; the year before we had conferences. Conferences are the method by which we meet together with the representatives of the other body and arrive at a conclusion, and I think it is the appropriate method; because in a debate in the house there is not the same opportunity for explanation and contact as there is when a conference is held. I cannot recall any conference I have known of that has not resulted in a satisfactory adjustment. I feel that if a conference were held there would be no necessity for using the language that has been used, nor would there be any cause for complaint or any grievance against another chamber. That is the position I desire to make clear. I think the senate is entirely in error in rejecting the proposals we have made in the measure we passed. I think so for the reason. I gave in the house the other day, and I will not repeat it. I also feel confident, from my knowledge of the members of the senate as reasonable men, that if they understood clearly the effect of our proposal they would not so summarily reject it. Further I believe that a conference of a few minutes' duration. would remove the difficulties, and I think we are not taking the right course in not holding one. It is no lessening of our own dignity or our own authority or importance to deal with the senate in. a manner which heretofore has always been the method employed when there has been a deadlock. I regret very much that the minister has taken the view that the conference should
not be held. It is not conducive to harmonious working, nor in the long run will it improve the position of the institution of parliament in this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon leader of the opposition says be thinks f conference should have taken place at th< present stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After the first rejection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the first rejection. May I point out that the senate has rejected several clauses of bills which have been sent over from this house in the course of this session, and in no instance has anyone suggested that a conference should take place at that stage; indeed a conference was not necessary, because the senate at the time was prepared to reconsider its attitude, and on reconsidering it they did accept in most cases the views of the House of Commons. There is no reason why a conference should have taken place after the first reading in the case of the combines bill any more than it should have with respect to the harbours bill and several other important bills-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes; because last
year they rejected it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -which have gone over from this house. That is the first point. In the second place, may I say my right hon. friend is wrong when he says that the reason we are not asking at the moment for a conference is that the senate insists upon this amendment. That is not the reason. If the senate had taken due notice of what was said in this house, if it had taken notice of what the leader of the government in the senate asked its members to consider, namely the opinion of the justice department, the opinion of Mr. Sedgewick, and I may add, the opinion of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Confederation (Mr. Woodsworth), and if there had been a disposition to consider the matter at all, I think then that possibly a conference might have served some useful purpose. May I point out again just how all-important the request of this house is and why the attitude of the senate at this time would seem to render any conference fruitless. The Honourable Mr. Sedgewick has given in a sentence or two his opinion as to the significance of the clause in the amended form in which this house wishes to have it appear:
The purpose of the amendment is not to render admissible documents otherwise inadmissible, but to provide that admissible docu ments are not inadmissible.

Combines Investigation Act
If the section stands, the best thing that could happen to a person guilty of combining in restraint of trade is to be required on investigation to produce the documents proving the offence. Thereafter he will be immune from conviction by means of the agreement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the leader of the government in the senate bring that opinion and the opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to the attention of the senate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend has asked me that question, I will answer it by reading from the senate report. It is as follows:
Hon. Mr. Dandurand: 

that the Senate do not insist upon its amendment. I suppose my Right Honourable friend after having made a noble fight to affirm his own principles, will abide by the will of the Department of Justice, supported by the opinion of Mr. Justice Sedgewick, and will vote for my motion.
Mr. Sedgewick's opinion is referred to there specifically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did he read it?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was not read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not read, but for what reason? Immediately after the leader of the government used those words in the senate, the right hon. leader of the opposition in the senate used these words:
I do not know of any will of the Department of Justice in parliamentary matters, and I have not seen any opinion of the Department of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Listen to what follows:
To put it briefly-for I am certainly not going to debate the matter over again-I intend to resist the position of the Commons and to stand by the decision the Senate has taken.
What further opportunity was offered to the leader of the government in the senate to discuss the matter at that stage?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He should have seen
the two opinions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. leader of the opposition says that the senate action does not render the act ineffective, that other provisions of the act remain, but the other provisions are not as important as this one. Mr. Sedgwick says that this provision is all-important; that if it is not there you simply enable a man. who has taken a course of proceedings which may be criminal to protect himself against any subsequent criminal proceedings by attempting 
to proceed under the Combines Investigation Act. I am reminded that Mr. Sedgewick's views were expressed in the discussion which took place when we first dealt with the matter on June 12.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was a subsequent opinion which was read later.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The first opinion covered the essential points. It was after this that the leader of the opposition in the senate stated that he did	not	see any object	indebating the question further. In these circumstances there would	appear to	be	no
prospect of having the amendment made at this time. Having regard for the language used by the leader of the opposition in the senate I certainly think it would be quite futile to attempt anything further by a conference.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are apparently unanimous in	our	opposition	to	thesenate amendment.	We	differ only as	to
method. While I should be the very last to advise going on our knees to the senate, it does occur to me that since a conference is the recognized procedure, it might be a good thing to go through every possible step, if for no other reason than to pile up a case against the senate and leave them no loophole whatever. I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that I am very glad indeed that the government has determined to go through with the inquiry in spite of the senate.
I should like to take this occasion to suggest to the government that the people generally-I hope I can interpret aright their ideas-are ready for the government to take sonm steps to curb the power of the senate in .this country. As every hon. member knows, in Gieat Britain the House of Lords, to which in its functions our upper house to a certain extent corresponds, is unable to thwart permanently the will of the people. As I understand it, they can twice reject legislation passed by the commons, but when such legislation is presented a third time it must go through automatically. In any case the House of Commons in England has a club over the House of Lords in that it can create a larger number of lords. I think we have the most antiquated form of control by a second chamber to be found in any democracy. Since the Liberal party has for years urged the reform of the senate, in view of the various incidents that have recently taken place it is high time steps were taken to reform the senate, if necessary by changes in our constitution.

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
In this particular case the situation is aggravated by the fact, known to all, that a well known member of the senate was recently involved in an inquiry. It is an outrage that the fullest inquiry into what is a very serious state of affairs should be blocked by a chamber which has not taken action against certain of its members.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: May I draw
attention to the fact that the opinion of Mr. Sedgewick was brought to the attention of the senate on June 17, 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the first
opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and it
includes the following words in conclusion:
I am quite satisfied in my own mind that the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission *-of which I am chief commissioner-would not risk having an investigator require the production of any documents until this act is amended.
I hope it may not be considered presumption on my part to say the amendment suggested is indispensable to a proper administration of the Combines Investigation Act.
Apparently the fact that Mr. Sedgewick's opinion had been cited in this house, and that Mr. Sedgewick had ventured an opinion was resented by the leader of the opposition in the senate instead of inducing further consideration, because I find the following words on page 579 of the senate record:
Right Hon. Mr. Meighen:	Yes.	_
Honourable members, I want to make a brief comment on the letter of Mr. Justice Sedgewick, just read by the leader of the government. The intimation of the letter is that the amendment made in this house and accepted by the other house, was merely in the nature of a last gasping spasm while we were in the midst of death.
As far as this house is concerned, it was nothing of the kind.
So far as this house is concerned, there will not be any last gapping spasm in connection with securing further action in this matter from the leader of the opposition in the senate. I want to say to my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Woodsworth) that I concur very strongly in the views he has expressed on these matters which so vitally affect the well being of the great masses of the people of this country. Where the House of Commons, representing the people in their elected chamber stresses at least on three occasions the necessity for some all important legislation, unless there is something in the nature of very exceptional reasons to the contrary, that legislation should be granted by the senate.
I would say further that this is not the only piece of legislation which the present government has introduced at t'his session,
which we regarded as of importance in dealing with the most difficult of all problems facing the country at the present time, and which the senate has thrown out. It may be just as well for hon. members of the Senate to have a month or two to reflect upon what is going to be the consequence of repeated action of this kind; and, believing that reflection is advisable, the government proposes to allow the matter to stand as it is for the present, with respect to the Combines Investigation Act, but to proceed again at an early stage next session with amendments to that measure including the one which we have endeavoured to have carried at the present session.


Ernest Lapointe: For the purpose of setting the facts right, and in answer to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I may say that not only was the opinion of Mr. Sedgewick given to the senate on June 18, when this bill was in committee of the whole in the senate, but the opinion of the Department of Justice was also given to the members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the second opinion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt the first opinions were before the senate, but the second opinions were not. I should have had great confidence in the conciliatory presentation of the case by the Minister of Justice to the members of the senate. In the last five years I have been on joint committees of the house and the senate and I believe that on one of them the present Minister of Justice was also a member. In any case, a reasonable presentation by oral argument, in which misapprehensions are removed, will almost certainly lead to an amicable agreement with respect to almost any difference of this kind.
Amendment read the first time.



STATEMENT OF MR. BENNETT WITH RESPECT TO DISMISSALS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This would seem to be the only appropriate opportunity that will be afforded this session to present grievances before supply is granted, and I desire to direct attention, in no acrimonious spirit, to one or two matters that have arisen out of the conduct of government in connection with appointments to the public service and dismissals. I am not for a moment dealing with that phase of administrative action that has to do with ordinary employment and dismissals. I
Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

recognize, as I have so frequently said, that the government of the day must necessarily, under our institutions, give effect to the views of its supporters and make appointments and dismissals of those who are not protected by the terms of the Civil Service Act or who have in other ways, by other methods, made themselves amenable to the punitive provisions of our statutes with respect to those who are in the public service. But there is another phase of the matter to which I should like to direct attention. It is far more important in one sense to every member of this house than any mere question of patronage because it affects an arrangement that was made many years ago and which in the main has successfully worked, but one that can work only with the exercise of the utmost good faith on the part of those who are responsible for its administration.
In 1911, when Sir Robert Borden came into office, a discussion took place in the first session regarding the question of patronage and dismissals from the public service. Sir Robert Borden said:
I would like to point out to my hon. friend what he seems to have forgotten, that with respect to both the inside service and the outside service this matter has been settled. In the first place by a statute of Canada concerning the inside service, in the second place by a resolution of this house, concurred in by both political parties with regard to the outside service. So far as the inside service is concerned, the statutory provision to which I desire to call attention is to be found in the act of 1908 introduced and passed by the late administration. Section 43 of that statute is as follows:
No officer, clerk or employee in the civil service shall be debarred from voting at any dominion or provincial election if under the laws governing the said election he has the right to vote; but no such officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with said election.
That has been somewhat modified, amended by section 55 of the Civil Service Act; but the general purpose is exactly the same and the end sought is attained, I think, by the use of substantially similar words. Sir Robert Borden continued:
Now, so far as the outside service is concerned, the rule was embodied in a resolution of the House of Commons moved by Mr. Lake on the 17th July, 1905, and accepted by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who was then leading the government, and that rule is in these words:
That whilst it is desirable that every official in the employ of the government of Canada, should enjoy perfect freedom of political opinion, and the untrammelled exercise of his franchise in accord therewith, no official should be engaged, or permitted to engage, in partisan work of any description in the election of a representative to the provincial or dominion legislature.

On the same page-890-referring to Mr. A. K. Maclean, he said:
Now, my hon. friend has spoken of what should be necessary to convince the government or a minister of the crown that an official has taken an offensive part in any election. There are obviously some cases in which inquiry would be rather futile. For example, on the 21st of September last, I myself personally saw three office-holders of this country engaged in active partisan work in the city of Halifax. ... In that ease I would not grant an inquiry because I saw it with my own eyes.
At page 891, he said:
Now, my hon. friend is anxious that inquiry should be had in proper cases, and so am I. No one is more unwilling to dismiss officials that I am, but where the government or responsible ministers is convinced that an official has been guilty of violation of the plain terms of a statute or of a resolution of the House of Commons concurred in by both political parties, by which his conduct ought to be guided. I would ask my hon. friend what alternative would a government have in a case of that kind?
Then Mr. E. M. Macdonald, member for Pietou at that time, raised a very interesting question as to whether or not representations made by a defeated candidate would have the same force and effect as those made by a member, and he put the case very shortly in these words, as reported at page 923:
I' have no objection to an offensive partisan being dismissed, but we should have evidence to bear out the charge that lie is an offensive partisan. I am not here to say that a statement made by a member of this house under his hand in writing to the minister giving specific facts would not be sufficient evidence. I think that every member of this house is entitled to be considered as worthy of credence and there is this further protection that we can discuss the question in the house with the member who makes the statement. But when we come to deal with the written statement of a defeated candidate-
Mr. Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman object to a minister taking the Recommendations of a defeated candidate?
Mr. Macdonald: Most certainly, and I have just given the reason why. We are now dealing with the question of the minister being satisfied by the evidence that a certain fact is true and the minister must justify his judgment to parliament. If he takes the statement of a member of parliament, that statement can be discussed in this house in the presence of the member who made it.
But if he takes the statement of a defeated candidate, he takes the statement of one who cannot discuss the question here, who cannot even give the details to the minister, or put them on record in the department as well as one can who holds a place in this house.
In 1928, on May 29, the then member for St. Lawrence-St. George brought to the attention of the house a case in- which a gentleman had been dismissed for partisanship. He had held office for seven years and seven months and was efficient. An inquiry was asked for

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
but not granted. It was contended that as the minister had given a certificate he should be dismissed without further inquiry. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce in that debate said, at page 3526:
I will admit that the matter to which the hon. member has just referred has given me some little concern. The dismissal took place entirely in accordance with the principle that has been observed by all parties. . The complaint of a member of the house that an individual has been exercising partisanship in elections has always been accepted by the minister as a reason for dismissal. I have followed that principle, but I am glad to say there have not been many instances in my own department. I am not going to express an opinion as to whether that is a good practice to follow, although perhaps I might be just so bold as to say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the position taken by my hon. friend. Although many members may differ with me, I can see no particular reason why, where a man happens to be in the service of the government, he should not be allowed to exercise any influence he may have on behalf of any political principle in which he believes. However, I will have to take any responsibility there may be in following out the practice that has always been followed.
The result was that the gentleman dismissed from office was without any appropriate remedy. I am going to refer to that presently. During the progress of the first debate, to which I have alluded, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not entirely in accord with what had been said by the previous speaker. Sir Wilfrid said:
I beg my hon. friend's pardon. We said in 1896 that no man should be dismissed unless he was first given the opportunity of being heard. But I said also that we would accept the written statement of a member of parliament, giving the facts, and asking for the dismissal. That is the rule we laid down, and we have lived up to it. I am told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we did not live up to that rule. I do not admit the charge. I think we did, but even if we were deficient I would expect that the hon. gentlemen who are on the treasury benches at present would at least act according to their own doctrine. Are they going to throw over their own doctrine and institute dismissals right and left without giving any man the opportunity of defending himself or without any member of parliament taking the responsibility of placing on record a charge against the man whose dismissal he seeks?
He then proceeds, and these words are important:
I would insist on the leader of the government that he should enforce the rule that no man should be deprived of office without being given the opportunity of defending himself or at least unless the member of parliament who asks for his dismissal has the courage to put on record the reasons why he demands it.
That principle was the one to which I alluded as being under discussion by the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, in 1911-12.
Then we come to 1923, and according to Hansard for February 15, 1923, at page 286, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) used these words:
In some cases charges have been preferred against certain officials by hon. members of this house. Where an hon. member has been prepared to state to the house that of his own knowledge an offence contravening the provisions of the Civil Service Act respecting political partisanship has been committed, the government has acted under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, which provide that a civil servant guilty of political partisanship shall not be retained in the service. I think that list will cover any of the dismissals to which my right hon. friend has referred.
Mr. Meighen: I presume that that list would cover practically every case, because the statement from any member that a man has been guilty of political partisanship is not very hard to secure from a partisan supporter.
To which Mr. Mackenzie King replied:
I did not say a statement from any member. I said a statement from an hon. member of this house that of his own knowledge a civil servant had been guilty of a certain offence which was in the opinion of the government sufficient to warrant his dismissal under the provisions of the Civil Service Act.
That principle having been accepted, I am rising in my place this morning for the purpose of directing attention to the fact that it is based upon one assumption, which is that an hon. member of this house who certifies to such a condition has satisfied himself of his own personal knowledge as to the authenticity of the statements which he makes and that they are true. But if he sees fit to make a statement without regard to the fine detail of its being true or untrue and the man is dismissed, I think probably the man has an action against that member of parliament because he has compassed his dismissal and destroyed his position. At any rate I think the question will be determined in some of the courts of the country within the next year, because there are cases in which members of this house have certified that a man has been a partisan, of their personal knowledge, when as a matter of fact not only was the man not a partisan but he took no part in the elections in any way. But he has lost his position, with all the rights that appertain to it and obviously, having suffered damage, that matter will have to be contested in some other way.
The cases to which the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George referred in a previous parliament need not now be discussed, but there are three cases to which I desire to direct attention because they affect this matter very directly. Some years ago a man

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

who occupied a position on an Indian reserve was dismissed from office on the certificate of the member of parliament for the district in which he lived. The servant of the Indian department said the member had been incorrectly informed, that the member had no knowledge of him personally and did not know him at all. In the end, after much effort, (the unfortunate man having been out of office for years, an investigation was obtained. The investigation was held and the secretary of the Liberal association in that community was called as a witness. Without a single dissenting voice they all agreed that this man had taken no part in the elections and that they had seen no evidence of his activity in any shape, form, kind or description whatever. That man lost his position by an improper certificate having been given by a member of parliament.
Since the present government came into office several cases have occurred in which, under the certificate of members of parliament, employees 'have been dismissed. Those returns have been tabled in this house during this session, but there are two cases in Quebec to which particular attention is directed because the papers brought down in the house indicate that a very grievous wrong has been done to an unfortunate man. One is the father of eight children and he has been in the employ of the government for a very long time, in fact since November, 1915, twenty-one years this fall. No complaint has ever been made against him, but in a letter directed to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) on the 29th January, 1936, a member of parliament stated that to his personal knowledge this man was guilty of political partisanship. Immediately the man was removed from office. As soon as he ascertained why he had been removed he began to gather together his friends, who were all able to say that for twenty-one years he had taken no part in politics, realizing how important it was for him to make a living for himself and his eight children. He has supported that statement further by a statutory declaration which he made on the 19th day of March, 1936. In that declaration he makes the following statements :
I,	the undersigned, Michel Bedard, of Bois-chatel, do declare and say:-
1.	I was employed by the public works department of Ottawa, as chauffeur, at the Quebec post office building, since the 28th of November, 1915;
2.	Since then, I have always worked for the same department in the same capacity, and my work was always satisfactory to the department;
3.	During the time I have been employed by the Department of Public Works, as above

mentioned, I never did any political partisanship; 1 never took any interest in the political campaigns and all what I did was to vote, according to my own conscience;
I have never taken any part in any meeting or any political discussion;
4.	I am the father of eight children and, since I have been dismissed by the department, I am without work, and I cannot see where I can find some;
5.	No complaint was ever made before against me, and I do declare that I do not deserve the situation in which Mr. Wilfrid Lacroix put me lately in asking my dismissal as he did;
6.	It is absolutely impossible that Mr. Wilfrid
Lacroix be aware of any act of political partisanship on my behalf, I never met him anywhere and I believe that he does not even know me personally;	_
7.	I make this solemn declaration according to the federal statutes, to have the same effect as if it was a declaration duly sworn.
. And I have signed:
(Signed) Michel Bedard. Solemnly declared before me,
this 19th day of March, 1936.
(Signed) F. O. Demin,
Commissioner Superior Court,
Dist. of Quebec.
The reason I am directing this matter to the attention of the house to-day is that I have not seen any evidence on the part of my fellow members, even though they are supporting the government in large numbers, that would induce me to believe they would consciously do an injustice to a man who has been in the employ of the government for twenty-one years. I have no reason to believe that the Prime Minister would desire that that be done. The effect of this is to throw a man on the street after twenty-one years of service in a particular position. The file is here, having been brought down in consequence of a motion passed by the house, and the file indicates clearly that the Minister of Public Works acted upon representations made to him by a member of parliament. The member of parliament asked that it be done, the Minister of Public Works therefore did it. I am not complaining of the Minister of Public Works having done it, but I am saying that it creates an almost intolerable position if the government is not prepared to take steps to protect one who has thus been injured, thus been deprived of his position. I said a moment ago that I believe the man who made the recommendation has subjected himself to an action. I have not much doubt about that, although it may be that as a member of parliament he can protect himself.
The other man was employed from October 8, 1930, and the man who was appointed to office believed that the first man, who has made a declaration in the same sense, had obtained a position to which he was entitled.

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
But the report made indicates that that was incorrect, and the people of the settlement in which the man lives, without regard to their political faith, signed a recommendation to Mr. Lacroix, M.P., asking that the injury which had been done to this other man, namely Mr. Ubald Vezina of Beauport, be undone. He makes a declaration, which I shall not take the time to read, in exactly the same sense as Mr. Bedard. He says he has not been interested in political matters, nor has he been a partisan since his appointment, but he has lost his job because a member of parliament made a certificate upon which the Minister of Marine took the steps I have indicated, and he was replaced by another.
These two cases I mention. There are two or three others, which perhaps I should not deal with at length at this time of the session, but I desire to invite the attention of the government and the house to the principle involved. It is of far-reaching consequence, and I believe that appropriate measures should be taken to place in the estimates provision for this man. That is a strong statement, but if a man who denies any partisanship has been deprived of his position on that ground, I suggest he should be allowed an investigation. I ask the government to provide an investigation for these men, either before a judicial commission or by such other commission as they think proper. In other words, in view of the challenge to the statement made by the member of parliament, should he not now have the right to present his case before a proper tribunal?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
was the employment of the man in question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said he was a chauffeur, and the other man was working as a sort of carpenter. One was under the Indian agent, a chauffeur, and the other was employed as a carpenter or general labourer.


Mr. MULOCK:: Was he a temporary
employee, or permanent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The record shows that he was there for twenty-one years.


William Pate Mulock: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon, I meant the second man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say the second one would be regarded as not a permanent employee, although I cannot say with certainty. The record is not clear on it and I therefore speak subject to correction on that point. But even if he were a temporary 12739-257J
employee I suggest to the government the desirability of following the case and permitting an investigation.
If hon. members take the trouble to look through the records of the last five years they will find that in some cases complaints were made that we set up too many investigations. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hold the view that it is better to suffer from giving men a chance to be heard, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier contended, than to take arbitrary action if there is a possibility of being wrong. Mr. Macdonald, of Pictou, who presented the case in 1911 or 1912, felt that there was an obligation upon a member of parliament whose honour was pledged by reason of a certificate he gave, but one ventured to point out that in these days of extreme partisanship you might have a situation which would be difficult to reconcile with that principle.
I do not desire to make any acrimonious observations with respect to the matter:	I
still believe in the fairness of mind of the Canadian people, regardless of what party may be in power. I hope that steps will be taken to afford to these men the right of investigation, and that if it is found, as was found in one case, that they have been improperly removed, it will be seen that they are recompensed for what has happened. In the case of this unfortunate man who was in the Indian department, it was years later when he got the investigation, because, he having been dismissed before the late government took office, they felt hesitant about granting an investigation. But finally the minister of the department said: This man has pleaded with me for his own reputation. He said: "My reputation is at stake. I accepted office and pledged myself by that acceptance that I would not engage in political activities, and I have kept faith in that regard." That was in 1927. Finally a commission was appointed and after hearing the evidence of people in the community of the Liberal faith, including the heads of the organizations, the commissioner was satisfied beyond question and reported that there was not the slightest evidence of this man having been a partisan.


Mr. CRERAR:: When was the commissioner appointed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until 1934, I think. The minister, as I say, felt that this was an old matter which should not be reopened, but the man was so insistent, putting it on that ground, not asking for compensation but seeking only to vindicate his own reputation that an investigation was ordered. Officers of the Indian department on the spot were examined, and many others, including the mayor of the
Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

town, the former Indian agent, merchants and others, who had been associated with the complainant-the minister of the church who was there at the time, and those who had had to do with this Indian agent in the closest way. One of them, a lawyer and the secretary of the Liberal Association at the time this occurred, went so far as to say that he had no personal knowledge of the man being active politically, that in fact he "considered him quiet in that respect." One of them went so far as to say that if there had been any partisanship on his part he at least would have heard of it; and he had not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Would the right hon.
gentleman give the name?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but I wondered
whether it was desirable to give names. The name of the man was MacConnell, of Kam-sack, Saskatchewan. The former minister endeavoured to escape, as I say, but finally an appointment was made; the report was not made until January, 1935, at Kelvington, Saskatchewan, and they all agreed that there was not the slightest evidence of political partisanship on the part of this unfortunate man who lost his job. I think the difficulty arose because of the fact that after his dismissal he held a position under the provincial government as liquor vendor or something of that sort, and there was confusion as to the two positions. That may explain it in part. At any rate I have given the facts as shown on the record.
Under these circumstances I suggest that in all cases of this kind the rule should be laid down by the government, consequent upon a certificate being given by a member that to his personal knowledge-although Sir Wilfrid Laurier said he should recite the facts-an employee of the crown had been guilty of partisanship, and the employee denying it in toto, the government should grant him the right of investigation. I do not wish to go farther than that at this time, because I realize that this is a matter about which there has been much controversy and which has been discussed at various times. But I go so far as to say that where a man has been removed, on certificate given to the minister by a member of this house, if he makes denial immediately upon being made acquainted with the fact that he has been removed in consequence of such complaint he should be accorded the privilege of investigation. That is all I ask. I might go farther, because I believe there are certain consequences or implications which arise, but I believe my request is reasonable. Certainly we endeavoured to act on that principle.
JMr. Bennett.]


Mr. DUPUIS:: Does he not have his recourse before a court of justice?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an open question. But how can a poor unfortunate man be driven to court and to consultation with lawyers on these questions when probaibly he is making only a poor subsistence for himself and his family? He has not the money with which to consult lawyers; he has not the money with which to carry on litigation. But if he is accorded an investigation, all would be well. No member of parliament should complain for a single moment against an investigation of his certificate when a man denies validity of the charge made against him. I do not think any hon. member would consider such investigation unfair.
The other point to which I wish to direct attention arises out of the same matter. Numbers of men holding positions have been let out, and others have taken their places. Some of those dismissals have been made under great hardship, because the returned man's preference has been swept aside. I will not go into the cases before me in detail, but I have been asked to bring the facts to the attention of the house as strongly as possible. These facts affect a number of men who occupied positions in the public service. For instance, a returned man, whose name I shall not use unless I am asked, who had worked for a long time in the Prescott elevator, has been replaced by a man who, to use the expression of the complainant "while I was fighting for my country, was stealing from his country," the present employee having stolen from the mails and having been sentenced to the penitentiary. This man now occupies the position formerly held by the returned soldier. I ask any hon. member how he would feel under like circumstances.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would ask the right hon. gentleman to give me a memorandum respecting the situation he has just mentioned. I was not aware that any man had been replaced in the Prescott elevator, for any cause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will gladly give the minister a memorandum. I shall not mention any names unless I am asked to do so, because I feel that in some sense such action might result in handicapping the man's position, and if at all possible I desire to avoid doing that. As a matter of fact I have three complaints. One man puts his case this way: "While I was offering my life for my country, the man who succeeded me was stealing from my country. He was convicted for theft from the mails, and served two years in the penitentiary." Now this unfortunate complainant is walking about without a position, and naturally he

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
feels keenly his present circumstances. Then, a second man, I am sorry to say, has been succeeded by one who did time. I am not raising the issue because men have done time and should therefore be precluded from reestablishing themselves, but I am saying that returned men are entitled to different treatment, not because I suggest it but because the statute says so. That is the reason. Do not for one moment think that I do not appreciate the difficulties the government faces. For instance, I do not believe that the Minister of Railways and Canals would for one moment sanction such conditions; but these are the facts. How they have developed, or how they have been brought about, is not for me at this time to discuss.
Then, I have another case which touches the Department of Railways and Canals. This is one affecting a man who had been working two or three years in the department. It is only fair to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Mulock) to say that this man might be classified as a temporary employee. However he had a position in the department, and had seen long service. He served in the South African war, in the Zulu war and in the great war. Before the war he was what might be described as a bridge man, and had been given a position of lesser importance on the Welland canal. However, only a few days ago he found himself deprived of that position and succeeded by one who had not any such creditable service. This man is very much incensed and resentful about it. I shall give the facts to the Minister of Railways and Canals because if I were to discuss the matter in the sense in which I should like to discuss it I might prejudice a position which I desire to assist.
Other cases have come to my attention during the session. Letters dealing with some of them have been brought down. One is in the far west, one is in the far east, and so on But in connection with all these cases conditions develop, not because of a desire on the part of the government but because there is not an opportunity for the government to deal with every phase of a matter. That is what I desire to point out.
One of the men about whom I have spoken had worked for three years as leg operator at the Prescott elevator. From 1914 to 1919 he served in the great war, and has been replaced by a man whose name I shall not give, but who was convicted of robbing the mails and as a result served two years in the penitentiary. The man who succeeded the former employee is not a returned soldier. Another case to which I referred affects a man who had held a similar position at Prescott, and who has been replaced by one who was formerly convicted
and served a sentence. The last case to which I referred affects a man who served in the Canadian artillery and who was in the Zulu revolution. In 1912 he went to Natal and joined the Natal Light Horse.


Vincent Dupuis: How old is he?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know.


Vincent Dupuis: Is he not about seventy years old?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. There are men who have served their country continuously since 1900 who are not seventy years old. He was discharged in Hamilton early in July, 1919, and on April 11 of this year was replaced, through a patronage committee which did not have a returned man on it, by a single man without a war record.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that the man on the Welland canal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The minister to whom he has appealed has been making some investigation. In this instance the minister to whom the appeal has been made is the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), not the Minister of Railways and Canal's (Mr. Howe). The minister has been making certain investigations, and there the matter stands.
There are large numbers of these Canadians to whom I might direct attention, but my doing so would serve no useful purpose because I desire only to describe conditions which I believe require the taking of two steps: (1) Where the action taken by a member has resulted in the loss of a position by a civil servant, such servant should have an opportunity for investigation if he denies the correctness of the allegations made, and (2) we should continue to give effect to the provisions in our law with respect to returned men. Particular care should be exercised in placing those who, not having served in the overseas forces violated the criminal laws of the country during the absence of those whose positions they have taken. I think that is not too strong a position to take. I trust that I may present this grievance before we proceed with supply, in order that the government may be advised as to what the conditions are. I feel sure they will take such steps as may be necessary to protect those who desire only what Sir Wilfrid Laurier described as the opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of their positions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to review what my right hon. friend

Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King
(Mr. Bennett) has said, for the simple reason that, as all hon. members know, there is probably no more controversial question than that which relates to appointments to and dismissals from the public service. That is my first reason for not attempting at this time to go into the different cases which he has mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not expect the right hon. gentleman to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the second place, I do not feel that it is necessary to do so because in all that my right hon. friend has said he has not intimated that the government itself has departed in any way from the principle which he has enunciated as the one that previous administrations-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -followed or were supposed to follow, namely that of taking the word of a member of parliament with' respect to dismissals for political partisanship and acting upon it without further question. My right hon. friend is now laying down, for the present administration, a course of action which I do not think was followed by himself-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes; we gave an investigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -during the time he was in office. In the five years that my right hon. friend was in office there were, according to a return that was submitted to this house on June 10, no less than 6,352 dismissals from the public service. Of this number, as many as 1,370 were from the Department of the Interior, 1,600 from the Department of Marine, and 1,093 from the Post Office Department. But that does not begin to indicate the extent to which changes were made in the public service which resulted in men being dismissed or losing their positions without having any investigation at all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to ask him how many of those were dismissed because of reorganization?
Mr.. MACKENZIE KING: I am coming to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We abolished the positions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asks how many were due to reorganization. Perhaps I cannot better illustrate in what fashion they were due to any "reorganization" than by giving figures with respect to the Department of Agriculture. According to the

figures brought down there were 187 dismissals from that department. There was another return with respect to appointments in the same department, which showed that the number of appointments made in the Department of Agriculture was 2,725.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That figure is cumulative, of course. Those were temporary from year to year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No doubt that was "reorganization."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; that was merely from year to year, covering temporary employees who came in during the spring and went out in the fall.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to go into this in any controversial spirit, because I believe my right hon. friend himself has been careful to avoid that. Moreover there is no opportunity at the present of hearing the other side of the cases cited or from the hon. members concerned. Further, at an earlier stage in the session I intimated that at the beginning of next session the government would ask the house to appoint a special committee to go into the whole question of appointments and dismissals under the Civil Service Act. That will be the time, I think, when matters of this kind can be taken up and gone into more fully and carefully.
That covers, I think, all I wished more particularly to say, namely that the course which my right hon. friend is now suggesting is not one which, up to the present, has been regarded as in accordance with the general practice. I do not wish to say that there may not be much to be said in support of the position taken by my right hon. friend. Where it can be shown that anyone has been dismissed from the public service obviously without any cause, as long as we have such a thing as justice, which is what above all else government stands for, the government would desire and wish to see that justice was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot do more than say to my right hon. friend that the government will be glad, during the period of the recess, to consider carefully the representations he has made. As to indicating what further action, if any, it may be advisable to take, that will have to await a more favourable opportunity for intimating the results to the house.



SOCKEYE SALMON INDUSTRY-CLOSING OP HATCHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I desire to draw to the attention of the government

Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
a matter which is of very great importance owing particularly to developments of the last few weeks. I refer to the sockeye salmon industry, one of our greatest industries in British Columbia. The reason I raise the matter at this time is that an order in council was passed in March which is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of the industry, and particularly now that the United States have accepted the treaty. I present the matter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government in the hope that they may decide not to carry out the provisions of that order in council.
The industry to which I refer is a very valuable one. At the present time it is worth something over three million dollars a year; that is as it stands to-day, with a depleted run. It should amount to twenty-five million dollars if we had given attention to it and to the propagation of fish to keep up those runs. The sockeye spawns altogether in Canadian waters. That is one reason why the adjoining states are vitally interested. Without doubt, the restoration of the Fraser represents the greatest conservation project which we in this country have attempted. I draw the attention of the government particularly to the fact that the order in council which was passed on March 2 of this year is based on a report filed with the minister on February 21, 1936. One clause of the order in council reads as follows:
The minister, on the advice of the Deputy-Minister of Fisheries, recommends that when the present season's operations in the abovenamed hatcheries-
Giving a list of ten hatcheries in British Columbia.
-are completed, they be closed, and disposed of to the best advantage, and that the employees be then retired under the conditions imposed by law.
That action has been taken. I think it must be admitted that it is very drastic, when one considers that the two countries are about to come together under this treaty with the idea of helping this industry and trying to provide that the run of salmon be increased.
The fight for the preservation of the sockeye has been going on for some forty years. I think it was in 1922 that -a commission was appointed to investigate the sockeye salmon industry in the province of British Columbia. This commission filed its report in 1922. The Department of Fisheries prepared a memorandum based on an interim report issued by this commission. In section
15 of that interim report the commission stated:
15. Hatcheries.-Your commission has gone into this matter very thoroughly and heard a great deal of evidence both from employees of the said hatcheries and men engaged in the fishing industry, both as fishermen and purchasers of fish, and we are of the opinion that most of the hatchery operations could be suspended except that two hatcheries be kept in operation to experiment with the new proposed system and that a certain amount of the moneys now spent in hatchery operations be used for the clearing of streams, obstructions in rivers and improving the spawning grounds for natural propagation.
In this memorandum, to which I have referred, the department in reply proceeded to make out a case for the hatcheries. They referred to the fact that during the sittings of the commission only two hatchery employees were called, and they were connected with small hatcheries. I shall not read this memorandum in full, but I should like to quote from page 1 as follows:
There are twelve hatcheries in British Columbia in "which there are several men who have had much longer experience in hatchery operations than Messrs. Catt and Reid, who. however, are both good officers. The district inspector of hatcheries for British Columbia and Major Motherwell, chief inspector of fisheries, could have given authentic and valuable information regarding results that are apparent from British Columbia hatcheries generally.
They then go on to show that from the official records the hatcheries have played a wonderful part in keeping up the runs.


Mr. NEILL:: What memorandum is the hon. member reading from?


Harry James Barber: This is a memorandum
issued in connection with the interim report of the fisheries commission concerning hatcheries. Referring to the Skeena river watershed, this statement is made:
It must be appreciated that, with 1,091 salmon gill nets, each 1,200 feet in length and with a depth of 50 meshes, if it were not for some extraordinary measure, which in this case is artificial propagation, there would be no likelihood of the run being maintained.
In connection with the Rivers Inlet area, they have this to say on page 5:
Previous to the establishment of the hatchery sockeye salmon did not run in Meadows creek, which is situated just alongside the hatchery. Bach year since hatchery operations were commenced fry had been liberated from the hatchery in Meadows creek. As a result a splendid run of sockeye has been built up in this creek and a considerable portion of the hatchery collection is obtained each year at this point.
4048	.	COMMONS
Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
On page 6, referring to the Vancouver Island area, the memorandum states:
When the hatchery was established, a considerable area had to be covered in order to secure the required supply of eggs. The fry, up to the last two years, have been liberated directly from the hatchery into the lake. The result has been that now large quantities of returning spawning fish come practically to the hatchery door and are obtained by seining on the lake shore. The greater part of the run of fish to this whole area in many recent years have spawned at this place.
From the foregoing it will be seen that the take of eggs now is from a run built up entirely by the hatchery operations and after the full toll has been taken from it by the commercial fishermen.
The New Westminster hatchery is referred to on page 9 as follows:
In 1916 sockeye fry were taken from the New Westminster hatchery and liberated in tributaries of Kawkawa lake. The stocking continued each year for four years. A good run of fish is now returning to that particular lake each year. Previous to this stocking, no sockeye were known to frequent these streams.
How ill advised are suggestions that hatcheries are responsible for the depletion of the Fraser will be realized from the foregoing. On the other hand it may be pertinently asked wliat the runs would have been in view of the notoriously excessive fishing that has been going on, due to international conditions, if the hatcheries had not been operating.
The following general observations are made:
It has been suggested that hatcheries are only useful for replenishing streams that have been depleted. If this argument is accepted and it is granted that the hatcheries will replenish a depleted stream, it must also be - granted that they will maintain an established run equally as well.
There are numerous streams in British Columbia in which a good run of sockeye at one time occurred and which through overfishing is almost extinct. Artificial means are the only way by which these streams can be replenished and a commercial run reestablished. The existing hatcheries can only look after a portion of these streams and if they are again to be productive the fish cultural service must not only be maintained but must be largely extended.
And again:
Against the present condition of barrenness of these once productive areas where there has . been only natural reproduction, the splendid condition of the lower Fraser, where natural reproduction has been assisted by artificial means, is strong evidence of the efficacy of hatcheries. The run to Pitt lake, where there is a small hatchery, is more than holding its own and the run to the Pemberton district has steadily improved since the hatchery was established there.
And then further along:
With the experience in British Columbia and Alaska there can be no doubt that the sockeye runs will not maintain themselves

against commercial fishing unless fishing operations are so restricted as to imperil the success of the industry and that some assistance must be given nature and this can only be by means of artificial propagation.
It would be interesting to know just what knowledge is possessed by those whose evidence before the British Columbia fisheries commission has not been favourable to fish culture and the extent to which they have personally examined into and studied the conditions that prevail on the spawning grounds and in a sockeye stream, as against those that obtain in a hatchery during the period of incubation.
It is admitted by the sportsmen of the province and the numerous angling associations that hatchery operations with game fish have been eminently successful, and in this connection the introduction of Atlantic salmon at Cow'ielian lake, eastern speckled trout in the Kootenay district and black bass in Christina lake and Vancouver Island points are excellent examples. If such operations are successful with these varieties of fish why should they not be equally successful with sockeye?


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the date of the report?


Harry James Barber: It is a memorandum based on the interim report of the commission which sat in 1922. The concluding words of the memorandum are as follows:
One argument which is very eloquent is the fact that for hundreds of years hatchery operations have been carried on in some of the oldest countries of the world, and they are sufficiently satisfied with results to continue such operations.
Although the federal government of the United States does not administer and does not derive any revenue from the fisheries, except in Alaska, it operates a large and comprehensive fish cultural service entirely at its own expense, and which extends to nearly every state in the union.
In conclusion it is pointed out that the arguments against hatcheries are all presumptive. On such basis it may fairly be asked why-in view of the fact that the foregoing are points of definite knowledge-hatcheries are not the most effective and economical means known for maintaining our anadromous and inland fisheries.
That is the memorandum prepared by the Department of Fisheries. We have the example of Harrison lake, where 2,500,000 sockeye were planted in 1920. In 1927, when they were due to return, 12,000,000 eggs were taken from a point where there had never been any sockeye . salmon. Surely this is evidence that the hatcheries have helped the Canadian runs. I have here a copy of the report of the Minister of Fisheries in which the superintendent of Cultus lake hatchery on page 12 states that in recent years not only have the runs increased, but the size of the salmon has also increased.
We have had on the coast for a number of years a fish that is not only recognized as

Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
a sport fish but is used extensively in the fresh fish trade and to a certain extent in canning. In this connection I wish to give the house an illustration of what can be done through hatchery methods. I can remember the time some years ago when there were very few steelhead in the rivers leading to Cultus lake. Eggs were secured from other sections and hatched and the fry placed in the creeks. Here are the results, obtained entirely from hatchery methods. In 1932 there were collected from returning steelhead 18.600 eggs; in 1933 , 98,900; in 1934, 125,163; in 1935, 133,560; and when I was home this year they had finished collecting and I was informed that the total collections for 1936 stood at 410,000 eggs. I do not think that one can get better evidence than this of the efficacy of hatcheries, and this is recent evidence. These fish stood the so-called hazards of the sea and returned, and if- this is true of steelhead. it is surely true of sockeye. This, I submit, should surely be satisfactory evidence, and it comes from the department itself, which has carried on this work for a number of years.
I wish now to refer to the order in council, and in this regard I should like to know the reason for this right about face in the department's policy. Perhaps I had better read the order in council:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 21st February, 1936, from the Minister of Fisheries, submitting as follows:
As it was not clear that the hatching of sockeye salmon in British Columbia was justifying the cost involved, it was decided in 1925 to have the biological board undertake a thorough investigation into the relative efficiency of artificial and natural reproduction of sock-eye salmon, and at the time it was anticipated that it would take twelve years to complete it, but it found it possible to report finally in the premises at its recent annual meeting. The basis of determination as to the efficiency of reproduction in any year was the number of young fish that of their own volition left the lake for the sea. This young sockeye do in the second year of their age and they remain at sea until they reach maturity. The results of the investigation, which comprehend different methods of hatching and also the rearing of the young fish to various ages up to nearly one year, are summarized iu the following statement:
Natural Reproduction Migrants as percentage of
total eggs available	 1-13
Artificial Propagation With Liberation of Fry Migrants as percentage of
total eggs available	
Migrants as percentage of total eggs obtained from the adutt salmon that were stripped	 4-54
1925	1927	19301-13	1-05	3-161926	1929	19323-93	2-38	1-714-54	2-76	2-43
Artificial Propagation
With Eyed Egg Planting	1928 1933
Migrants as percentage of
total eggs available	 0-95 3-55*
Migrants as percentage of
total eggs obtained from the
adult salmon that were stripped 1-44	4-67*
* Indicates that possible two year old migrants of the 1936 migration have yet to be added.
In the light of the above, the following conclusion was reached by the biological board:
On the whole it may reasonably be concluded that in an area such as Cultus Lake, where a natural run of sockeye occurs with a reasonable expectancy of successful spawning, artificial propagation, for purposes of continuing the run to that area, is unnecessary and, if producing any additional results over natural spawning, these would not appear to be in any way commensurate with the cost.
This conclusion may not apply to areas where there is no reasonable expectation of successful natural propagation.
# The minister observes that it was the hatching of sockeye salmon only that was in question, and the investigation does not reflect adversely on the hatching of trout and Atlantic salmon that is being carried on in different parts not only of Canada but of several countries in the world, the good effects of which so far as Canada is concerned, have already been reasonably established.
The following sockeye salmon hatcheries in British Columbia are being operated by the Department of Fisheries:
Babine lake and Lakelse lake on the Skeena river;
Rivers inlet;
Anderson lake and Kennedy lake on Vancouver island;
Cultus lake-Smith's Falls; Pitt lake, Harrison lake and Pemberton on the Fraser river.
In the light of the findings of the board, and as a natural run of salmon with a reasonable expectancy of successful spawning occurs to all the areas in which the above named hatcheries are operated, the minister, on the advice of the Deputy Minister of Fisheries, recommends that when the present season's operations in the above named hatcheries are complete, they be closed, and disposed of to the best advantage, and that the employees therein be then retired under the conditions provided by law.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
When this investigation was undertaken eleven years ago, hatchery methods as they then existed w.ere taken as the basis of trial and no deviation has been permitted to this day. Four systems of fish culture have been tried at Cultus lake. The first is fry planting, the second egg planting, the third fingerling planting, and the fourth natural reproduction. The first, fry planting, was abandoned long before the biological board started the investigation; the second, egg planting, has never had a fair trial, a point I shall deal with later o.n; the third, fingerling planting, was altogether too expensive; and . the fourth, natural reproduction, particularly in these mountain streams, has been too destructive.
4050	COMMONS
Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
These methods have been, tried again and again by the biological board but nothing has been done to see whether they can be improved upon in any way. Sockeye rearing has been condemned owing to the excessive cost; it will be observed that the whole argument in this order in council turns on the question of cost. And notwithstanding this, no attempt has been made, nor has any suggestion been put forward, looking towards economy.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Who makes that statement?


Harry James Barber: I make that statement. I have gone through the whole report, which I have studied carefully, and I do not think you can find one suggestion as to any means by which the cost might be reduced. I want to call attention to the way in which the biological board arrived at the figures given in regard to the percentage of migrants as compared with eggs planted. If you will refer to the reports of the different superintendents from year to year you will get an idea as to just how these figures are arrived at by the board. So many eggs are planted in the different streams. They are counted, the operators know how many have been planted, and then the migrants as they leave the lake are also counted1; and on the basis of so many migrants from so many million eggs they arrive at the percentage given in the order in council.
At one o'clock the house took recess. ,
The house resumed1 at three o'clock.


Harry James Barber: When the house took recess, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the order in council, and I said it was based on a report of the biological board. The reason for disposing of the hatcheries of British Columbia was given as the cost of carrying them on, and I want to refer particularly to the figures upon which this order in council was based, because I am going to try to show that they are not well founded and that the minister might very well make further inquiries before taking this action. I want to refer to the report of the Department of Fisheries for 1934-35, at page 111. There I find the report of the superintendent of the Cultus lake hatchery, in which he calls attention to the planting of eyed sockeye eggs in tributaries to the lake. He says:
The distribution above mentioned commenced on December 20, 1933, and was completed on February 24,	1934. Approximately thirty-

three per cent of the total number of eggs planted were deposited in Spring creek. This stream, as its name implies, is fed by natural springs, is not subject to freshet, and eggs planted therein should give good results.
Further on he says:
The remainder of the hatchery output was deposited in other tributaries to Cultus lake, and although the areas planted were thoroughly cultivated and properly prepared for reception of the eggs, it is impossible to protect against damage from freshets and resultant scouring of the beds of these streams.
With this in mind I should like to deal with three abortive attempts at egg planting, which was first tried in 1928. In that year scientists connected with the biological board, along with the superintendent of the hatchery, looked over the creeks to decide where the eggs should go. They insisted in putting the bulk of the eggs in Frost creek, and this was done. The creek dried up about half a mile above the lake, and the fry were unable to get down. The return of 0-95 per cent, which it will be noticed appears in this order in council in connection with that work, was the result almost entirely of the few eggs that were planted in Spring creek. In 1933 egg planting was repeated and the eggs were put into Windfall creek and Watt creek, which were not dependable. Heavy freshets in March washed practically the whole of them out with the exception of those planted in Spring creek. The count of migrants from the egg planting of 1933 shows a percentage of 4-67, or a total of 242,458. But that number of migrants was not the result of the 4,371,500 eggs planted; that was the result of 1,259,000 eggs which were planted in Spring and Smiths Falls creeks. This would show the percentage to be 19, rather 4-67. Destruction of these eggs is well authenticated, and the minister would have no trouble in securing these figures, because I understand the biological board kept track of all the eggs planted in the different creeks. But in coming to make up their percentages they said there were so many eggs planted, without caring whether they were planted in potato fields or by the side of the road; they were not interested where the eggs were planted but only interested in the result. They said so many migrants resulted, and they figured the result to be 4-67 per cent. If, on the other hand, they had only counted those eggs that had a chance to hatch the figure would be about 19 per cent.
Again in 1934 and 1935 they insisted that the eggs be planted as was done in 1933, and again all the eggs, with the exception of those planted in Spring creek, were destroyed through the creeks drying up. This information, as I have said, is availably to the minister. Why was it not checked up before

Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
this order in council was passed? The value of the biological board figures is further weakened' by the punishment inflicted on such runs. I have been interested in this work for ten years. One day I went out and found one of these little streams coming from Cultus lake spattered with dead fingerlings. I asked the man in charge what was wrong, and he said, "Well, we cut three fins off these fish so that we could identify them when they returned." When fish need all their faculties to survive this was certainly some handicap.
The report of the biological board stresses the futility of hatchery work in a small area such as the Cultus lake area. I am advised that in that district there has been a run-out of 2,500,000 yearlings in one year and a return of 81,000. That was in 1927. The scientist who has been employed under the board gives it as his opinion that the lake has enough food every year to produce two and a half million yearlings. If the fishermen catch two fish for every one that returns, in 1927 they caught 160,000 fish which, at twelve to a case, makes 13,000 cases worth $130,000. That is what this one little district can do, and the food is there to do it every year.
Another charge against the Cultus lake hatcheries is that the cost of food is too high. From a wire that came through last fall I understand that orders were given to dump the fish that were in the hatcheries and close them up because they had not sufficient money to carry on. It was only because of the protests of boards of trade and other public bodies in. the Fraser valley that an effort was made to carry on at a reduced cost for food. The biological board had ordered that nothing but fresh beef liver should be used- for food, and this is one instance where no attempt was ever made to cut down the cost. Fresh beef liver, at 15 to 20 cents per pound, increased the cost to about $240 per month. The practical men said, "We believe we can feed them for less than that," and tljey used stripped fish and dried milk refuse, and reduced the cost of rearing sockeye to one-third the former cost. The cost of collecting was also reduced very considerably. The experience at Smiths Falls last winter, where one man operated five ponds with food costing only a quarter as much as the food used by the biological board, has completely upset the figures of the board in this phase of the work. So if there is any merit in sockeye rearing at a third of the cost incurred by the board, there is no justification
in closing the hatcheries. The evidence which I have produced is based on definite knowledge and proves conclusively that hatcheries have been most effective in maintaining our fisheries. I do not suggest that we should discard the services of the scientists, but I do suggest that some scientists be brought under the department to cooperate with the practical men. That is what we want Instead of having it left entirely to a board of scientists.
The successful method of restoring these streams which have been depleted, particularly in the Fraser area, in my opinion is a combination of artificial and natural reproduction. I think that is admitted by every man who has studied this question. That was done in years gone by when the run kept up. We cannot afford, if we are going to continue to replenish these streams, to dispose of the hatcheries as has been suggested. The twoway method is the only method by which they can be restored. In studying the fish industry I have often wondered what would happen if the same methods were applied to the poultry industry in our province. Hon. members from British Columbia know that the poultry industry has made great advances during the last ten years. We have very large plants in our province, incubators producing thousands and thousands of chicks. Suppose the Minister of Agriculture through his deputy sent out a board of scientists and they said: Now, these birds are costing too much money, they are not just what they should be; we recommend that the hens be turned loose, that they be allowed to go and lay in the grass and brush roundabout, and if you want to keep track of them just cut a wing or a leg off. That is about what they are doing with the fish. If one-tenth of the practical knowledge that has been devoted to poultry were applied to the fish industry we would not be in the sad condition we are to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Harry James Barber: Let me say to the hon. member who groaned, across the way, and to the Prime Minister, that this is a most serious matter. I am dealing with one of the most valuable industries we have in Canada. Other countries are going ahead, Japan by leaps and bounds, and Russia; the states of Washington and Oregon in spite of handicaps, are coming back, and this is the only country in the world that has suggested doing away with the hatcheries. In fact other countries are encouraging them. As I have shown, there is not a state in the union to-day but is encouraging hatcheries. They are not merely

Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Barber
holding post mortems as this board did; they are trying to devise improved methods in fish culture. But apparently this board did not.
It is very interesting to refer to the conclusions at which this board of scientists arrived. I have in my hand the report of the biological board. In addition to that, attached to it is one from the director, Mr. Clemens. He says:
I feel that there is an opportunity for the department in this way to put the salmon production of the British Columbia coast on a sound basis.
That refers to clause 5, which reads:
Looking at the problem on a broad basis, it would seem that the quickest and most effective method of keeping up the spawning stock is to limit the catch.
That comes from a scientist!
As I have pointed out in my annual reports to the commissioner of fisheries of British Columbia, if on the Fraser river in a given year, instead of the industry putting up 120,000 eases it put up only 100,000 cases, this would mean approximately 480,000,000 additional eggs on the spawning beds. This reduction in pack would in a sense cost the industry $240,000. On the other hand, to gain this advantage, the hatcheries, even allowing a four per cent efficiency as compared with a natural efficiency of two per cent, would have to handle 240,000,000 eggs. This would require the erection of at least five additional hatcheries, each having a capacity equal to that at Pemberton, and the operating costs would be approximately $200,000. All this would be at the expense of the country as a whole.
Then he concludes:
I feel that there is an opportunity for the department in this way to put the salmon production of the British Columbia coast on a sound basis. Until the catches are brought under control and limited to the productive capacity of the river system, I see little hope of maintaining the sockeye salmon fishery.
This comes from a scientist employed by the department to carry on an investigation. The control of catch has been carried on by men in the department. It does not require a scientist to advise limiting the catch, but that is all this scientist had to offer us after eleven years of investigation.
In conclusion I urge upon the government, in view of the acceptance by .the United States of the sockeye treaty, that further investigation be made before such drastic action is taken, because I think it will be found, under one of the clauses, which I have not at hand at the moment, that the United States will contribute fifty-fifty in regard to the propagation of salmon. I understand that the hitch is that they have amended it to provide that there should be eight years' investigation. I do not blame them for asking for further investigation, because I would not like to see any board set up and proceed to carry out

recommendations upon which this order in council is based. I would suggest to the Prime Minister-and this is not criticism of the government; for the government are not responsible, for this condition, but they are responsible for passing the order in council-I would suggest an inquiry in the meantime, something in the way of a judicial commission that could go into the findings of the biological board and call in practical men. I suggest to the government a more thorough investigation before the government act on this order in council.
To take action on the order in council at this time when the treaty is about to be accepted, and wipe out all hatcheries in British Columbia, would be a very serious thing. I feel that the matter should receive further consideration. As I have said, the order in council is based entirely on the figures of the biological board, which are not on a sound basis. It does not make any difference what was done with the eggs; the biological board say: "We are interested only in the results, and we arrive at those results by simple arithmetic-so many eggs planted, so many migrants pass out; therefore it does not pay to raise these fish." That is the only criticism that is offered; it is the whole basis of the conclusion. In this report no suggestion is offered as to how the cost can be cut down. The entire investigation, extending over eleven years, has simply been a post mortem.
I want to tell the Prime Minister that one reason why I cannot give further information is that any time I talked to a man employed in the department he would say: "For heaven's sake don't quote me, or my head will come off." That is an unfortunate condition. If the Prime Minister would appoint someone who could call these men in and go into it with them, I think it would be in the interests of this great industry, which we are told to-day can be built up from $3,000,000 to $25,000,000 a year. I am convinced the proposal is well worthy of consideration before the order in council is put into effect.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand that the grievance which my hon. friend1 has laid before the house is based on the action of the government and the departmental officials in closing some of the salmon hatcheries in British Columbia.


Harry James Barber: Not some, all of them.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: This action was determined by a report of the biological board made to the government, as my hon. friend has said, after five years of experimentation.


Harry James Barber: Eleven years.

Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Michaud


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Eleven years of experimentation. The hon. gentleman quoted extensively this morning, I understand, from an interim report of a commission which investigated the British Columbia fisheries in 1922. In the final report of that commission suggestions were made as to whether or not the artificial propagation of sockeye salmon in British Columbia was worth while, and whether or not the expenditures in connection therewith were warranted.


Harry James Barber: I did not quote from that; I quoted from a memorandum in reply prepared by the department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand. I am
quoting from the original report of the commissioners who in 1922 suggested to the government and to the Department of Fisheries a careful investigation of this matter. One paragraph is as follows:
We do feel most strongly however in the light of all the evidence here and documents consulted that the department should move slowly until we have more definite and satisfactory proof that the industry and country is receiving some return for the annual expenditure of more than $130,000 in British Columbia alone.
And quoting again:
Consequently we urge that before the service is extended some definite experimental tests should be carried on over a series of years. We make the condition however that the operations be carried on and observations made directly under competent scientific supervision, not under fisheries officials or fisheries officials alone, who have no scientific knowledge.
I understand there was some divergence of opinion among practical men in British Columbia, the officials of the department, and others interested in fisheries of the province of British Columbia. As a result of the difference of opinion it appears that in 1925 the government asked the biological board, which is composed of scientists, biologists, chemists and men of repute from the universities who are not directly officers or officials of the Department of Fisheries or the government, but are an independent body constituted by act of parliament, to conduct the investigation recommended in the report of 1922. It would appear that since 1925 the investigation has been proceeding, and this year a report has been made in which the conclusion is reached that, as in their opinion the artificial hatching of salmon in British Columbia did not justify the cost involved, such hatcheries should be closed. As a result of the recommendation the hatcheries were closed. It would appear that considerable saving to t'he treasury will be effected by this action.
I may add that not only is there a divergence of opinion among those interested in fisheries as to the advisability of expending these amounts of money yearly on hatcheries, but from the fishermen themselves there comes the urgent appeal the hatcheries be closed because they injuriously affect the fishermen's interests. These facts would seem to indicate that there has always been a difference of opinion between the different parts of the industry in British Columbia. In view of the report of the biological board we felt there was no alternative but to accept the report and act on the suggestion.
Apparently there have always been differences of opinion as to whether natural or artificial propagation is the more satisfactory. There can be no doubt that both are efficient, but those who claim to know and who have taken eleven years to study the problem have reported to us that in view of the sufficiency of natural production in these waters we are not justified in spending the moneys we have hitherto spent on those hatcheries. That is the reason why they have been closed. I know that practical men are objecting to this course; some who are personally interested in keeping them open are objecting. This is only natural and to be expected, but as I said a moment ago we have no alternative other than that of accepting the conclusions of the biological board; otherwise there would be no justification for their existence. They are the people to whom after all we must resort for opinions and suggestions in scientific and technical matters.
My hon. friend has suggested that the change might have some influence on the artificial propagation of the steelhead, which, I understand, is considered to be a sport rather than a commercial fish.


Harry James Barber: I used that only as an illustration.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Representations have been made that it might hurt that industry. The steelhead is considered more a sport than a commercial fish, and the province must look after that angle of the matter. However, we have undertaken to hold a conference this summer with officials of the province of British Columbia. We will attempt to come to a definite conclusion respecting jurisdiction or authority, a decison as to what department will undertake to look after the propagation and supervision of sport fishing in British Columbia, and if as a result of the conference the federal department is entrusted with this duty we will do our best to help develop the industry in British Columbia.
4054	COMMONS
Sockeye Salmon Industry-Mr. Neill


Harry James Barber: The minister intimated that all the hatcheries would not be closed. Of the ten named, how many would continue operating


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand a few will not be closed, and when the estimates are under discussion and I have my books before me I will answer the question.


Harry James Barber: I understand only ten
hatcheries are operating now.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is my understanding.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, the question as to whether or not hatcheries are efficient is a subject on which there is as much divergence of opinion as on the question whether a high or a low tariff is good. With the greatest of sincerity men could argue for weeks on both sides of the case. I am sorry the debate has arisen at this date and in this manner. It should not have come up in this wray at all. As the minister has said, there is in connection with this matter a divergence of earnestly held points of view, and I submit it should have been placed before the marine and fisheries committee. That committee was not called together this year, but I say it should have been called for a discussion of this and many other important subjects. I note that the order in council to which the hon. member for Eraser Valley (Mr. Barber) has referred, as a result of which the hatcheries were closed, was passed on March 2, at which time the house had been sitting almost a month. It would not have been inappropriate to submit a matter of that importance either to the fisheries committee, composed of men from all parts of Canada, or to the members from British Columbia, regardless of political affiliation, who would have local information and would be in a position to give good advice. That policy was not adopted, and the result is that this question is flung into the debate here at the last hour of the session, when we are going into supply on a motion which does not allow debate across the floor of the house. I submit that the reason it was not brought up was that the fisheries department is run not as a department but as a close corporation: officialdom said it was not going to be discussed, and it was not discussed; only the unbreakable rules of the house enabled it to be brought up here. It is another instance of the pressing need for the thorough reorganization of this department. In saying this I cannot be held to be attacking the minister, who has only recently taken over two generations of inertia and is trying to dio something. The argument might have been used-I was surprised the minister did not use it in answer to the hon. member 
for Fraser Valley-and used with some degree of accuracy, that the conditions the hon. member referred to applied to some years ago, that times have changed and we have to change our opinions and actions with them.


Harry James Barber: It still stands to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: He did bring it up to date to support his argument against the closing of the hatcheries. Mention was made of the fisheries commission in 1922. I happened to be a member of that commission. There were six members of parliament on it, and, as an illustration of the changes time brings, I may say that of the six one has gone to the senate, two have fallen by political misfortune, two have gone to the bench, and I am the only one left of that commission; I alone am left to tell such a tale as my feeble intelligence and increasing years may permit.


Mr. REID:: No telling where you are going.


Alan Webster Neill: 

FORMER WESTERN UNION EMPLOYEES AT NORTH SYDNEY

Daniel Alexander Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I propose to take up only a very few minutes to discuss a matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Howe). This matter concerns a number of men who were in the employ of the Western Union Telegraph Company which was taken over in 1928 by the Canadian National Telegraph Company. Since last November I have been endeavouring to have the claims of these men dealt with by the proper authorities. I first appealed to the Minister of Railways and Canals and I was informed that this matter did not come within his jurisdiction. I then appealed to the chairman of the board of trustees and I was informed that it did not come within his jurisdiction. I then appealed to Mr. Hungerford, the president of the Canadian National Railways, and I received a like response. I then transferred my activities to Mr. Galloway, the president of the Canadian National Telegraph Company, and I was informed by him that the incident was closed.
I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the facts as they appear to me. I respectfully make the submission, first, that the incident is not closed and should not be so regarded, and, second, that the men have what I consider to be a real grievance in connection with the manner in which their claims were disposed of. There was a group of about ten or fifteen men who were in the employ of the Western Union in what was known as the cable office at North Sydney, and in addition to cable work they did what is known in the telegraphic world as land line work. They were brought up and trained to cable work, which demanded a very special degree of efficiency, and they had made for themselves a splendid reputation as good operators at North Sydney. This was the situation in 1928, when the negotiations began between the Canadian National Telegraph Company and the Western Union for the taking over of that utility, and these operations continued until some time in 1929, when the arrangements were completed. I stated a moment ago that the men in the employ of the cable office were highly trained and efficient, and they were commanding as a result salaries a little higher than the ordinary ratings which were in effect in other portions of the Western Union service. A conference was held between the representatives of the men and the management of the Western Union Telegraph Company in New York, and one of the conditions of the agreement to transfer from the Western Union to the Canadian National Telegraph Company was that the ratings of the men in the Western Union should be continued unimpaired while they remained in the employ of the Canadian National Telegraph Company.
A few days ago we discussed in this house the reorganization of certain departments of government and I was glad to notice that members on both sides of the house were solicitous that employees who had given a good part of their lives to the work of various departments should not suffer financially by reason of the fact that consolidations were about to take place. I applaud that sentiment; I think it is the proper method of dealing with men who have become trained experts in any line of activity, if it can be properly carried out. All that these men are asking for, all that I am asking for on their behalf, is that the same measure of justice and fair play which we bespoke for the men in the employ of the government in these departments should be meted out to men who gave from ten to fifteen years-and one man gave as much as forty years-of service in the Western Union Company.
The agreement entered into with these men was carried on, so far as the Canadiain National Company was concerned, by Mr. Robb, the vice president. Mr. Robb gave his undertaking to Mr. Carlton, the manager of the Western Union Company in New York, whose letter is on file in connection with the proceedings under the act respecting conciliation, in which he stated that, acting for the Western Union Company, he would not have agreed to the transfer of that corporation to the Canadian National Telegraph Company if he had not been assured that the men who were in the employ of the Western Union Company and had given faithful service for so many years would not suffer in any degree in consequence of the transfer.
I wish to read from the judgment of His Honour Judge Murray, who was one of the members of the conciliation board. Let us see what he has to say in that connection:
I have not the slightest doubt of the merits of the contentions of the North Sydney men regarding the arrangements made by them with Mr. W. D. Robb, vice-president of the Canadian National in charge of telegraphs, and with the officers of the Western Union previous to their joining the Canadian National Telegraphs. The year 1929 was a prosperous one, and. in my opinion possibly an improvident vet sympathetic bargain was made by Mr. Robb, with the approval of Sir Henry Thorn-

4058	COMMONS
C..\T.R.-Status oj Former Employees
ton, with these men and the Western Union. It is also doubtful if the Western Union would have entered this agreement if this collateral contract had not been consummated by the Canadian National Telegraphs for protecting the North Sydney group on their Western Union ratings. (Mr. Robb stated in evidence that the Western Union refused to sell the lines unless this undertaking, respecting basic salary ratings, was agreed to by the Canadian National).
I call attention to the fact that this is the evidence of Mr. Robb. Evidence was taken in 1933 and this report of the conciliation board was released in 1934.
I have noted the exhibit of the North Sydney group marked "A,"-
That is the letter from Mr. Carlton to which I have referred.
-which, in my opinion, showed an absolutely strong case that the Canadian National Telegraphs should be bound by the agreement made with the Canadian National Railway officials that the North Sydney group should be taken over by the Canadian National Telegraphs at the ratings they were receiving in North Sydney. With all due respect to any opinion to the contrary, I feel that this agreement was a collateral one and need not be embodied in the main agreement of sale. I think that the fact that the officials of the Canadian National Telegraphs not only paid the North Sydney group the increased ratings for a period of three years or more after the agreement, but recognized these ratings in correspondence, without protest, should be sufficiently convincing to find that no person or corporation could repudiate it.
The findings of the board were not unanimous, but the report was signed by Judge Murray and t'he representative of the men. Judge Murray was the chairman. Mr. Mclnnis represented the Canadian National and Mr. Lunn represented the men. A majority of the board, consisting of the chairman and Mr. Lunn. representing the Commercial Telegraphers' Union of North America, found in effect-I am not going to read the finding-that the men had made out the case they were contending for, that they were entitled to their ratings and that these ratings should be continued. Some person has handed me a note saying he is very anxious to get home. So am I, but I want to say that these men have been struggling for a number of years to establish the justice and equity of their claim. They proceeded in the regular way, recognized by the government and the parliament of this country; they went before a conciliation board and established their claim, and all I am asking on their behalf and all they are asking is that this claim be recognized by the proper authorities.
Let me quote a few salaries in order to show this house how these men have been treated. D. Merritt had served the company for twelve years; he was rated as a clerk,

but he was an operator. He was receiving $130 a month and in 1933 his salary was arbitrarily reduced to $90 per month. In addition the ten per cent cut, which was *applied all around, was applied1 to this man also, leaving him to bring up a family of six or seven children on a salary of $80 a month. J. Rogers was receiving $175 per month; he was reduced to $125. Y. F. Tutty, whom I know very well, who was born and brought up in North Sydney and who, I imagine, must have served for thirty or forty years, had his salary reduced by $50. Some of these men were removed from North Sydney and located in other offices. They had been enabled to build their homes under a loan agreement with the Western Union, and they had properties at North Sydney. Owing to the depressed state of the real estate market those properties to-day are of very little use to them, but these operators were compelled to leave their homes and their families to work in another place with their salaries reduced anywhere from $20 to $50 a month.
That is a situation, Mr. Speaker, which is not going to be settled by the mere statement of Mr. Galloway, the head of the Canadian National Telegraphs, that the matter is closed. The matter is not closed as long as the findings of a competent court, which said these men made out the case they sought to make out, are ignored, and as long as the other party to the agreement of submission has not lived up to those findings. I am asking the minister to do these men the justice of having their case, I will not say reviewed, but studied and the facts as they were brought out before this court looked into, so that between his department and the Department of Labour the appropriate remedy may be applied. I know one of the suggestions urged is that if you pay these ratings to the men in North Sydney you will be in conflict with the union now in control of the Canadian National Telegraphs. I am not concerned about that conflict. I am concerned, however, that the pledged word of this country, given through the management of the Canadian National Railways, should be honoured and redeemed by those now in positions of authority and responsibility, who are able to give effect to the findings of the board. I ask the minister to give this matter his most careful and sympathetic attention.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that this is entirely a matter for the internal management of the railways, but I shall be glad to call it to the attention of the president.

Regina Riots-Mr. Woodsworth



REGINA RIOTS

James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter I had intended to take up on the estimates of the Department of Justice, but since it does not relate immediately to the work of the present government I think perhaps I had better introduce it at this time. Earlier i,n the session, owing to a commission having been appointed to consider the matter of the Regina riots and also owing to several court cases arising therefrom which were pending, we were prohibited from discussing the matter. Some of the men who were in those riots have been convicted.
The question arises as to who was responsible. An attempt has been made to place the blame o.n communist agitators, but I should like to point out, as was so eloquently pointed out by Liberal speakers a few days ago, that communism makes an appeal only when conditions become desperate, and without going into .the question of the camps I would remind the house that even the Macdonald commission found i,n connection with the British Columbia camps a good many things which were far from satisfactory.
It seems to me that the root of .the trouble was in the unsatisfactory methods of dealing with single unemployed men. I take it that the abandonment of the camps is a recognition of the fact that those methods were unsatisfactory. The immediate difficulty in connection with the riots appears to be due to the bungling and incompetence of police officials who apparently had the backing of the late government. In a recent editorial the Winnipeg Free Press remarked:
The record remains a lesson as to how not to deal with the problem of law enforcement.
The former government has been removed from office. The high officials of the police, however, still hold their positions, and a certain number of men are in gaol. Let me review, as briefly as I can, some of the outstanding facts about the situation. On May 19 the mayor of Vancouver, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), warned the government of the seriousness of .the situation. He said that the situation was extremely critical; he suggested a certain plan and warned the government that unless it was accepted serious .trouble was certain to occur. I think the position of the government can be very well understood from these sentences contained in the reply of the then Prime Minister on May 20:
Should they collect in a municipality it is obviously the duty of that municipality to seek 12739-258J
any assistance required from their provincial authorities. ... I note your anxiety as regards possible disturbances in Vancouver. . . . Any requests for assistance must in the first instance be made through the province.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard replied on May 21:
Communist organizers and agitators taking advantage of justifiable dissatisfaction on part of citizens in every strata of society and particularly objectionable features of relief camp system. . . . We cannot hold situation any further without resorting to force. Am confident that if federal government could cooperate with provincial and municipal governments situation could be remedied and riots with their inevitable consequences would be avoided.
At that time there seems to have been ample force to stop the trek at Vancouver. The former Prime Minister declared in the house that there was no force to stop them. On the other hand the commission report says in clause 14:
Had the dominion government wanted to stop it at that point there was a combined police force in Vancouver at the time and ample for that purpose; in fact a larger force than was available at Regina when the movement was actually stopped there.
It was when the men reached Regina that there was a complete reversal of policy. Before that time they had been allowed to proceed. The railways had actually assisted them, sometimes holding the trains and stopping them at convenient places. But when they got to Regina it was decided that they were to be prevented from proceeding east. Premier Gardiner objected to this. On June 12 he telegraphed:
Am informed Ottawa has issued orders without consulting provincial government that Ottawa marchers from British Columbia and Alberta are to be prevented from passing out of this province by the means they were permitted to enter. We object to police force which acts in matters of law enforcement under instructions of this government being used for any such purpose and will so instruct them. C.P.R. delivered these men in Saskatchewan en route to Ottawa and we expect them to carry them through.
The commission states that the government had decided to stop the trek at Regina and to do so regardless of the attitude of the provincial government thereto.
Now, there we have the situation. The men had trouble in British Columbia; they were assisted by the railroads to go east. The government at that time claimed that it had no right to interfere, so the men came east to Regina. There they were stopped. The then Prime Minister claimed that he had authority under some special provision as to duty of the police to enforce dominion

Regina Riots-Mr. Woodsworth
statutes, including the Railway Act. A very short time after that, however, the commissioner seems to have assumed very arbitrary powers. On June 24, the commissioner of police advised the assistant commissioner by telephone that no movement of the strikers eastward was to be permitted' by railway, motor cars, buses or trucks, and subsequently confirmed these instructions by telegram as follows:
No movement of the strikers eastward is to be permitted by railway, motor ears, buses or trucks. Truck and bus companies should be asked to cooperate with the government. If the situation develops seriously on Wednesday permanent forces will be called out to support the police and state of national emergency will be declared by the government.
On June 27 the commissioner gave further instructions. Still later, on that date, he further advised the assistant commissioner:
Confirming my telephone conversation with you government is taking action under the relief measures act declaring national emergency so as to maintain peace, order and good government. This will protect you against such actions and seizures which you consider it necessary to take with regard to present situation affecting camp strikers in Regina. Those whom you find it necessary to arrest should be confined under escort where most convenient and prosecuted in the usual manner.
Surely that is an outstanding example of a blank cheque! That was sent from Ottawa, giving the assistant commissioner carte blanche, going even so far as to state that those were to be arrested whom it was found necessary to arrest. Let me point out that the relief measures act, referred to in this last telegram, is chapter 13 of the statutes of Canada of 1935. Section 3 of that act provides:
In addition to the powers conferred under the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, when parliament is not in session-
Let me call particular attention to that phrase, "when parliament is not in session."
-take all such measures as in his discretion may be deemed necessary or advisable to maintain, within the competence of parliament,, peace order and good government throughout Canada.
Let me point out that Mr. Guthrie stated that no order in council of any kind had been passed in connection with the Regina situation. That is an extraordinary situation; action was taken against those men under the authority of the relief measures act; yet that act requires an order in council, and action could be taken under it only when parliament was not in session. There was no such order in council, and parliament

was in session. In regard to this matter of the order in council the commission say:
This statement was of course contrary to the information given by Commissioner Mac-11 rien to the assistant commissioner in his telegram on the evening of June 27.
That is a severe indictment of the commissioner of police. He was taking these extreme measures, said he had authority to take them, when he had no authority.
The commission states that the government was justified in stopping the trek. In clause 16 of the report I find the following:
That the dominion government was justified in the conclusion they had reached in adopting all lawful means to terminate the movement is amply borne out by the evidence.
Now, that is an extraordinary statement, especially to come from a body composed of legal gentlemen. "Lawful means," they say; yet the commission themselves acknowledge that the means taken were not lawful or at least not in conformity with the commissioner's statement. There hadi been no order , in council, and further than that, parliament was still sitting. The commissionens go on to express an opinion in this same clause 16:
Being absolutely without means of subsistence on the way to Ottawa they would have been a menace to the peace, order and good government of every town or city in which they stopped unless and until their needs were supplied; on arriving at Ottawa, unless their demands had been fully met, one can readily surmise the danger involved. It probably would have been necessary to call out the militia in order to preserve the peace and a worse riot would likely have occurred than that which actually took place at Regina.
That was by no means a legal decision. It would require a great deal of foresight to tell what might take place during the course of a trek from Regina to Ottawa. Talk about "precautionary arrests!" I submit that that is an altogether new type of thing in Canada. These men are to be arrested lest they might do something which would get them into trouble with the law. Prior to that time these men had not broken the law. But they were prevented from proceeding on their way to Ottawa lest perchance they should get into trouble. Surely, that is an infringement of the liberty of the subject. The arrests were justified by the commission on that ground.
I would suggest that it would not be a long step to what has been called ''protective arrest" in which an innocent man might be arrested lest someone should injure him. After this remarkable opinion, which in no sense can be called) a legal opinion, the commissioners naively proceed:
Whether or not and if so to what extent the dominion government exceeded its power in stopping the trek and in taking control of the police to enforce its will is not for us

Regina Riots-Mr. Woodsworth
to decide, and it follows it is not for us to pass judgment upon the validity of the protest made by the provincial government in either of the matters complained of.
The commissioners felt perfectly free to pass judgment on the victims of official blundering. On the other hand they said it was not their task to see whether or not the officials were within their powers in taking that course. There also came at that stage an announcement in the press that no one was to give any assistance. Assistant Commissioner Wood afterwards limited the application of this to assistance in setting up a camp. Let me say that the attorney general still claimed that highway traffic was not illegal, if authorized by the highway traffic board.
Here let me pause for a moment to point out the situation in which these men were placed. They had been brought east to Regina. The government had refused to take action; the railways had assisted. Suddenly the men were stopped. They were being given no further help by way of food, and so on. That was to be denied them. They were refused the right to travel eastward either by way of rail or by bus or truck. They were completely bottled up. When matters reached that stage the commissioner ordered the arrests. I quote from the report:
On the morning of the 28th Colonel Wood was advised by the commissioner by telephone that the government desired the arrest of the leaders as soon as possible. During the conversation-
Mark this:
-Colonel Wood stated that so far as he knew the leaders had done nothing in the province to warrant their arrest.
It was, however, decided by the commissioner to arrest under section 98 of the criminal code the well known leaders Evans, Black, O'Neil, Shaw and "others you think necessary."
That is, there was an open warrant to arrest the leaders "and any others you think necessary." Here special agent Leopold was called in. This man is a spy, maintained by the Department of Justice and I believe under the control of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was he who testified very largely at the time of the trial of the communists in Ontario. He was supposed to be an expert in such matters. I met the individual once, I believe, when, some years ago, I was addressing the Trades and Labour Council in Regina. At that time he was an official of the council. I recalled afterwards that he wanted me to come to his home after the meeting to discuss certain affairs. I happened to be too busy at the time, or I would have
gone. Had I gone I suppose I might have been gathered into his toils.
In passing I want to protest against the maintenance of people of this kind who worm their way into labour organizations and often act as agents provocateur. After the calling in of Leopold, on Sunday morning, June 30, the commissioner called Colonel Wood1 by telephone and asked him if he had yet effected the arrest of the leaders.
Colonel Wood again advised him that so far as the conduct of the men in this province was concerned, there was no evidence to warrant their arrest.
The commission has this to say in its report, section 13:
We are of the opinion that had Assistant Commissioner Wood been asked to conduct these negotiations and been given some discretion in the matter a satisfactory arrangement for the disbandment of the men might have been reached, and further trouble avoided.
That is, it was the long distance administration of justice which was the cause of the difficulty. Had Colonel Wood been given authority he could have managed to straighten out matters. That course was not taken.
The warrants were issued at 6 p.m. on the evening of the trouble. Let me point out that prior to this time in my opinion the dominion government had bungled, and the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had bungled. Now came the bungling of Assistant Commissioner Colonel Wood. He immediately proceeded to make elaborate plans for the arrest. One witness testified that he thought blue prints had been drawn up. It was decided to effect the arrest at Unity Centre, the headquarters of the strikers in Regina, or in the market square shortly after the opening of the public meeting.
Evidence given in the trials showed that no attempt was made to arrest the men at Unity Centre. This elaborate plan of action provided that plainclothesmen were to be employed and-
-as a precautionary measure and to prevent any attempt at rescue and to protect those to whom had been assigned the duty of effecting the arrests three squads of police on foot were to be stationed in the vicinity of the square at the north, east and west sides respectively, and these were to move on the square should necessity arise for action on their part.
Inspector McDougall of the city police swore at the trial that the plan was to rush the meeting-
-regardless of whether the plainsclothesmen needed assistance or not.
They were to rush the meeting on signal from a whistle. Let me here emphasize an

Regina Riots-Mr. Woodsworth
extremely important point. Ostensibly the purpose was to arrest the men, but apparently no effort was made to arrest them prior to the meeting. They might have been arrested for days past, but they were not so arrested. It was just at that last minute, when the public meeting of the citizens had been called to make protest, and in an effort to collect money from the citizens that the arrests were to be effected. Most of the trekkers were not present at the meeting when the arrests were made. There was no attempt by Evans to escape. That statement was made at the trial. Further than that, no attempt was made to rescue Evans.
But with an excitable crowd, and under such circumstances, the inevitable happened and a riot was precipitated. Let me point out that at this very time negotiations were in progress between the provincial government and the men.
A meeting of the members of the government available was held at eight o'clock on the same evening and while the proposals were being considered Mr. Gardiner was notified by telephone that a riot was going on at market square.
It is quite unnecessary, and I believe would serve no useful purpose, if I were to give details with regard to what took place. Anyone who has seen how readily the passions of a crowd are aroused could have foretold there would be trouble. The evidence as to details was very conflicting. For example, the commission states that it is impossible to reconcile the evidence of Inspector Cooper with that of Inspector McDougall. Apparently the equipment of the city police was complete. They had revolvers and ammunition. The mounted police were not supposed to have ammunition, but they had a quantity of tear gas bombs, and wore steel helmets. Here are a few items that may give an idea of the situation:
Inspector McDougall of the Regina city police force at one stage ordered his men to draw their revolvers and fire over the heads )f the advancing mob.
Apparently the Riot Act was not read. The commission states:
It is unlikely that more than one or two policemen fired at the strikers....
Again:
At another stage inspector McDougall went to telephone the police station requesting the despatch of another supply of ammunition.
The result was-without going into the details of a scene too horrible for contemplation-that:
Forty strikers and citizens were sent to the hospital for treatment, many of them seriously injured and seventeen of them suffering from bullet wounds.

Again:
One city policeman, Millar, had been killed; eight city policemen had been sent to hospital for treatment; many city police and Royal Canadian Mounted Police were injured. Of the latter force thirty-nine were sent to hospitals.
The commission reports:
In view of the rioting which took place on the advent of the police, the expediency of effecting the arrests on the market square may be questioned; the right of the police to effect the arrests on the market square, however, cannot be questioned. It is the duty of policemen in possession of warrants to execute them at once, using their best judgment as to the time and place of arrest.... It is clear that Colonel Wood and his associates underestimated the violent opposition that developed and did not foresee the rioting that followed.
Surely a very lenient judgment on the officials in charge. In view of that horrible bungling, all the commission says is that "the expediency of effecting the arrests on the market square may be questioned." I believe the public of Canada has already very decidedly questioned the "expediency." The commissioners indeed, seek to condone the action; they say, "the right of the police to effect the arrests on the market square cannot be questioned." Nobody questions the right of police to effect arrests. But surely the whole situation must be taken into account. For days and days these men might have been arrested. The warrants were not got out until about two hours previously, and apparently no effort had been made to serve them before the leaders came to address a public meeting in the market square. At the time of that public meeting the whole elaborate plan of mass attack on the public had been arranged, in which were involved not only the mounted police but the city police, and for which ammunition and all other equipment stood ready. Surely it is a question of "expediency," but in my judgment it is a great deal more than that.
At this place I should read, I think, a portion of the subsequent telegram of the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). It is dated July 2.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend might
read the answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I don't know. I shall look it up. I shall read from the telegram anyway:
Yesterday morning men indicated to your representative Mr. Burgess their willingness to disband the march and return to the points from which they came. They repeated this to Mr. Burgess and representatives of the police at 2.30. Your representative refused to have provincial representation at that meeting. The men met us at five o'clock stating that since

Regina Riots-Mr. Woodsioorth
vour representative had refused to consider this the provincial government take responsibility for disbanding men to their_ camps or homes and supply them with food in the interval. While we were considering this matter police raided public meeting to arrest leaders, precipitating a riot.
Let me pause to say that that is a pretty serious charge to come from the premier of one of our provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the commission
found it was not warranted. Now, be fair about that.
Mr. WOOL>SWORTH:	I say that this is
a serious charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. They found that
charge not warranted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I read a few
minutes ago what the commission found.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. They found distinctly that the charge was not warranted.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me read this:
Men at present in buildings at fair grounds completely surrounded by police who permit no one to enter and men to leave only in twos. This will end in a worse riot than last night.
There follow some other statements, and I quote:
We would ask you to immediately withdraw orders issued affecting the liberty of individuals within this province and affecting the law and order of this province.
This was tendered and marked exhibit No. 49.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reply is there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have most of the report and the evidence before me, but I simply want to make this case: I have left out a great mass of evidence which would take hours to read. This is not a court, and we here cannot be tied to court procedure. I cannot hope to go through these matters in the detail that would be necessary in a court. I have simply fried to present the case in as brief a form as possible. The greater number of the statements that I have made have been taken word for word from the official evidence or from the commissioners' report.
The recent trials centred on the action of the men during the riot period. There was no trial of the police officials. I think apy member can understand under what a disadvantage that circumstance places the men under trial. Further one cannot get a view or picture of the entire situation. These men who struck policemen were hauled up under
arrest a,nd tried for their particular actions.
I suppose a court cannot do anything else, but in that court no account was taken of the provocative actions of the police, and much more serious than that, no account was taken of the whole situation. Anybody who has been present at a football match knows that when a little fuss arises on the grounds there is sometimes almost immediately a big row, in which very often the spectators become involved. Anyone knows that at a fire or at any time of intense excitement people lose their heads and do the most absurd things. I am not suggesting that desperate, horrible things were not done by some of the trekkers at that time, but I say that from the evidence submitted and by the account of eye-witnesses horrible things were done by the police.
The more serious consideration is the fact that these men were driven into that position. They were refused permission to proceed op their way to Ottawa. I admit the commission states that such action was justifiable, but it also says that it is not for it to say whether or not it was legal. The riot was precipitated by the action of the police. Now the -men have been tried and a number of them convicted. Further, it should be remembered that the arrests were made under section 98 of the criminal code. Those charges against the leaders were subsequently withdrawn. I assume that the attorney general's department found that there was not sufficient evidence on which to proceed. Let me point out that Assistant Commissioner Wood said there was no evidence upon which the men could be arrested. Trumped-up charges under section 98 of the criminal code were produced, a,nd an attempt was made to arrest the men under those charges, all of which were subsequently withdrawn. So there was no ground for -the arrests. But worse than anything else, the method of the arrests was objectionable, because the arrests were attempted on the market square in the presence of a big crowd, where, it seems to me, anybody should have recognized the danger of serious difficulty. In my judgment the dominion government clearly exceeded its powers and the commissioner of the mounted police, apparently with the backing of the dominion authorities, acted in a very arbitrary manner. It would seem as though the authorities were anxious to attack the trekkers rather than to effect peaceful disbandment.
The government of that day is no longer in office, but I appeal to the present government to make the most rigid inquiry into re-
1004	COMMONS
Yukon Mining Claims-Mrs. Black
sponsibility of the commissioner in ordering these arrests. I do not think a man who has the responsibility of having brought about these arrests should be allowed to remain at the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Inquiries should also be made into the actions of the assistant commissioner in attempting to serve the warrants in the way he did.
Just one other word. To-morrow will be the King's birthday and very often in the old days that was made an occasion for clemency. I have tried to outline some of what I regard as the official blunders that led up to this tragedy. The victims of those blunders are still in gaol. Although the officials exceeded their authority and blundered, although they may have lost their heads at the time, they are still in charge, but the poor victims are in gaol. I ask the minister to consider seriously the possibility of granting clemency to these men and may I include others who are serving sentences to-day because of acts committed in riots or other troubles connected with industrial1 disputes.
I was delighted with the high position taken the other day by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and other supporters of the government in supporting the repeal of section 98 of the criminal code. I am not so much interested in trying to place the blame here or there. The trouble is we have not paid sufficient attention to the underlying causes; in future we should try to remedy the causes before adopting repressive measures. We blame the trekking unemployed but I believe that if the police had acted as they did with a group of university students the results would have been similar. These results did not come about because of anything inherently wrong with these men; it was because of the conditions in which they found themselves. Let me point out that the leaders are not among those now in gaol, the charges against them having been subsequently withdrawn.
I felt that I could not let this session pass without calling attention to this very serious situation and making a plead for clemency.
I suggest that we try to wipe out these blunders as far as is possible by a gesture of generosity towards those who have been the victims.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no right to speak again because it is all one motion, but when the appropriate estimate is reached I shall deal with this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: This is given if the first owner proves his bona fides and pays all the expenses to which the relocator has been put and the cost of work, if any, that has been done. Claims can be renewed each year but only upon payment of the fee and upon the furnishing of proof that work to the amount of $200 has been done. Claims are forfeited if the work is not done or the fees paid each year, but fourteen days of grace are allowed. The government has carefully protected both the owner and the public in case of either the death or insanity of the owner. In case of death the act says:
The commissioner may from time to time extend the period of exemption as the necessity of the case may in his opinion demand, provided that in the case of deceased persons the period during which such exemption shall apply shall not extend beyond three years from the date of the death of such person.
In the event of insanity, the owner is equally well protected, because the act provides:
If there is no other legal representative of any such deceased or insane person, the commissioner may appoint the public administrator of the territory to take possession of the property and administer the same.
All charges are to be taken from the output. The Yukon Quartz Mining Act is equally comprehensive. Some years ago it was suggested that there were rich mining lands for from ten to thirty thousand men in the Yukon, and that the federal government would be justified in sending that number there. There may still be many a hidden Eldorado or Bonanza but such wealth is not to be had without gruelling work and perseverance. Many men have worked and slaved for years, hoping to develop a good paying mine, but at the end only to acknowledge that they have made but the barest living, while others have invested their all to find nothing in return. I do not believe there
are a baker's dozen claims in Yukon, either placer or quartz, that have been staked, proven and abandoned either through death or insanity, and that are not open for relocation. At any rate, to make sure that such is the case I shall certainly investigate the matter very thoroughly on my return within the next month. I am informed by the Minister of the Interior that because of certain local conditions the Yukon council has extended the period of relocating until 1939, in the case of companies who may of necessity do ten or twenty times the amount of representation work demanded in one section of the district, applying part of that overwork to property in another section of the district.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Militia Services-
Engineer services and works - further amount required, $273,000.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Will the minister give
an explanation of this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This total is made up of the following items:
Itockcliffe aerodrome, $95,000.
Barriefield, $35,000.
Petawawa, $15,000.
Valcartier, $20,000.
Quebec, citadel walls, $25,000.
Shilo, $30,000.
Dundurn, $45,000.
Yorkton, $4,000.
Kingston, $4,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General stores-further amount required, $712,800.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister explain this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
item is made up as follows:
Clothing, necessaries and miscellaneous stores. $25,800.
Artillery stores, $151,350.
Telephone signal and wireless equipment, $36,900.
Inspection of stores, $13,000.
Mechanical and water transports, $7,000.
Dominion arsenal, Quebec and Valcartier. $478,750.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent force-further amount required, $66,626.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The item is made up as follows:
Courses abroad, $5,000,
Pay and allowances, nine months' basis,

106b
Supply-National Defence

Pay and allowances, increase in establishment, $9,000.	_
Pay and allowances, nine months' basis, increase of 30 non-commissioned officers and men required to complete the formation of antiaircraft battery, $20,000.
Pay and allowances, reclassification of branch of master general of ordnance and judge advocate general, $2,226.
Salaries, civilian personnel. $2,400.
Printing and stationery, $18,000.


Angus MacInnis: Will the minister be
good enough to give the comparison between the vote for permanent force this year and last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For
1936-37 the amount is $5,546,700, and the amount voted in 1935-36 was $5,589,147.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Naval Services-	_
To provide for the maintenance of the ships and establishments of the naval service, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve and the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve-further amount required, $245,000.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is almost entirely for technical equipment for wireless sets, torpedoes, anti-submarine purposes, repair to hulls of Saguenay and Skeena, and to cover the cost of modem installation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
Compassionate allowance to Rose and Anna Moscovitz, widow and child respectively of the late Himan Moscovitz, $2,000.
Angus MacInnis: These are suspicious
looking names. What are the particulars?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In this
case a truck was driven by a driver in the service of the National Defence department. The case went to the exchequer court where a verdict was returned in favour of the claimants for $7,500.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Against the driver.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Against the crown. It was in connection with one of the unemployment relief projects at Trenton. The case was appealed by the crown and taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, and on a technicality, referred to some weeks ago by the leader of the opposition, it was disallowed. I have the report of the judge advocate general, who states that in equity there is no question whatever about the ease being a thoroughly deserving one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will this sum go to the widow or to the lawyers?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I have control over it, it will all go to the widow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aviation-
Royal Canadian Air Force-expenses in connection with the general maintenance and training of the permanent and non-permanent active air force, and provision of facilities therefor-further amount required, $555,028.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The item consists of the following:
Towards engine parts, $25,000.
Towards general purpose, aircraft, $100,000.
Towards flying boats, $170,000.
For civil salaries, $15,060.
Revote, wireless equipment. $15,000.
Torpedo bomber aircraft, $166,298.
Engineer services, $33,670.
Training aircraft, $30,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation-expenses in connection with the control of civil aviation, airways, government and public airports and grants to aeroplane clubs-further amount required, $346,400.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I may
inform my hon. friend from Yale that there is a revote of $16,000 for the airport in the vicinity of Chilliwack.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Would the minister give the details making up this total of $346,400?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a revote of $58,000, and the estimate is divided up as follows: Stores and equipment, $5,300; aeroplane clubs and schools, $23,700; trans-Canada construction, works and buildings, $231,400; to purchase land, $16,000. That makes a total of $276,400. Then for wireless services in connection with the transatlantic aviation development there is the sum of $70,000, making the total stated in the estimate. The main amount is $231,400 to complete airports and landing fields not finished under the unemployment relief projects.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Since
the estimates were last under discussion has anything definite been decided with regard to the proposed landing site of the transatlantic service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; it has not been definitely decided.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Then I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that within the confines of Cape Breton North-Victoria we have the best landing site in Nova Scotia.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Mr. HARTIGAN:: I should like to ask
the minister if some of this money is to be spent on a port outside Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


David James Hartigan: Is there any intention on the part of the department to equip an airport outside Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, except an airport in Newfoundland, in connection with radio and meteorological service. That was voted in the previous estimates.


David James Hartigan: That is what I had
in mind. I am not a lawyer, but if anything is unconstitutional surely it is equipping an airport outside Canada, using Canadian money. That is what I have in mind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not in this vote at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Other Projects-Harbours and Rivers

Quebec
Amos-wharf extension, $3,325.
Anse a Beaufils-repairs to harbour works, $15,000.
Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour, $45,000.
Belceil-protection work, $7,700.
Black River-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $4,000.
Bonaventure-protection work, $9,000.
Cap Chat-protection work, $7,700.
Chandler-wharf repairs, $7,000.
Cross Point-dredging, $12,000.
Etang du Nord, Mil.-harbour improvements, $25,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Gros Cap, M.I.-landing pier, $3,100.
Havre Aux Maisons, M.I.-wharf, $6,500.
Lac Duparquet-wharf, $2,600.
Lac Rouyn (Mercier)-wharf, $2,300.
Lanoraie-extension to protection wall, $2,800.
Laprairie-icebreakers, $4,200.
Laprairie-repairs to dyke, $28,000.
Lavaltrie - extension to protection wall, $3,100.
Levis-wharf, $50,000.
Malbaie-small landing pier, $1,780.
Matane - extension	to east breakwater,
[Stage Direction]
Mont Louis-protection work, $5,600.
Molfette-wharf, $3,500.
Moisie-protection wall extension and repairs, $2,500.
New Richmond-protection work, $7,000.
Notre Dame de Pierreville-protection wall, $16,000.
Notre Dame de Pierreville (Chenal Tardif) -icebreaker, $3,200.
Notre Dame du Portage-wharf repairs,
[Stage Direction]
Paspebiac-wharf extension, $46,000.
Peninsula-wharf extension, $2,600.
Petite Riviere St. Francois-wharf extension, $15,000.
Petite Vallee-wharf extension, $27,000.
Pointe Claire-completion of approach, $2,000.
Pointe du Lac-protection work, $10,000.
Pointe Jaune-improvements to fishing harbour, $27,000.
Pointe St. Pierre-wharf reconstruction, $12,500.
Richelieu river-improvement of river and Chambly canal system, $500,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $150,000.
Riviere au Rats-wharf, $4,900.
Riviere Beaudette-protection work, $2,000.
Riviere Blondelle-protection work, $5,200.
Riviere des Hurons-contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $75,000.
Ruisseau Pariseau - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province, $15,000.
Ste. Anne des Monts (river)-extension of training pier, $8,000.
St. Antoine de Tilly-wharf construction, $17,000.
St. Etienne de Malbaie (Casgrain wharf) - fill spans, $5,000.
St. Godfrey (Riviere Nouvelle)-protection work, $16,650.
St. Grfigoire de Montmorency-repairs and completion of protection wall, $5,000.
St. Maurice river-dredging, $18,000.
St. Michel des Saints-extension to protection works, $1,800.
St. Omer-raising protection work, $4,400.
Ste. Rose-protection wall, $4,900.
St. Simeon de Bonaventure-protection work,
[Stage Direction]
Saguenay river-dredging, $200,000.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $85,000.
Tadoussae (Anse Tadoussac)-wharf improvements, $15,000.
Val Barette-protection work, $3,000.
Varennes-protection wall, $15,000.
Vercheres-protection wall, $10,000.
Victoriaville-protection work, $5,000.
To provide for payment of salaries and expenses in connection with the investigation in Canada of the improvement of the waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to the Hudson river, $20,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the past the practice has been to call each vote in these items, since they include long lists of public works. For some time we have discussed the one vote in connection with the work on the Richelieu river. When the matter was before the committee previously the minister made a statement which to some extent changes the nature of the expenditure. We started out with the assumption that the expenditure was in connection with the improvement of the Chambly canal and that it was but the beginning of an estimated or probable expenditure of $8,000,000 or $10,000,000. Strong objection was taken from different sections of the house to a commitment of that kind at this time. I do not propose to enlarge upon that at all; it seems so self-evident, so apparent that we ought not to embark upon anything like that now, particularly in connection with a work the result of which very likely would not justify the expenditure of any such sum.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
In a general way I am familiar with this proposition. It has been considered previously, and was under consideration when revenues were more buoyant than they are at present. I do not think the minister can contend for a moment that prospective traffic on this canal justifies this expenditure. However he has now said that this will have the effect of reclaiming a large area of land. If the expenditure is made for that purpose only and is not to be regarded as a commitment for the larger expenditure to which we have referred, the matter is placed in a more favourable light. But I wish to point out to the committee that if the expenditure is for the reclamation of land the general policy has been that the provincial government should make a contribution towards the cost. If that is the reason for the expenditure, then I would urge that this practice should be followed and that the minister should secure from the provincial government a contribution of, say fifty per cent of the cost of the work. If the effect is to reclaim a large area of land, undoubtedly this is more a provincial than a federal matter. Since the minister says that this work to some extent will improve navigation in the river and at the same time benefit a large area of land, it seems to me that it is a work which, under the general policy, might be fairly considered a joint undertaking as between the province and the dominion. I can only ask the minister again, as I did before, to review the whole situation in the light of all the circumstances and not tc regard this as a final commitment on the pari of the dominion to this expenditure at this time. Particularly do I ask him not to regard this as a commitment to an expenditure of eight, ten or twelve million dollars in this connection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have just one word to add. The committee should keep in mind that an expenditure of half a million dollars is provided for on the preceding page in connection with this very matter. The words to which I directed attention previously-and I do so again-is that this provides for a waterway which will enable freight to be shipped out through the Hudson river by way of Albany rather than through Canadian ports. The words, "through lake Champlain to the Hudson river" are the governing words about which I raised objection the other day. I am not going to take more time than to say that, having regard to the fact that this matter has been before the department for many years, in days of, shall I say, great buoyancy of revenue, and the application has been refused, I am of opinion it is undesirable to make this ex-

penditure now. The minister has given the explanation, so I am content to let the matter rest there.


David Spence: It is not often that I object to any development in any part of Canada, particularly in connection with the main arteries of traffic, but it seems to me that this development is absolutely unnecessary. If it is carried on, however, I think the province of Quebec should contribute some part of the cost, as the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) suggested. To-day people are astounded at the amounts in the estimates for the interior parts of the province of Quebec. In this case it is proposed to spend 8500,000, and if that money is spent it will be absolutely wasted unless you go on with the full development which, as the minister says, will mean anywhere from eight to twelve million- dollars. I do not think any engineer can estimate how much it will cost to develop the Richelieu river, which is about eighty-five miles long. It may be stone or quicksand in the bottom; nobody knows.
Another point is that this project will employ very little labour as compared with other jobs that might be done. Take, for instance, the tunnel job in Toronto that was turned down, a million dollar job; it would have given $750,000 to the unemployed, but in this case there will just be dredges and cement mixers which very few men can operate, and most of the money will be spent and the unemployed will get very little out of it. Furthermore, this development is more in the interests of the United States than of Canada, because this Richelieu river empties into the St. Lawrence at Sorel which is immediately east of Montreal, and there are the new locks built some time ago, which should never have been built, because all the other locks on this Richelieu river take only boats with a draft of six feet. Why is there any necessity for more than six feet to float logs and flat-bottomed scows to accommodate a pulp and paper factory? There is no need for developing this lock to a depth of twelve feet and a length of 339 feet. This means that after a while much of the traffic which would go down the St. Lawrence will go by the Richelieu river to lake Champlain and by the Hudson to Albany, for the United States are trying to get everything they can and take everything they can from Canada. This work will be in the interests of the United States and their transportation systems rather -than in the interests of Canada. The first thing we know grain boats will be going by this route to the big elevators in Albany and taking the business from our maritime

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
ports. We must be careful. I think the minister has been inveigled into this matter innocently; I do not for a moment think he is doing anything which he believes will injure the country, but if we are going to spend ten or twelve million dollars on this project, it will be a worse proposition than the Hudson Bay railway, only on a smaller scale. The Hudson Bay railway will assist in developing the natural resources and some day it may pay, but I do not think this will ever pay; it will only help the people to the south. The minister said the other day that it was to help the pulp and paper industry. It would be better for us to buy the pulp and paper industry and burn it-[DOT]


Vincent Dupuis: How much did the Welland canal cost?


David Spence: It cost a good deal more than it was supposed to, and this will also. I think it was $130,000,000, but it is giving great service to the whole dominion, while this project will give no particular service to the dominion, but simply to the province of Quebec. I congratulate Quebec on many of the things they have done, the repatriation scheme and everything, but Quebec should not ask the whole of Canada to pay for things that they should pay for in part themselves. This development of the Richelieu is not going to pay; it will probably be a lot of money wasted, and in these times when money is so scarce and unemployment so bad we should use the money where it will employ more labour. I do not mind even if it is spent in Montreal, but under this project there never will be any business other than running logs to accommodate the pulp and paper people and to help the United States to get the traffic through the Hudson to Albany.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Ontario
Amherstburg - reconstruction of marine wharf, $26,000.
Amherst island (Long Point)-breakwater, $2,500.
Burlington channel-reconstruction of south pier, $150,000.
Byng inlet-dredging, $10,000.
Chenal Ecarte-dredging, $22,500.
Cobb lake-dredging, an equal amount to be contributed by the provincial government, $5,000.
Cobourg-maintenance dredging, $21,000.
Honey Harbour-dredging east of Roberts island, $16,000.
Honey Harbour-wharf extension, $9,000.
Kingsville-reconstruction of east pier, $18,000.
Kingsville-harbour repairs and improvements, $8,500.
Lake Wahnapetei (Massey bay)-wharf, $1,900.
Lake Wahnapetei (Portage bay)-wharf,
[Stage Direction]
Little Current-wharf extension, $3,000.
Oshawa-to replace old west pier, $50,000.
Owen Sound-harbour improvements, $4,600.
Penetanguishene [DOT]

 wharf reconstruction, $21,200.
Port Arthur - harbour improvements, $180,000.
Port Hope-rebuild pierhead east pier, $15,500.
Port Stanley-repairs and reconstruction of harbour works, $36,000.
Rondeau-repairs to west pier, $28,000.
Sarnia-dredging, $23,000.
Saugeen River-extension to north pier,
[Stage Direction]
Sombra-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Thames river (Chatham)-protection work, $7,000.
Thames river mouth-dredging, $18,500.
Tobermory-wharf extension, $7,000.
Toronto island-breakwater, the city of Toronto to bear a like amount, $133,000.
Windsor-warehouse extension, $5,000.
Wolfe island (Horne's Point)-wharf, $16,300.
Mr. LENNARD:: I should like to direct the minister's attention to the third item, Burlington channel, reconstruction of south pier. Can the minister tell me when this work will commence and if tenders will be asked for it.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: This work has not been commenced yet.


Frank Exton Lennard: I know that, but can the Minister tell me when it will be commenced?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that plans have not yet been prepared for the work. It may take a month or a month and a half.


Frank Exton Lennard: Will tenders be called for?	i


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


David Spence: Again this is absolutely unfair. There is an item for the Toronto breakwater, where the city of Toronto pays $133,000, half the estimate. Why should we do that and the province of Quebec pay nothing at all?	,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


David Spence: Oh, the party opposite is strong enough to carry everything, but this is not fair. Would the minister give some explanation why the city of Toronto has to pay half for the work there, while other places pay nothing?	.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because this work in Toronto is on an island and has no connection with navigation, and the city owns the island.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


David Spence: But it is the duty of this government to protect the shore of any lake. If the city owns the island, why does this government give anything at all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it is the duty of the government to protect the shores of all lakes.	i


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
Harbours and rivers generally-improvements, maintenance of services, repairs and additions, $500,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was there an item under this head in the general estimates as well?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This amount is a much larger sum than usual. What is the reason?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My right hon. friend will remember that each province has an item for harbours and rivers; this is the general item. I do not remember for the moment the amounts for each province. Under this item the amount is general, covering all provinces.


Mr. GRAYDON:: May I suggest to the
Minister of Public Works that there is courtesy in all matters and when he is considering the expenditure of the money under this item he should bear particularly in mind the meritorious claims of one of the really great harbours of Canada, Port Credit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and Bridges-
Ottawa-paving, $8,000.
Edmonton low level bridge-repairs and improvements-the city of Edmonton and the Canadian National Railways to contribute like amounts, $1,300.
Rainy River-international bridge between Rainy River, Ont. and Beaudette, Minn.- survey and investigation, $20,000.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: On June 6 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) with reference to the reconstruction of a bridge at Fredericton, New Brunswick, which was carried out by the ice last spring. The minister has not yet answered my question. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government to reconstruct that bridge this year. I see nothing in the supplementary estimates concerning it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I explained very clearly to the hon. gentleman that the government have nothing to do with that bridge; it is owned by the Canadian National Railways. I have told him that the hon. member who represents that constituency is working with the railway and they expect that between them they will probably reach a solution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice the sum of $20,000 for an international bridge between Rainy River, Ontario, and Beaudette, Minnesota. Is this for the purpose of investigating the feasibility of such a scheme? Is it the usual practice of this house to spend this amount of money for a survey for an international bridge, or has a similar amount been voted by the people on the United States side?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that it is the general practice to have a certain amount placed in the estimates to make a survey for a proposition of this kind. This has been before the department on many occasions for a long time. This is only to make a survey.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who is asking for this bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The province of Ontario and the adjoining state, I am informed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then should not Ontario
make provision for this bridge, and not the federal government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Bridges between Canada
and the United States come under the jurisdiction of the federal parliament.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister know
the population that is to be served, and is he aware as to whether or not a bridge is desirable at that point?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Frankly I do not know at the present time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister know of any other international bridges in connection with which there have been contributions by the dominion government? As I recall it, the policy of this government is to make contributions in connection with the construction of interprovincial bridges, but not international 'bridges.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that
we pay half the cost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In connection with international bridges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We do not do that in
connection with bridges over the St. Lawrence. They are privately financed. I do not know of an international bridge to which we have made contribution. There are international bridges at Detroit, Niagara Fall's, and other points.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are private bridges.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but international
bridges. They are private in the sense that

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
they are constructed by companies and exact tolls. What does the minister mean by a private bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that on
the St. John river there are four international bridges in connection with which we pay half the cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Nova Scotia-
Berwick-public building, $18,000.
Lunenburg-public	building-repairs	and
improvements. $5,000.
Oxford-public building, $26,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not wish to object
to the item, but may I point out that in several cases we find provision for the construction of buildings and the completion of other undertakings which were provided for in years gone by under public works construction acts or supplementary public works construction acts. Eor some reason, although tenders are in and plans have been prepared, the government has scrapped those undertakings and is now beginning over again. Is it the intention of the government to prepare new plans and invite new tenders, or will it proceed on the basis of what has already been completed in the department?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Speaking from memory
I would say that in most cases we shall follow the tenders that were in before this government took office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-
Fenelon Palls - public buildings - further amount required, $2,000.
Haliburton-public building, $8,000.
Kenora public building - installation of fittings, $7,000.
Kitchener-public building, $100,000.
London, Westminster Hospital-addition and improvements. $30,000.
Ottawa - building for supreme court, $250,000.
Rainy River-public building, $15,000.
St. Thomas public building-alterations and improvements, $6,600.
Sarnia public building-addition and alterations, $17,000.
Watford public building-further amount required, $1,100.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the estimated
cost of the supreme court building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is difficult to give an exact figure, but the opinion of the chief architect of the department is that it might run pretty well over SI,000,000 and possibly to S2.000.000. It has to be a fitting and substantial building.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is there any
suggestion as to where it may be built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has not yet been decided.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
Kelowna-public building, $40,000.
Lillooet - public building - further amount required, $2,500.
Powell River-public building, $40,000.
Prince Rupert-public building, $100,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice the government is spending $100,000 for a public building at Prince Rupert. It seems to me that for such a small city $100,000 is a large amount. Would the Minister of Public Works tell the committee what kind of building is to be built, and the purposes for which it will be used?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $100,000 may not be sufficient to build the public building at Prince Rupert. It may cost as much as $125,000. There are five governmental services in that city, and when I use the figure of $125,000 I am capitalizing the rentals the government is at present paying at that place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister been there?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the rentals now being paid to private persons be more than sufficient to cover the cost of the erection of the new building?


Charles Avery Dunning: To cover the interest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally-
Dominion public buildings-to provide for completion of payments in Winch building, Vancouver, and sundry military properties now under purchase by instalments, $1,531,000.
Tractors-for postal purposes, $2,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this cover all payments and all outstanding instalments on buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the Winch building- the Daly building has long since been paid for-and other military buildings, as well?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia-
Bear River-protection work, $3,200.
Brooklyn-dredging-further	amount rerequired, $2,500.
Halifax-addition to north wing-R.C.N. barracks, $9,500.
Hantsport-to purchase warehouse, $12,500.
Morden-wharf repairs, $16,600.
North Sydney-wharf, $15,000.
Pictou-dredging, $29,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Most of these are further amounts required?
4072	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice one item to purchase a warehouse at Hantsport. Would the minister give an explanation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that last year there was an appropriation to build a warehouse at that point. Before we were ready to start on the building I understand a private company began operations on a building similar to the one we proposed to erect, and we are acquiring that building at a cost less than the amount contemplated we would have to spend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By expropriation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: By mutual agreement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In a return brought down it is stated that the reason for not proceeding with the work last year was that the company for -whom the building was to be constructed had erected a building. I am wondering why it is being purchased, if of its own accord the company erected a building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed the warehouse has been built on a government wharf. We want to make it a public rather than a private warehouse.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When was the agreement made for the erection of the building on the wharf?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed a private company had a lease to use part of the wharf. We are buying the warehouse they have erected, and intend to make it a public warehouse. It is possible to do that at a price less than it would have cost the government if it had gone ahead with the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister say that the warehouse now being purchased is in all respects the equal of, as large or as good as the one we proposed to erect?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is my information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Alberta-
Calgary-instalment on purchase of property for ordnance stores, $9,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $17,000.
Peace River-public building, $31,500.
Red Deer-addition to armoury. $1,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that all the instalments in connection with buildings that were partly provided for in the main estimates will now be taken care of in the other estimates?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Generally
[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms - replacements, repairs and improvements, $100,000.
Flags for dominion public buidlings, $4,500.
Military buildings-repairs, fittings and additions, $25,000.
Military hospitals-repairs,	improvements
and alterations, $80,000.
Post Office equipment, $14,000.
Public buildings generally, $30,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with flags, may I suggest that the minister issue peremptory orders that flags shall be lowered at sundown. Often I have come into a town and got off a late train and found valuable flags being pounded to pieces at night. I know the department has done what it can, but if those in charge w'ere told that their positions depended upon their taking care of these flags, it would be a desirable thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs. Furniture, Heating, etc.- Ottawa Public Buildings and Grounds-
Elevator attendants. $124,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $150 for firing noon gun, $461,000.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $408,000.
Light and power, including roads and bridges. $190,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $353,000.
Rideau hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $42,000.
Telephone service, $88,000.
Water, $67,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Some of the accommodation on the sixth floor of this building, occupied by members of the house, is very dull and dingy. I wonder if something could not be done to bring our office accommodation up to a more modern standard of health. If some of these rooms were in private dwellings they would 'be condemned as unfit for human habitation.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know whereof I speak. The windows are extremely small, about fourteen ijnehes in width, and the rooms have little light or ventilation. I understand that members of this house who are condemned to be in opposition have not much chance of getting better accommodation, nevertheless I make this plea. It may be argued by the minister or by others that if any effort were made to increase the lighting space or improve the ventilation of these rooms it might in some way militate against the uniformity of the architecture of the building. Personally I have not much faith in an argument of that kind. While improvements in

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
the direction of increased light and ventilation might involve a certain amount of expense, it is something that ought to be done in respect of the rooms on the sixth floor which face the front of the building. I ask the Minister of Public Works to have some of his departmental officials go into the matter and see whether something can be done to make these rooms a little better.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Under Contract-
Esquimau R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyard-new buildings, repairs and improvements, $100,000.
Essential Undertakings-
Fraser, Skeena and Naas rivers-operation and maintenance of snagboats, $37,500. Harbours and rivers generally-
For maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $100,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In the meantime have workmen been going on with the work on all these buildings under contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then they must be much more advanced towards completion than they were when we started.


Charles Avery Dunning: All these have been discussed before.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-
Maritime provinces, $300,000.
Ontario and Quebec, $320,000.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $50,000.
British Columbia, $185,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that this includes provision for the operation of the government dredges on the Fraser river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Estimates of Expenditure for which Votes are Required
[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous expenditure, including remuneration to members of the mounted police force (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $1,300), for assistance in the remission service of the Department of Justice, $15,000.
Miss MACPHAIL:: Will the minister make a statement about the work of the royal commission for the investigation of penitentiaries? When does he expect it will get under way? I have been quite patient about this third member of the commission, and I had hoped that before prorogation- the Minister of Justice would make a statement to the house.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows, the third commissioner, Mr. Harry Anderson, unfortunately died, and
another gentleman whom 1 expected to induce to accept the appointment has also been called by death. I have in mind another prominent gentleman who has always been deeply interested in these matters, and who entertains to a large extent the views regarding these questions held by the late Mr. Anderson. I am in hopes that he will accept when he is through with some work which he actually has on his hands. At all events the investigation will be proceeded with before the next session of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of litigated matters, Department of Justice-further amount required, $10,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the position of the litigation in connection with the extradition of Captain Hatfield?


Ernest Lapointe: The
matter is still before the supreme court in appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was ordered that Captain Hatfield be extradited and he appealed. When the last return was made to the house I believe the time for appeal had passed, and I was wondering if he is now liable to be given up and brought into this country under the warrant.


Ernest Lapointe: That
action has been started but it- is not concluded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the position?


Ernest Lapointe: Our agent has been instructed to ask for the dismissal of the appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For non-prosecution?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Pay of force and allowances, arms and ammunition, barrack buildings, repairs and renewals and furnishings, clothing and equipment, communication services, court and legal expenses, criminal investigation branch, enforcement of federal statutes, fuel and light, transport horse and dogs, transport mechanical, dental, medical and hospital, miscellaneous (including grants to Royal Canadian Mounted Police messes and publication of Royal Canadian Mounted Police Quarterly for instructional purposes), special services Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, printing and stationery, transport railway, rations, rents, travelling expenses, transport water, $5,583,800.
Agnes Campbell Macphail: Can the minister tell the committee why the salary of the present commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is almost double that of his predecessor? It seems to me that this is not the time to double salaries. Earlier in the session I asked

4074	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
some questions in connection with the commissioner and I was told that he received a salary of $12,000, less five per cent, as well as free rations, free fuel, free light, free medical attendance and other things, all being valued at another $2,000. In addition to all this he has the use of a government car with chauffeur. It seems ridiculous to have the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police receiving almost as much as the prime minister and certainly as much as a cabinet minister. It would seem that either the prime minister and the cabinet ministers are being paid too little or the commissioner is being paid too much. I cannot imagine what he does with his salary when he gets free rations, free fuel, free medical attendance and a free car and chauffeur. Not only that, but he was given a title and has a lot of initials after his name. It all looks to me as though it is playing favourites. While I am on my feet I should like to ask the minister if the commissioner receives a special allowance when he travels in aeroplanes, and if that kind of travelling is done at the expense of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: Apart from the salary, which I understand was increased at the time the present commissioner was appointed, all the other items mentioned by my hon. friend are the same as have always been allowed to commissioners of the mounted police. As to aeroplane travel, when the commissioner or any member of the force uses an aeroplane in the execution of his duty, it is paid for by the government.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is there a special allowance when he uses an aeroplane?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Before this item passes, as it undoubtedly will, I want to register a very strong protest against the salary being paid to this commissioner. Compared to the salaries being received by responsible ministers of the crown and by deputy ministers, this salary seems to be extravagant. The business of the commissioner is to keep people from rioting and to maintain law and order, but I think the payment of such salaries will incite the people to discontent and restlessness, if not to actual rioting. There are many Canadians who are quite as good as anyone in the government service, ministers of the crown and the commissioner included, and nothing makes them angrier than to read a long list of pay and allowances such as was given in reply to questions which I asked earlier in the session. The salary is large, the allowances are extraordinary, and all the favours

that possibly could be given have been given to the commissioner. I have nothing against the commissioner personally; I want him to receive a substantial salary and be honoured for the good work he does, but I think it is just ridiculous that he should receive such a salary. I do not suppose anything can be done about it at the moment, but I do suggest to the government that they give careful consideration to the lessening of these allowances and the decreasing of this salary until such time as all Canadians are in a more comfortable position. I almost see red-it is hardly safe to say that in the presence of the commissioner-when I think of the number of people in Canada who are suffering real want and who are making a desperate effort to raise families in decency so that they will not be citizens who require the police to keep them in order. When there are such people throughout the country, just as good as any of the rest of us, and they see a thing like that, I do not wonder that they feel there is no use relying on parliament-and there is that tendency in Canada. They say that we do nothing but talk; but if they saw the items going through to-day they would change their minds about that. But there is a feeling that direct action of some sort will have to be taken finally unless we, their representatives, wake up to such things as this. I am indignant when I think of this in connection with the commissioner, the head of the force, who is supposed to keep in order people who are out of order because they have not sufficient of the necessities of life to make them comfortable. The two things simply do not go together. Of all the high officers of government this more than any other is the one that should not be extravagantly paid or in any way made conspicuous. It seems that the thing that matters in Canada is the use of force to keep order rather than the alleviation of conditions, distressful economic conditions, that cause the disorder. It is a stupid emphasis of the importance of police-


Frank Exton Lennard: Carried.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, it is not carried. I am going to talk; you people do a lot of talking.


Frank Exton Lennard: Not me.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That is something to be thankful for. I say this last word to the government. I trust that by the time the next session comes around they will place the commissioner on terms of equality with other government servants who are doing similar work.

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be
unfair to attack the present Minister of Justice for this item; he is in no way responsible for it. The late government must assume responsibility for the item, because the present Minister of Justice found it there and has not changed it. I think that should be stated in fairness to the government. I should like however to point out in the first place that there has been no change in the allowances given to the commissioner of mounted police for many years-I think perhaps for twenty-five or thirty years-and any change that has been made is one that has been made also with respect to the other members of the force, from the constables up. So that so far as allowances are concerned there has been no change. Whatever rule prevailed before still prevails with respect to this and other services mentioned. With respect to the salary, the late government must take full responsibility; in no sense must blame be attached to the present Minister of Justice or those sitting around him. And the reason the salary is what it is is the fact-I wish the commissioner were not here -that we believed there was no other man in Canada who could render similar service or undertake the enormous duties involved in the prevention of smuggling on sea and on land, and the administration of the law with respect to liquor. All that was taken over by him, and he had a position that enabled him to secure a fairly large salary-he had an offer of one at the moment. In addition to that, my memory is that he had a pension, which of course is suspended during the period of time he holds the office of commissioner, so that the sum total of salary received by him is, in my judgment, not out of proportion in any sense to salaries paid elsewhere, having regard to" the conditions I have referred to.
I am sure that my hon. friend from Grey-Bruce has no desire to be unfair, but it must be pointed out that you could not secure a man of the capacity and the experience and the ability of the commissioner; you could not secure such a man anywhere for less money. Go to England and see what Scotland Yard pays, or go to any other first class country and see what payments they are making, and compare them with the salary we pay for the enormous service which we put upon our commissioner of police. Think of smuggling, if any, in Nova Scotia; think of smuggling, if any, in Cape Breton; think of smuggling, if any, in the interior provinces, smuggling by sea and by land-the preven-12739-259 J
tion of all has to be directed through his department of the public service.
Some thirty years ago in western Canada there was a constable in the northwest mounted1 police whose name was James H. MiacBrien. He was around about Calgary. He went to the South African war, where he made a notable contribution to our country's service. He went back and began with the police there. He passed ultimately the staff college at Oamberley, and I have it-I give it only as I have it from one of our former governors general-that we have not produced in this country a more distinguished soldier. I am only giving that for what it is worth. Having regard to the peculiar service that had to be rendered, there was no person in Canada we could1 secure who would undertake like duties and discharge them with equal efficiency and effectiveness. I would go further. On three occasions I personally endeavoured to get the commissioner to take this position, and twice I failed. On the third occasion, putting it to me as a matter of public service to the country at this time, he said he would take it, and he did. And the terms and conditions under which he did were first of all the suspension of any pension he had-I believe there was; there may not be- secondly, that he should secure the pay and allowances heretofore paid', and thirdly, that the salary should be as mentioned. These were the conditions, and he did not seek the position.
If I were asked my opinion with respect to any services rendered the dominion, which were outstanding so far as the personnel in charge of distinguished positions were concerned, I know of no appointment that was more advisable, and I say that frankly to this committee whether it agrees with me or not. I would go one step further. Reference has been made to the fact that there had been conferred upon the commissioner the rank of Knight Commander of the Bath. He had already held a Companionship of the Bath at the end of the war, and it had been purposed that he should be given the rank of Knight Commander. But for reasons well known to all members of this committee that opportunity was not offered to the sovereign. When the opportunity was offered and the first and only K.C.B, then made available, the then Prime Minister, without hesitancy, recommended the present commissioner, and he is very proud to think that he was able to render that service to a Canadian so distinguished, who had given outstanding service to a country such as this at that time.
4076	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Mr. POULIOT:: Is he dead? This sounds like a funeral oration.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee rose at six o'clock, the item under discussion was No. 167, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, pay of force and" so on.


Alan Webster Neill: Under this item I should like
to take a few minutes to discuss a matter which has arisen in my district. It is not often that I object to having money spent in the district which I represent, but this is a waste of money. The tale can best be told by consideration of the questions and answers that were submitted to the house to-day, so I shall refer to them briefly first:
Has a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been recently started at Alert Bay?
The answer was yes.
Was there a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at that place about the year 1021?
The answer is:
Yes. It was opened in the first place on the 26th January, 1920.
I may say that it was closed in 1924 on my recommendation. Then I asked:
Since then has there been any considerable increase in the number of crimes committed?
The answer is: No information. Then I asked:
Since then has there been any serious crime committed at that place?
The answer is: No information. Then I asked:
Is there a station of provincial police at Alert Bay?
The answer is yes. Then I asked:
Is there any reason to suppose that they are not competent to handle the enforcement of law in that neighbourhood?
Surely that is a pertinent question, and this is the answer:
They are believed to be competent to handle the situation, but the Department of Indian Affairs reports that the members of the provincial police are too busy with other matters to attend to Indians who are considered federal charges.
If that is true the first part of the answer is incorrect, because in that case they are not competent and are not attending to their duties, but as a matter of fact that is not true. They are thoroughly competent and

have always shown their ability in that
regard. Then I ask:
Before recommending the establishment of a station of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at that place was the attorney general of British Columbia or the commissioner of police for that province consulted or asked if they were unable to handle the enforcement of the law in that place?
Surely that is a very proper question, in view of the relations that obtain between the dominion and the provinces. If a bargain was made with the province to carry out the enforcement of the law and it was found that the law was not being enforced, surely the proper procedure would be to go to the attorney general and say, "Are you not able to do it? If you are not, we shall have to put in our own men." The answer is:
No, but the conditions complained of were investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and charges were laid and convictions obtained. This seems to bear out the contention that the British Columbia provincial police are too busy to attend to such matters. Furthermore, some of the Indians in the area have become hostile to authority and are alleged to be getting out of hand.
The charges that were laid and the convictions that were obtained were these: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police sent a man up in disguise, and as a result I think three charges were laid against two men, and two or three convictions were obtained. That was the extent of the crime; two men were convicted, and that was the end of the matter. I took it upon myself to write the commissioner of police for British Columbia and ask if he and his force were not capable of handling the situation there. He wrote back to the effect that they were fully competent." His letter continues:
I do not know on whose instructions they were sent, but there are two mounted policemen at Alert Bay at present. We have two constables there ourselves . . . and the game warden is also sworn in as a provincial constable

So we have five constables in that small place. I also asked the provincial police commissioner with regard to this serious increase in crime, these major crimes that have been occurring, and he gives me the record:
During the past two years . . . there were sixty-two cases recorded against white persons and seventy-six against Indians. The great majority of these were minor offences and we have had no serious crime at Alert Bay for a long time.
There were altogether 138 cases, against Indians and whites, which gives an average of one and a quarter a week, with five constables on the job. The commissioner of police says he is fully capable of handling the situation

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
and would have done so if he had been advised of it. In 1928, I think it was, this same trouble arose again. I had the station closed in 1924, but practically the same element wanted this station reopened. At that time all I did was to recommend that the Minister of Justice apply to the provincial police and ask their opinion. The attorney general promptly wrote back and said, "If we need more men there we will send them, but we are thoroughly competent to handle the situation." Now we are going to start a station there with two men. Again I asked:
Has it been recommended that a barracks should be built for their accommodation?
The answer is no. Probably I used the wrong word when I said "recommended"; I should have said "suggested," and then I think the minister would have had to say yes. At that, a recommendation will come along soon, because once you start a station with two men you must have some place to put them, and there will be a demand. Then I asked:
Were any steps taken to check up on the accuracy of such statements?
The answer was no. No such steps were taken, but this reply shows that the representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs in British Columbia requested the officer commanding the mounted police in that province to establish a detachment at Alert Bay in order to protect the Indians in that area from the sale of intoxicants. At that point the cases average one and a quarter per week for whites and Indians, over a period of two years. When the Royal Canadian Mounted Police took charge and sent in a secret agent, in disguise, they secured three convictions and that was the end of the matter. Since those convictions were obtained there has been no great crime; yet we are going to have five constables in a place of that size.
This all originated with an official out there who thought it would be quite grand to have the mounted police running around with him, in gold lace and uniform, as a sort of glorified bodyguard. That is the whole thing in a nutshell; it cannot be and never has been denied. I have the whole file before me, though I shall not detain the committee by reading it. That is the situation; that is what has been suggested, and I suppose the government will go on with it, but I must make my protest. We are wasting this money; it is not necessary, and it will create ill-will. In 1924, on my advice, that station was closed. I asked if there had been any serious crime since that
time, and the answer was no. I asked if there had been any great increase in crime, and the answer was no. The provincial police are a smart, non-political, uniformed force. Their men are moved around from time to time in order to keep them from getting too familiar with the local people. They are a very capable body, of whom we should be proud, and it is an insult and a slur upon that body of men to say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police must go in there because the provincial police are too busy- which is another way of saying too inattentive-to look after these people. It is ridiculous to say that the provincial police are too busy, when the cases average only one and a quarter per week. This insult is totally uncalled for, and we are going to be saddled with these expenses simply to gratify the desire of an official to have a glorified bodyguard go around with him.


Ernest Lapointe: I may assure my hon. friend that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are carrying on work in the various provinces throughout the dominion simply at the request of some department of the government, and that is what has been done in this case. The Department of Indian Affairs requested that this detachment be sent to this point. We would be only too glad not to have to send anyone, but we-and when I say "we" I mean the police-receive instructions from the various departments of the government which we have to carry out. Unfortunately, or fortunately, it is from them that we have to take our orders.


Alan Webster Neill: That may be so, but I do not think the minister would go so far as to say that he is the servant of any cheap jack department that comes along with a request of any kind. This arose in this way, according to the records, which I shall not take time to read: One of these Indian officials went down to Vancouver-his own letter says so-and saw the head of the British Columbia police. Apparently he said to him, "Captain So and So, wouldn t you like to start a detachment of the mounted police at Alert Bay"? Like all officials, always ready to get a bigger circle of attendants, he said, "Yes, we have a man who is just the very man for the job; we shall be happy to send him in if you say so." And the whole thing was settled. He reported to the Indian department here, and the department without any investigation said, "Yes, it is a good idea," and they planted him on the department. All I can do is to repeat that this was not necessary.
4078	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be
pleased to look into the matter. My information does not entirely coincide with what the hon. member has said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know something of this as well, and thinking of the two very fine men who fell victims to the assaults of some Indians in British Columbia I made up my mind that we should have to maintain some assistance in Indian reserves to prevent the possibility of repetition of such an event as that which happened in the interior of British Columbia where two mounted police were murdered under terrible circumstances. Wherever there is the possibility of liquor among the Indian population there is need for those who will guard them as our wards.


Alan Webster Neill: But may I ask the leader of the opposition: Is it not a fact that the dominion made a bargain with the province to enforce the statutes, which bargain the provincial authorities are willing to carry out? Until they show evidence of failing-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No: there is no such agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: The Indian Act is a dominion statute and the province has nothing to do with the enforcement of that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No; the item is not going to carry on an assertion of that sort. Is not the criminal code a dominion statute?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Do not the provincial police enforce that?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes,
because the administration of criminal justice is under the jurisdiction of the provinces; but the enforcement of dominion statutes, our own acts, is under our own control.


Alan Webster Neill: Then, why is it that you do not have a station of the mounted police at every Indian village all over the country?


Ernest Lapointe: Because it is not necessary and is not requested.


Alan Webster Neill: Who does enforce the provisions of the Indian Act in nine out of ten places in British Columbia? It is the provincial police, by request of the dominion government. If I am wrong, the department ought to have a policeman stationed at every village, because wherever there is an Indian there is danger of his getting liquor. It is not correct to say that the enforcement of the Indian Act in British Columbia is confined

to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I was an Indian agent for ten years, and whenever I wanted a policeman I applied to the provincial authorities who supplied one or more as needed. All this talk about the Indians getting out of hand in that district is nonsense.


Ernest Lapointe: I assure my hon. friend that there is a detachment of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in every large Indian community in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, while you passed item No. 492 without my having an opportunity -to notice it, I had intended to make an observation or two in respect to it. We listened this afternoon to a very long and bitter attack in connection with these Regina riots, so-called. I think the minister should make a statement on that item.


Ernest Lapointe: I might make a statement without reverting to the item. All I want to say in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who referred to the matter this afternoon,, is that it is always easy to be wise after the event. There is no doubt that long after an event has taken place one can see where something might have been done differently in the light of what has happened. This affair occurred more than a year ago. Fortunately the same troubles do not exist at the present time, and I do not' think it would serve any good purpose to try to find that those who were at that time' faced with a very grave and serious responsiJ bility might perhaps have taken another course than the one they did take. All I wish to say with regard to the many statements made this afternoon is that I was especially interested in what the judges, who were appointed not by this government but by the Saskatchewan government to inquire into that serious matter-which was very regrettable because one man was killed and many were injured-found in regard to what the police did in those circumstances. On page 288 of the judges' report I find this:
In our report we have dealt with as many of the cases as we believed merited it and have reached the conclusion that although the police used force on a number of occasions it was so used either to repel attack or to overcome resistance to arrest, and that in no case was there reliable evidence of an unprovoked assault by a member of either force.
Then I want to call attention more particularly to this part of the report, at page 303:
An effort was made by some of the witnesses to create the impression that the Royal Cana-

Supply-Justice*-Mounted Police
dian Mounted Police have deteriorated from their earlier standards. As to the character of the men at present in the force Colonel Wood stated that under present conditions it had been possible to procure a type of men "superior to anything we have had in the force for the past thirty or forty years." And he added, "I have lived in barracks all my life." Several thousand applications are received each year and only a small quota is selected twice a year. A written examination is required and an investigation into the character of each applicant is conducted. Many members of the force, both officers and men, appeared before us and the impression made upon us does not bear out the criticism levelled at the present force.
We are of the opinion that Colonel Wood during all the time the strikers were in Saskatchewan acted with care and moderation, always of course bearing in mind the orders from his superior officer which he was bound to obey. We think also that the members of the force as a whole acted with courage and marked restraint during the riot and this notwithstanding the fact that they were repeatedly engaged in repelling attacks which were characterized by viciousness, brutality and a disregard for human life.
And at page 311:
We think it may be said, to put it mildly, that the men from the camps were most unfortunate in placing their cause in the hands of such leadership. The evidence indicates that a percentage of the men were lawless and dangerous. On the other hand we have reason to believe that the majority of them were of a different type and call for sympathetic consideration. The leaders, however, gave the whole movement a colour and character which condemned it from its inception and which caused it to be branded as dangerous by those in authority, who are responsible for the preservation of the peace, order and good government of the country.
All I have to say is that we must consider with justice and fairness, but with a little sympathy, the positions of those who are placed in offices of responsibility in times of trouble and difficulty like the occasion of the spring of 1935, and we must do our best to strengthen the hands of those who have, after all, to maintain peace and order in Canada. On the whole I do not think the evidence as given in the investigation carried out at Regina, and the report which was presented by impartial commissioners, members of the high court of justice in Saskatchewan-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was one county
court judge.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes;
there was one county court judge. I do not think the country has to be humiliated in any wav by the part played by those who had to take responsibility at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I deprecate very greatly the province undertaking to inquire into the conduct of federal affairs. This is a new
precedent in the constitutional history of Canada. But it was done, and I can only point out that there was not continuity of government, when the commission was sitting, as between the dates of the events.
I was not asked to be heard. The former Minister of Justice was not asked to be heard. We were not represented either in person or by counsel1. I was told I was to be asked to attend. I was not asked. The attempt made to indicate that members of a government undertook to direct proceedings with respect to what happened at Regina, a long distance away from Ottawa, is entirely unwarranted.
But the principle of a province appointing a commission to investigate the conduct of the federal government is a dangerous precedent and will in the end, in my judgment, create great difficulty in the operation of our constitutional system. I have only to point out that a few days ago a man was killed in British Columbia, and the prisoner was sent up for trial. He was charged with murder, in the first instance, but the charge was reduced to manslaughter, and when the case came up for trial the attorney general discontinued it. I shall just read this statement from a Vancouver newspaper and ask the Minister of Justice whether he thinks we should not appoint a commission to investigate this matter. The article reads:
New Westminster, May 14.-A stay of proceedings in the charge of manslaughter against Louise Rosse resulting from the death of R. A. Hanna after a drinking party and brawl in a Port Coquitlam hotel last month was requested by H. J. Sullivan, crown counsel, in assize court to-day. Chief Justice Morrison granted the stay and freed Rosse, who has been awaiting trial on $15,000 bail. Rosse and Gordon Wismer, his counsel, appeared in court. Mr. Sullivan then announced that the Attorney General had authorized him to apply for stay of proceedings.
At the preliminary hearing evidence was given that Hanna, well known Maple Ridge resident and oil agent, had died of hemorrhage of the brain after being struck in a fight by Rosse, hotelkeeper, following a card game quarrel.
And that man has never been tried before a jury of the people. There has been no investigation, except before a magistrate, and yet there is no means, except by the appointment of a royal commission, to investigate as to how the man's life was taken.


Thomas Reid: What date?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The article is dated
May 14.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is that
all the information my right hon. friend has about the case, namely, what he has obtained from the New Westminster paper?
4080	COMMONS
Supply-Justice-Mounted Police


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was taken from the paper. I am reading it from a newspaper clipping.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has my right hon. friend no further information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that a man was killed. And I was told, also, that he was killed. But it does not matter in what circumstance he was killed; there should have been a judicial investigation. This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made some complaints to the effect that certain men had been convicted. They were convicted by a jury. They were found guilty by a jury. All sympathy and all appeals that could be brought to bear were attended to by counsel, and yet they were tried and found guilty by a jury.
Now, the question of divided jurisdiction is nowhere so important as it is with respect to criminal law. In this house on more than one occasion competent men, men who have not been members of the legal profession, have urged strongly that there should be some provision for the federal power exercising jurisdiction in the discussion of cases before the courts of the country. That at the present time is not the law. But as a result of a province appointing a royal commission to investigate into the workings of the federal power it should follow that the federal power could appoint a commission to investigate the workings in the provinces, which, of course, would be injurious to the working of the whole machinery of government.
Bnt on the other hand if a complaint is made that a man's life is lost, and you enter a nolle prosequi, and the accused is not proceeded against, it matters not what the facts are, I say, that there should be a judicial and public investigation as to the circumstances which brought about that result.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was there a coroner's inquest?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know; there was a preliminary investigation. The man was sent up for trial, and the charge was reduced to manslaughter. He was given bail, and-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My right hon. friend is surely not condemning the proceedings by virtue of what he has read in the press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know this, that this man was not tried, and a man was killed by him. That is the important point; he killed a man, and he was not tried. It is the only time I have ever seen that done in this country.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I object to this proceeding. The right hon. gentle-

man has only a newspaper version of what happened.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; complaint was made to me about the affair, and the statement was made that this matter should be discussed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is different. May I ask my right hon. friend if he received complaints with regard to this particular case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Could he read the letter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason this clipping wras sent to me; that is the reason I have it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, honestly I must protest against this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why protest?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because by inference my right hon. friend is condemning the administration of justice in British Columbia, and is condemning it on a mere press report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but I say this, that a preliminary investigation was held before a justice of the peace; the case was sent to trial and nothing further has been done about it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is never final.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was never a chance to investigate the circumstances under which this life was lost; that is my complaint. It is a precedent that is established, and I here put myself on record, protesting to the Attorney General of Canada that they should have opened up the case, because I believe the circumstances were such that it was not a proper exercise of powers of a province to set up an investigation over the federal government, any more than the federal government should investigate the operations of a provincial government.
Now, what happened? As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said this afternoon, the leaders were not proceeded against. Evans was not proceeded against. The other leaders to whom reference was made in the report were not proceeded against. But the smaller fry were convicted by verdict of a jury and, as the hon. member said, were sentenced. I say that that is not proper; it is not the proper course to pursue, in view of what has happened. That is all I have said.
The temptation to discuss this matter at length at this time of night is great, but
40S1

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
having regard to the fact that we are at the end of the session, I do not suppose any great harm would come if further discussion of the question is postponed to another time. So far as I know the report has not been fully printed; I have received only a portion. There are many observations I would like to make, but I take it that at some other time there will be adequate opportunity to do so. In view of the lateness of the hour and the near approach of the end of the session I shall defer making any further observations with respect to the matter, because I think it is one of such seriousness as warrants a most careful discussion of the circumstances under which the investigation was held and of the refusal, for instance, of the court toi receive evidence as to where the five hundred dollars came from that was given to these trekkers at Regina. I could have assisted very materially in showing where that money came from. I was not given an opportunity to do so; that was shut out. There are other matters to which reference might foe made, but this is not the time to do so; I prefer doing so later. But as I said, I had hoped that there would have been opportunity during the present session to discuss the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely the case mentioned by my right hon. friend is not at all identical with this one. He mentioned something that is supposed to have happened in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did happen.


Ernest Lapointe: He has learned something from some clipping in the newspapers, but it is something that comes directly and exclusively under the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia. We have nothing to do with it. On this matter of the riots at Regina my right hon. friend cannot claim that the province of Saskatchewan had nothing to do with the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I say, an investigation by the federal government-


Ernest Lapointe: But there were many provincial matters connected with
the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


Ernest Lapointe: So much so that until the federal government decided to take a hand in it because of the Railway Act, to assist the railway companies to prevent the strikers from travelling on the 'trains, the opinion that had been given from Ottawa all the time since the strike started
in British Columbia and the trekkers came to Alberta was that it was a provincial matter. Until then the federal authorities claimed that it was a purely provincial matter, and Saskatchewan was not only concerned in it but did all she could for the purpose of trying to settle the difficulty. When the federal government intervened-well, they were both mixed up in the matter, and in the end it was Saskatchewan that contributed most to the solution of the difficulty and succeeded in sending the trekkers back to their respective homes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We paid for that.


Ernest Lapointe: And
there had been loss of life. Under our law everything concerning murder and any other criminal matters is under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Surely it was the right of the province of Saskatchewan, indeed it was its business, to investigate into all that surrounded this painful occurrence, and this was done judicially and in a way that, I believe, has contributed to let the public of Canada know better what were the circumstances. At the opening of the session I told my right hon. friend that I thought it was in the interest of everybody, the police, the government and all of those who had anything to do with the matter, that it should be fully investigated. I had the greatest confidence in the personnel of the commission. I am glad that this report has been given out to the public of Canada, and I cannot understand why this should be criticized and why my right hon. friend should think it would have been better to allow the various rumours and reports that were circulated to remain uninvestigated and unanswered. It would not have been for the good of the authorities or in the interests of peace and order that the public should have been kept in ignorance of the real facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman has not quite appreciated my point. There was provision made for a judicial investigation, ' because several men were charged with the commission of offences, and it is the duty of the courts to make inquiry at a properly constituted court. That is the point; and while such a court was available- and in the end that proceeding had to take place-a commission was set up, consisting in part of judges who might and would in the ordinary course have to deal with this judicially, and investigated it from another angle altogether. If a charge is made against a person, and the courts are there for the purpose of holding the fullest investigation,

Supply-Justice-Mounted Police
and that investigation must ultimately take place in the courts of the country, why have a commission of judges appointed to investigate the circumstances in connection with the event, the striking of the men, the circumstances under which the rioting took place, before the judicial trial takes place and an opportunity is afforded to investigate the matter in the manner and form by law provided? Surely we have created a most dangerous precedent. That is the point I endeavoured to make, based upon a strong opinion I hold which has nothing to do with this case at all. I suppose there is hardly anyone in this house who does not remember what took place in India when General Dyer found himself in difficulties. He came to England and brought action against those who libelled him, and he succeeded, with the aid of a jury, in recovering his reputation and damages. The late Mr. Justice McCardie dealt with the matter at great length in a judgment which is a classic of its kind. But to prejudice the judicial hearing by a prior investigation, and then to have the authorities that have set up the commission nolle prosequi the proceedings against the leaders and proceed against others, and the jury convict, them, and the judges, having regard to the circumstances set out this afternoon, give them a light sentence-I say that creates a dangerous precedent and one upon which I should like a discussion on another occasion, though not, for the reasons I have stated, at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: As the one responsible for appointing the commission I desire to say a word or two. The commission was not appointed in the first instance for the purpose of examining into what was referred to by the leader of the opposition. In 1927, while I was premier of Saskatchewan, I came to Ottawa and arranged with the federal government to have the mounted police force police that province. We were the first province in Canada to make an arrangement of this kind: since that time the majority of the provinces have followed suit. In 1935 the riot took place at Regina, and there was some controversy between the dominion government and the provincial government as to jurisdiction. We claimed that we had the right to direct the mounted police in dealing with this particular trouble. The federal government took it upon themselves to direct the police.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman might give the reason, too.


James Garfield Gardiner: After the men had arrived at Regina and the issue was drawn we remained out of the contest until final

action, the riot, took place. When the riot was over and the men were gone from Regina, having been moved out by the government of the province, the province then appointed a commission to investigate, and one of the directions given was to investigate the relationships existing between the provincial government and the federal government towards the mounted police force. The agreement which was made in 1927 came into effect in 1928, and1 comes to an end in 1938. It was thought wise that the legal position of the province and the federal government should be known before a new agreement was drawn up. After the commission had been appointed, other matters were referred to it, upon requests from the men and others. This was done to clear up the whole matter. It has been cleared up, in my opinion fairly satisfactorily to all parties concerned. I have nothing further to say at the moment with regard to it, but if the subject is to be discussed at a later time we can probably go into all questions connected with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was a provision in the agreement preserving to the dominion government the right to deal with breaches of dominion statutes, as the Minister of Justice has mentioned. It was in furtherance' of that agreement and the statute that the mounted police, when complaints were made and a request was made upon them by the railways, took the action they did to protect the property of the federal railways. The reasons were given in this house.


Alan Webster Neill: I shall detain the committee only a minute. The minister's conception of provincial responsibilities for enforcing the law appears to have broadened to some extent since the last item we were discussing. Apart from all this, it is evident that New Westminster is a lawless place and requires more police protection so let me say that as a generous gesture to the hon. member, I would be quite agreeable to letting him have the detachment now at Alert Bay where we have not had a murder for forty years.


Thomas Reid: I must contradict that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, $106,600.
Ernest Edward Perley: Mr. Chairman, a number of the members of the wheat committee would have liked to have had an opportunity of discussing the problem of the marketing of coarse grains. At the last meeting of the committee the Minister of

Supply-Miscellaneous-Marketing Act
Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) assured the members, and myself in particular, that on some item in the estimates we would have this opportunity. I shall be very brief and I regret that this important problem has to come before the committee in the closing hours of the session.
The question of the marketing of coarse grains is becoming almost as important as that concerning the marketing of wheat. I shall not take the time to go into the comparative values of coarse grains from the feeding standpoint, as sufficient figures have been placed on Hansard during this session by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), and during last session by the then member for Souris, Mr. Willis. That would take too long, but I should like to read briefly from a memorandum which was sent to me. Following the discussion we had on the resolution which stood in my name on the order paper early in the session, I received the following memorandum:
One of the counterbalancing factors influencing farmers in planning their acreage to be sowm to barley is the cash return per acre. The superiority which barley possesses over other cereals in producing additional live stock food value per acre will make an appeal to the cereal producer who is growing cereals for feed purposes on his own farm, but will have little attraction to the farmer producing the cereal as a cash crop.
The two principal reasons why barley is not more extensively grown as a straight cash crop are: first, unfair grading, which results in too small a proportion of the crop earning whatever premium may be carried by malting or export bai-ley, i.e., that is the trade does, not in any year pay the premium for all the barley they export or turn to the malting companies; and second, the price to the farmer of ninety per cent of the barley grown in Canada in any year is governed entirely by the export price of from two to six, and not in any season exceeding ten per cent, of the crop produced.
The farmers in western Canada, particularly those in the southern halves of the three prairie provinces, were forced last year to market their coarse grains because of the destruction of the wheat crop by rust. The price at which they were forced to sell their coarse grains in order to get some money with which to carry on was very low; in fact it was unprecedently low. I have in my possession a letter which I received the other day from a farmer in the Wolseley district. This man farms two or three sections of land and last year he lost most of his wheat crop through rust. He told me that in order to get a forty gallon barrel of gasoline he had .to sell seventy bushels of barley.
Following the short discussion which took place on the resolution that stood in my name on the order paper I received many
letters endorsing the proposal that coarse grains should be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I also received copies of resolutions which had been passed by boards of trade, pool organizations and municipal organizations. Section 14 of the wheat board act provides for bringing coarse grains undfer the operation of the act by order in council after a recommendation by the wheat board to the government. The machinery is already set up, and I think it is important that this action should be taken. I trust the government will give this matter its consideration immediately. It is important that the step should be taken in time so that the farmers will have an opportunity of marketing their coarse grains under the act when the new crop comes on the market. I do not want to delay the committee and I regret that we have to discuss this very important matter so late in the session. I know many hon. members of this committee, particularly those from western Canada, will endorse this proposal. I hope that as soon as parliament prorogues they will bring what pressure they can to bear upon the government to have them take this problem into consideration.
There is just one other matter I should like to discuss. I may be a little out of order, but much time has been taken up to-day in discussing matters that were really out of order. I should like to direct attention to the fact that in western Canada a great many organizations are anxious that the board should handle the 1936 crop and that a minimum price should be set at an early date. The crop year ends on July 31, and I think it is important that this price should be set in good time. Last year a delay occurred because of certain necessities, but this year the machinery is set up, the board is in operation and there is no reason why a price should not be set in good time.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and the government three resolutions which have been passed recently in Saskatchewan. One was passed by the retail merchants' association at their meeting a few days ago in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. They suggest that the board continue and that a price of 87i cents or better per bushel be fixed at as early a date as possible. Another one was passed by the live stock breeders' association, meeting in Moose Jaw, in which they ask that a price be set and that the government consider taking coarse grains under the wheat board act. The third resolution was passed by pool delegates from
40S4
Supply-Agriculture

the northern half of the province in convention at North Battleford. This resolution was in similar terms-I do not intend to take the time to read them-and asked that a price be set and that coarse grains should be brought under the act. When such organizations as these are anxious that the board should continue; that [DOT] it should handle coarse -grains as well, and that a reasonable price should be set so that there may be no misunderstanding this year before the crop goes on the market, I do not think the government can do otherwise than give serious consideration to the matter.
I noticed that certain members of the jovernment are going overseas. At least ;hree members of the advisory committee to the wheat board will be leaving Canada, and I think they should deal with this matter before they go overseas in order that there may be no misunderstanding and that the western producer may know where he stands. I think the government owe it to the producers to make a statement before parliament prorogues or before these members of -the government leave for overseas. I regret that I have had to deal with this matter in so short a time, because a good deal of argument could have been produced. I am only sorry that the rules did not allow me to refer to the question sooner. I wish to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture for having enabled me to bring the matter up even at this late date.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say to the other members of the committee that item 191, Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, would probably give rise to some further discussion were it not for the fact that later we shall be considering item 445 in the supplementaries with regard to the marketing of agricultural products. An arrangement was made before the six o'clock recess to permit the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to say what he has said on this question in order that he might be able to catch his train this evening. The Minister of National Defence, for a similar reason, would like to take up his estimates, and I would therefore ask hon. members to defer, until we reach item 445, anything they may have to say in this connection. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle will understand, knowing western conditions as he does, that the date for the consideration of this question finally cannot possibly be earlier than probably the middle of July. There will probably have to be some discussions in council with respect to general policy before the ministers

concerned go overseas, and that discussion has not yet taken place. The matter of policy will be decided on and any decisions arrived at will be announced in sufficient time for the handling of this year's crop.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Special grants for cold storage warehouses-
Co-Operative Federee de Quebec, Rimouski, P.Q., $5,100.
Co-Operative Federee de Quebec, Quebec, P.Q., $18,000.
Northern Fishermen's Cold Storage, Prince Rupert, B.C., $30-,000.
Harry James Barber: What is the difference between this item and the preceding one: "subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act"?


James Garfield Gardiner: The preceding vote gives the extra amounts required for regular subsidies paid to cold storage warehouses; this vote has to do with special grants. The three concerns mentioned did not give notice before starting to build that they would apply for the grant, and the Department of Justice would not pass them otherwise. We are, therefore, required to vote the amounts, the percentage being the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The former government considered some of them and felt that it was impossible to make the grant under the circumstances for the reason that, on the one hand, they had not conformed to the regulation, and, on the other, that the expenditures had not been in terms of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that the expenditures were made in the same manner as they would have been made had the procedure been followed in the legal way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions

further amount required, $8,300.
Harry James Barber: What are the particulars?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are three fairs, one at St. Hyacinthe, one at Winnipeg and one at Moose Jaw. Two of them, the one at St. Hyacinthe and the one at Winnipeg, are qualifying for class A fair grants. Previously St. Hyacinthe had a class B fair. Winnipeg had not been showing for a number of years until last year, though at one time it had one of the -best exhibitions in Canada. It is coming back this year and states that it intends to live up to the regulations governing class A fairs. Moose Jaw is coming in as a class B fair this year. It had been showing before, but during the difficult years it had not been putting on an exhibition.

Supply-A gricul lure-M arke ting


Harry James Barber: This whole grant is for fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals, administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act-further amount required, $750,000.
Mr. SENN:: In what way is the additional amount to be expended? Is it for animals already slaughtered or for restricted areas?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is entirely for paying compensation for animals slaughtered in restricted areas. The area in which the greatest number are being slaughtered is around Toronto. Five or six counties are being placed in a restricted area around Toronto and the number of animals slaughtered makes necessary this extra expenditure.


Grote Stirling: Wherein does this differ from the next item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The next has to do with a number of items under the Health of Animals Act. They do not come strictly under the regulations in connection with this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-to provide for payment of compensation to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under the operation of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, which have died or have been slaughtered under circumstances unprovided for under the above act and regulations thereunder as follows:
Lawrence, N. F., Sheridan, Ont., $36.
Henry, Robt. T., Rossendale, Man., $40.
Suitor, Roy L., Lennoxville, Que., $50.
Lamarche, Victor (estate), St. Eustache, Que., $8.
Lounsbury, Earl K., R. 1, Killam's Mills, N.B., $20.
Wells. Wm, R. 1, Oakville, Ont., $38.
Prosser, Howard, R. 3, Petitcodiac, N.B., $54.
Stokes, E. A., Bury, Que., $20.
Eby, Irvin S., Kitchener, Ont., $64.
Quintal, David, Clairvaux, Que., $14.
Trottier, Lucien, St. Nazaire, Que., $24.
Peti'in, Joseph, Wickham, W., Que., $24.
Manseau, Nap., L'Avenir, Que., $6.
Harpin, Joseph, St. Ours, Que., $28.
Wyttinck, Vic., Cypress River. Man., $8.
Lamothe, Louis, St. Frangois Xavier, Man.,
[Stage Direction]
McLaughlin, Wm.. Finch, Ont., $50.
Parenteau, Conrad, St. Nazaire de Bagot, Que., $18.
Nadeau, Onil, St. Germain, Que., $28.
St. Germain, Jean B., St. Robert, Que., $24.
Lariviere, Napoleon. St. Bernard, Que., $26.
Peters. Hilton T., Hampton, Ont., $64.
Rose, Rod., Pictou, R. 4, Ont., $26.
James Garfield Gardiner: This is the item to which I have just referred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing of agricultural products, $300,000.
Mark Cecil Senn: When the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) this morning asked a question on the orders of the day, the minister informed him that he would have a statement to make with respect to what the government had in mind in view of what has happened to the Natural Products Marketing Act. Is the minister prepared to make that statement now?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to announce the policy of the government on this matter in view of the fact that since the supreme court brought down the decision there has been no time to give consideration to it in council. I can only say that there is a possibility that the matter may be carried to the privy council, in which event the act will remain, as I understand it, pretty much in the same position as it has been since the question was referred to the supreme court. If that is not the case, the government intends to carry on in connection with marketing in a manner which will assist the marketing of these different products. As regards fruit, it is the view of the department that in the Fruit Act itself the minister has power to do most of the things which an export board had power to do under the marketing act, which has been declared ultra vires; at least, though part of it has not really been declared ultra vires, the fact that other sections have been thrown out renders the act as a whole invalid. But we have power, so far as fruits are concerned, to act pretty much in the same way as the export board could have acted under that legislation. It is not thought there will be great difficulty in doing the things we want to do with regard to fruit. In connection with other matters the intention is to use the sum now before the committee for the purpose of promoting marketing in the interval.


Grote Stirling: It is quite probable, as the minister says, that with regard to the export of fruit it will be possible under the Fruit Act to do at least a certain amount of valuable work. Certainly it will not be possible, under the Fruit Act, to carry out control work such as the boards have been doing. I should like to say that to me the judgment is not intelligible, particularly that portion which occurs in the middle. I read the middle paragraph:
Regulation of individual trades, or trades in individual commodities in this sweeping fashion-
Referring to the earlier language of the judgment.
-is not competent to the parliament of Canada and such a scheme of regulation is not prac-

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
ticable in view of the distribution of legislative powers enacted by the constitution act, without the cooperation of the provincial legislatures

In this matter that is exactly what we have. In British Columbia there was a statute passed for the purpose of dovetailing into this very act, and where the judgment says there is a lack of cooperation on the part of the provinces, certainly that cannot apply to British Columbia. There, as the minister knows, the British Columbia tree fruit growers had the most prominent and possibly the most successful of these boards. At the present time, not unnaturally, the members of that board do not know what their position is.
I wonder whether the minister would amplify his statement a little with regard to the possibility and desirability of assisting a case to be carried through the courts, if necessary to the privy council. My idea is that the only thing to be done at the present time is for the board to prosecute the first infringement which comes to its notice and, if necessary, carry the case through the courts up to the privy council. It is obvious that the tree fruit board, subsisting as it is now on what remains of the levies on last year's crop, cannot finance such a procedure. So I should like to know to what extent the dominion government would be prepared to assist, if that be the course considered desirable by all concerned, in order to carry the matter through. I have a strong feeling that if this act had not been thrown to the supreme court holus-bolus, the act being in operation at this time and boards being in operation under it all over Canada, but rather if a concrete case had been taken to the supreme court and argued by capable counsel, it is not at all unlikely that the judgment would not have been similar to this sweeping judgment. This judgment is based upon the statement that there is no legislative assistance on the part of the provinces, and certainly with regard to British Columbia that is contrary to the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before the minister speaks, I believe the judgment of the supreme court was inadequately reported in the statement that appeared on the day the judgments were delivered. I have been told that that is so; that these words appeared in the precis that was given out:
Regulation of individual trades, or trades in individual commodities in this sweeping fashion, is not competent to the parliament of Canada and such a scheme of regulation is not practicable in view of the distribution of legislative powers enacted by the constitution act, without the cooperation of the provincial legislatures-

The words from "in" to "legislatures" are quoted in this precis. The preceding paragraph, to which reference is made, reads:
The powers of regulation vested in the commissions extend to external trade and matters connected therewith and to trade in matters of interprovineial concern; but also to trade which is entirely local and of purely local concern.
That, the precis says, may not be carried on except with the cooperation of the provincial legislatures. Nothing was clearer than that this statute never would1 have come into being but for that fact. It was never intended in this house to provide a code for marketing that extended to purely local transactions. The act says distinctly that it refers only to interprovineial and external trade, and local trade is regulated by provincial legislatures. If the local legislature empowered this local board to ask the federal board to act as its agent, or if the federal board asked the local board to act as its agent, that might be done. That is the position, and when this act was passed it was for the sole purpose of coordinating the efforts of the federal and provincial powers in order to secure a marketing act. It would be news indeed to every member of this house to learn that this parliament cannot deal with the licensing of imports and exports; that it cannot deal with interprovineial trade, solely and exclusively, and that it cannot deal with foreign trade outside Canada in any way it pleases. If such were the case, we would have entirely to revise our conception of the constitution.
I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not present, but when I urged that he should not have referred the marketing act to the courts because it was really in operation, that to do so was contrary to every well established and recent precedent, I had in mind the words used by the privy council in the case of the attorney general for Ontario v. the Hamilton Street Railway Company:
With regard to the remaining questions, which it has been suggested should be reserved for further argument, their lordships are of opinion that it would be inexpedient and contrary to the established practice of this board to attempt to give any judicial opinion upon those questions. They are questions proper to be considered in concrete cases only; and opinions expressed upon the operation of the sections referred to, and the extent to which they are applicable, would be worthless for many reasons.
We at least had high authority for saying such opinions would be worthless.
They would be worthless as being speculative opinions on hypothetical questions. It would be contrary to principle, inconvenient, and inexpedient that opinions should be given upon such questions at all. When they arise, they must arise in concrete cases, involving private

Supply-Agriculture-M arketing
rights; and it would be extremely unwise for any judicial tribunal to attempt before hand to exhaust all possible cases and facts which might occur to qualify, cut down, and override the operation of particular words when the concrete case is not before it.
Those are the words of the privy council, but notwithstanding that this government referred this matter to the supreme court, though the act was in operation. Those words dealing with concrete cases never had greater application than they have to this act to-day, namely that it would be extremely unwise for any judicial tribunal to attempt beforehand to exhaust all possible cases and facts which might occur to qualify, cut down, and override the operation of particular words when the concrete case is not before it.
Under those circumstances, having regard to that precedent, I suggest that this is a worthless opinion. Those are not my words at all; that is what the privy council have said;
They are questions proper to be considered in concrete cases only; and opinions expressed upon the operation of the sections referred to, and the extent to which they are applicable, would be worthless for many reasons. They would be worthless as being speculative opinions on hypothetical questions.
I say to the minister and to this committee that if to-day we had a concrete case from the Okanagan and we were able to show the concrete facts as we would be in any case that might be brought before the courts, as in the British Columbia case of the Crystal Dairy, we would be able to prove that there was a local board; that there was a federal board; that there was a provincial statute and a dominion statute; that there was cooperation between the two, and that the two together made a perfect code to deal with the marketing of fruit in that particular locality. Under those circumstances, taking the words of the court as they appear in this opinion, from the standpoint of the concrete facts that must arise in connection with the administration of the marketing act, I suggest to the minister that the proper course to pursue is to take an appeal in order that this language of the privy council may have full application; or not to take an appeal at this moment on the general question but to take an appeal on a concrete case and, as my hon. friend and former colleague from Yale has suggested, let the dominion government undertake to pay the cost, which is not an unusual thing to do. In other words, let a proceeding be taken in the Okanagan valley at once, on an infringement. Let all the facts be proven as to the constitution of the local boards, for the minister doubtless will recall-because
he has had to do with the question in his own province'

that when the Crystal Dairy case came up it was held by the privy council that inasmuch as it provided for a levy being made it was beyond the competence of that legislature to enact that form of taxation. That was the decision of the privy council.
Now we have a case in which infringement of this act may be set up, the facts proven, the local board, the dominion act, the dominion board, the coordination between the two. Then, by special leave, the case can be taken at once, per saltern as we say, to the privy council; we can get it there for early decision so that the question may be settled as to the validity of the sections which deal with concrete facts and not speculative opinions. I cannot say how much I regret that an act which has been in operation should have been referred to the court in the face of the declaration of the privy council which I have just read. But this has been done and we have this judgment in the terms in which we have it. I have not any doubt that this parliament must have power to deal with matters of trade that affect interprovincial transactions or transactions with foreign countries. But the extent to which we may do so through the doctrine of agency and by cooperation between provincial legislatures and boards set up by provincial authority and boards functioning under authority of the federal act is a matter which might well require further argument in order that there might be an ultimate decision by the court of last resort. I urge that on the minister, because having regard to the circumstances I think it is what he would do if he were a private individual. Now that the speculative provisions have been dealt with by the court, let him take the concrete case and do what he would do in his private business, have a decision of the court of last resort as to the validity of the proceedings. And I suggest to the minister that we should follow a course which is not unusual, which in fact we have frequently done in part if not in whole, that the expenses incident to the matter should be borne- with an understanding beforehand what they are to be-by the crown itself. In the meantime I suggest that the act itself should be continued just as though there had been no expression of opinion, which according to another decision of the supreme court is no better than that of the law officers of the crown themselves.
Mr. GARDINER; I shall not presume, of course, to argue the legal question in connection with a decision which has been given.
40SS
Supply-Agriculture-Marketing

I would not feel competent to do so. But I should like to read to the committee the two sections which are concerned in the decision given. Section 5, subsection 4 reads:
Before any scheme is approved the governor in council shall be satisfied,
(a)	that the principal market for the natural product is outside the province of production; or
(b)	that some part of the product produced may be exported.
If that were the only statement in the act with regard to the matter I think there probably would be no doubt as to the view that should be held. But in section 2, paragraph (g) we find:
"Regulated product" means a natural product to which a scheme approved under this act relates, but does not include
(ii) in ease the said scheme relates only to the product marketed outside of the province of production, such product in so far as it is marketed within the province of production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, it does not apply within the province?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there is an attempt made to make the situation appear as has been stated by the leader of the opposition, but apparently the court holds that there has been some interference with the marketing within the province itself, the local marketing. I do not intend to argue that point; the court has given its decision upon it. I would just say in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and supported by the leader of the opposition, that I am naturally not in a position to state exactly what the government will do in the circumstances set forth. I assume that a number of these acts which were submitted to the supreme court will be appealed to the privy council, and I think I can go so far as to state that the government will take exactly the same action in connection with this piece of legislation as they see fit to take in connection with the others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They stand on a different basis.


Grote Stirling: One has been in operation.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Minister of Justice will take this all under consideration, and we shall be advised in accordance with his views, also keeping before us, when we consider the matter, the expressions of opinion that have been given by both the hon. member for Yale and the leader of the opposition.


Mark Cecil Senn: A short time ago when another item was under discussion the minister made a statement regarding the intention of the government not to continue the cheese bonus this year. That is going to be detrimental

to the dairy interests of Canada. The minister said at that time, and quite properly so, that the reason for giving the bonus for the sale of cheese last year was to increase the production of cheese in Canada and at the same time to curtail, if possible, the production of butter, the reason for that being that we were consuming all the butter we produced in Canada and for that reason the price was higher in Canada than it would have been had we been on an export basis. This was the reason which induced the former government, I believe, to give a bonus on cheese last year. But this is not the only reason. The minister also stated that the bonus last year had not been successful in achieving the purposes assigned. With that conclusion I am not prepared to agree. In the first place, for many years past the production of cheese in Canada had been gradually falling. In 1934 we manufactured about 99,000,000 pounds. In 1935 this had increased to 100,000,000 pounds, so that we had not only stopped the reduction by giving the bonus but already increased the production by a small amount.
A good deal has been said in this house about the importance of wheat growing as a branch of agriculture in Canada. I should like to point out how important the dairy industry is to this dominion. I took the trouble a short time ago to get some figures from the bureau of statistics regarding the value of the production of the different branches of agriculture in Canada. They gave me the figures for the six years 1939 to 1935 inclusive which I am going to read to the committee:
Live stock and animal products, $637,000,000.
Poultry and egg production, $327,000,000.
Fruit, $95,000,000.
Fodder crops, $1,057,000,000.
Wheat, $959,000,000.
Dairy products, $1,169,000,000.
Or over $200,000,000 more for dairy products than the value of wheat during those years. It seems to me, therefore, that while certain amounts have been spent to assist the wheat growers of the western provinces -and I have no fault whatever to find with that-the government might very well consider continuing this bonus for another year for the benefit of the dairy industry.
We produce in Canada annually some 16,000,000,000 pounds of milk. I should like to give the committee the percentages of that milk used in the manufacture of the different products into which that milk is manufactured and the different ways in which it is consumed. Cheese production took only 6-88 per cent of our milk production last year. Butter took 49-45 or approximately 50 per cent. One per cent is manufactured

Supply-M arine
into processed milk, such as condensed milk, powdered milk, et cetera; ice cream consumes only about one-half of one per cent of the milk that is produced, and some 42 per cent goes into fluid consumption.
A difficulty has arisen already this year which, it seems to me, is more or less alarming. I have before me the daily news letter sent out under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture. This issue dated June 15, states that the production of butter in Canada for the first five months of this year is ten per cent higher than it was for the first five months of last year. It seems to me, if that goes on for the year, that we shall be producing much more butter in Canada than we can possibly consume. If we get on an export basis I am afraid the price of butter will drop materially, and if the price of butter drops I am afraid the price of all other classes of dairy products in Canada will also drop accordingly.
I have only one further word to say. I do not need to go back over the ground and show that there has been a continual falling off in cheese production for the past number of years, or that there has been a gradual increase in butter production. The minister stated that another reason they were not giving the bonus this year is that there has been a certain amount of cheese sent to the United States since the inauguration of the present trade agreement. That is undoubtedly correct. But I do not think we can afford to sacrifice a market which we have had in Great Britain for years simply because we have entered into the American market for the time being. Canadian cheese enjoys a place of its own in the British market. For the past twenty or twenty-five years it has received a bonus of one, two and sometimes as high as four cents per pound in the British market. If we lose that market by failing to send our cheese to it and by failing to cater to it we would suffer a very serious loss indeed.
I have only one further observation and I shall have concluded. I should like to show how our cheese exports have fallen off. In 1927 we sent 136,000,000 pounds of cheese to the British market. By 1929 this had fallen to 112.000,000 pounds; in 1930, to 92,000,000 pounds. In 1934 it was 94,000,000 pounds:, and in 1935 it had dropped to 60,000,000 pounds. It seems to me that this is a serious situation. Only five per cent of all the dairy products we produce in Canada have to be exported, the other ninety-five per cent being consumed in Canada. If we are to hold our market in the British isles it seems to me that this is 12739-260
the only way in which it can be done, because the only way in which we can profitably export dairy products at this time is in the form of cheese. I am sorry the government has made this decision, and in conclusion my only observation would be that I hope by the time another year rolls around the dairy industry will not be suffering in the manner I am afraid that it will. If it is, I am sure that at that stage the government will do something about the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and River Service-hydrographic and tidal and current surveys, and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $406,700.
Harry James Barber: Could the minister state how much of this vote is to be spent on the Pacific coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt if I have that division indicated in my notes. We have it divided as to salaries and expenses. Hon. members will be aware that we maintain a very fine steamer on the west coast, namely the Stewart. We do a great deal of mapping out there, and I believe we have pretty well mapped the Pacific coast from the United States boundary to the Alaska boundary. I believe there is a little work to be done this year at the lower end of the Queen Charlotte islands.


Harry James Barber: There will be only a small expenditure on the Pacific coast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are doing the usual amount of work, this year, as much as we did last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-chargeable to capital Marine department-
River St. Lawrence ship channel dredgingfa) To provide for contract dredging in St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, $2,000,000.
(b) To provide for the maintenance and operation of the government ship channel fleet and the government shipyard, including all necessary repairs and reconditioning, $1,138,400.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is not this the item we discussed, dealing with the dredging of the St. Lawrence river?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other evening when we were discussing it the minister made a statement which I thought at the time was not quite in accordance with the facts, not as a question of fact, but simply as a matter of professional opinion. He said:
As we improve the St. Lawrence river below, there is no question that when we take twelve

Supply-Marine

inches off the bottom, we take about five inches off the top. That goes on continuously.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Did I say five inches?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was so reported, and I took the trouble to look the matter up, because before we entered into this contract we had a report prepared for the department by the joint board of engineers on the St. Lawrence waterway project. The report itself was prepared in November, 1926. That committee consisted of Messrs. D. W. McLachlan of the Department of Railways and Canals, Olivier
O.	Lefebvre, Chief Engineer of the Quebec Streams Commission; Brigadier General Charles Hamilton Mitchell; Major General Edgar Godwin, Chief of Engineers, in the United States; Colonel William Kelly, Corps of Engineers, United States; and Lieutenant Colonel George B. Pillsbury, Corps of Engineers, United States. We find the following at page 47, paragraph 211 of their report: Restoration of Navigable Depth
211. Channel below Montreal harbour-The navigable depth of the channel below Montreal harbour can be restored by dredging and an analysis of the gauge reports shows that the dredging heretofore done has lowered the level in Montreal harbour at the rate of 0T5 feet for each foot of navigable depth gained and has lowered the level of the river between Varennes and Quebec by an average of 0-06 for each foot of navigable depth gained.
According to this statement the dredging could have lowered the water level in the harbour of Montreal at the rate of 1% inches per foot of dredging, and three-quarters of an inch per foot of dredging in the main channel below Montreal.
I do not know whether the minister has had occasion to look up the interim report of March 4, 1935, but the Interdepartmental Montreal and Ship Channel Water Level Board state on pages 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, paragraphs 8 to 22, the cause of low water conditions. I shall1 not go into the matter at length, but I believe the minister was inaccurately reported, because these are the words used by the board:
A loss of 1-75 feet due to dredging of deeper and wider channel below the upper harbour; of this amount about 0-80 feet is due to dredging between the upper and the lower harbour.
Again, at paragraph 21, the board states:
The above table 5 shows a drop of 1-70 feet in water level in Montreal upper harbour due to enlargements and obstructions in channel of Montreal and in the river below. Of this amount, 1T0 feet may be ascribed to work done by the harbour commissioners of Montreal and 0-60 may be ascribed to work done in the ship channel below.
These two statements really mean that the dredging in the main channel has been responsible for a drop of 0-80 feet or 0-60

feet. We must remember that the drop in the level due to dredging is greater at a lower level of water. Without going into the matter at length I think it is sufficient to say that the drop in depth caused by dredging depends upon the distribution of the area of water, and under present conditions it would appear that the loss cannot be greater than, say a little over three-quarters of an inch per foot. This report that we had before us at the time we were entering into this agreement was another departmental report supplementing the report of 1926 to which I have made reference. I had notes prepared covering the whole situation, but I desire only to correct that, because if the statement made by the minister were accurate we have been greatly misled in dealing with the matter, and I wanted to verify it by reference to the original of the report of 1935, supplementing the report of 1926, to ascertain that the figures upon which we relied were at least those that were contained in the report. I think it may be fairly said that the dredging reduces the depth in the harbour approximately three-quarters of an inch per foot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I certainly appreciate the correction. If I said five inches out of twelve, I was grossly in error. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To reimburse Peter R. Jack and Chas. A. Aekhurst, one-time harbour commissioners at Halifax, for expenses incurred by them in connection with the inquiry into the administration of the Halifax harbour commission in 1930, $3,855.10.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like an explanation from the minister as to why an attempt should be made to reimburse these two gentlemen for expenses incurred by them in connection with this inquiry. Documents brought down by the minister disclosed-is it too strong to say?- very discreditable action on the part of that commission. The full report of the commissioner could not be made on account of his death. But it seems to me novel and unprecedented to propose a vote to pay for the legal expenses incurred by these two gentlemen. I should like to know why that proposal is made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: These two gentlemen were appointed by the government to conduct a government service at Halifax. Their services were dispensed with, charges of improper conduct were brought, and a judge was appointed to investigate. These men were under obligation, I think, to the government to defend the position they had taken. They hired counsel to do so. Before doing so they wrote to the

Supply-M iscellaneous
Department of Marine and asked for counsel to be appointed by the department. The deputy minister of the department, whose letter we have on file, wrote them that consideration would be given to the cost of counsel. The case was tried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister has the letter, will he read just what the deputy minister said? That may be very important from our standpoint.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. This is a letter to the then Deputy Minister of Marine, Mr. Alex. Johnston, under date of November 13, 1930:
Mr. Charles W. Ackhurst, one of the other commissioners, as well as myself have engaged the services of Mr. L. A. Lovett, K.C., and I wish to take this opportunity of drawing this matter to your attention and to ask that you arrange to defray the expenses of our counsel and any other expenses that we shall be subject to in connection with this inquiry.
To this Mr. Johnston made reply on November 17, 1930, as follows:
Just a line to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 13th instant and to say that the representations contained therein will in due course be submitted for consideration.
The inquiry proceeded, and I understand that complete evidence was taken. I have not personally read all the evidence, but I asked one of our officers to read it and to draw to my attention anything that he thought was pertinent as reflecting on the actions of the commissioners. The judge conducting the case, when he was about to prepare his report, died,. No other judge was assigned to complete the work, and these two men, who had been public servants, were left in the position of having been accused and of being unable either to have themselves acquitted or proven guilty. I think this is a very unfortunate position. I must say that in reading the evidence I could find nothing which seemed in any way to justify the charges. It seemed to me that it was in view of the public service of these men that they were placed in that position.' They being accused of criminal actions, and being proven neither guilty nor innocent, it seemed to me that the least the government could do was to, reimburse them for their out of pocket expense for legal assistance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a very serious
matter to create a precedent of this kind. I am not going to discuss the matter now, but a perusal of the evidence leaves certain convictions in one's mind. I believe the minister is wrong in saying that any criminal proceedings were suggested. But compare this treatment with that of the man whom I mentioned this morning! Just compare 12739-2601
what is being done for these men at Halifax with the treatment accorded to the man whom the former Secretary of State discussed in this house, who lost his job, against whom not a single word of evidence was adduced, and who still alleges that there never was any evidence which could be produced against him! Certainly that cannot be said in connection with this Halifax matter. But this other poor unfortunate, unimportant in the world, not occupying a position like that of a harbour commissioner, having no redress and no ability to hire lawyers, much less to write letters asking the department to be reimbursed for any expenditure, has nothing done for him. We are creating a precedent which may be very useful with respect to such unfortunates as I referred to this morning, and I only hope that the same measure of generosity will be extended to those who are less vocal, less important, and who cannot make the same contribution to the well-being of political parties that the commissioners of Halifax harbour could do. I cannot but think that this is a precedent which will have far-reaching consequences. The death of the judge was not the only difficulty; it had the effect of terminating the whole inquiry and necessitating a new inquiry being carried on by a new judge, and some of the evidence was no longer available, and would have to be heard over again by whoever was appointed. I was not in the country when the commission was appointed; I know nothing about the matter beyond reading the testimony that was brought down, but certainly the minister would find it difficult to say that he had read the evidence and was satisfied there was no cause for just complaint. However, I remember this one circumstance. Before the contract was made at all, certain steps were taken by the commissioners which it would be difficult to justify in dealing with a transaction of that kind. It will be recalled that the final contract in connection with the matter, which involved very heavy expenditures being made by this dominion,, was executed between the defeat of the government and the coming into office of its successors. That is true at least in connection with part; I cannot say that it is true with respect to the whole. I point out to the minister that the precedent is very far-reaching and enables me to assert with some measure of authority the right of those to whom I referred this morning to receive similar treatment from the government of the day.
Supply-Miscellaneous


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that these gentlemen were made defendants by the government. I take it that they were not being [DOT]tried for a criminal offence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might point out that there are precedents where an officer of the crown is tried and found not guilty. In those cases judges have awarded legal expenses, and had the judge lived to complete his report, that might very well have happened in this case. I think these gentlemen were placed in a most unfair position and I believe it is only just that their counsel fees should be paid.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to read the documents which the minister laid on the table earlier in the session, but I doubt whether any independent mind could consider those documents and come to the conclusion that these gentlemen are entirely exonerated. It was not a criminal .proceeding and they were not defendants; it was an inquiry under the Inquiries Act into the conduct of two servants of the government. I can understand the deputy minister's letter suggesting that in case they were exonerated, consideration might be given to the payment of their expenses, but certainly not otherwise.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological service - further amount required, $77,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We know about the
meteorological service, but why this fairly large extra amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is almost entirely due to aviation work. There have been some observations made in the west and we have been required to do something in connection with the transoceanic service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans and advances-to provide for soldier land settlement advances and for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, $323,800.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an additional amount in the supplementaries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just a minute; this item is not under this department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but it can be put through. It is a matter of computation only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Trent canal-to provide for a grant by the Department of Railways and Canals towards the cost of the construction by

the corporation of the town of Orillia of a dam, power house and log slide on the Gull river, $7,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister be good enough to inform the committee as to what action, if any, has been taken to turn this canal over to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario? I saw something to that effect in the press.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No action of that kind is being taken. We are consolidating certain leases with the hydro commission and have made certain arrangements for the regulating of levels better to suit their purpose. There is no change in the ownership of anything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment, under such conditions as the Minister of Finance may prescribe, to national harbours board or the respective corporations constituted to administer the harbours mentioned herein, of the amounts hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficits (after payment of interest due the public but exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation) arising in the calendar year 1936 in the operation or the following harbours:
Halifax, $178,600.
Saint John, $59,300.
Quebec, $268,900.
Chicoutimi, $16,500.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister tell us if any of these harbour boards are meeting their interest charges, I mean of the four mentioned in this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. These are for operating deficits.


Alan Webster Neill: Is Vancouver not meeting its interest charges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, but it is doing better than meeting operating expenses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans and investments-additional amount in excess of the sum of $5,303,000 already appropriated, required to provide for payment of additional sales tax, imposed by "an act to amend the Special War Revenue Act" (House of Commons Bill No. 76, 1936), to contractors for railway equipment ordered under the provisions of the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935 (section 9) on equipment delivered after May 1, 1936, $55,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There was some misunderstanding as to this item. Perhaps the minister could explain it in just a sentence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We bought some $15,000,000 worth of equipment on the Philadelphia plan and this is the extra two per cent of sales tax to be applied on the balance which has not been delivered.

Supply-Labour


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The purchaser has to pay it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purchaser pays the
interest on it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advances to national harbours board or the Vancouver harbour commissioners with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, for such periods and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of capital expenditures in the harbour of Vancouver in the calendar year 1936, $11,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect is to put them all out of debt.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is to refund certain debentures outstanding in the hands of the public.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have just learned that a bill with a small amendment has come from another place. It is desirable to have it before the house and I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day in order that the Speaker may take the chair so that we can deal with that bill.
Progress reported.



COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 55, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will explain the amendment.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In section 2, which amends section 10, subsection 1 of the act, after the words "lists of all dramatieo-musical and musical works" the senate has added the words "in current use." The other amendments are grammatical. In lines 16 and 25 on page 2, the senate has substituted the word "its" for the word "such."
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act, $150,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not proposed to change the rates this year?
Hon. N. McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): That is a matter which would have to be considered by the government. I am not prepared to make a statement at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can it be done by
regulation?


Mr. ROGERS:: By order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this government
would not do anything like that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the department contemplate any changes in the rates?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not the kind of question I can answer at this time. I am quite aware of the investigation that had taken place in the other house, and obviously we shall be giving consideration to the recommendation of that committee. The whole question of annuities in relation, for instance, to old age pensions, is one that must receive attention.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Conciliation and Labour Act, $30,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the estimated
additional expenditure by reason of Quebec adopting old age pensions?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As my right hon. friend
is perhaps aware, the administration of old age pensions has been transferred from the Department of Labour to the Department of Finance. I have not the figures available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal commission on anthracite coal, $15,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Is this under the Department of Labour?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is an appropriation to meet the expenses of a royal commission appointed to inquire into the importation and distribution of anthracite. The commissioner has been appointed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who is the commissioner?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Doctor H. M. Tory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Employment and Social Insurance Act- further amount required, $25,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder whether, before
parliament prorogues, the government, through the Minister of Justice, will be in a position to make some statement as to its intention with regard to the legislation that has been declared ultra vires.
Supply-State


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some days ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said that before making a statement with respect to further action he would give consideration to the judgments delivered in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-further amount required, $778,548.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this in connection with the census in western Canada?


Mr. EULER:: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous-Secretary of State, $10,000.
["Will my hon.\nfriend pardon me a moment. I understand it is agreeable to hon. members that we should proceed past eleven o'clock, seeing that there is a bare possibility of proroguing some time to-night. To enable us to sit after eleven it will be necessary to have a motion put and adopted, with the Speaker in the chair. I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.\nProgress reported."]
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I see an appropriation of $68,971 under the heading of adjustment of war claims, for the Department of National Defence.
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of
State): That item, of course, does not 'belong to the Department of the Secretary of State.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What has the Department of National Defence to do with war claims?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I could not say, and the minister is not present. This item under my department has not to-do with war claims; it is to provide for litigation in connection with certain pending cases which are still before the courts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public printing and stationery-plant-repairs and renewals-further amount required, $11,000.
['I could not say, and the minister is not present. This item under my department has not to-do with war claims; it is to provide for litigation in connection with certain pending cases which are still before the courts.']
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Before we finally pass the estimates of the Secretary of State I should like to ask what justification there is for the appointment of an assistant to Mr. Caston-guay, the chief electoral officer. That strikes me as an appointment which cannot possibly be justified.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will allow me, that will come under the vote for the office of the chief electoral officer. This vote is for the printing bureau.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wish my hon. friend in the meantime would try to think up some reasonable explanation.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That item will be called in a moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-Public Archives-salaries, and to provide for the continuance in office of J. B. Noble, senior bookbinder, from April 1, 1936, $92,020; contingencies, $9,200.
['That item will be called in a moment.']
Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to ask the minister whether any steps are being taken to fill the vacancy in the office of dominion archivist?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The matter is still under consideration. Sir Arthur Doughty, though pensioned, is still going to the archives, as everyone knows. He has been practically the founder of that department, and he is still giving much attention to it, but we are considering the matter.


Ernest Edward Perley: I take it that someone else is acting as archivist. Sir Arthur Doughty is not acting, is he?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No. I can promise my hon. friend that we shall attend to that very soon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief electoral officer-salaries and contingencies of office, $16,270.
['No. I can promise my hon. friend that we shall attend to that very soon.']
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I must say to my hon.
friend that it is true that the position of assistant electoral officer has not been filled for a number of years, but the salary has been voted every year. I do not know what has been the experience of my hon. friend, but even when I was in office previously the chief electoral officer always pleaded that it was not wise to leave that office without an assistant.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friends may smile, but I think that is right. I am going to remind my hon. friend that when he appointed a dominion franchise commissioner he also appointed an assistant, and this is in exactly the same position. It is a very small office, consisting of Mr. Castonguay and two or three minor clerks, and if Mr. Castonguay goes away for a day or so the office is practically left alone. The fact is that not only were we right in appointing Mr. Stewart to that position but that an appointment should have been made some time ago. Now that we are going to revise the electoral law I think it is very wise to have assistants for both the franchise and electoral officers, to be trained as such under the main officers.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say is that when I went into office in 1930 the office of assistant had not been filled for some years.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think both parties are to blame.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The chief electoral officer then had the duties of both electoral officer and franchise commissioner. Early in the first

Supply-State
year some question arose as to the duties of Mr. Castonguay's office, and I called Mr. Castonguay to my office and asked as to the need of appointing such an assistant. He told me it would1 be utterly indefensible for the government to appoint an assistant, because during a great part of the time he had very little to do. He said that he did not need an assistant, and that if his recommendation was required with regard to the appointment he certainly would not give it. That was the gist of his conversation with me. Subsequently the work of the office was divided, and at least half the work of the chief electoral officer was given to the franchise commissioner. Before the general election I suppose I must have had a score of applications for the appointment of somebody as assistant in this office. I again called Mr. Castonguay to my office and I have a very clear recollection concerning the interview. He stated that the appointment of an assistant was not necessary, and that if it depended upon his recommendation he certainly would not recommend it. I so advised my colleagues, and no appointment was made. In fact a suggestion had been made in regard to the appointment of a particular individual, and I may not reveal what took place at a certain place but I shall say that I advised all my colleagues that I would not support that waste of money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose there never was a greater piece of political jobbery in this country than the appointment of this man to this job. What the former Secretary of State has said I desire to support, because not merely by scores but by more than that people were asking for the position. It was too late to take steps to abolish it; if it had been abolished there would have been less trouble. The present government when in office from 1921 to 1930 did not fill the position. The commissioner then had the duties of both offices. In 1925-26 the position was not filled. When the general election of 1930 came on it was not filled. During the five intervening years it was not filled. In 1935 before the general election it was not filled. But now this S3,000 job has been filled by the appointment of the son of the president of the Liberal association in Ottawa, after the position had remained vacant all these years and after a general election, when the duties, according to the chief electoral officer, are very light indeed. In fact, it was because of the representations made by the then Secretary of State to his colleagues and after the closest inquiry, and after he had communicated to us the sense of what he has now said, that it was quite clear that no appointment could or
should be made. This is another illustration of what my hon. friends may call the practice of economy.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should not like to seem discourteous in not replying. I can only say what I said before, that in both these small offices we thought it was proper to have a chief officer and an assistant. I do not doubt for a moment that the statements made by the former Secretary of State are accurate, but I shall say on my personal word that Mr. Castonguay came to my office and pleaded with me more than once that we fill this job.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since this government came into office?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I mean since this government came into office. His report was to the effect that when he left the office either for a trip or even for a few hours a day the office was left with no one there.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: During all the years that my hon. friend was Secretary of State before 1930 was any such representation made to him by Mr. Castonguay?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: No; I admit I do not recollect any. But take this session for instance; Mr. Castonguay has been in attendance most of the time on the special committee dealing with the amendment to the elections act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He has nothing else to do.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I admit that the situation is awkward, because for a number of years the office has been left vacant, but I am wondering why it was so. It seems so natural that in a small office consisting of an electoral officer and two or three very minor clerks there should at least be an assistant to look after the office when the chief officer is busy elsewhere. I understand the estimate was voted year after year; I believe that the appointment is justifiable on that ground, and I again point to the analogy. When the former government appointed a dominion franchise commissioner he was given what I would call an assistant similar in kind to the one we have given Mr. Castonguay.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The reason was that he had something to do; there was something for the office to do in preparation of the electoral lists. But Mr. Gastonguay has nothing to do except two or three days' work at each by-election and a certain amount of work in case of a general election.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I can only say that I
shall look into the matter and see that the assistant is kept busy.
Supply-State


Richard Bedford Bennett: He cannot be.


Grote Stirling: What can he do?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has said
either too much or too little. He has said that Mr. Castonguay came to him since August 7, 1935, and pleaded with him to appoint an assistant.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I repeat that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then Mr. Castonguay is an active partisan, for during all the time the preceding government was in office he not only said there was no use for an assistant, but protested against the appointment of any such assistant. That shows that Mr. Castonguay is an active partisan and desired to hold that office open for a Liberal administration. That is a despicable act on his part, showing that he is unfit for a public office, when he reported to the former Secretary of State that an appointment should not be made and that he would not recommend it, and then pleads with the successor of the former Secretary of State to appoint an assistant, when the duties are less than they were at any time during the preceding five years. There has never been a more glaring case of the conduct of an official, indicating sheer partisanship and unfitness for his position, and it is one that should be remembered by this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion franchise commissioner-salaries and contingencies of office, et cetera-further amount required, $6,000.
['Then Mr. Castonguay is an active partisan, for during all the time the preceding government was in office he not only said there was no use for an assistant, but protested against the appointment of any such assistant. That shows that Mr. Castonguay is an active partisan and desired to hold that office open for a Liberal administration. That is a despicable act on his part, showing that he is unfit for a public office, when he reported to the former Secretary of State that an appointment should not be made and that he would not recommend it, and then pleads with the successor of the former Secretary of State to appoint an assistant, when the duties are less than they were at any time during the preceding five years. There has never been a more glaring case of the conduct of an official, indicating sheer partisanship and unfitness for his position, and it is one that should be remembered by this country.']
Abraham Albert Heaps: There was another gentleman appointed to assist in the work of revising the elections act. I think everyone who was on that committee appreciated the work he did. How long was that gentleman in the employ of the government, or have his services now been dispensed with?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had a note to ask what Mr. Butcher was being paid.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understand he has now finished his work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was he being paid?


An hon. MEMBER:: He was engaged by the committee of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it was not any
committee of the house; he was appointed by the administration, and I had a note to ask when the estimate was up why he was appointed and what salary he was paid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was retained in order to prepare material for the

committee. He worked with the committee while it was in session. I have not at hand the amount he was paid. My right hon. friend will appreciate the reason why I cannot give it at the moment.


Ernest Edward Perley: Is his work
finished, or is he still in the employ of the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; I understand his work was finished some days or weeks ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
['No; I understand his work was finished some days or weeks ago.']
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On item No. 221 of the
general estimates my hon. friend the Secretary of State said there was an assistant to the dominion franchise commissioner. Who is he and when was he appointed?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have that before me. Mr. Minns is his name, and I understand he was appointed at the same time as the commissioner himself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I accept that, but I do not think he was appointed as a permanent assistant; he was seconded from another office to assist temporarily when the heavy work of the revision of the lists was on.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Lieutenant-Colonel E.
H. Minns is the name, and he is paid $2,964. I might say he is still with the office. When I communicate with that office he usually replies.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite so,


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think it was a very
good appointment, and he is an efficient man.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not discussing his
appointment, at all. The minister justified the appointment of an assistant-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I said there was an
analogy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes; an analogy. But
there was no assistant appointed permanently to assist the franchise commissioner, if my memory is correct. There was seconded from another department a Mr. Minns to assist, but only while the preparation of the lists was on. No permanent appointment has been made. I could have recommended the permanent appointment of an assistant, but there was no necessity for a permanent appointment. So far as my memory goes no permanent appointment was made; an officer was loaned from another department to act temporarily.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend knows,
and I believe on a similar occasion he took the stand while Secretary of State that the two electoral officers are independent. The Secretary of State is only the means through whom the estimates are voted. Naturally they have more leeway, but I was led to believe from the minute I took office that Lieutenant-Colonel E. H. Minns was the assistant to Colonel Thompson, and I never had any intimation that his was a temporary position. I know he is a very busy man, and I have often had occasion to refer to him
Mr. MacNICO'L:	What is he doing? He
cannot be doing anything ait the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Geneva-publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the League of Nations Society in Canada, $3,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On a former occasion when these estimates were before the committee I expressed the desire to make a lengthy statement, but I shall restrict my observations considerably; if hon. members will permit me I shall make only a short statement.
My contention is, first, that the passing of certain orders in council prohibiting imports from Italy into Canada and certain exports from Canada to Italy were passed without proper authority; and second, that the agreement made with respect to the imposition of sanctions at Geneva was not made through an organ of the League of Nations, and that the suggestion that the League of Nations was recommending the imposition of sanctions, as a league, is not in accordance with the facts; and third, that the action with regard to sanctions is a repudiation of the pledges made to this parliament by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on a previous occasion, and not in accordance with a resolution introduced by the Prime Minister and passed unanimously by parliament in June, 1926.
I do not intend to enter upon a full discussion of the matters, but I should like to refer to them in order that they might be considered before further sanctions are imposed or further action taken, so that they may be considered in another light by the Prime Minister and his advisers.
On October 31, 1935, an order in council,
P.C. 3461 was passed by His Excellency the Governor in Council, prohibiting the exportation, reexportation or transit to Italy or to any Italian possession of the arms, munitions and implements of war enumerated in a list attached thereto, and it was ordered that a proclamation to that effect be issued forthwith and published in The Canada Gazette.
That order in council was passed under the authority of section 290 of the Customs Act and was, in my opinion, a valid and effective exercise of a power conferred on the executive by legislation of parliament.
On November 15. 1935, an order in council, P.C. 3594 was passed by His Excellency the Governor in Council, prohibiting by article 1, imports from Italy into Canada; and by article 2, certain exports from Canada to Italy; and by article 3, prohibiting any person in Canada from making, contributing to, participating in or assisting in the making of any loan to or for the benefit of,-
(1)	The government of any Italian territory, that is to say, the kingdom of Italy and the colonies or dependencies thereof and any territory in the effective military occupation of Italy;
(2)	Any person, not being a body corporate, of whatever nationality resident in any such territory;-
A most extraordinary thing.
-or (3) Any person wherever resident being a body corporate incorporated under the law of any such territory.
A subsequent amendment of the same order provides that giving a guarantee or becoming party to a bill of exchange, or buying a bill of exchange, or giving credit in any form shall be deemed for the purposes of this article to be making a loan.
This order in council is entitled the Treaty of Peace (Covenant of the League of Nations) Order, 1935. But it was not made in pursuance of any obligations which Canada had as a member of the League of Nations, and it is a misnomer to call it a covenant of the League of Nations order.
The Customs Act in section 290, provides:
290. The governor in council may, from time to time, prohibit the exportation or the carrying coastwise or by inland navigation, of arms, ammunition and gunpowder, military and naval stores, and any articles which the governor in council deems capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores, provisions or any sort of victual which may be used as food by man.
In so far as the order in council of November 15, 1935, P.C. 3594, prohibits exports from Canada within the terms of section 290 of the Customs Act, it was passed with the authority of parliament, but, in so far as the said order in council prohibits either exports or imports which are not authorized by the Customs Act,
1098	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
I respectfully submit that the said order in council was passed without express parliamentary authority and is of doubtful validity.
Whence did the government assume that the extraordinary powers were derived which purport to be exercised in the order in council of November 15, 1935? The order recites that it is made under the provisions of the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, but certainly no member of the House of Commons or of the Senate of Canada in 1919 conceived that the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, would be construed, in 1935, to authorize the government of Canada, without the consent of parliament, that is, without the consent of both the Commons and the Senate of Canada, to prohibit all trade, all financial and business dealings between residents of Canada, and all those resident in Italy or in Italian territories, even though they be British or Canadian nationals temporarily resident there.
Moreover, if the government of Canada was authorized by that act of 1919 to impose economic sanctions against Italy or against any other nation, without consulting parliament, then the same act of 1919 authorized the government of Canada, without consulting parliament, to impose military and naval sanctions as suggested by the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations and to enter upon active warfare against any recalcitrant member of the League of Nations, Italy or any other nation, then or at a future date. When the parliament of Canada had the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, under consideration, the Hon. W. S. Fielding, I well remember, inquired of the government of the day whether that involved the carrying out of the terms of the covenant. The question was first put, would it authorize the appointment of a delegate to Geneva in order that organization might be made under the league covenant, and the answer was a specific no, given by the Minister of Justice of the day, although later he did modify to a certain extent that emphatic no by saying that it might authorize the government to send a delegate to Geneva for the purposes mentioned.
The parliament of New Zealand, on November 24 last, enacted The League of Nations (Enforcement in New Zealand) Act, 1935. This special act authorized economic sanctions only, and provides that naval or military sanctions would require further special authorization by parliament. The New Zealand act empowers the governor general by order in council to make regulations enabling the dominion to fulfil its obligations under article 16 of the League of Nations to enforce economic sanctions, but it requires that

all such regulations shall be laid before parliament within twenty days after the making thereof if parliament is then in session, and if not, then within twenty days after the commencement of the next ensuing session. This New Zealand act also provides that the regulations are to lapse on the expiration of two months after they have been so laid before parliament except so far as they are expressly validated or confirmed by an act of parliament. By that New Zealand legislation the rights of parliament are strictly preserved.
Again, the parliament of Australia, when called upon to deal with the matter of sanctions, passed an act relating to the application of sanctions against Italy for the purpose of implementing the proposals of the coordination committee of eighteen.
On November 7 last the Dail of the Irish Free State also enacted a special statute entitled the League of Nations (Obligations of Membership) Act for the same purpose.
No session of the parliament of Canada was convened to consider this matter, and if the government of Canada had authority under the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, to enter upon and' prescribe economic sanctions, it had exactly the same authority to provide for naval and military as well as economic warfare against Italy. The Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, which is chapter 30 of the acts of parliament for that year, recites that on behalf ^ of the allied and associated powers treaties of peace had been signed with Germany and Austria, and then provides:
(1) The governor in council may make such appointments, establish such offices, make such orders in council, and do such things as appear to him to be necessary for carrying out the said treaties, and for giving effect to any of the provisions of the said treaties.
Did any mortal man in parliament or outside parliament in Canada conceive at that time, under that clause, which was intended and stated to be intended to wind up the matters relating to war under the war measures acts, and to adjust the conditions in Canada resulting from the war, that it was the intention that ten or twenty or one hundred years thereafter the government of the day would be authorized by such general terms to impose sanctions and to precipitate a state of war between this country and any other nation that was a party to the covenant?
Discussions in the commons in 1919 were participated in, if I remember correctly, by the Minister of Justice of this day. I believe that the Minister of Pensions was then in parliament, and that he asked very pertinent questions with regard to the purpose and in-

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
tent of that act, and it was explained that it would merely authorize the government to adjust financial and other matters such as indemnities, reparations and the like, arising out of the war, and then awaiting adjustment and settlement. It was never suggested to parliament that for a decade or a century in the future that act would authorize the government of the day by order in council to exercise the powers and legislative functions of parliament in relation to all matters arising out of the operation under the covenant of the League of Nations.
When the covenant of the League of Nations was under discussion in the parliament and press of this country in 1919, special emphasis was laid upon the last two paragraphs of article 4 and the first paragraph of article 5 of the covenant. It was then explained and contended by those then advocating the ratification of the covenant, that in respect of any prospective decision of the council of the league that might specially affect the interests of any member of the league which was not represented on the council, such a member would be invited to send a representative to sit as a member of council and to vote in respect of that decision, and that, as such decision must be unanimous, Canada, even as such member pro tempore, would have the power to veto any proposed decision specially affecting Canada's interests. That was so stated to be the purpose and intent of the provision. This contention was based on the provisions of articles 4 and 5 of the covenant, which read as follows:
Article 4. Any member of the league not represented on the council shall be invited to send a representative to sit as a member at any meeting of the council during the consideration of matters specially affecting the interests of that member of the league.
Article 5. At meetings of the council, each member of the league represented on the council shall have one vote, and may have not more than one representative.... _
Except where otherwise expressly provided in this covenant or by the terms of the present treaty, decisions at any meeting of the assembly or of the council shall require the agreement of all the members of the league represented at the meeting.
It was impossible to reach within the terms of the covenant any agreement between all the nations represented on the League of Nations to enter upon any campaign of sanctions against Italy. There were, and it was openly stated that there were, two or three who were recalcitrant and would not endorse a unanimous resolution to enforce sanctions against Italy. But those who were anxious to impose sanctions against Italy very adroitly arranged that, outside the league assembly, outside the organs of the league, representatives of the governments might be convened and a new organ created of those members who were agreeable to and accepted the proposal to impose effective sanctions against Italy. We saw it stated in the press from one end to the other of this country and in other countries as well that this committee which was so constituted was not a league organ but was created outside the league, and was not merely carrying out the terms of the covenant of the league. In my opinion it was a mere pretence to assume that the character and dignity of the league would cover such action as might be agreed upon independently by certain members of the league in the adoption and enforcement of sanctions against Italy.
Hon. members are aware that after full discussion in the assembly of the league and its committees in the years 1921, 1923, 1924 and 1925, various proposals were presented for amendments to sections 10 and 16 of the covenant of the league, which could only be invoked by such unanimous action as I have stated. In order to provide uniform methods whereby military and naval sanctions might be adopted and enforced, a treaty of mutual assistance was drafted at Geneva in 1923 and reported for the favourable consideration of members of the league. That draft treaty provided in detail for the coordination of all measures for the enforcement of military and economic sanctions against a recalcitrant member of the league. That draft treaty was intended to define and supplement the existing obligations contained in article 16, and to obviate the necessity of unanimous agreement for the adoption and enforcement of sanctions.
The Prime Minister of that day, who is the Prime Minister of to-day, in a memorandum to the League of Nations, signed by himself on behalf of Canada, declined to approve the proposed treaty of mutual assistance on the ground that Canada would not agree "to transfer the right to decide upon the scope of the action Canada should take from the Canadian parliament to the council of the League of Nations." The letter of the present Prime Minister rejecting, on behalf of Canada, the proposed treaty of mutual assistance was dated July 9, 1924, and will be found in the records of the assembly of the League of Nations for 1924, at page 146. This letter reads in part as follows:
Canada has already indicated disapproval of the interpretation of the terms of article 10 of the covenant as implying an obligation upon her to intervene actively under that article. The proposed treaty creates an obligation wider in its extent and more precise in its implications than any which article 10 could be interpreted as imposing, and it proposes, moreover, to transfer the right to decide upon the scope of the action Canada should take from the

Supply

External Affairs-Geneva
Canadian parliament to the council of the League of Nations. It is true that, for the purpose of deciding upon the assistance to be given by Canada, the council would include a Canadian representative and that the draft limits the liability of a signatory in another continent to measures not involving naval, military or air operations.
In that respect it was less onerous than the terms of the covenant. The Prime Minister continued:
But the presence of a Canadian representative on the council would hardly compensate for the. at least nominal, transfer of authority, and, again, Canada's position in the British empire effects the protection afforded her by the continental limitation of which in any event the utility is uncertain since it appears doubtful if hostile action can widely or indeed safely be undertaken by any state upon the principle of limited liability.
There was then no doubt in the mind of the present Prime Minister that the imposition of economic or military sanctions by Canada against any recalcitrant member of the league must first be specially authorized by the parliament of Canada. At that time public discussion of the liability of members of the league in regard to the enforcement of military and economic sanctions against an aggressor state became very lively indeed. The proposed treaty of mutual assistance in the carrying into effect of these sanctions failed to obtain general support and was never brought into force. Not only did Canada not accept it, but she made independent representations to Great Britain with respect to it and Great Britain failed to accept it as well.
As a result of these discussions, the matter was again brought up at the imperial conference which met at London in 1926. That imperial conference adopted a resolution recommending that a certain procedure should be observed in the negotiation, signature and ratification of international treaties and conventions. On his return to Canada, the Prime Minister of that day expressed himself as not being satisfied with the form of the resolution proposed and approved at that imperial conference of 1926. On June 21. 1926, as reported on page 4758 of Hansard of that year, the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. gentleman who is Prime Minister to-day, submitted this resolution of the imperial conference for the approval of the House of Commons, but he attached to the imperial conference proposal a very significant clause. The Prime Minister's resolution, after citing the procedure mentioned, proceeds as follows to indicate that independent action should be taken by Canada:
This house approves of the procedure proposed for the negotiation, signature, and ratification of treaties and conventions, and advises further that before His Majesty's Canadian 
ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.
At that time I sat as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition and the Conservative members of that opposition asked me to discuss in the house the terms of that resolution. During his remarks on that occasion, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 4756 of Hansard:
We declare that in regard to the ratification of_ treaties, conventions or agreements involving military or economic sanctions we stand first, last and always for approval in the first instance by the parliament of Canada.
In reply to a question put by myself, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 4768 of Hansard:
What I wish to make clear, however, was that all treaties or conventions involving military or_ economic sanctions must come before parliament, and where military or economic sanctions were involved I wished to make the terms broad enough to include agreements, so that in referring to treaties or agreements of any kind we should not have a difference over the mere use of words.
In commenting upon this, the former member for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa, gave the following interpretation, to which no member of the government or any member of the house dissented at the time:
The government invites the cooperation of parliament and declaration by parliament that no treaty, convention or agreement, whether Canada is mentioned or not, but involving military or economic sanctions, shall be accepted by the government of Canada without the approval of parliament.
Representing for the day His Majesty's opposition, I commended highly the stand taken by the Prime Minister. The result was that the resolution which I have mentioned passed this house unanimously.
Therefore I was somewhat surprised on February 11 last, with respect to the statement of the Prime Minister regarding the sanctions enforced against Italy by Canada, by orders in council to which I have called attention, and without parliament being called together, without the opinion of parliament being taken, without that confirmation of the action of the government which was necessary if the pledge given to parliament and the resolution adopted by parliament were to be carried into effect, as understood at the time, in 1926-I was somewhat surprised, I say, at the statement of the Prime Minister on that date:
On October 29th I issued a statement to the effect that Canada would apply these sanctions. Sanctions were enforced by Canada on the

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
following dates:	Embargo on the export of
arms, October 31st, 1935; prohibition of credits to Italy, November 15th, 1935; embargo on imports from Italy, November 15 th, 1935; embargo on exports of certain key products to Italy, November 15th, 1935.
I have referred to these orders in council, and so far as I can discover, apart from the particular section of the Customs Act which partly authorized the first order, there was no authority outside of the Treaties of Peace Act, 1919, the purpose and import of which had time and time again been stated to parliament as being restricted to the closing up of incidental matters which were left to be settled between the allied governments and the other governments after the Treaty of Peace had been ratified. But certainly the imposition and enforcement of such sanctions by order in council, under a new agreement made by this government's representatives, without the sanction of parliament, was a violation of the resolution of the Prime Minister, which I have read and which was unanimously approved on June 21, 1926. In discussing the matter at the opening of the session a question was put in reply to which the present Prime Minister said, as reported at page 94 of Hansard of the present session:
May I say to my right hon. friend, because I understand his difficulty in appreciating the situation, that the committee of coordination at Geneva was not a League of Nations committee in the sense in which I have no doubt he regards it. It was not a committee of the assembly nor a committee of the council. It was a committee of representatives of different countries represented at Geneva who took under review the question of deciding what particular sanctions the different countries that were representatives of the league would agree upon. This committee set up a further committee of eighteen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon.
friend pardon me a moment. I understand it is agreeable to hon. members that we should proceed past eleven o'clock, seeing that there is a bare possibility of proroguing some time to-night. To enable us to sit after eleven it will be necessary to have a motion put and adopted, with the Speaker in the chair. I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['No, not by a long way.\nProgress reported.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that
the house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock p.m. this day and that standing order 7 in relation thereto be suspended.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the Prime Minister until what time he intends that the house shall sit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will depend on hon. members. I believe there is a disposition on the part of all to conclude some time to-night, and unless there is strong objection we shall proceed until we do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the representative of the crown attend after midnight?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The deputy
of his excellency has been extremely obliging as far as parliament is concerned, and has informed me that he is prepared to come at any time. Moreover, there is precedent for parliament proroguing as late as half past one o'clock in the morning.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are some hon. members who think we might sit for a while longer and if necessary come back in the morning and finish up early.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might see what progress we make.


Jean-François Pouliot: Ask St. Lawrence-St.
George to make it snappy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Geneva-Publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the League of Nations Society in Canada, $3,000.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: At a meeting of the council of the League of Nations-


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret having to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has spoken forty minutes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he was interrupted.


Frederick George Sanderson: He was given extra
time on account of the interruption.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Speaker resumed the ehair.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps I am taking a
mistaken view of the importance of this question, but I do regard it as very important indeed. At a meeting of the council of the League of Nations held on October 7, 1935, a committee of the council, appointed on October 5, reported in effect:
4102	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
(1)	That a state of war exists between Italy and Ethiopia.
(2)	That war had been, resorted to by Italy in disregard of article 12 of the covenant of the League of Nations.
It was perfectly clear, and admitted, that the ordinary procedure under which unanimity would be required in the council and in the assembly in order to carry out, under the League of Nations, the proposed economic war against Italy by imposing sanctions, was impossible of achievement; and therefore, at a plenary meeting of the League of Nations held on October 10, 1935, the president made a statement which, in the official report of that plenary meeting of the assembly, reads as follows:
The president said that the general committee had considered, with a view to laying suggestions before the assembly, what arrangements might be suggested for the constitution of the organ of coordination. The delegation of Italy, vice-president of the assembly, sitting in that capacity in the general committee, had stated, at the opening of the meeting, whilst repeating his earlier reservations, that le would abstain from taking part in the leliberations.
Then he proceeds:
He would add that the organ which the members of the league were invited to constitute was not an organ of the assembly or of the council. It would be a kind of conference of members meeting to consult together with a view to applying the provisions of article 16.
That was indeed a very suave and tactful way of stating that a new international agreement was proposed to be framed by which the nations which accepted it would commit themselves to the imposition of economic or military sanctions against Italy. It was a coordinating committee. It was not deemed to be an organ of the council or an organ of the assembly of the league. It was merely a meeting of representatives of member states to frame a new agreement among themselves as to the enforcement of sanctions against Italy. At page 267 of the Journal the Baron Aloisi of Italy said:
The proposed committee could not therefore be regarded as in any way an organ of the league. As the president himself had explained, it was only a conference of certain states consulting together on the steps which they would agree to take on their own responsibility.
I am anxious to conclude and shall go through my notes as rapidly as possible. At page 267 of the Journal the president replied :
No body of the league had the power to decide compulsorily for all members that one of them had committed a breach of the covenant.

Then he went on to say:
Having replied to the first observation of the delegate of Italy, he would admit that the delegate of Italy was right in respect of the doubts expressed regarding a vote on the resolution if the text before the assembly was to be regarded as a formal resolution of the assembly. In that case the question of unanimity or voting by a majority would arise. He had felt bound to state at once that, in the present instance, the assembly was not asked to consider a resolution in the strict sense of the word but an invitation addressed by the assembly to the states members.
The original draft used the word "invites'' and he suggested that it should be replaced by "recommends" because there was no authority on the part of the assembly to invite such a conference. Then, without going fully into the matter, this coordination committee set up a committee of eighteen, consisting of the representatives of eighteen states. When this committee met Mr. Coulondre, the French representative-and I know Mr. Coulondre as one of the most astute officials on the permanent staff of the French foreign office- said:
The committee of eighteen, an offshoot of the coordination committee, was a conference of sovereign states-
And, as a conference of sovereign states it sought to reach an agreement between the several states respecting the enforcement of economic sanctions. Later the matter was dealt with. At this stage I do not intend to deal with the various discussions whereby Canada was represented on this coordination committee, or with the proposal of Doctor Riddell, as the representative of the sovereign state of Canada, or with the fact that the various representatives in discussing that proposition referred to it, as the official report shows, as the Canadian proposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member, although he is making a very entertaining speech, is reading it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have to read extracts which are taken from the official reports of the League of Nations, and for convenience I have made typewritten copies. That was referred to as the Canadian proposal and the list of petroleum and derivatives, coal, iron, cast iron and steel, was referred to as the Canadian list. I do not think that was with a view to imposing any special responsibility upon Canada, but I can well understand how the press in considering these proposals would use the same term.
That agreement was reached with regard to the imposition of sanctions covering certain lists which were before the committee.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
The committee of eighteen reported back to the coordination committee and the coordination committee adopted the report. So Canada entered into a new formal agreement with regard to the imposition of sanctions, an agreement which was not covered by the terms of the covenant and which was made through an organ, so-called, outside the council and the assembly.
I suggest that when the Prime Minister, as Minister of External Affairs, proposed the orders in council adopting and imposing sanctions, which have been laid upon the table of the house, he certainly had forgotten altogether the resolution of this house, introduced iby himself, under which no agreement of any kind would be made thereafter-and that was in June, 1926-with regard to the imposition of economic or military sanctions without parliament being convened and confirming that agreement. I think, first, that except by resorting possibly to the peace, order and good government clause of certain then existing statutes, to which the Prime Minister would not resort under any circumstances on that date but to which he has resorted on several occasions since, there was no statutory or moral right or authority on the part of the government to adopt and impose the sanctions which I have mentioned, other than the embargo on the export of arms.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George does not regret more than I do that at this stage of the session and at this hour of a closing day it is not possible to go fully into the all important matters he has been discussing. What my hon. friend has said does bring out very clearly how involved with respect to the matter of sanctions the whole question of procedure at Geneva has been and also the necessity of careful revision of some features of the covenant of the league and the obligations assumed thereunder. That revision may be expected to take place this fall. I believe that what my hon. friend has put on the record this evening will be of assistance not only to our own government but to other governments as well in reviewing the entire situation.
As I understand my hon. friend's point of attack, it is mainly that the present administration imposed sanctions by order in council when a resolution had passed this house some years ago to the effect that the government should not in future enter into agreements to impose sanctions without the approval of parliament in the first instance. May I say
in just a word that I had not forgotten the resolution of 1926. In fact it was very much in my mind at the time the government had to deal with this question. But it was perfectly clear to me then as it is now that the resolution related, not to treaties and agreements that had been entered into in the past, but to treaties and agreements which might be entered into thereafter. We were not entering into a new treaty; we were taking action under a treaty which had been in existence for some years. My hon. friend takes exception to our having acted under that treaty. May I say that if our course is to be condemned in that particular the British government itself must also be condemned, because it adopted an identical course, it proceeded under precisely the same treaty. The action taken by the British government in passing the orders in council imposing sanctions was taken under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919 the action of the British government was taken before the Canadian government took the action it did.
May I point out further that the British government took the action it did by order in council while its parliament was in session. In the case of the other dominions I think most of their parliaments were in session at the time. We were faced with a situation which was one of great reality. It required to be viewed in a realistic manner. The problem with respect to the imposition of sanctions for the most part had presented itself before this administration came into office. To a certain extent it might be said that our hands were tied with respect to the action it would be possible to take. I prefer to say that we had to consider very carefully how parliament would view our action in imposing sanctions by order in council. Considering all the circumstances we felt that, having regard to the situation itself, to the position of hon. gentlemen opposite when they themselves were in office and the support which we as an administration had received from the country and would have in this parliament there was little doubt that, as soon as parliament did assemble, our actions would receive the support of hon. members on all sides. I think we were fully justified in making that assumption and acting in the light of it. The fact that this is the first time this question has been raised in parliament since parliament assembled some five months ago is the best evidence that the administration has a right to feel that it did act wisely and wholly in accordance with the wishes of hon. members of the House of Commons in this matter.
I do not wish to take up time, but I think it is important to make clear the following
4104	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
facts, namely, that the assembly met on September 9 and adjourned on September 28; that the Italian forces entered Ethiopia on October 2; that the members of the council of the league approved the report of subcommittee indicating that Italy had begun war in disregard of the obligations of article 12 of the covenant on October 7; that the assembly concurred in the action of the council and passed resolutions recommending the setting up of a committee to coordinate measures to be taken under article XVI on October 10; that the committee of coordination set up the subcommittee of eighteen on October 11; that the coordination committee adopted four sanctions proposals on the following dates: October 11, prohibition of export of arms; October 14, prohibition of loans and credits; October 19, prohibition of imports of Italian goods; October 19, embargo on export of certain metals and other exports to Italy.
The committee recommended that the first recommendation should be put into force forthwith. All of that was done while hon. gentlemen opposite were in office, while my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was Prime Minister. All that had taken place before the present government assumed office at all. We came into office on October 23. We then had to consider whether we should immediately call parliament before imposing sanctions. Parliament could not have been brought together for at least another six weeks. What position would Canada have been in before the rest of the world had we called parliament together to consider what action should be taken on sanctions, and had waited six weeks or more before these sanctions were imposed, when it was recommended at Geneva by the powers represented there that sanctions, to be of value, should be imposed with as little delay as possible; forthwith, in fact? I have mentioned that the recommendation with respect to the prohibition of export of arms urged that the prohibition should be imposed forthwith. That was done by Canada on October 31, P.C. 3461, under section 290 of the Customs Act. I think my 'hon. friend will agree that under the Customs Act we had authority to do that. With respect to the second recommendation, the prohibition of loans and credits, on October 14 the committee-
* Mr. CAHAN: Which committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This coordination committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; the coordination committee did not act until November 2.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my
hon. friend. I should have said the committee of eighteen.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a subcommittee
simply making a recommendation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This committee invited the governments of the principal states to put into operation at once such measures as could be enforced without fresh legislation, and to take all practicable steps to secure that the measures recommended be completely put into operation by October 31, 1935. Let me repeat, it was October 23 when the administration assumed office.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I be allowed to make a statement, because I think the right hon. gentleman is giving an impression which he does not intend. It is true that the subcommittee reported at that time, but the coordination committee did not take action until November 2, at 3.30 p.m., when it passed a resolution requesting that full legal effect be given to proposals two, three and four by the members of the league by November 18. All that went before November 2 was simply preliminary conversations by certain subcommittees.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The different
countries had to indicate what they would be prepared to do before the committee of coordination could take the action it did. As I say, and as my hon. friend says, these were necessary preliminary undertakings, and it was the only way in which matters could be arranged. It was in this way that the recommendations were brought into force at different dates by different countries, though the four chief European banking countries, Great Britain, France, Belgium and Switzerland, arranged to bring the recommendation regarding loans and credits into force simultaneously on October 29.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They asked to have them brought in by November 18, I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite correct. In Canada, at the beginning of November, the Minister of Finance secured the cooperation of the chartered banks and other financial institutions in carrying out the recommendation. On November 15 an order in council, P.C. 3594, was passed prohibiting loans and credits to Italy. It was brought into force on November 18.
With reference to the third and fourth recommendations, the Secretary General of the league requested each government on

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
October 20, to inform the committee of coordination as soon as possible, and not later than October 28, 1935, of the date on which it could be ready to bring the measures provided for into operation. On November 2, as has been mentioned, the committee of coordination adopted a resolution fixing November 18 as the date of entry into force of these recommendations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nos. 2, 3 and 4.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The
Canadian government brought them into force by order in council on November 15, effective November 18.
May I point out another circumstance which I suggest ought to be considered. The government had to consider the entire situation and ask itself what would be the result of bringing parliament together some six weeks later, the first session after a general election. One measure which we felt to be vital to the success of trade in Canada was if possible, a reciprocal agreement with the United States. Certainly no reciprocal agreement with that country could have been negotiated during that period of time had the government been obliged to take immediate steps to bring parliament into session. We would have lost all opportunity of getting that measure underway or securing it at all. A new government taking office after a general election, and after a previous government has held office for more than five years, is faced with a multitude of problems. To have immediately brought parliament together to deal with the question of sanctions would have meant that, so far as the business of the session was concerned, it would have been practically impossible to have had legislation in readiness for hon. members. Moreover, a wholly erroneous impression of the European situation might thereby have been created. If there had been the slightest probability that there would have been objection to not bringing hon. members together for the purpose of obtaining their consent before sanctions were imposed, I say that, notwithstanding all the difficulties there might have been, parliament would have been summoned for that purpose. But we believed-and I think this session has confirmed the wisdom of our decision-that, when they assembled, hon. members would view this matter in the light of all the circumstances, with which the government was faced, and would feel that the government had acted in a way which was most in accordance with their wishes and most in accordance with the will of the Canadian people.
I should like to put before the committee the position in which the country would 12739-261
have been if we had waited before imposing sanctions until parliament could assemble. This dominion would have been responsible for not having agreed to impose sanctions at a time when practically all other parts of the British empire and other countries members of the league had imposed them. We would have been open to criticism on this score. I think my right hon. friend, had he been in office, would have found, just as we found, ample precedent and authority in the example of the British government with respect to imposing sanctions by order in council, under the act to which I have referred.
I say all this without in any way wishing to indicate that I do not think the hon. member was quite within his rights in bringing up the matter and speaking as he did and, in fact, criticizing the government as he did. I fully expected that criticism would be made. I can only thank the hon. member for the considerate manner in which he has spoken, and I thank the house as well for not having found it necessary to seek to bring any criticism on this score until the last hours in the last day of the session.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With respect to New Zealand may I say that that country convened a meeting of its parliament and passed the League of Nations Enforcement in New Zealand Act, 1935, on November 24. They delayed until after November 24 to put their order in council into effect. They also provided that within twenty-eight days after the commencement of the next ensuing session, the one after the special session, the regulations would lapse unless parliament should ratify them within twenty-eight days after the next ensuing session. What the Prime Minister has said has some force. It has this force: That a government having serious problems to face must at times face them by taking action for which there may be no clear statutory authority at the time, feeling confident that when parliament meets it will by act of parliament ratify and confirm the action the government has taken. That has to be done frequently, in times of emergency. But when I raised the question at the beginning of the session and suggested an early discussion the Prime Minister asked to have it postponed to a later date, and suggested that at such later date the matter would be brought up.
Some hon. members on this side of the house were waiting until the last bill was brought down expecting that the government would bring down a bill and ask the house to ratify and confirm the action it had taken

1106	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
with regard to sanctions. That was not done; it has not been done to date, though I really expected there would then fee an opportunity to discuss the whole matter. Because, if this is to be taken as a precedent-and I trust it will never be taken as a precedent-then Canada may be forced into war, without parliament having been advised or given "an opportunity to consider or prescribe such course of action as parliament may desire to follow. That is all I have to say at this time. At some future date, when there is an opportunity, I should like to say more, but I do not wish to prolong the discussion at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with my hon. friend when he says that the action of the government at this time should not be regarded as a precedent. I feel as strongly as he does that parliament should, in all of these matters, have its voice heard before the country is committed to anything that may involve us in a war.
I make no apology, however, for not having invited a debate on this subject at an earlier stage of the session. There again, what my hon. friend has just said about a government facing actual situations and deciding its course in the light of them, has its force. I believe I can say now, in the light of what has been said by the Prime Minister of Great Britain as to the significance which the imposition of further sanctions upon Italy would have, that there was the possibility of a debate in this house arousing adverse comment and possibly more in the way of misunderstanding in Europe. That would not have helped the situation there. After all, while the situation in Europe is of great concern to all the people in Canada, it is of infinitely greater concern to the people of European countries. They, I believe, were entitled to first consideration. I believe this parliament has contributed to the solution of that situation, in so far as there has thus far been a solution, much more effectively by its silence, up to the present-so far as it has been silent-than it would have contributed by any prolonged discussion.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not going to enter into a lengthy speech at this hour of the night, but I am as anxious as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) or any other hon. member to speak on this subject. I do not agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his last observation that anything which would be said in this parliament regarding Canada's foreign policy or her position in respect to

sanctions, or on any other question, would be as upsetting as was feared.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend at once? I hesitate to do so, but she has just said "or any other question." I have made no such statement. I confined what I had to say to the present very critical situation as it has been in the last month or two, and as the government has known it to have been.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I disagree with the Prime Minister. I do not think a discussion in this house would have been upsetting, and I think it is a left-over of colonialism that we cannot discuss in the House of Commons matters which are freely discussed in the British house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again may I say to my hon. friend that I pointed out in this house that anyone who wished to bring up the subject could bring it up at any time we were going into committee of supply, but that he must take the responsibility for bringing it up, rather than that the government should take responsibility for introducing the discussion. I made that clear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes. Well, a debate in which the government would not take any part would have been a one-sided debate, so that the Prime Minister-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, the government would have taken its part all right, but it would not have had the responsibility for provoking the debate.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I doubt very much if the Prime Minister would have stated the position had the debate come earlier in the session.
I want to proceed now to say what I started out to say. I think we should have had a debate, not only for the one day which we were promised, but for several days, on Canada's foreign policy. We spent one month debating the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, which could not be in any way changed. A month is a long time, and I think most of the debate was useless.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It could all have been changed if the house had not approved it. My hon. friend is mistaken in saying that anything is done without the approval of the house.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In theory that is true. In practice the house would approve it when the government approves it, because the government in this instance is almost the house. But we did take a month on the trade agreement between Canada and the United

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
States; we were promised by the Prime Minister himself a day to discuss Canada's foreign policy or external affairs, and we did not get anything like a day. All we got before six o'clock was a very interesting statement by the Prime Minister, for which I thank him. and in which he went further in the direction of my thinking than I expected he would go. It was a very interesting statement. It was one that touched many angles of the problem and one that gave me a desire to discuss it. But after the Prime Minister had finished his statement at six o'clock there were just two hours left, so that the day that we were to have for external affairs boiled down to just two hours. For this reason I protest. It is impossible to go on at this time; no one feels like it and the committee is not in a mood for it. But at another session the importance of Canada's external or foreign policy should be recognized by allowing plenty of time for discussion. We spend days and weeks in fairly futile talk, and why could we not have a debate on Canada's foreign policy? It seems hard to find a real reason. In the Prime Minister's speech, which I enjoyed, the other day, in the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), to a degree in the speeches made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswort'h) and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), one could see a lack of clearness of thinking which I have and which we all have. That is, Canada is only feeling its way to a much more distinctively Canadian foreign policy than we have ever had before.
Three lines of thought showed very distinctly in at any rate three of those speeches: the collectivist or league line of thinking, which in theory we all once subscribed to, the imperialistic line of thinking, and last, the more isolationist or North American way of thinking. I am not clear and I do not believe any other hon. member is very clear about what he or she thinks Canada should do, other than we feel that Canada's foreign policy should be determined by Canada's interests and should not be too closely allied either with empire policy, or with league policy unless league policy is materially changed from what it is at the moment. I am not going on, because it is useless to do so. But I repeat that at another session not only one day but several days should be available so that the House of Commons may in some degree clarify its thinking on this subject, which is certainly a very important one, and much more important than, shall we say, the trade agreement with the United States, on which we spent a very long time.
12739-261 i


Richard Bedford Bennett: The address which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George delivered was prepared over six weeks ago. We-for I associate myself with him-have been watching for an opportunity, believing that the government would ultimately introduce a bill to ratify what had taken place. I think it was not too much to expect, when we were asking about legislation that would probably be included, but it was not introduced. As to dealing with the matter on going into supply, we had only Mondays and Tuesdays and Wednesdays. If one will look at the record he will find that the number of days we had an opportunity to do that were extremely limited. I have been waiting for an opportunity to take up what I dealt with, for instance, to-day, and the opportunity was very slow to present itself. I quite agree that the position the Prime Minister has mentioned is one of extreme difficulty, and one that I think any one of us, if we had to meet it, would find it difficult to deal with in any way, perhaps other than the way in which it was dealt with, having regard to the fact that we had a general election and it was difficult to call the house together, the slowness of making returns to writs, and matters of that kind. But it is competent for this parliament by proper enactment to express its ratification of what had taken place and make it retroactive in character, that is, to validate the order in council in that sense, and we have been doing that this session with respect to many matters, carrying the provision back to a date antecedent to that on which we legislated. I say it would have been quite competent to have done that in view of the commitments which were made in 1926, which were unanimously adopted by this house, in consequence, I think, largely of the general expressions that were made by the Prime Minister in answer to the discussion which was precipitated by the questions of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. That is the only observation I have to make, because I appreciate the difficulties the Prime Minister has had. My real criticism is that no validating legislation was offered to this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just say that the reason no validating legislation was offered in this parliament is precisely the same as the reason why no further legislation was found to be necessary in' the British parliament. The British government acted by order in council under the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919. Its action was clearly approved by the parliament of Great Britain. I think we were equally wise and sensible in adopting
Supply-Legislation

a like attitude in this parliament. I say to my right hon. friend that I do not believe he himself would have sought to propose any vadidating legislation at any stage of this parliament except the one we have now reached.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My observation was made in view of the commitments entered into in 1926, which were not made by the British parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That commitment, as I have already said, related to agreements and treaties that might be entered into after that date, not with respect to obligations which had been assumed prior to that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a clear distinction in the resolution between treaties and agreements and conventions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Library of Parliament-
Salaries, and to authorize payment of M. C. MacCormac from April 1, 1936, to September 30. 1936, $45,429.
Books for the general library, including binding, $17,000.
Books for the library of American history,
[Stage Direction]
Contingencies, $12,500.
To provide for the cost of printing reports,
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I must protest against this procedure. We cannot find the items as fast as you call them. There are limits beyond which this committee ought not to be allowed to go. If we are not permitted to find the items before they are carried, I think it is high time we gave up for to-night and came back in the morning. I wanted to speak for a moment on this item, and I shall not hold up the committee very long as I do not want to disregard the general feeling to-night. Again and again some of us have felt that our library is a disgrace to this parliament. We are facing the necessity of appointing a new librarian in the near future and I think we ought to have a man who knows library work. There should also be a reorganization of the whole institution from top -to bottom along modern lines. I know a little about libraries and I do not know of any staff more kindly and consider^ ate than the one we have here, but I think it is perfectly ridiculous that the parliament of Canada should not have a better system in its library. I want to protest against the appointment of a new man simply for political reasons and not one who is thoroughly conversant with library work. Any assistants

'who are appointed should be thoroughly trained in this work. Instead of putting up buildings to house the mounted police, we should provide a decent stack room for our library. Also we could have an index along modem lines, il should have liked to have the time to deal at some length with what I think might be done, but at this time I must be, content with these remarks. I again protest against this rushing through of estimates which occurs year after year and which does not give a chance to hon. members to express their views.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Empire settlement scheme, $6,800.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this
empire settlement scheme?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If this is what is
to happen in this committee we might as well admit that this boasted parliamentary institution of ours is becoming a mere farce. I asked a plain question and I think I should receive an answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let it stand for a minute.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the minister
himself does not know what the scheme is, then I think it is a rather serious state of affairs.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I ask my hon.
friend to give me an opportunity to get this information. I think it is asking too much to expect a minister to carry the details of four or five departments in his head. I do not think the tone of the hon. member's remarks is called for at all. If he will give me an opportunity of getting the deputy here he will have his information in a few minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the meantime,
may I suggest that if it is too much to ask that of the minister, is it not too much to ask the committee to pass these items without any information being given?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I quite agree with that and I am not dissenting from the criticism my hon. friend has made. In 1923 there was inaugurated what was known as the 3.000 family scheme for the purpose of bringing 3,000 British families to settle in Canada. That was a cooperative arrangement and it has been discussed at various times in the house

Supply-Miscellaneous
in previous sessions. This item is simply to clean up some of the outstanding unsettled' items with the British government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier and general land settlement-
To provide for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff, performing investigations for the war veterans' allowance committee and Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, $786,300.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Could we have an explanation of this large item which involves an increase of $12,700?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The increase is practically all due to the statutory increases to the employees in that branch.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, may I say that I think those who occupied positions under this act and who were appointed under the statute for five years should be given something more than a month's notice of the termination of their employment. There are two or three cases which I think the government would do well to consider carefully and determine whether it would not be consistent with the general view taken by the government in connection with these appointments to do something more than has been done. There is not a single person left except the judges.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend is
discussing an entirely different matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item refers to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I merely suggest to the government that they give sympathetic consideration to these cases. Similar representations were made to the late government in connection with other matters of the same kind and they were dealt with in a much more sympathetic manner.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I point out to my right hon. friend that this item has nothing to do with the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. This is merely some appraisal work which the soldier settlement board inspectors do when requested by the authorities in charge of the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as it comes under the act, that is all I desire to say, because it involves the payment of costly administration for part of the work done under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and it affords me an opportunity, not to say the things I might properly say, but to suggest that it would be at least-


Grote Stirling: Decent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend says
'decent." I put it no more strongly than this, that it would be at least reasonable for the government to consider giving more sympathetic treatment than has been accorded to those who made arrangements in consequence of their appointment, changed their homes and found themselves, with a month's pay, relieved of their positions under, in some cases, extremely difficult conditions. I merely ask the minister to give careful and sympathetic consideration to the matter. The Minister of Finance is, of course, more vitally affected than the Minister of the Interior. The dictates of reason, of sympathy and of the decent amenities of public life would warrant more sympathetic treatment being accorded the people of whom I have spoken than they have yet received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-
To provide for the administration of the Royal Canadian Mint, including salaries, contingencies, retiring and other allowances, and general expenses, $230,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Why the increase?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): An extension has been built owing to an increase in business. The increase is to provide for statutory increases in wages and salaries, $9,500; for equipment for the new refinery, $5,000; for recovering values from the old refinery, $7,000; and for contingencies. The increased expenditure is due to new business.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of the Old Age Pensions Act, $12,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the minister give particulars of the probable increase by reason of Quebec accepting old age pensions?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps the minister will
give us an approximate figure as to the number of persons he expects to come under the provisions of the act in the province of Quebec.


Charles Avery Dunning: The final estimates have not been completed with respect to the anticipated cost in the province of Quebec. Naturally experience is more important than any estimate in connection with a matter of this kind, but it is anticipated that the additional cost to the dominion in consequence of the addition of the province of Quebec will be in the neighbourhood of $6,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it would be more than that.

Supply-M iscellane ous-Coal


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then the minister cannot give us an approximate idea as to the basis of his figures? Did he take Ontario as an example, for instance?


Charles Avery Dunning: There are 54,000 pensioners in the province of Ontario.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the minister basing his Quebec figures on Ontario?


Charles Avery Dunning: Partly; population, character of population; character of institutions, character of family relationships, and so on. There are a good many indeterminate items, and really I must confess that I have not pressed the officers of the department to try to come very close with regard to the matter, Decause the statute is there and the cost must oe met, whatever it is,


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is important to know. The minister's estimate would cover only about 25,000 people.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $1,950,000.
John Charles Alexander Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I am very much interested in this item, but at this late hour I do not intend to say all that I was going to say if it had come up at an earlier stage of the session. This item has to do with subventions in connection with the movement of coal, and I wish to express my appreciation of the attitude of the government towards these subventions for the present year. These subventions have been provided by successive governments since 1924, and they have increased to some extent until the present year. I had intended to make an appeal to the government still further to enlarge the amount of the subventions to be voted, on the ground that I believe this would be probably one of the most productive investments we could make in the way of solving our unemployment problem. I have now made up my mind, however, that instead of going into the matter as fully as I had intended I shall submit a statement to the government in writing, because the argument I intended to present to-night would have had for its purpose only to ask the government to look into the question of subventions more fully during the recess in the hope that a permanent policy might be evolved for submission to parliament at the next session.
The other matter I had in mind has to do with the question of coal from another angle, that is, supplying our Canadian needs from

our Canadian mines. We have sufficient coal in Canada to supply all our needs, but unfortunately these coal deposits are so situated geographically that it is somewhat difficult to overcome that handicap and sell our coal in competition with the American products in the markets of central Canada. The most serious problem with regard to unemployment with which we have to contend in Nova Scotia is the industrial centres around the coal producing areas of that province. It is estimated that if we could market an additional two million tons of coal per annum we would be able to take care of the unemployment situation in those centres. According to the returns of the bureau of statistics there are about two million tons of coal used in the manufacturing industries of Ontario over and above the coal supplied by the Nova Scotia mines. There are about nine million tons consumed in Ontario in all, over and above the coal supplied from Nova Scotia and if, with the aid of subventions, we were able to provide the entire coal requirements of Ontario we would be keeping within the country something like $60,000,000 annually.
I believe we could do that with a comparatively small expenditure, probably not more than $5,000,000, and my first submission is that as a national investment we would be furthering our own best interests if we broadened our coal policy in that regard. I believe that would go a long way towards solving our railway problem. It would take up the slack in respect to labour as far as unemployment on our railways is concerned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I want
to say, Mr. Chairman, that if I am not interrupted I do not intend to take many minutes, but if there is any man in this house who thinks he is going to prevent me from expressing my .opinion by calling "carried," he does not know to whom he is talking.
What I am particularly concerned about to-night is not so much placing my opinions with regard to coal subventions before this committee as it is with regard to a question which was asked here the other evening concerning the possibilities of a trade treaty with Russia. One of tihe items which undoubtedly will be made the subject of discussion in regard to a treaty with Russia will be the matter of coal, and every ton of Russian coal that will come into Canada by virtue of any agreement which may be entered into can have only the effect of displacing a ton

Supply-Miscellaneous-Coal
of Canadian produced coal, which will be bound to lead to increased unemployment in our Canadian mines.


Thomas Reid: What about anthracite?


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Anthracite screenings from Russia will take the place of bituminous coal from the east for power purposes in the manufacturing centres of this country. We Can produce coke in this country to take the place of the very best anthracite in the world. I wish to point out-I have these figures from the fuel board-that last year there was imported into the United States over 400,000 tons of anthracite coal from Russia over a duty of $2 a ton. In my judgment it will be impossible to arrange with Russia, having regard to what they were able to accomplish against a duty of $2 a ton going into the United States, a trade treaty including coal which will not be of serious damage and injury to the coal industry of the Dominion of Canada.
I am of the opinion that many hon. members fail to realize the tremendous economic importance of the coal mines in Nova Scotia. Last year even with the depression there was paid out in wages to the working men of that province over $14,000,000. I say to my friends from Ontario that the industrial centres of Nova Scotia furnish one of the very best markets in Canada for both the manufactured goods and the agricultural products of the great province of Ontario. I propose to develop this feature further if I am spared1 at another session; we of the maritime provinces at confederation were given the assurance that we might expect the market for our coal not alone of Quebec but of Ontario. I can prove that from the records antecedent to confederation. Economically we have a splendid case for the consideration of the government, and from the standpoint of the development of this dominion we in the maritime provinces have a right to expect the most favourable consideration.
I have been associated more or less with public life for the last forty years, and one of the great questions always before the public of the maritime provinces has been the attitude of the federal government in regard to coal and steel. I should like to see in this parliament favourable consideration given to that subject, and as far as I am concerned if I felt that I contributed in the least degree towards a policy which would stabilize the attitude of all governments toward this great industry, to bring it out of the doldrums in which it has been struggling for some time and place it on a basis whereby those who have their money invested in this great enterprise will be able to
go forward and develop it so that it can make the contribution of which it is capable towards the economic life of this dominion, I shall be amply satisfied. I regret that I have taken so much time, but I feel very keenly on this matter. I want to emphasize my profound fear with regard to the question of Russian coal coming into competition with coal produced in Canada.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I had intended to make some extended remarks in connection with the subvention for coal, but briefly I want to protest on behalf of New Brunswick against the fact that the coal miners in that province have not received the same consideration as have the coal operators in Nova Scotia. I am glad indeed that Nova Scotia has received this consideration, but we have a thousand men employed in the town and area of Minto, who for the last four or five years had almost steady employment. But to-day they are working only two or three days a week. The coal operators have applied to the government but have received no consideration, and on that ground I want to register a complaint on their behalf.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister kindly tell the committee the basis of this subvention to the mining industry of the maritime provinces?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The arrangement was
entered into a little over ten years ago, or rather the subvention principle was adopted. The purpose was to put Canadian coal, particularly that from Nova Scotia, into a position to compete effectively with coal imported from the United States. To do that a complicated system of accounting was worked out. The subventions have been paid since that time on the basis of what is required to enable Nova Scotia coal to compete with American coal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A rate per ton per mile.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, based on a rate per ton per mile, and undoubtedly it resulted in a great deal of Nova Scotia coal moving to the western part of Quebec and on into a considerable area of Ontario.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister inform the committee how much coal was involved in this item of $1,950,000? Can he tell the committee how it works out per ton?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot at the moment give the information as to the number of tons that were assisted. The amount paid in subventions last year was slightly under $2,000,000. Some of that went to western Canada; one figure that sticks in my memory is that the subvention paid on the movement
Supply-M iscellaneous-Coal

of Alberta coal into Ontario last year was $65,000. It was at the rate of $2.25 a ton. The information is available; I can give it in a moment.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: About
1.400.000	tons for Nova Scotia.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria has said, the amount of coal which received subvention assistance last year from Nova Scotia amounted to about 1,400,000 tons. To be exact-and I always want to give the exact information to the hon. member-it is
1.498.000	tons.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister does give that information, and I do not ask for it very often. It works out to $1.40 a ton.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is more besides that. What about western Canada coal?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is very little.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The average on the Nova Scotia coal is 83 cents per ton.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Eighty-three cents is not very much, but at the same time I always feel these subventions are not consistent with the Liberal policy. I hope some day we shall get away from coal and wheat subventions. I always like to get at the costs of production between this and other countries with which we compete. I do not wish to delay the passing of the vote, but my view is that the cost of Nova Scotia coal at the mine mouth is probably fifty per cent higher than similar coal in the United States. I do not wish to go into that question now, but it is an important point. When the matter is raised at another session we shall give it further consideration.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: The
report of the bureau of statistics shows that bituminous coal from the United States is sold at about $1 a ton higher than Nova Scotia coal is sold at in the markets of Quebec.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not hear the hon. member.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: The report from the bureau of statistics shows that the average price of bituminous coal from the United States is about $6 a ton in Ontario centres.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am talking about the cost of coal at the mine mouth.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: Well, the cost of coal at the mine mouth, plus railway haul would work out about right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; there is no "railway haul" about it; I am talking about coal at the mine mouth.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: But you get at it pretty closely by taking the railway haul from the $6 price. May I make one further observation, namely that the production of coal involves about sixty-four per cent labour, a point worthy of consideration.


Mr. MacNICOL:: What is the price of soft coal in Ontario?


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I do not know what the retail price is, but I have said that the bureau of statistics has given the total amount paid for it, and it works out to about $6 a ton.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is $7.50.


Alan Webster Neill: I notice a big reduction in the vote. I trust the bonus paid in British Columbia on the coal mined on Vancouver island has not been reduced.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; I assure the hon. member there is no change.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has this subvention had the effect of increasing the production of coal in the maritime provinces?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am informed that the production last year was practically the same as in 1934. If we contrast that figure with those of several years ago we find there has been a change. The depression has had its effect. Better methods of using coal for heating purposes, and the use of fuel oil have operated to reduce the normal consumption of ten years ago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give the figures for some years, giving first those for the first year of the subvention, and then those for other years leading up to the present time?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In 1928, with the subvention the production of coal in Nova Scotia amounted to 6,700,000 tons. In 1935 it was
5,800,000	tons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly the fair way to put it. The movement to Quebec and Ontario has increased. The increased markets in Ontario and Quebec have been made by the subventions.


Mr. McNIVEN (Regina):: I notice we are called upon to vote nearly $2,000,000, and I have observed that since 1928 the vote has been regularly approved. I would gather from the remarks of the minister that at no time including this evening has there been any reservation in so far as labour is con-

Supply Miscellaneous
cerned. I am going to say that where government moneys are concerned there should be a definite reservation that labour should be paid a fair wage in connection with the mining of such coal. I state definitely, positively and from personal knowledge that that has not obtained in the past, in so far as Saskatchewan coal is concerned. In respect of certain agencies there is a premium paid in excess of the cost of mining and placing that coal upon the market in which it is sold. In respect of other agencies there is no relationship between the cost of production and the amount that is paid to labour for the production of such coal. I state, generally, that where government moneys are paid in regard to subventions or subsidies or bonuses, or in respect of tariffs of any kind, the Department of Labour has a distinct and separate responsibility to see to it that labour is cared for and paid the percentage of the cost of production to which it is entitled. In so far as the mining of coal is concerned, in the light of my experience I am going to say definitely and positively that that has not been so in the past.


Alan Webster Neill: I beg to endorse emphatically the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the Prime Minister not think we should adjourn, in view of the fact that the Hansard reporters have been working continuously, and it will be pretty hard to keep at this very much longer. It is now 12.30, Tuesday morning. We could be back at 10.30 a.m., I should think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend insists, I will move the adjournment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I will not insist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly we
might run as late as one o'clock, and have it understood that we shall adjourn at that time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the sense in that? It seems to me that we are all tired out and cannot do our work efficiently. As the leader of the opposition has said, I think that more hard-worked than we are are the reporters here. People on the Hansard staff will be forced to work morning, noon and night, with no cessation. It is not fair to carry on in this way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I remember
a time when frequently this house sat until six o'clock in the morning.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, yes, I have been there, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did not meet in the morning.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I remember very often when this house sat until six o'clock in the morning towards the concluding part of the session. Certainly, however, the government has no desire to have hon. members or any of the staff unduly taxed at the present time. My impression is that both the staff and hon. members rather hope that we may get through before the king's birthday, and that we were obliging everybody by so doing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is the twenty-third now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: However, we might continue I think, until one o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think that is fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for report on cultural conditions in Canada (literature, art, drama, education, et cetera, $2,500.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no objection, in one sense, to this small item, but I do not like this way of doing things. We had last year an item of this sort, "to provide for a report on cultural conditions in Canada -literature, art, drama, education, et cetera." I understand that this is a sort of disguised grant which is being made for a very laudable purpose, to literary people who need help. I think it is high time that we provided for them in some recognized, regular, decent fashion, and not under a camouflage of this kind. What is the good of carrying this item year after year? Let the grant be made openly and regularly, and in such a way as would approve itself to the people generally.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This item, I think, was explained to the house a couple of years ago, at the time it first appeared in the estimates. I regarded it as an undertaking which had been made by the previous administration and one, therefore, which should be carried on at least for the present year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the approval of the present administration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says, "with the approval of the present administration." I think that is quite right. It was a grant to a distinguished literary gentleman in this country and, in the circumstances, seemed to be entirely warranted. But
4114	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Temporary Clerks
I agree with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, who has just spoken, that it is in the nature of an exceptional grant to an exceptional person, and that in these matters there should perhaps not be so many exceptions.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the report made by one person or more than one? In any case where can the reports be found? Are they published or circulated?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a grant to Sir Charles Roberts. I have no doubt that his report, when it is presented, will be an admirable one.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it presented annually to anybody, or is the printed record available?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is any condition about it being an annual report. It no doubt will prove to be a volume of considerable importance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the items in these special supplementary estimates.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the amount?
This has been discussed fully. Why is it blank? Is it included in the previous item? There is no amount filled in there. I think something was said about $12,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a general item
covering the special supplementary estimates in order to permit of the engagement of some temporary help,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but how much
money is it to be?


Charles Avery Dunning: No money. It applies
to all of the items in the special supplementary estimates, and' takes the place of a similar provision in the former relief acts with respect to the engagement of temporary assistance for the works contemplated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there must be an
amount.


Grote Stirling: How are they paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: Out of the special funds in the various supplementary estimates. I suppose "one dollar" might be put opposite this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It would limit
you. You could not do anything then. We discussed this some evenings ago, and I thought there was some sum mentioned. As it stands now it should be struck out unless 
there is a sum placed there, for the obvious reason that an appropriation which contains no amount is not an appropriation at all. It is not even a blank cheque.


Charles Avery Dunning: I had that looked into
from the standpoint of legal draftmanship and legal requirements, and I am advised that the language of it is sufficient to make it applicable to any item in these special supplementary estimates, the language being:
To authorize ... the appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the items in these special supplementary estimates.
It is a proviso with respect to the whole of the items contained in these supplementary estimates, in precisely the same manner as a similar clause in the relief acts of former years made a similar provision with respect to expenditure under them. That is the intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the Prime
Minister will say this is bad. I have heard him so frequently refer to the poor old colonel's authority on Parliamentary Grants. A parliamentary grant that carries with it no sum cannot be said to be an appropriation. Under the relief act, which was a blank cheque, the authority was given to the governor in council to name any sum that might be necessary for that purpose. This is a new proposition, to grant the governor in council unlimited right to make an unlimited expenditure for unlimited purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is. We may as well
face this frankly and admit it without any question:
To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the items in these special supplementary estimates.
In other words, if it takes one thousand employees costing a millions dollars, it can be done.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; that is not the intention, I am sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it says. Why not?


Charles Avery Dunning: The intention is to
authorize expenditure for temporary assistance out of each item in these estimates. That is the intention, and I am advised that this section gives the necessary legal authority to do so; that is to say, to provide, for instance, for what we just discussed, let us

Supply-Miscellaneous-Temporary Clerks
say the dry dock improvements at Esquimalt, $8,500. There is authority to take out of that $8,500 as much as may be necessary to pay for the wages of the men on the work. It is not by any means an additional appropriation, but merely provides that the government can take out of each of the appropriations sufficient to pay the men on the work. That is the intention. If there is any doubt about it I shall again check it although I have already done so with the law officers. But that is the fact. Certainly no payments will be made other than out of the individual amounts mentioned in the supplementary estimates and separately voted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister mean that these individual votes may be diverted from the specified purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: No; for the purpose of the item only; positively.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a
proviso proposed by the government which might have been added to several resolutions included in these special supplementary estimates. It has been drafted so as to avoid repetition. It is not unusual to ask that a grant be voted for certain works on condition that they be approved by the governor in council. Vote 419 in these very estimates provides for certain reimbursements to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways "upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine." The same proviso is made in vote 420. Vote 425, which is the present one, is nothing but an authorization applicable to several other votes. The fact that it is separate from those votes does not make it irregular. The government has the right to submit to the committee of supply estimates to which conditions are attached. My right hon. friend has referred to Durell's Parliamentary Grants. I will give him, as the authority for what I have said, page 27 of that work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is not this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Take for example item 314:
To aid, in cooperation with provincial governments concerned, in reestablishment of needy fishermen.
That item of $300,000 has already been granted by parliament for that purpose. Parliament has made the grant and any temporary clerks who are employed in connection with that grant will have to be paid out of the grant. This item does not mean or imply that we are voting any additional money for clerks; the
money has already been voted with respect to the various services which are to be rendered. What this item does is to authorize the appointment of temporary clerks, under authority of the governor in council, where temporary clerks are needed in connection with any of the items for which this parliament has already made appropriations, and to pay them out of those appropriations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There will be no difficulty about imposing conditions on grants; that is elementary. This item number 425 does not state the essential point to which the Prime Minister has referred, namely, that the amounts will be charged against the appropriations of the several items.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to it so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the Prime Minister to be fair and look at the item which reads:
To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the items in these special supplementary estimates.
No mention is made as to what this is to be charged against.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was the intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that had been there, there would have been no discussion. The right of this house to say that when we appropriate $10,000 for X, that shall include the cost of clerical assistance necessary to put that in operation, is quite within our power. But that has not been said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is understood.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest the proper way to do this would be to amend the bill which will be based upon these resolutions by inserting a paragraph that any of the items mentioned in the special supplementary estimates shall include the cost of the payment of such extra clerks, and so on as may be necessary for the carrying into effect of the expenditures contemplated by such item.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no objection on the part of the government to such clarification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item does not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: The law officers advise that that is the intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An intention not expressed is not any good.
4116	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend often advises me to take the advice of my legal officers, and until this moment I have done 30. In view of the fact that we shall evidently aot finish to-night, I shall give instructions ihat the words suggested by my right hon. friend be added to this section in order that there may be no doubt whatever that the intention is to charge such costs against the individual votes and not create authority by this item to make further expenditures. This will be considered between now and when the house meets this morning, and the necessary words can be added. I would prefer to amend the item as the bill is already printed.
Item stands.
To provide for payment to the Canadian Wheat Board on account of the liabilities of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, assumed by the Canadian Wheat Board, under the authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, $15,856,645.35.
Mr. BENNETT; This item will certainly be opposed as vigorously as it is possible to oppose anything. I consider this is the most monstrous effort I have ever seen to use parliament for a purpose that has not to do with the regular transaction of fair business. Under the agreement given by the crown guaranteeing the ultimate liability or responsibility of the wheat board, it will be determined, when this matter is settled, what is the liability of the crown. But this item is departing entirely from the provisions of the statute. There is no provision for this at all in the wheat board act. In view of the evidence given by Mr. Murray that two-thirds of the sales made were charged against the carry-over, to which this refers, it is quite clear that to pay this money at this time is nothing more or less than an effort to trim up the books in a way that should not be permitted. I put this to the Prime Minister: There is an outstanding guarantee by the Dominion of Canada to pay the ultimate balance that might be due to the banks on the carrying out of the business of the wheat board. The wheat board act provided that the surplus should be taken over by the board. The board took over that surplus from the old cooperative enterprise, and the liability of the old enterprise became the liability of the new wheat board. Mr. Murray said that the sales which were made from time to time were appropriated as to two-thirds against the old balance of wheat taken over from the cooperative enterprise. It is now proposed to fix the value of the wheat that was taken over at the price prevailing on that day, and show a loss of $15,000,000. I just leave it to the Prime Minister and to 
this country whether or not this is even a legitimate exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the wheat board act. I am going to take the trouble to point out the section in order that there may be no misapprehension about it. It is chapter 53 of the statutes of 1935, and paragraph (f) of section 7 reads:
The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following:-
(f) notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, to acquire from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada has given a guarantee.
The entire number of bushels held by the Canadian cooperative enterprise was transferred to the wheat board under the direction of the government, pursuant to the arrangements made. The banks made the wheat board their debtors instead of the cooperative enterprise. It is now proposed that we should make right, any loss so that a profit may be shown, if possible, for the balance of the transactions. I ask the Prime Minister if that is ordinary business, apart even from anything else. The provision is quite clear that we are assuming the ultimate liability with respect to the transaction. At this moment it is not possible to determine what that loss has been. I think there will be some loss, but that cannot be ascertained until the last bushel of that wheat is sold. Mr. Murray said that two-thirds of the sales made at the date he gave evidence were sales out of the wheat transferred by the cooperative enterprise to the wheat board. How then can the loss be fixed by taking the price it was on that day as against the cost, and showing that as $15,000,000 loss? As a matter of fact, the sales that have been made since may increase or diminish that loss-I assume they will increase it-whereas the sales made from now on to the end of the crop year may diminish the loss. The only time at which this matter can be ultimately decided is at the expiration of the crop year, which is July 31. At that time it can be determined whether or not there is any wheat of the old crop, so to speak, to be carried over as distinguished from the year's crop of 1935. The ultimate loss in the terms of the guarantee can then be established. In fairness to everyone connected with this transaction, I must say that I do not think there is any point in endeavouring to put before us that this loss is more or less than it really is.

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and it cannot be determined until the end of the crop year.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall deal with that in a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance can juggle with the figures as much as he likes, but he cannot change that fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: When my right hon. friend gives me an opportunity-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Right now.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend took the responsibility in his early remarks of accusing me of cooking the books of this government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I did not use that word at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: He said, cooking the books of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: What did my right hon. friend say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. The minister makes that statement. I deny that I made that statement, and no one heard me say it either.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right hon. friend repeat what he did say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that I made no such statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right hon. friend say he did not use the words "cooking the books"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you; that is all I want to know. At any rate, he takes strong exception-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I certainly do, and I shall talk another day if necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I tell him that this government determined that the people of this country should learn exactly what was the position of this wheat transaction from time to time in the same manner as they would learn if they were shareholders of a corporation which had a similar liability.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a printing mill or a lumber organization.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, we shall look at Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, we shall look at Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Canadian Wheat Board Act did not authorize the transfer of the liabilities of the Canadian Wheat Producers-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what was done.


Charles Avery Dunning: -but it did, in its express terms, authorize the board to acquire from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, upon terms to be approved by the governor in council, all wheat or contracts to purchase or take delivery of wheat in respect of which the government of Canada had given a guarantee. I assume, perhaps improperly; that those responsible for the language of the statute anticipated a settlement on a definite basis as between wheat producers and the new governmental wheat board which was taking over the wheat. For that reason the price on the day on which the wheat was taken over was taken as the basis of settlement. My right -hon. friend's whole remarks indicate that that involved a process of deception. If he did not mean that he meant nothing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, that is improper language to use. The hon. gentleman complains of the use of words, but that is an improper word to use, and he knows it.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend,
then, does not accuse the government in this matter of practising deception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not allege the practice of deception and my hon. friend knows it.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are improving right along.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another highly improper observation. It will not advance us.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it won't; "cooking the books" is serious.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister says that I alleged that he cooks the books he makes a statement which is not true.


Charles Avery Dunning: What was it-doctoring the books?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said about the books. I was talking about transactions as shown by this estimate, and the hon. gentleman will find from Hansard what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall deal with that; go on.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend
might have some complaint if, from the time of establishing this $15,000,000 loss, there had subsequently been a profit of which some political use might be made by the government now in office. That is not the case. It is extremely unlikely, nay, all but impossible, that it should be the case. There will be a further loss. I cannot conceive of any circumstances under which a further loss can be avoided. It is merely a question whether or not we should pile up a concealed loss, argue about it, dispute as to what it is, or determine, when we have a definite loss with respect to a a particular year, to take it. If by good fortune that loss should be reduced in a future year, by virtue of something happening which none of us expect can happen with respect to that portion of the wheat, then so much the better. I submit that far from this being unfair to the previous government, or in any way unfair from the standpoint of a business handling of the matter, it is completely the reverse. I want to assure my right hon. friend that it was conceived in that spirit, absolutely in the spirit of getting as nearly as possible a correct assessment of the situation in which the country stood with relation to wheat. I can assure him that as far as I can now see, with respect to the disposal of the wheat prior to the 1935 crop there still will be a further loss for which parliament will have to make provision during the present year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The case I have made has been proven by the minister, and I cannot quite understand any man of affairs or business who, reading the statement that the minister made, would desire to pass this estimate. The minister said what is true, that always, in a business, you take your inventories to determine your position, but did you ever hear of doing it at a particular moment because

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
you drove out existing men and put somebody else in their places? When is the time to take the inventory? It is at the end of the fiscal year, and why? Because the relief act provided that notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council might, upon terms and conditions which might be agreed upon, enter into agreements and so on, and grant financial assistance to any province and to Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited by way of loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise. And the country did give its guarantee to the wheat producers for the wheat taken over from the cooperative enterprise. Had it been taken over a few days sooner the price would have been higher.
What about the sales that were made a few days later? In the middle of it, just because you got rid of McFarland and Grant, for that reason you fix that as the day and you make the loss from that moment. The time to figure the loss is the time when, by law, every corporation makes its inventory, the end of the fiscal year, which in this case is on the 31st day of July, as every man knows who has any knowledge of business at all. Now the minister tells this committee, "We -took an inventory on the 6th or 7th of December because it pleased us to do so, that being the day on which we fired McFarland and his associates and put in somebody else." That is not the time to take the inventory; the time is the end of the fiscal year, when you take the amount of wheat that has been sold in order to determine the extent of the loss. Suppose wheat had continued at $1, $1.25 or $1.50; what about the inventory then? The date on which the inventory is taken is at the end of the fiscal year.
I repeat that. Look at the accounts of any business; is that not the way in which it is done? How are the assets and liabilities determined? They are determined after inventory, and when is the inventory taken? It is taken at the end of the fiscal year, or on a day that is fixed. That is what is done by everyone for the purposes of the auditors. What do the auditors certify by? By the inventory at the end of the fiscal year. Anyone who knows the elements of business knows that. They do not take an inventory in December for the purpose of making a report on the operations of a company at the end of July. It is no good to say that this is going to give a picture, for it does not give a picture of the facts. It was not a case of putting somebody in charge; it was the continuance of a wheat board, and only the personnel of that board was changed. The liability of the wheat 'board, as provided by law, is under a guarantee given to the banks, and the guarantee to the banks says "ultimate liability." That ultimate liability can be determined only after the end of the sales.
If-and I assume this is what the government intend to do-they think it desirable to say, "on the 31st day of July we had X bushels of wheat, and the loss to this date has been so many millions of dollars," until such time as the wheat has been entirely liquidated, there might be some reason to it, though it is quite certain that the wheat will bring no enhanced price. But whatever price it brings, whether that price increases or decreases the loss is a matter for the determination of the ultimate liability at the expiration of the period of time when the liquidation is complete, whenever that may be. Every man who has had anything to do with business knows that. There is not a balance sheet prepared anywhere in the world on any other basis. What do the auditors certify on? Not on an inventory taken in the middle of the year; but we are asked, because for political reasons you removed three men from the job and put somebody else in, to fix the loss, which you can fix, as the minister said, only when your fiscal year is ended.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am answering that. I think the minister said "once a year"; I am not sure of his exact words, but I think he referred to an annual statement, an annual adjustment of assets and liabilities, and there is not a man who does not know that is the way in which business is transacted. It is because of departures from that principle that disaster usually follows. As far as I am concerned, I say that this is not only unfair-


Charles Avery Dunning: Unfair to whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unfair to the enterprise. I am not talking about individuals; it is unfair to the enterprise, because you are taking an inventory, a valuation, on a date other than the day when it should be taken. In the second place you are substituting an immediate determination of liability when the agreement was that this country was to pay only the ultimate liability. You have changed the guarantee, which is based on the ultimate liability. Now this government is asking us to pay on an intermediate liability, a liability that might have been greater or less depending on the date on which the wheat was taken over. If it had been taken over a few days sooner the liability would have been less, but is that the way to determine what
4120	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
the real liability is? This can be determined in one way, and in one way only, and that is by the ultimate liquidation of the property, namely the wheat. Then you know what the ultimate liability is. Suppose, although it will not happen-and this is the test to impose -that immediately after the wheat was taken over, it began to enhance in value and by the 31st day of July it reached a figure that Showed not only no loss but a substantial profit. What about the situation then? That is the test. When the wheat is all liquidated the ultimate liability is determined. I put this to the committee: There was a time when, according to the current values of wheat in this country, that transaction showed a substantial profit, in the hands of the cooperative enterprise. That was a real, substantial profit, one measured not by hundreds of thousands of dollars but by millions of dollars.


Mr. McPHEE:: What date was that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Along between 1930 and 1935, I think in the early part, when wheat went up to its highest point. I do not carry the months and days in my mind.


George Washington McPhee: What particular year, for instance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whatever year it was that wheat went to the high price. It does not matter what the year was; I do not carry in my head the years, months or days, but there was a real profit if you could have sold all the wheat at the price then prevailing.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the way you are doing here, you are acting as though we could have sold all the wheat at the price which prevailed on the 6th of December.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This loss is made up in that way. Let there be no misunderstanding as to how it is made up. This loss is the difference between the arbitrary price fixed on the 6th day of December and the liability.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The value of the wheat on the 6th day of December.
An hon. MEMBER; What year?


Mr. HOWARD:: The value of the wheat on a fixed date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But why fix that date when it was not the end of the fiscal year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Because that was the date the board actually took over the wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the date on which the liability was assumed by the wheat board.

They did not pay for it; it was provided by another statute that there should be this guarantee. We were especially careful about that very thing, and when the matter was under discussion in this house it was pointed out that what happened was that you had a complete novation by which the liability of the cooperative enterprise was taken over by the wheat board; the guarantee was given by the nation to the wheat board for that liability, against ultimate liability, and ultimate liability means on the realization of the assets.
It is now one o'clock, Mr. Chairman, and I shall complete this argument when we resume.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister should have the right to reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course. I have not finished by any means.


Charles Avery Dunning: I might call my right hon. friend's attention to the fact that he was sufficiently sure of a loss to pass an order in council agreeing to pay out $8,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That had nothing to do with that transaction at all. It had not anything to do with this, and the minister knows it.


Charles Avery Dunning: There must have been in my right hon. friend's mind1 an idea at least that that much money could not be realized by the producers for their members. Therefore he was making an effort to reimburse them for something which could not come out of the wheat itself. That involved an assumption of a loss.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; on the contrary it was a profit, which they did not realize-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But anybody knows, if they will apply business principles, that it was a profit which they would have made had they not used their wheat for stabilization. Because it was used for stabilization they said: We must get the money we otherwise would have.


Charles Avery Dunning: In other words there was a loss of this amount. The wheat is not sold yet. Well, unfortunately it is no use trying to convince my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend certainly will not.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rose with some heat because an accusation-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made no accusation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall not repeat; we shall see what Hansard says. I have no doubt at

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
all as to the correctness of the course pursued. The new body created was taking over this wheat from a formerly constituted body. Some basis had to be arranged for the transaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there was; they assumed the liability to the bank. That is what happened. That is all there was about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: And between the liability to the bank and the value of the wheat on the day they took it over, there was a difference of S15,800,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now, is that clear? My right hon. friend might have some complaint if between then and now, or at any time in the future there was any prospect at all that it would appear that some abnormally low point was taken for some ulterior purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The moment you concede that your case is gone.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not agree that my case is gone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a matter of logic it is.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am in the judgment of members of this committee and I shall be in the judgment of future sessions of this parliament with respect to the matter. I have advised the people of Canada, advice which they had never previously received, that as of a certain date they had a loss in connection with this transaction-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They once had a profit.


Charles Avery Dunning: I admit at once that if the new Wheat Board Act had provided otherwise than it did with respect to the 1936 crop then we would have had to follow a different course, but with respect to the new crop the Wheat Board Act is quite clear, that if a profit is made the farmers are entitled to it through the medium of participation certificates, but a profit on that one crop only, not with respect to the previous crops which formed part of the wheat taken over by the wheat producers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite clear and quite true. In the meantime further disposal is taking place of the crops prior to that of 1935. There is no doubt at all that further losses will result; my right hon. friend knows it. I desire to show the losses as nearly as possible in the year in which they occur, and to charge them to that year in the accounts of the country. By my right hon. friend's method we would never be admitting a loss until heaven 12739-262
knows when, and then we would have to tell the country it had lost a great deal more than we now state, and provide for it now. In some one fiscal year-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the
opposite of what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: -instead of having the loss spread with some approximation over the years to which it applies. My right hon. friend has been lecturing me on my lack of wisdom and business judgment and that sort of thing. I have as much right to my opinion as to what constitutes good business as he has, and I think he would have been wiser had he made an approximation of the loss year by year as the years proceeded from 1930 to 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When? In the middle of the year?


Charles Avery Dunning: If he had turned over the wheat to another organization I would expect those responsible for the conduct of that other organization to insist on some valuation with respect to the property they were taking over. I would not like to try to sell to my right hon. friend the kind of pig in a poke which he suggests the ne<w board should have taken over from the old Canadian wheat producers. I would not have a chance in the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the contrary, Mr. Murray said that he would apply the sales on the basis of two-thirds and one-third.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly; he had to have some basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Precisely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: One o'clock.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can we not pass this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not by a long way.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the resolutions passed this day be now read a second time and concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1.20 am. (Tuesday).
[Stage Direction]
Sanctions Against Italy
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 23, 1936