1936-04-08

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, respecting The Northern Trusts Company.-Mr. Maybank.

Questions
Bill No. 40, respecting The St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company. - Mr. Chevrier (Stormont).
Bill No. 41, respecting The Ottawa and New York Railway Company.- Mr. Chevrier (Stormont).
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Ruth Fitz-randolph McMaster-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) for Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Agnes Mercer Daniels.-Mr. Johnson (Lake Centre) for Mr. Jacobs.

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

Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What duty, if any, is paid on United States turnips entering Canada under the provisions of the new trade treaty?
2.	What duty, if any, is paid on Canadian turnips entering the United States of America?
3.	What quantities of turnips were shipped from the United States to Canada in January and February, 1935 and 1936?
4.	What quantities of turnips were shipped from Canada to the United States in January and February, 1935 and 1936?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Turnips in their natural state produced in and imported from the United States are dutiable at 15 per cent ad valorem.
While exempt from the consumption or sales tax, they are subject to the special excise tax of 3 per cent levied on the customs duty paid value.
2.	Under the trade agreement between Canada and the United States signed November 15, 1935, the duty on Canadian turnips and rutabagas entering the United States has been 12i cents per 100 pounds since January 1, 1936. Prior to January 1, 1936, the duty was 25 cents per 100 pounds.

Questions

3.	Turnips are not separately classified for import statistics and figures are not available of imports of turnips from the United States.
4.	Canadian exports of turnips to United States, during the months of January and February, 1933 and 1936:
1935	1936
bushels	bushels
January	
227.960	416,278February.	..	*	..	..	296,604	286577MONTREAL	HARBOUR	COMMISSION-


ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many electric locomotives are owned by the Montreal harbour commission?
2.	How much did each one cost?
3.	What strength of electric current is required to put these locomotives in operation?
4.	How many electric circuits does the Montreal harbour purchase from the Montreal Light, Heat and Power?
5.	What is the strength of each circuit?
6.	What is the cost of each horse power furnished to the Montreal harbour?
7.	How many steam locomotives are in operation at the Montreal harbour?
8.	What is the traction power of these
engines?	,	,	,	.
9. Does the work to be done by engines at the Montreal harbour require the great power of the electric locomotives now in operation.


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Nine.
2.	Four cost $114,500 each (purchased in
1924)	; five cost $119,500 each (purchased in
1925)	.
3.	Maximum 1,720 horse power at 2,400 volts, each locomotive.
4.	The harbour commissioners take power from the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated at eight points.
5.	Each circuit at which the commissioners take power from Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated is capable of supplying 4,000 kilowatts at 12,000 volts.
6.	1-08 cents per horse power hour.
7.	Eight.
8.	Tractive
effort
Pounds
Steam locomotive	No. 1	
10.650Steam locomotive	No. 6	
8,050Steam locomotive	No. 8	
8,050Steam locomotive	No. 201	
27,600Steam locomotive	No. 202	
31,670Steam locomotive	No. 301	
33.600Steam locomotive	No. 302	
33,600Steam locomotive	No. 303	
33,600
Used on construction work.
Nine electric locomotives-tractive effort each:
LMr. Riiifret.]
Nominal 1 hour tractive effort at speed of 15 miles per hour, 40,000 pounds.
Continuous tractive effort at speed of 15 miles per hour, 32,000 pounds.
Maximum starting tractive effort, for five minutes, 60,000 pounds.
9. The power required from the locomotives varies from time to time with the lengths of trains to be handled. The power of the locomotives in use is not in excess of that required for the work to be done.


INCOME TAX BRANCH-MONTREAL AND OTTAWA
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	How many persons in the income tax branch at Montreal and Ottawa have been discharged or retired from October 1, 1935, to March 31, 1936?
2.	How many persons have been appointed in the income tax branch at Montreal and Ottawa from October 1, 1935, to March 31, 1936?
3.	What are their names and addresses, and by whom were they recommended?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. Discharged-Montreal,	none; Ottawa, none.
Retired-Montreal, 6; Ottawa, 1.
2.	Montreal, 1; Ottawa, 4.
3.	Appointments made upon recommendation of inspector after examination; Germaine L. Fillan, 579 King Edward ave., Ottawa, Ont; Jean Pinault, 5119 Mountainsight, Montreal, P.Q.; Charles B. Culfinan, 404 Laurien Ave., E., Ottawa, Ont.; Mae E, Murphy, 254 Cooper St., Ottawa, Ont.; Beatrice P. Whelan, 250 Charlotte St., Ottawa, Ont.
EXPORT OF BEAUHARNOIS POWER*


Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has the government received any request for the authorization to export to the United States, part or all of the electric energy of the Beauharnois canal?
2.	If so, who made this request?
3.	Does the government intend to grant this authorization?


Mr. EULER:: Perhaps I might be permitted to reply verbally to this question and say that the government has not received any request for the authorization to export to the United States part or all of the electric energy of the Beauharnois canal.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DAIRY DIVISION
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many persons are now employed in the dairy division of the Department of Agriculture ?
2.	How many of those employed are exservice men?
3.	How many appointments have been made in this division during the last two, years?

Questions
4.	How many of such appointments have been granted to ex-service men?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	104.
2.	20.
3.	32. Twelve of these are not employed at the present time.
4.	7.


CARTIER CENTENARY STAMPS
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	How many postage stamps bearing the portrait of Jacques Cartier were printed on the occasion of the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of Canada?
2.	What were the quantities of such stamps for each issue ?
3.	How many of these Cartier centenary stamps were placed on sale in each province of the dominion ?
4.	Are any of these stamps still on sale or available to the public?
5.	Have any requests been received for new issues?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	One stamp of the 3 cent denomination.
2.	12,370,000.
3.	Approximately two-thirds to Quebec: balance to other provinces. No exact record kept.
4.	No.
5.	No record.


QUEBEC POSTAL SERVICE-MESSRS. U. LATOUCHE AND U. STE. MARIE
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1. Upon what date did Messrs. Ulric Latouche and Ulysse Ste. Marie commence their postal contract?
2. Upon what date shall said contract terminate ?
3.	When ivas said contract transferred to Mr. Ste. Marie only?
4.	What was the date when Mr. C. N. Dorion, former member for Quebec-Montmorency, first requested the transfer of the salary of Messrs. Latouche and Ste. Marie, and to whom ?
5.	Was there any other request for the transfer of salary payment of Mr. Ulysse Ste. Marie, successor of Messrs. Latouche and Ste. Marie; if so, to whom?
6.	Did Mr. J. B. L. Morin, postal superintendent at Quebec make any complaints against Messrs. Latouche and Ste. Marie in 1933 and 1934, with reference to the poor collections from the letter boxes made by these gentlemen in the city of Quebec?
7.	If so, has Mr. C. N. Dorion, ex-member of parliament, interferred in favour of Messrs. Latouche and Ste. Marie, contrary to the orders of Mr. Morin, postal superintendent?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	November 1, 1933.
2.	October 31, 1937.
3.	December 1, 1934.
4.	July 20, 1934, to Bank of Montreal, Limoilou branch.
5.	Yes, to Banque Provinciale, St. Sauveur branch.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.



NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT

Mr. EVANS:: 1.	How much has been paid to the Saskatchewan Poultry Producers or to anyone on its behalf, under provisions of the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and amendments thereto ?
2.	To whom and for what services were such payments, if any, made?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$21,307.37 has been paid to Saskatchewan Poultry Pool, Limited.
2.	$19,955.46 was paid to Saskatchewan Poultry Pool, Limited, as reimbursement of organization expenses incurred in connection with the proposed Saskatchewan Poultry Marketing Scheme and for the purpose of explaining the scheme prior to the taking of a poll.
This amount was expended as shown in Schedule A herewith.
$1,351.91 was paid to Saskatchewan Poultry Pool, Limited, as reimbursement of organization expenses incurred in connection with the second proposed Saskatchewan Poultry Marketing Scheme. This amount was expended as shown in Schedule B herewith.
Schedule A
Expenditure of $19,955.46 Preliminary, radio and legal expenses-
Canadian Poultry Pool Limited.. $ 2,000 00
Additional legal expense-
Barr, Stewart and Cumming.... $	25 00
Expenses of speakers and pool directors-
Mrs. Ross Wilson	S 589 20
Mrs. J. N. Culham	
161	96Mrs. N. Morrison	
205	60Mrs. J. D. McKenzie	
224	43C.	F. Holmes	
205	70F.	T. Marks	
187	20T. Tyler	
194	11D.	K. Cameron	
90	10Thos. E. Bobier	
104	00W. S. MacMillan	
128	70Mrs. Anne W. Cusick	
83	24J.	G. Wellbelove	
68	80J. R. Mitchell	
140	20J. R. Dodds	
112	08J. L. Campbell	
157	35
Questions

I.	F. Schmidt	
106M.	Campbell	
144Adam Alexander	
IllAlbert Wilson	
116C.	C. Staliker	
96R.	A. Robinson	
101Nels W. Noren	
102Mrs. A. Coleman	
108Wm. Schaefer	
73Percy Simmonds	
89Elias J. O'Dell	
92M. Joyce	
27J.	D. Stratychuk	
122Fred Milne	
70Thos. Watchman	
89J. J. Bell	
133W. T. Botkin	
106Geo. M. Emmons	130T. E. Pomeroy	
104S.	Thrasher	
145S.	Bask	
147Everett Boker	
126P. H. Kennedy	
92W.A.Urton	
120James Woodburn	
109A.	D. Yoomg	
93W. M. W. Amery	
118D.	J. Stratychuk	
138Tom Johnston	
116John N. Burrill	
99H.	A. Oroffcurd	
127L.	J. Bright	
112Howard Cross	
143J. V. Patterson	
130Michael Checkni	
150G.	B. Gregory	
IllWilson Parker	
143John Meikle	
91P. J. Hoffman	
85Fred R. Eyre	
132Denis Downing	
145A. Mansfield	
122P. A. Howe	
105W. J. Boll	
122E.	Vizmathy	
117M.	R. Bristow	
114Alfred S. Bye	
115Peter Lindsay	
IllE.	L. Heinrich	
126M. W. Sawchuk	
104John J. Ruryk	
161L. J. Hockley	
108Mrs. M. Bicknell	
127Neva D. Myrick	
93Ethel McBain	
115Mrs. S. Nysak	
123H.	Roberge	
126I.	W. Studer	
122Robt. Pemtress	
128Sask. Co-op. Wheat Producers Ltd. 233 Mr. J. E. Lidgett	
123H.	A. Wakefield	
139	00C.	Laporte	
276	05George Little	
20	21W. D. Mackay	
115	80H.J. Benson	
7120C.	H. Gin gall	
50	08Marsh Adams	
84	65Fred Cherwiek	
156	90P. J. Samko	
141	95Jas. F. Gray	
37	50George Fortnum	
116	25O.	G. Lindholm	
89	55J. H. Stockton	
20	60Peter Sveund	
21	00John MacGregor	
54	40J. McCaig	
58	55H.	Marsh	
48	30J. P. Jensen	
125	65Emest Frei	
72	50Wm. Crozier	
52	50J. H. Brocklebank	
82	85Charles Coates	
96	25R.	W. Wall	
94	99L.	A. Harlow	
14	30Ed. R. Powell	
23	00M.	Hale	
16	40J. J. Howard	
87	20W. J. Cherewick	
97	37Andrew Layst	
28	30Mrs. Pearl Johnston	
49	66E.	G. Darley	
37	87J. A. Murdock	
33	15Lewis W. Elliott	
37	35J. H. Stockton	
55	05R. J. Moffat	
11	65Ronald Smith	
75	20J. B. Blain	
36	70P.	J. Toal	
69	90J. E. Elder	
26	00John Sinclair	
58	60J. Quinn	
131	20D.	A. Wotherspoon	
11	60Norman Stewart	
70	30H.	R. Ferguson	
55	15Harry Busby	
80	70Ove Hansen	
48	05Peter Kyba	
123	80Henry Lewis	
65	80John A. Fox	
100	65D.	M. Goggin, livery	
2	50E.	S. Murray-rent, tel., mileage..	5	15W. H. Brown, Nutana, livery....	2	00

Administration and office expense-
Sask. Poultry Pool,	Ltd	
400	00Underwood Elliott Fisher, Ltd. ..	10	50O.	Steele	
47	25Geo. Bickerton	
369	90E.	Rowson	
24	75
30
45
65
80
70
18
66
45
65
35
00
95
01
70

45
95
00
60
10
85
85
46
40
10
60
56
95
62
50

Questions
M. Westbrook	 115 30
J. Wright & W. Watt	
55	00W. Watt	
15	90J. Wright	
13	50J.	Stinson	
14	00M. Solter	
23	20M. Slater	
13	92Sask. Coop. Livestock Producers.	199 75

Telephones and telegraphs-
Dept, of Telephones	
291	57C.N.R. Telegraph	
56	94C.P.R. Telegraph	
17	61$	366	12
Printing, stationery, etc.-
LePatriote Publishing Co	
56	18Western Printers Assoc.	Ltd.. ..	53	00Modem Press Ltd	
50	71Mclnnis Bros. Ltd	
542	07C. Laporte	
5	00Mrs. E. Koziar	
5	00Sask. Poultry Pool	
46	55Willson Stationery Co.	Ltd.. ..	17	20Regina Daily Star	
7	85"Der Courier"-Regina	
11	76Leader Post Publishing Co	
10	92Western Producer	
28	00Ukrainian Voice	
9	80
Jas. Richardson & Sons, Ltd.-
Radio Station CJRM	 109	00
Electric Shop Wholesale Supplies
Ltd	
35	15Postmaster, Regina (Rural Directories)	
26	25C.P. Express Co	
3	10P.O. Dept. (Postage)	
360	60



S 1,378 14

[Stage Direction]
Hall rentals (including in some instances incidental expenses such as telephone charges, telegrams,
etc.)-
Aberdeen Community Hall	3	00Abernethy Memorial Hall	
2	00Adanac Village Hall	
3	00Alameda Community Hall	
5	71Adrien Wilcott	
3	00Steve Romanko	
1	50H.	Lapoint	
3	00L.O.L. Hall, Nottingham	
2	00H. A. Echelberger, Fertile	
2	00Allan Community Hall	
3	00H. G. Sillars, Alticane	
3	95Amzon S.D. No. 579	
2	00S.	J. Krasnuck	
6	00Anglia Hall Company	
2	00Parish Hall, Annaheim	
5	00S.	Moon, Antelope	
2	00Archervvill Community Club..	..	3	00Ray Bros., Arborfield	
5	00W. Acton, Grayburn	
3	00Town of Areola	
1	00Village of Ardath	
4	00K.	C. Hogar, Ardill	
1	50J. Familinow, Arelee	
2	00United Church, Assiniboia	
5	00Atwater Memorial Hall	
6	00Avonhurst Hall	
2	00W. L. McRorie, Avonlea	
5	00J. W. McManes, Aylesbury	3	00Village of Balcarres	
2	00Baldwinton School	
2	00Balgonie Town Hall	
3	00W. J. Mullin, Bangor	
1	00D.	Syrnyk, Bank End	
2	00J. J. Mawson, Baporime	
3	00Baring Town Hall	
1	00Village of Bateman	
2	00J. Hopkins, Battleford	
6	00Battrum Community Hall	
2	00Merry Maker Club, Bayard	3	00Royal Hotel, Beechy	
3	00A.	D. Stalze, Belbutte	
1	00Orange Hall, Bengough	
2	00Benson Community Hall	
4	00J. S. Rowand, Bethune	
2	50Legion Hall, Bienfait	
6	00Wm. Devereaux, Big Beaver....	3	00Pete Bouchard, Big River	
3	00Canadian Legion, Big River....	1	00G.	G. Doan, South Biggar	
2	00Masonic Temple, Birch Hills....	4	00J. F. Shebo, Bjorkdale	
2	00Mrs. R. G. Townsend, Bladworth.	1	00Theatre, Blaine Lake	
6	00Blucker Ladies' Aid	
4	00Borden Hall	
4	00Village of Bounty	
1	50Church, Bracken	
2	00Braddock Community Assoc..	..	2	00Brancepath Community Assoc.	..	3	00Bratton Memorial Hall	
3	00C. W. Lister, Bredenbury	
3	00Mrs. Dave King, Bridgeford..	..	1	00Aikton S.D. No. 3175	
2	00United Church, Briercrest	
4	50J. A. McLellan, Broadacres	2	50Town of Broadview	
3	00Village of Broderick	
2	00C. A. Hackney, Brownlee	
2	00J. H. Weber, Bruno	
4	50B.	W. Hindmarsh, Buffalo Gap..	2 00Village of Bulyea	
2	00Henry Indra, Burr	
3	00Mrs. Chas. Smith, Cadillac..	..	6	00Johnnie Koch, Burstall	
5	00Orange Hall, Cabri	
4	00Village of Calder	
2	00F.	J. Kusmic, Candiac	
2	00
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Community Club, Cantuar	4	00Union Cafe, Canuick	
1	00Elks Hall, Canwood	
3	00Orange Lodge, Carievale	
3	00Carlton Community Club	
3	00E.	Coxen, Carlyle	
5	00J. H. Stumberg, Carmel	
2	00Town of Carnduff	
1	SOL.	Bird, Carruthers	
3	25Avalier Community Hall	
2	35Chas. C. Klein, Cedoux	
1	75Union Hall, Central Butte	3	00Pool Room, Chamberlain	
2	00J. Jauczyre, Chelan	
2	00Choiceland S.D. No. 4986	
3	00Churchbridge Hall	
3	50Clair Community Hall	
3	00Clavet United Church	
5	00Community Hall, Claydon ....	3	00Cloan Community Hall	
3	00Coderre Community Hall	
2	00Codette Community Hall	
3	00O.	G. Wyatt, Colfax	
4	00Town of Colonsay	
50Congress Community Club ....	3	00Corning Community Hall	
3	00Crooked River Hall	
2	00W. A. Mustard, Creelman	
1	00A.	Z. Drew, Crystal Springs ....	1	00Cudworth Hotel	
3	00Village of Cut Knife	
4	00Dafoe Community Hall	
2	00H.	J. Moore, Darmody	
2	00Peter Koch, Davin	
2	50Red and White Store, Daylesford	3	00J. C. Wilson, Deer Creek	
2	00Town of Delisle	
4	00Community Hall, Demains ....	2	00R. W. Moffaw, Denholm	
2	00Village of Denzie	
5	00I.	O.O.F. Hall, Dilke	
2	00F.	B. Richer, Disley	
3	00J.	A. Peters, Dodsland	
2	00A. E. Weiss, Dollard	
3	00Village of Domremy	
5	50Parish Hall, Donavon	
1	00Druid Hall Co	
3	00Mrs. Hilda Booth, Dubuc	
2	00Orange Hall, Duff	
2	00J. Gustine, Dulwich	
3	35Mrs. E. Robinson, Dumas	
1	50Alex Robinson, Dunblane	
2	50Dundurn Community Hall ....	4	00Dunkirk Co-op. Hall Ass'n ....	2	00G.	C. Klai, Dysart	
5	00Canadian Legion, Earl Grey ....	4	00W. P. Anderson, Eastend	
4	25Community Club, East Poplar ..	3	00Telephone, Edam	
100Village of Edenwold	
2	50Ramon Rogers, Edgeley	
5	00L. Schram, Elbow	
3	00Elfras Hall	
5	00Moose Head Hall Ass'n	
2	00Elrose Lodge A.F. and A.M	4	00Elstow Agric. Society	
5	00Englefeld Village Hall	
3	00Esterhazy Hall	
4	00I.	T. Carson, Estlin	
4	00A. Pool, Eston	
6	20Riverside Club, Estuary	
2	00Ettington U.F.C	
3	00Village of Evesham	
3	00John Foulston, Eyebrow	
3	01Fairy Glen Community Club..	..	3	00Ferland Hall	
3	50W. H. Robson, Feudal	
4	50Fielding Hall Co	
5	00G.	Leachman, Fillmore	
2	50Fife Lake Community Hall..	..	3	50F.	Madson, Findlater	
2	00Valley City S.D. No. 2656	
2	00Flaxcombe Community Hall..	..	5	00H.	Bamford, Fleming	
5	00Flintaft Pool Hall	
2	00C.	Newell, Foam Lake	
9	25Forgan Co-op. Hall	
3	00J.	P. Dechaine, Forget	
1	00Disc Theatre, Ft. Qu'Appelle..	..	4	00S. D. Federdyk, Fosston	
1	50G.	Glasser, Fox Valley	
5	00Froude Hall	
3	00J. S. Riddell, Frobisher	
3	00G.	Kemper, Fulda	
2	50Wm. Reynolds, Gainsborough	..	5	00Gerald Community Hall	
3	00Gibbs Community Club	
3	00Gilroy United Church	
3	00Gladmar Community Hall	
5	00G.	P. Thomson, Glaslyn	
3	00Village of Glenabon	
2	00J. W. Hill & Son, Glen Ewen....	5	00C. O. Olson, Glenside	
2	00O. R. Galbraith, Glidden	
5	00E.	Thomson, Glenbush	
2	00W. Beattie, Goodeve	
2	00Community Club, Goodwater	..	3	00S. C. Wiwchar, Gorlitz	
1	50Peter Quong, Gouverneur	
1	50W. Gleason, Govenlock	
1	00United Church, Grand Coulee	..	4	00Gray Grain Growers' Ass'n..	..	3	00Grassdale Community Hall..	..	5	00H.	G. Frisby, Griffin	
3	00Paul Dobrowolski, Gronlid....	1	50Guernsey Community Hall..	..	4	50Sunnybank S. D. No. 2559	
2	00
Ukranian National Home Ass'n.,
Hafford	
5	00Hagen Community Hall	
5	00
Questions
Village of Hallenite	
T.	Innan, Hallonquist	
1M.	A. Kreprokerwith, Hanton.. 3 Hardsworth Community Hall	..	4Elk's Hall, Harris	
1J. L. Jackson, Hartwill	
1Floyd Willis, Hatton	
2Hazelcliffe Hall	
2I.	O.O.F. Hall, Hazenmore	
2Church, Hearne	
3L.	O.L. Heart's Hill	
2P. F. Schmidt, Hepburn	
2Irving L. Johns, Henribourg..	..	1Herschel Club Room	
2Herschel Hall Committee	
3F.	G. Bums, Heward	
3Rutherford Bros., Hillmond..	..	5Hirsch Community Hall	
3Hitchcock Community Club..	..	3R. Neep, Holy	
5Chas. Myres, Hodgeville	
3Hoffer Community Hall	
2R. H. Beatty, Halbein	
1M.	W. A. Hall Ass'n., Holdfast	..	6Hoosier Agric. Society	
3Hubbard Hall	
2Heighten Community Hall	
3Humboldt Town Hall	
1A. C. Knibbs, Hunton	
1Church, Huronville	Mm. Montgomery, Imperial..	..	5
Ukrainian Community Centre,
Insinger	 2
Harold Ward, Instow	 1
Invermay Community Hall..	..	4
Mm. Curral, Jansen	 2
U.	F. C. Juanita	 3
Holy Trinity Church, Kamsack.	6
Village of Kandahar	 3
Joe Surdar, Kayville	 2
L. W. Butter, Kelfield	 4
Kelliher Community Hall	 3
Church, Kelso	 2
Mrs. L. V. Chamberlain, Kalstem.	1
W. T. Gillings, Kelvington	 4
Kenaston Hall Co	 6
R. T. Johnson, Kendal	 2
Keppel Community Co-op. Ass'n..	5
Mrs. J. R. Vincent, Kerrobert..	..	4
John Yednak, Kachen	 1
J.	Hamowski, Killoly	 3
Kindersley L.O.L	 5
Legion Hall, Kinistino	 2
Village of Kinley	 3
R. M. Kingsley, No. 124	 1
I.	O. O. F. Kisbey	 3
Kronau Athletic and Social Club.	2
J.	G. McNamee, Kuroki	
4H.	Kolot, Kyle	
1R. J. Curry, LaFleche	
3P. J. McGowan, Lake Alma..	..	2Lake Valley School District....	1Lake Lenore Community Hall..	5	37Lampman Community Hall.. ..	4	50R. Cowan, Lancer	
2	00Landis Hall	
5	00Lang Community Theatre	
3	00A. B. Potter, Langbank	
1	50Langenbury Community Hall....	4	50Lacjbum Community Hall.. ..	3	00I.	O. O. F. Lawson	
3	00Leader Hall	
2	00Legion Hall Lemberg	
5	00Lemsford Community Hall..	..	3	00H.	Suick, Leofnard	
3	00San Arlin, Leross	
1 50LeRoy Hall Ass'n	
5	00Leslie Village Hall	4 00E. J. Shimek, Liberty	
5	00Orange Hall, Limerick	
3	00John Renner, Linacre	
1	00Lintlaw Hall	
4	00Lipton Hall	
3	00C. C. Y. M. Hall, Lisieux....	2	00Livelong Hall	
5	00Lloydminster Times	
3	00Lone Rock Community Hall..	..	4	00Loreburn Community Hall..	..	4	50Mrs. M. L. Bovair, Lucky Lake..	3 50Orange Hall, Luseland	
4	00Macklin Memorial Hall	
10	00Macrorie Telephone	
1	05Mrs. H. S. Perry, Maidstone..	3	75Nair Hall Ass'n	
3	00M.	E. W. Dube, Marengo.... 3	00Marlin, M. Zaychlsowsky	
3	00Major Hall Ass'n	
2	50Manor Hall	
4	50J.	B. Godbout, Marcelin.... 3	00Margo Town Hall	
2	00I.	O. O. F., Marquis	
2	00
Fram School Dist., No. 3466,
Marsden	
4	00Marsden Community Hall..	..	3	00Marshall School Dist., No. 1499.	2	00Rink Hall, Maryfield	
2	75Assumption Parish Hall, Marys-burg	
2	00J.	Nouch, Mawer	
3	50J. M. Moskalyk, Mayfair	
3	00Legion Hall, Maymount	
2	00U.	F. C. Hall, Mazenod	
1	50Meacham Community Hall..	..	5	00N.	J. Sowko, Meacham	
3	00R. Malowski, Meath Park..	..	3	00W. J. Boart, Medstead	
2	50Orange Hall, Melaval	
2	00Cecil Hotel, Melfort	
3	00Ralph Carson, Melville	
3	00J. Zohn, Mendham	
3	00E. Binns, Mervins	
2	50Midale Hall	
5	00Mrs. G. Wilson, Meyronne..	..	3	00John Lengyel, Middle Lake..	..	1	00N.	K. Cymbalsty, Mikado..	..	3	00
00
00
50
00
25
00
00
50
00
00
00
50
25
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
50
50
00
00
1922
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Mildred Community Hall	
2	00Milestone Town Hall	
3	00Orange Hall, Moosomin	
3	00Mortlaeh Town Hall	
3	55Walter Hanson, Mossbank..	..	3	00Muenster Hall	
3	00P. J. Hannon. McCord	
0	75J. H. Johnston, McGee	
2 00G.	H. Greenwood, McKague.. ..	2 00W. It. Peer, McTaggart	
3 00Beaver Lumber Ltd., Naicam..	5	00A. G. Thompson, Neidpath	3 50Neilburg Town Hall	
5	00J. E. Bowles, Netherhill	
2	00John Ulmer, Newdorf	
8	00G. H. Dawson, Neville	
4	00Mrs. J. E. Bell, Nokomis....	3	00A. Hage, Nora	
1	00Norquay Hall	
7	50N.	Rebum, North Battleford..	..	5	00North Portal, U. Church..	..	1	35Northside Hall	
3	00F.	Willsey, Nut Mountain..	..	3	00Oddessa School Dist., No. 5868.	3	00Church of England, Ogema..	..	4	00Miss E. McAllister, Osage..	..	3	00Otthan Village Hall	
2	50Oungre Community Hall	
3	00Bromhead Hall	
2	00P. J. Helmke, Outlook	
3	00C. O. of Foresters, Oxbow..	..	3	00J. W. Taflan, Palmer	
3	00I.	O. O. F., Pangman	
5	00Pangman School Dist., No. 98..	..	1	00Frank Noulan, Paradise Hill..	..	5	00Mrs. Krause, Parkbeg	
3	15Sam Ladyka, Parkerview....	2	00Parkman Community Hall	2	50Parkside Hotel	
2	00Paswegin Community Hall..	..	2	00Pathlow Community Hall	
3	00J.	F. Fulton, Paynton	
2	25Peebles School Dist	
75
Messrs. Pearse & Edworthy,
Peesane	
4	00A. Sanderson, Pelly	
4	80A.F. & A.M., Pennant	
4	00A. E. Boyle, Pense	
3	00Penzance Hall	
2	001.0.	0.F., Perdue	
4	00J.	J. Felix, Peterson	
3	001.0.	0.F., Piapot	
3	50L. J. Cody, Pilger	
1	50Plato Community Hall	
2	50Pleasantdale Community Hall..	5	00Pleasant Valley Community Hall	2	00W. Struton, Plunkett	
1	50C. W. Receveur, Polworth	
2	50Ponteix Theatre	
5	00S. H. Miley, Pontrilas	
3	00Preeceville Public Hall	
1	00

Atlas Lumber, Prelate	 2 50
Primate Hall	 3	00
Prince Homemaker's Club, Prince	5 00
Prince Albert Daily Herald.. ..	3 36
Hotel Flanders, Prud'homme..	..	1 00F.	Planchot, Punnichy	
4 00H.	O. Bjorson, Quill Lake	
5 00Quinton Hotel	
3	50Rabbit Lake Hall	
3	00A. Matisz, Rabbit Lake	
3	00R. P. D. Hicke, Radisson	
5	00J.	Hlady, Rama	
3	00Hotel Raymore	
2	00
Readlyn Memorial Community
Hall	
3	00Red Deer Hill Hall	
4	00Robert Norris, Renown	
1	50Resource Hall	
2	50L. Laturnus, Revenue	
1	50P. Schraeder, Reward	
3	00J. M. Galbraith, Rhein	
5	50Ricetown United Church	
5	00Chas. Ducklow, Richlea	
5	00Richmond Community Hall..	..	3	00Ridgedale Theatre Stock Co....	3	00T.	K. Sullivan, Riverhurst.. 1	50Robinhood Community Hall..	..	5	00Robsart Community Hall	
3	00A. II. Wyatt, Rocanville	
5	75Roche Percee Hall	
2	50Rockhaven Village Hall	
2	00Security Lumber Co., Rockglen	2 00Canadian Legion, Rosetown....	5	00Town Hall, Rosthem	
11	00Istvan Szeudi, Rothermere.... 3	00W. Barregar, Rouleau	
4	25W. L. Biutaker, Rowletta	
1	00Ruddell Village Hall	
5	00A. G. Hamilton, Ruthilda	
2	50Rutland Hall	
3	00Saltcoats Town Hall	
3	00Mrs. S. N. Wooster, Salvador	..	3	00Sanctuary Mission Hall	
2	00Sceptre Lodge Hall	
5	00E. G. Knebler, Scout Lake..	..	1	50Scotsguard Village Hall	
3	50Charlie Wing, Senate	
1	00Semans Town Hall	
2	75Senlac Co-op. Ass'n. Ltd	
3	00I.	O.O.F., Shacldeton	
3	00Shamrock Community Hall..	..	5	00J.	Koropatniski, Sheho	
3	00Rich Valley Hall, Shellbrook..	..	2	00Sidewood Community Hall..	..	2	00Silton Hall Co	
4	00J. C. Steen, Simpson	
5	50St. Ignatius Hall, Sinnett... 5	00Sintaluta Memorial Hall	
2	25Sonningdale United Church..	..	3	00Southey Town Hall	
4	00
Questions
W. G. Scott, Speers	 5
St. Stevens Hall, Spiritwood..	..	5F.	L. Murray, Spiritwood	
4St. Stevens Hall, Spiritwood....	5Springside Village Hall	
3Arnold Park, Spring Valley..	..	3Springwater Hall	
3B.	B. Wood, Spruce Lake	
1Spy Hill Community Hall	
3St. Benedict Community Hall	..	5M. M. Classen, St. Gregor	
4W. Laback, St. Julien	
5Star City Hall	
2W. Northup, Stalwart	
5Stenen Village Hall	
5W. Esche, Stewart Valley	
1Stockholm U. C. Hall	
3B.	L. Kerr, Stoughton	
5Stranraer Community Hall....	5J. R. Hutchinson, Strongfield..	..	5Clement Wood, Sturgeon Valley	2Sturgis Town Hall	
5C.	O. of Foresters, Success.... 2F.	W. Linnell, Summerberry..	..	3G.	H. Callard, Superb	
3W. T. Ross, Swanson	
2J. W. Burrows, Sylvania	
2E.	F. Gibbs, Tantalon	
2S. Solonjnko, Tarnapol	
2Joe Johnson, Tate	
4Tessier Community Hall	
5Theodore Village Hall	
1Tiger Hills Hall	
3Mrs. D. J. Duck, Tisdale	
3Harry Tarlisky, Togo	
3C.	O. of Foresters, Torquay..	..	3G.	D. Spoor, Tramping Lake..	..	2Traynor Municipal Hall	
1Imperial Bank Hall, Tribune..	..	3Tuberose Mission Hall	
2Tugaske Theatre	
3Turtleford Hall	
3Jas. Barry, Tuxford	
2Tyvan Community Hall	
4Unity Town Hall	
4F.	Gilliland, Valley Centre.... 2Valor Homaker Hall	
1Valparaiso Community Hall..	..	3Vandura Church Hall	
3J. T. Gray, Vanguard	
5O.	L. Loraas, Vanscoy	
3Grace U. Church, Vantage	
1U.	D. Wilyghalowa, Verigin..	..	3W. D. Wily Gholowa, Verigin	..	3J. E. Pollock, Verio	
3Vidora Hall	
1Vonda Town Hall	
2Legion Hall, Wadena	
5Wakaw Village Hall	
2St. Catherines W. A., Waldeck	..	2Waldron Village Hall	
2	00H.	Birnie, Walpole	
2	00A. R. Erickson, Wartime	
3	50Waseca Memorial Hall	
5	00Watson Town Hall	
8	00Wawota Village Hall	
4	00Shaw's Hall, Webb	
3	50Weldon Village Hall	
1	50Bert Santer, Welwyn	
3	00T.	Halyn, West Bend	
2	00A. C. Ferguson, Weyburn	
7	00Orange Hall, White Bear	
3	00L. O. L. Hall, White Fox	
5	00A. Baines, Wilcox	
6	00I.	O. O. F., Wilkie	
5	00C. L. Lightbody, Willowbunch ..	5	50Legion Hall, Windthorst	
2	50Chas. Adie, Winter	
2	00W. A. Downs, Wiseton	
1	50Wolfe Hall	
1	00Wolseley Town Hall	
2	50Woodrow Village Hall	
5	00United Stores, Wordsworth.. ..	2	00
E. N. Wojiechowsky, Yellow
Creek	
2	50Yellow Grass Town Hall.. ..	3	00Yorkton Town Hall	
5	00Zelma Village Hall	
3	00
1,633 30
Grand total	$ 19,955 46
Schedule B
Expenditure of $1,351.91 Expenses of Pool Directors-
Mrs. Ross Wilson	
360	25Mrs. N. Morrison	
73	55Mrs. J. D. McKenzie	
39	90Mrs. J. W. Culham	
38	70F.	T. Marks	
435	05Thos. Tyler	
74	65G.	Fortum	
34	10W. A. Landreth	
142	55
[Stage Direction]
Administration and Office Expense-
Saskatchewan Poultry Pool-
(Saskatchewan, stationery, etc.). 75 00 Bank of Montreal-
(Interest and Exchange).. ..	18 08
$	93	08
Telephones and Telegraphs-
Dept,	of Telephones	
47	29C.	N.	Telegraphs	
12	19C.	P.	Telegraphs	
0	60
[Stage Direction]
Total	$ 1.351 91
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00
00
50
00
00
00
50
00
50
50
30
00
Questions

Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	What were the number of prosecutions
conducted during the fiscal year ending March 31,	1936, under the Weights and
Measures Act, in each province?
2.	What were the number of convictions secured as a result of such prosecutions in each province?
3.	Of the total number of convictions secured, how many of those convicted were convictions of independent grocery and/or butcher stores for infraction of sections 63 or 64 of the Weights and Measures Act, giving figures by provinces?
4.	How many of all convictions secured were convictions of chain grocery and/or butcher stores for infraction of sections 63 or 64 of the Weights and Measures Act?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Nova Scotia	 2
Quebec	 123
Ontario	  116
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 34
British Columbia	 4
Total	 280
2.	Quebec	 Ill
Ontario	 95
Alberta	 25
British Columbia	 4
Total	 235
Note-
The difference of 45 in the answers to 1 and 2 is explained as follows:-
Prosecutions pending decision	 31
dismissed	 5
withdrawn on advice of counsel	 9
Total	 45
3.	Quebec	 107
Ontario	 93
Alberta	 25
British Columbia	 4
Total	 229
4.	Quebec	 4
Ontario	 2
Total	 6



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. McGEER:: With respect to the following harbours: Saint John. Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal, Vancouver and New Westminster:
1.	When was the harbour commission having jurisdiction over each of them established by the federal government?
2.	What is the date, amount, rate of interest and time for repayment of each loan advanced by the government in respect to the administration of each of the said harbours?
3.	What amount has ben repaid in respect of (a) interest; (b) principal, on each of said loans?
4.	What amount in respect of said loans is now in default (a) principal; (b) interest?
5.	How much money, on acount of interest, has been paid to the government in respect of all such loans?
6.	What amounts of money, other than loans advanced to the commissions of each of the abovementioned harbours, have been spent by the federal government on each of the said harbours in respect of terminal facilities in or about each of such harbours?
7.	What amount has been expended by the Canadian National Railways in harbour developments, terminal railway facilities and otherwise, in each of the cities of Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal, Vancouver and New Westminster?
8.	What is the total cargo tonnage per year moving to and from each of the said ports for the period 1926 to 1935, inclusive?
9.	What was the number of deep sea vessels and total tonnage entering each of the said harbours during the period 1926 to 1935, inclusive?
10.	What tolls and other revenues are imposed by the harbour commissioners of each of the above harbours?
11.	What is the total revenue received by the harbour commissions of each of the said ports?
12.	What is the total cost of administering each of the said harbours, divided as follows: (a) interest charges; (b) sinking funds; (c) administration costs; (d) all other expenses?
13.	What are the assets of each of the said
harbour commissions at cost segregated as follows:	(a) buildings, wharves, etc.; (b)
land; (c) other assets?
14.	What tolls or rates are levied on (a) cargo tonnage; (b) vessels?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MacINNIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents respecting the dismissal of A. Spriee as postmaster at subpost office, Queensborougli, New Westminster, British Columbia, covering the period from October 1, 1935, to March 25, 1936.



SHELBURNE COUNTY, NJS., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. POTTIER:: For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, invoices for materials and truckage in connee-

Motions Jor Papers
tion with work done by the Shelburne Wood Workers, Limited, of Shelburne, Nova Scotia, during the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, in connection with all public works, such as wharves, breakwaters, buildings in Shelburne county, Nova Scotia.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: For a copy of all accounts, vouchers, invoices for materials and truckage, supplied by Norman E. Smith of Barrington Passage or Doctors Cove, Nova Scotia, during the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, in connection with all public works, such as wharves, breakwaters or buildings of any kind, both for new construction or repairs, in Shelburne county, Nova Scotia.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RULINGS

Sir EUGENE FISET (for Mr. Pouliot):: For a copy of all rulings of the Department of Justice and part III of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931.


Mr. CARDIN:: I suggest that this order cannot be complied with in the general terms in which it is prepared. The order asks for all rulings of the Department of Justice. I am informed that it is practically impossible to prepare a list of all the rulings that have been given, without any limiting date. Moreover, generally speaking, the rulings of the Department of Justice are more or less confidential and have never been requested for a period as extended as the time covered by this motion. It is true that rulings of the Department of Justice can be produced with respect to some determined matter; for the minister is then in a position to decide whether it is in the public interest that such rulings be given publicity. Again, some of these rulings may affect pending cases; and the Minister of Justice being absent, it might imply a change in the practice with regard to rulings of the department. I would ask the hon. gentleman to let the motion stand until the return of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the orders of the
day are proceeded with may I ask the government two questions. First what additional business may we anticipate will be brought forward for the consideration of the house during the present session? Second, is the government in a position to indicate when the budget will be delivered?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may say to my right
hon. friend that we have made an effort to have on the order paper before the Easter recess reference to practically all the important legislation which the government intends to bring down during the present session. There may be two or three bills of which notice has not yet been given. My right hon. friend knows that there has to be some latitude left with regard to bills which it may be found necessary to introduce at the last minute. I think, however, the house has now before it notice of practically all important measures except one relating to parliamentary undersecretaries, to which reference will be made after the Easter recess. Concerning the budget, I am not in a position to give my right hon. friend a statement at the present time as to the exact date, but no doubt the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be able to answer my right hon. friend's question very shortly after the house resumes, following the Easter recess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 14, respecting the establishment of a national employment commission.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 22, to provide for the payment of certain sums of money to primary producers of wheat with respect to wheat of the 1930 crop delivered to provincial pool organizations.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of
Unemployment
[Stage Direction]
unemployment, the promoting of agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and in the development, conservation and improvement of certain natural and other resources.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Works and' undertakings.
Mr. STIRLING:: It will be seen from this section, read in conjunction with the title and the preamble, that the scope of this measure is similar to the scope of those acts which it supersedes. Nine days ago the relief act of 1935 expired, and it is of course necessary for the government to provide itself with legislative power to carry on the undertakings which are now in hand and also to cover those undertakings which the government desires to use to implement its policy. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister in a radio address in August last stated it as his opinion that the late administration had attempted to handle the relief problem and had failed to do so because it had not started soon enough. It will also be remembered that the right hon. gentleman in the session of 1930 was not of opinion that there existed in Canada an emergent condition sufficient to necessitate the intrusion of the dominion government in the way of giving assistance to the provinces. It will also be remembered that the late administration assumed office on August 7, 1930; that parliament reassembled in early September, and that on September 22 the relief act received royal assent. The first of the relief acts empowered the government to spend up to $20,000,000 for the purpose of putting into operation certain public works with and without the cooperation of the provinces, to assist in the distribution of the products of the farm, the forest and the mine, and to carry out such works as fell within the scope of that act.
In the following session, in the spring of 1931, a bill was passed which enabled the government to carry on those same works, but it included two new provisions. The $20,000,000 had not proved sufficient for the purpose, and a sum of money unstated was placed at the disposal of the governor in council which should decide to what extent that power should be used. Somebody nicknamed it the blank cheque, and that name remains with it. But I would point out that to call a thing a derogatory name does not of necessity mean that it is a bad thing, and it will be most interesting to see, as the months and perhaps 
the years pass, whether the government will find that it is regretful of having condemned that method as strenuously as it did. The other essential difference between the 1931 act and the 1930 act was that the governor in council was empowered under the 1931 act to do such things as it deemed expedient to maintain peace, order and good government in Canada. I suppose no two weeks passed in the last three sessions of this house during which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not inveigh against the usurpation of the powers of parliament by the late administration, and assert that, to use money which was unlimited in quantity, and to take power to deal with the peace, order and good government of this country, meant that certain principles were being broken. It would accordingly have seemed extremely probable that this government, on assuming office, would have been exceedingly careful never to invoke that section. Judge of our surprise, therefore, when, the orders in council being tabled, it was found that the government had made use of the peace, order and good government section of the 1935 relief act, and for a very curious purpose.
I have before me a copy of order in council
P.C. 308. In it the Minister of Immigration informs the council that there are 4,060 Chinese who had gone back to China expecting to have to return within two years so as to conform with the regulations of the Immigration Act, 1923. It was set forth that, conditions being such as they are in Canada, it might be most desirable that those Chinese should delay their return. This order in council was passed which would enable the holiday to be extended from two years to five years, so that Chinese immigrants need not return at the present time. I will read the final paragraph of the order in council:
Now therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Immigration and Colonization, and under the authority of section 3 of the Relief Act, 1935, chapter 13, 25-26 George V, is pleased to order and it is hereby ordered as follows:
All persons of Chinese origin who under section 23 of the Chinese Immigration Act, 1923, have registered on or subsequent to March 1, 1932, and all persons of Chinese origin who may register under the said section 23 on or before December 31, 1936, may delay their return to Canada for a period of three years over and above the statutory period as set by section 24 of the said act.
Concerning the wisdom or otherwise of the action so taken I have nothing to say at the present time. But it does appear to me most extraordinary that this government, after inveighing as it did time and time again, in this



S, 1936

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment
house and out of it, against the principle involved in section 3, should make use of that very section for such a curious purpose as to take this action.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that the order in council as such does not exist.


Grote Stirling: It is certainly evident
that the action the government desired to take was not possible under the Immigration Act of 1923, or surely the government would have taken it. Further than that, the government did not take this action until within a few hours of the reassembling of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister says that the order in council does not exist, but it was tabled here by the minister as an order in council. It is downstairs now among the sessional papers, where I saw it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
the legal authorities hold that, the order referred to having passed council only on the day on which parliament assembled and not signed before parliament had assembled, it is not a legal order and therefore as such it no longer exists.


Grote Stirling: That is a very different
matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It lies here on this table as a valid order.


Grote Stirling: This was an order in
council which was tabled. Whether it was effective is another matter altogether. It does not in the least affect my point, that this government when in opposition lost no opportunity of trouncing the late administration for having done things contrary to principle and things whereby they usurped the power of parliament. The right hon. gentleman now says that action was not finally taken under this order in council. He does not escape the censure which I think is coming to him for having trounced us for breaking a principle and then himself having made use, within an hour of the assembling of parliament, of that very section.
It will be noticed that before the Relief Act of 1932 was passed there was a provincial conference. The provincial governments, having come to the conclusion that they were not financially able longer to carry on public works construction even with the assistance of the dominion government, asked the dominion government to cease that method of assistance and to grant direct relief. In that view the dominion government concurred, but a year later, prior to the passing of the 1933 act, another provincial conference reversed that
opinion and once more relief works were carried on in various parts of Canada in conjunction with the provinces. It will be remembered also that in the fall of 1932 the Department of the Interior, so far as work in the national parks was concerned, took over the care of the single, homeless unemployed and put a good many hundreds of them to work. In that same fall, the Department of National Defence was directed to set up camps for such work as the clearing of emergency landing fields, the preservation of the fortifications of the citadels at Quebec and Halifax and so on, and gradually that work extended as, by agreement with the provinces, the dominion government undertook the complete care of single, homeless unemployed, physically fit and in need of relief.
Another of the statements that the right hon. Prime Minister was so fond of making prior to the election was that, should he resume office, the camps would be removed immediately from the Department of National Defence. They have not been so removed and the Minister of Labour has stated that they will not be so removed, pending the time when he hopes it will be possible to dispense with such camps altogether.


Mr. ROGERS:: Will my hon. friend permit me to say a word? It is quite true that there has not been a physical transfer, in the ordinary sense of the word, but from the moment the announcement was made that the camps would be transferred to the Department of Labour, any decision as to policy has been taken by the Minister of National Defence in conjunction with the Minister of Labour and there has been, I may say, an effective supervision of the relief camp situation from that time to this through the Department of Labour.


Grote Stirling: I would suggest that there is no change whatever in that method. I happen, as the minister knows, to have been closely connected with this work for a few months, and I know the particular difficulties with which he has been faced in connection with these camps. I know also that in matters of policy it was not the Department of National Defence that decided. They were approached by the two ministers, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Defence, and the questions of policy came before council. So I do not see that any material change has as yet taken place.
I should like to direct the attention of the committee for a moment to the reason, the one and only reason, why this work was ever put into the hands of the Department of National Defence. When the dominion
Unemployment

government, by agreement with the provinces, undertook the care of single, homeless unemployed, since the work was sure to grow it was obviously necessary that there should be an organization sufficiently Canada-wide in scope to take care of the work. There was only one department of this government that could possibly undertake that work without the creation of new machinery. The Department of Public Works could not do the work; the Department of Labour could not do it; the Department of the Interior could do it only to the extent that they were interested in the national parks, and it was no considered desirable to give them powers outside their natural terrain. But all Canada is divided into military districts. In each district there is an officer commanding, who has at his side a deputy engineer officer, a supply officer and a medical officer. There, then, existed at that time a skeleton organization which could be augmented readily to carry out the work. The fact that we had to listen in this house many times to the charge that the government was militaristic in its aims and that it used military suasion in the camps, was merely another instance of any stick being good enough for an opposition to beat the government with.
One of the very first actions the government took on attaining office was to appoint a special committee of three to look into and report upon this question of relief camps. The first thing that committee did was to pay a visit to the United States and look into questions connected wtih the CCC camps in that country. It is not in the least surprising that their report showed that in no particular way was that problem comparable with the Canadian problem. It was not necessary to appoint a committee to find that out, for it is all in the files of the Department of National Defence, prepared not only by the officers of that department but also by the officers of social organizations all over Canada who for a year or two had been examining and reporting upon these matters on their own initiative. But I do want to direct attention to one or two statements made in that report. On the question of militarism I quote from page 2:
'While the CCC camps are under the direct control of army reserve officers, who wear full military uniforms and demand military recognition from the men, it has been found that the transient type resents military administration. Very little trouble has been experienced from communists, but agitators are summarily dismissed from the camps.
And over the page the report states:
... no police authority is vested in the camp administrators.

Taking these two statements together it is evident that the problem which was being handled in this way in the United States could not possibly be handled in the same way in Canada. I remember, when the house was in committee last session, someone in the opposition making the definite statement that there existed a camp or camps in which uniform tunics had to be worn, salutes had to be given, rifles were for use for drill, and drill was carried on morning after morning. That was an absolute untruth from beginning to end.
One of the questions the committee was to look into particularly was the efforts that had been made by the government, through its superintendents, to provide the men in the camps with recreational opportunities. I am passing through this report rapidly merely because I want to iput on record two or three particular matters. I direct attention to a. paragraph on page 5 in which the committee reports:
Having in mind the camps visited during the past several weeks, the members of your committee wish to point out that with few, if any, exceptions a very definite effort has been made to meet the needs of men in relief camps for education and recreation.
Then I want to put on record the last paragraph but one, for in many ways it appears to me that had the Department of National Defence wanted to write a justification of what it had done and a description of how it. had been done, they hardly could have done it in fairer language than is contained in this paragraph:
The Department of National Defence has built up an organization that has ben fair to the men under its charge, and efficient in the administration of the various activities in the management of the camps. The work is being carried on in addition to the ordinary departmental duties, assisted by a small civilian staff, reflecting a decided saving to the exchequer. It should be pointed out that the staff officials-of the Department of National Defence are by training eminently suited to the task of organization work of this character, and in this regard have rendered a distinct service during a most trying time. To brand the camps as military establishments in unfair. In our inspection not the slightest trace of the general conception of military discipline was in evidence.	In fact, the officers of the
Department of National Defence have leaned backwards in this regard. Not one man was seen in military uniform. Those in the service whose duties carried them into the camp wore civilian clothes. As far as we could observe, the administration is of a nonpolitical character, a factor of vital importance in an undertaking requiring the utmost discretion if serious trouble is to be avoided.
I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of paying in a few words public tribute to the officers of the Department of National Defence. They were given work to do that

Unemployment
was distinctly not theirs. They did that work excellently. There was no eight hour day about their work, and they were glad to make that contribution to the general welfare of the people of Canada.
I would add to that another word of commendation of the superintendent staffs who actually came into contact with the men themselves in those camps all over Canada. The men on these staffs were recruited to a general extent through the assistance of the Engineering Institute of Canada and of the engineering associations throughout the provinces. Some few of them had been accustomed to work of this description, construction work, handling men in camps, but the majority of them had not, and had it to learn. There also the work they had to do was not in every case pleasant. It was pleasant handling the camps where the men were appreciative of what the taxpayer of Canada was doing for them and were ready to work, but it was anything but pleasant in those camps into which subversive elements had obtruded, and the difficulties of the superintendent staffs were enormously increased not only by insulting behaviour but in some cases by bodily harm. I myself know of cases where superintendents have taken the younger men in the camps aside and endeavoured to advise them, cautioned them, warned them, and have done so effectively. Those superintendents drawn from all over Canada and used all over Canada were men from various walks of life who adapted themselves to this operation, and to whom also I consider that a public word of thanks is well due.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I think I can, in a very few words, by drawing attention to sections which appear in the respective acts, point out the difference between the legislation which the government is introducing at the moment with respect to relief and the legislation which hon. gentlemen opposite introduced in previous sessions. In the section which we are at the moment discussing there appear the following words:
The governor in council may out of moneys appropriated by parliament authorize the execution of such works and undertakings
Et cetera. No such words as "appropriated by parliament" are to be found in the legislation which was introduced by hon. gentlemen opposite during the preceding four or five sessions of the former parliament. Instead there appeared something which read like section 5 of the Relief Act of 1935 which is as follows:	[DOT]
The governor in council may pay out of the consolidated revenue fund * such moneys as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of this act.
In other words, the legislation which the present government is asking the house to-adopt restores and preserves the control of the House of Commons and indeed of parliament over expenditures on public works required for the purposes of relief. The legislation of hon. gentlemen opposite removed that control altogether and gave to the governor in council the power to take out of the consolidated revenue fund moneys, not which parliament had agreed upon as necessary and had appropriated, but such moneys as the governor in council of its own volition, decided to take.
Then coming to the next section of the' legislation being introduced at the present time, section 4, subsection 2, which relates to agreements with the provinces, we find: the following:
No agreement entered into under the provisions of this section shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
That is, agreements between the provinces and the dominion with respect to relief. There, again, whatever is done is subject to the approval of this House of Commons. Nothing corresponding to that section will be found in the legislation which hon. gentlemen opposite introduced during the years they were in office. Instead there appeared the following words which appear in section 2 of the relief act of 1935 or something similar thereto:
Notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law the governor in council may, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon,-enter into agreements with any of the provinces,
Et cetera. Not agreements subject to the approval of the House of Commons, but any agreements which the governor in council might decide to make. Section 3 of the Relief Act of 1935 reads as follows:
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, 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.
That gave to the governor in council power to legislate upon any subject which the governor in council might assert came under the heading of peace, order and good government. Then section 4 of the same act reads aa follows:
Unemployment

Without restricting the generality of the terms of the next preceding section hereof and notwithstanding the provisions of any statute or law, the governor in council may-
(a)	provide for special relief, works and undertakings under control and direction of the Department of National Defence and the Department of the Interior;
(b)	take all such other measures as may be deemed necessary or advisable for carrying out the provisions of this act.
The present administration, with respect to any works or undertakings which are related to either the Department of National Defence or the Department of the Interior, will ask this house in the first instance to give its approval to what is proposed and to appropriate what amounts may be necessary for the purpose. The legislation of hon. gentlemen opposite removed that control altogether from the House of Commons. That constituted the difference between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves when they were sitting on this side of the house. I do not recall any exception having been taken by the then opposition to the government seeking to relieve unemployment by providing public works or to its entering into agreements with the provinces with respect to relief. What we did take exception to was the government removing altogether the control, on the part of the House of Commons, over the expenditure on public works which might be so brought into being, and over the terms of agreements which might be entered into, and which involved expenditure of public moneys. In other words, it was the all important issue of preserving control by parliament over taxation and expenditure, a fundamental principle in all matters of government.


Mr. STEWART:: Would the right hon.
gentleman allow me? I am sure he is overlooking the fact that in the Public Works Construction Act of 1934, and again in the act of 1935, schedules were appended in which each work that was in contemplation was dealt with just as an ordinary estimate in the regular way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was coming to that. I was going to point out that the efforts of the opposition to have the government recognize its obligation to parliament did, as we approached the time of the general election, have some effect in the first mentioned particular, but not until then, and then only to the extent which my hon. friend has indicated. The expenditures which we are now discovering, as having been made on account of relief and unemployment and which amount to millions upon millions of

dollars were expenditures the extent of which the house had no intimation of until some time after they had been made. They were not contemplated expenditures presented to the House of Commons, in the first instance, in the form of estimates calculated to give the house some indication of the amounts of money to be expended. Might I say quite frankly that because of the methods adopted by the government of the day, and that fairly generally over a period of five years, it is now an extremely difficult thing for a new administration, within the course of a very few months, to bring the public service and parliament itself back again into right procedure and to restore in full the control which this House of Commons and parliament should have over public expenditures. It may well be that, obliged as we have been to deal with all matters in the little time we have had in the interval for preparation, it will be found that here and there it was and may be necessary to adopt a course resembling that which with hon. gentlemen had become the practice. This, however, where it may have or may occur will be found to be, not with respect to matters generally, but only here and there with respect to some individual subject. The ex-Minister of National Defence has referred to an order in council concerning the admission of Chinese. May I say to him that the exception usually proves the rule, or at least helps to prove it. The fact that, after searching through nearly everything done since October 28, he was able to find only this one order with respect to Chinese would indicate that the present administration has been pretty careful not to follow the example of the late administration in removing the control of parliament over these matters.


Grote Stirling: Could the right hon. gentleman assert that that is the only order in council passed under section 3?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I must say to my hon. friend that I did not know until I heard mention of it in the house that such an order in council had been passed, and I was somewhat relieved when I discovered the law officers had indicated it was not a legal order, because it had been passed subsequent to the opening of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The same day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member is asking me about my own knowledge of these matters I should say that so far as I know with very few exceptions there have not been other like orders in council. I believe I did hear reference in this chamber to

Unemployment
one or two such orders covering the employment of some clerk, or matter of that kind, incidental to relief payments which could only be met in this way but so far as I have been able to follow proceedings in council-and I believe I have followed most of them carefully-I know there has been an endeavour on the part of the ministers individually, and the cabinet as a whole, to see that wherever possible the doctrine of control of parliament over expenditures is preserved to the full.
Those were and/ are the differences between hon. gentlemen opposite and ourselves. Although I do not make the next observation in a fault-finding manner, but simply by way of reasonable explanation of some of the difficulties with which the present administration has had, and may yet have to contend, may I say that had the general election been held in the spring of last year, at the latest, as I suggest it should have been, the incoming administration would have had the summer and fall months to arrange its whole program with respect to relief and unemployment. It would have had time to prepare agreements with different provinces and to bring forward such measures for the purpose of relief and providing employment as, after careful and thorough investigation, it had concluded should be brought forward. However, with the general election not taking place until October, and the present administration arranging to have parliament meet as early as possible in the new year, being obliged in the interval to devote much of its time to the negotiations of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States, and to other matters of like importance, I am frank to say that it has not been possible to bring in relief legislation, or measures for the provision of employment, in the form in which we should have liked to present them to parliament. To a much larger extent than otherwise would have been the case, we have been obliged to introduce legislation resembling that placed on the statute books by our predecessors in office. Not only have we been obliged to adopt measures which in many instances had to be continued, but to follow as well much of the language of existing statutes. We have made this advance notwithstanding, a most important one I submit, the one which we urged while in opposition, namely, to the greatest degree possible, we have sought to restore to the House of Commons and to parliament control over all expenditures of public money for relief purposes and for purposes of providing employment. May I add that the government is most anxious in the 12739-123
existing state of affairs in our country to see that through the agency of the state, where it cannot be provided otherwise, relief is provided wherever it is necessary, and that work is provided wherever possible. In doing that we recognize however, another obligation which we believe to be equally imperative, namely that as respects expenditures which may have to be made on a large scale to effect both these ends every due precaution is taken to protect the public interest and to safeguard the public treasury.
We are seeking to meet the relief and unemployment problem in the most considerate manner possible, but we are also seeking, by every means parliament has thus far devised, to protect the treasury against unnecessary extravagance and against waste, and to avoid doing those things which serve only to perpetuate rather than relieve the present unfortunate condition of unemployment. It is my firm belief that if from the outset the previous administration had held to the constitutional course we are now endeavouring to follow quite as much by way of effective assistance in the matter of relief and the provision of employment would have been provided while in addition, many millions of dollars, which in great part have been wasted, would have been saved, and the problem of relief and unemployment to-day would not begin to be the serious problem it is.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, for a moment or two I should like to refer to the merits of the order in council concerning Chinamen, to which reference has been made. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not deal with the merits, but discussed only the point as to whether or not the present government was consistent in making use of the powers conferred by section 3 of the act.
Apparently on the day this house met an order in council was passed by the present government, the details of which I have not before me, but one which I understand would have the effect of allowing Chinamen who had recently returned to China and were liable to forfeiture of their right to return, by virtue of having stayed more than two years, to extend the period to, I believe, the latter days of 1939. I believe the order in council makes reference to the numbers affected, running into four thousand or five thousand-and when I say that I am speaking from memory. The point I wish to make is that I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that on account of the way the order in council was passed it was not operative, and for reasons which I should like to

Unemployment

indicate I hope he has not since made one which would be effective. I believe it was in 1923 we passed a Chinese immigration measure by which it was arranged between the Canadian and Chinese governments that any Chinese legally resident in Canada and wishing to return to his native country, by registering before leaving and proving that he entered the country legally-something which many of them had great difficulty in doing-within a period of two years would be allowed to reenter Canada without question, and without coming under the immigration laws of the day. . That provision was in force from that day until some years ago. I find that by order in council P.C. 3173, on December 29, 1931, the late Conservative government provided that all Chinese who had registered out between January 1, 1930, and December 31, 1932, were granted the privilege of delaying their return for two years beyond the statutory period, without forfeiting their right to return. That is practically what the present government attempted to do under order in council P.C. 307.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It goes a little farther,
that is all.


Alan Webster Neill: It was extended for a greater period. Had that order in council been effective the position would be that any Chinaman who registered out after January 1, 1930, would be at liberty to return until the end of 1939. I take strong exception to that permission, and I criticize both the late government and the present one for adopting that attitude.
We know about the conditions of relief, and we know about the need for economy in that regard. Here was an opportunity presented where, in the ordinary course of events, we would legally have got rid of four or five thousand of these orientals, whose presence we in British Columbia resent at any time. That could have been done, had it not been for the order in council giving an extension. The feeling in British Columbia was the very opposite to the action indicated by these orders in council. I am advised that the British Columbia government went so far as to offer to pay either the whole or a portion of the fare of any Chinaman who wished to expatriate himself during these years of depression. They were willing to put their hands in their pockets in order to have these Chinamen returned to China. It was understood that they would not be able to return, because a labourer is not now eligible as an immigrant. These men admittedly were not able to pay the money to return within the 
two-year period and that is why they wanted an extension. I believe the argument put forth was that they might come back to be a charge upon Canada or British Columbia, but the point is that they could not afford to come back. If the law were left alone we might be rid of these four or five thousand Chinamen, whatever the number may be. I believe it was unsound to give an extension of their privilege of returning. I took some steps the other day to inquire from the department if there had been any negotiations with the Chinese or any other government, but there seems to have been some uncalled for delay in answering my letter; I have not had a reply. Possibly the parties responsible on both sides of the house can give me that information. I wish only to register a protest against the extension of this privilege to return given in 1931 and again the other day, and express the hope that if it is not too late, no further order in council of this kind will be passed during the present administration.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it is necessary that these matters relating to orders in council should be discussed, but to my mind the bill before us is very important and there are certain things in connection with it that should be discussed at the moment. The bill provides for agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and section 3 places in the hands of the governor in council the right to appropriate certain moneys for this particular work. I want to say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that in this particular phase of the bill there are interesting features, many of which would seem to present difficulties. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of the condition that exists in western Canada at the present time. I have before me a copy of a survey made in Saskatchewan in connection with the utility of settled land. Ninety-five thousand square miles were surveyed and classified as follows:
Per cent
Best wheat land	 7.1
Very good wheat land	 5.9
Moderately good wheat land	 16.9
Fair wheat land	 25.4
Poor wheat land	 18.5
Very poor wheat land	 26.2


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did the hon. gentleman say where that was taken?


Major James William Coldwell: In the province of
Saskatchewan; I am quoting the figures issued by the department of farm management, university of Saskatchewan. Because of wind erosion and drought in the past few years this problem has become particularly acute, and

Unemployment
the removal of people from these lands to the wooded areas in the north has produced a new problem equally acute. Because of it the government will have to make some very grave decisions in connection with this bill. From the point of view of those of us who are particularly interested in western Canada this is one of the most difficult problems which the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour will have to face. Much of this newly settled land is marginal and submarginal and even under normal conditions the people cannot make a living from it.
In my opinion agricultural settlement is no solution of the present problem. Industrial production is more or less elastic. As society's purchasing power increases, more industrial goods can be absorbed, but that is true only to a very limited degree of agricultural production. We cannot eat more than a given quantity of food in a given period of time, hence the settlement of people on new land to bring it into production will tend to present an even greater problem of surplus products unless we can find very much extended markets. I was reading a speech delivered about a year ago in the United States by the Secretary of Agriculture. I shall not quote his speech, except to say that in that address Secretary Wallace pointed out that with the machines presently available ten per cent of the workers in the United States could produce all the necessary foodstuffs and raw materials to maintain that country on a fairly high level of life, and that in all probability with the application of science and new machinery to agriculture, five per cent of the working population could achieve precisely the same result. I have a copy of that particular speech before me at the present time. Consequently, when we think of agricultural settlement as a means for overcoming the present condition in Canada we would seem to be leaning on a broken reed. I do not believe it is desirable from the point of view of Canada to build up in any part of Canada what might be called a peasant population. Our whole superstructure is based upon a relatively high standard of living.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does the hon. member mean by peasant population?


Mr. COLD WELL:: I mean an agricultural population with a relatively low standard of living.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does that follow necessarily?


Major James William Coldwell: Producing on their own farms the things that they need for their own sustenance. Even if we could visualize something of that sort, such a peasant popu-12739-1234
lation must always try to secure some purchasing power in order to buy the goods that cannot be produced on the land. In order to do that, they must sell. Consequently if you increase the agrarian population to any extent, then the goods on the market that are saleable increase and tend to depress prices. Of course I look forward to the day when by an intelligent effort our people will have more purchasing power and a relatively high standard of living. But that is not in sight yet.
In connection with this particular bill I warn the minister that in my opinion the settlement of people on land either adjacent to cities or in more remote areas will not be a solution, even in part, of our unemployment problem. We must realize that in the past few years many people have moved from the cities to country districts. For example, I could mention the Loon lake area in northwestern Saskatchewan where present day conditions are absolutely deplorable among the unemployed city people, many of them with some agricultural experience, who have settled in that new district and in other districts throughout the province. Therefore in connection with this bill this particular matter should be considered very seriously. Up to the present time we have had no explanation of the real meaning of words in the title and in the body of the bill and I should be glad if the Minister of Labour would inform the house, in a sketchy manner if he will, what is involved in the proposal to which I have referred. As agricultural incomes fall, unemployment becomes of course greater in the urban centres; consequently the concentration of our effort must be rather on raising the incomes of those who should buy, whose incomes have fallen in the past few years, in order that they may help to solve the unemployment problem in the urban centres by enabling them to purchase the consumable goods that can be produced in our factories.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reference here to
agricultural settlement is not intended to convey the impression that the dominion government now, with the information at its disposal, intends to go into any very large scale schemes of this kind. During the last few years there has been in operation a relief settlement scheme, and that particular phrase which appears in the bill covers that relief settlement scheme. Under that scheme agreements have been entered into with a number of provinces under which the dominion, the province and the municipality pay a fixed sum for the transfer of families on relief from the cities to the countryside. From the standpoint of the expenditure in-
Unemployment

volved this has proved to be a much more satisfactory method of dealing with at least a part of the relief problem than the payment of direct relief to these families in the cities. We have also reason to believe that the environment has been much healthier for the families who have been thus moved from city to countryside under these relief settlement schemes. In addition to these schemes, these agreements which have been concluded with the provinces, certain proposals have been made by some of the provinces having in view larger plans of colonization, which I take it is what my hon. friend has in mind, and I am sure he will be the first to agree that a plan for colonization which would have some prospect of success in one province might be faced with almost certain failure in another; we have such a wide diversity of conditions in this country.
I may tell him that in the view of at least two provinces, eastern provinces as it happens, colonization does provide a hopeful approach to the unemployment problem- not by any means a complete solution but what one might term a contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to make an
observation with reference to the following words in subsection 2 of section 3:
... persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
I have been wondering about relieving the plight of a large number of people who are not on relief but who should be and who would be were it not for their humble pride in refusing to go to the relief centre and sign their names. I know of many people like that who are in very destitute circumstances and I can appreciate their reluctance to go to one of the relief centres. A short time ago the head of a family came to see me about something in connection with relief, -and I determined to go to one of the relief centres to ascertain particulars in reference to what he wanted to know. When I arrived at the relief centre I saw a line a hundred yards long of citizens who were on relief and who were then applying to the relief centre to obtain whatever it is they get there. When I saw that long line I had not the courage to wait my turn to enter the relief office; I turned and walked away. There are many people like those I refer to, and I wonder if the minister has anything in view for such people whereby they can obtain employment, or does the bill cover merely those who have courage to go to the relief centre and sign their names and say they must go on relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
read the subsection again he will find that employment on relief works to which the dominion government makes contribution is not restricted wholly to those who are on relief. The words themselves will correct that impression if it is in his mind:
... so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
In other words, employment on such projects is not to be confined exclusively to those who are on relief. That would be a very proper subject for the terms of the agreement with the provinces respecting relief works, but I know that in the past the clause has been elastic; it has never been intended to confine employment to those who were on relief.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then if a citizen in the class I have been alluding to desired to obtain employment on any of these works, what method would he follow to get employment?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under some of the existing agreements, for instance respecting the construction of the trans-Canada highway, there is provision that those who are employed on that work shall be taken from the employment offices, and if such a person as my hon. friend has mentioned had registered at an employment office and were otherwise available and competent to do the work, I should see no reason why he would not be employed, provided there was opportunity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the minister for his explanation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As hon. members know, the deputy of the governor general is to arrive at half past five to give assent to such bills as have passed both houses. I suggest in view of this fact that the committee rise, report progress on this bill and ask leave to sit again later to-day in order to enable us to take up some supplementary estimates which relate to the last fiscal year just ended. It would be embarrassing to some members of the public service if they were not passed in time to be assented to before parliament adjourns for the Easter recess. I hope it will be possible to dispose of them this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the committee rises, the minister might look at section 2. He has provided that the act shall be administered by the Minister of Labour, but there is nothing

Supply-House of Commons
to show that "minister" means the Minister of Labour. In section 2 the word "minister" is used, and since there is no definition in a previous section giving the meaning of
minister," it is obvious that there is nothing to indicate that the word "minister" has reference to the Minister of Labour.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I shall be glad to
accept that.
Progress reported.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Legislation-House of Commons-
Clerical assistance, etc.-further amount required, $33,343.62.
Contingencies - further amount required, $5,507.17.
Sergeant-at-Arms-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
To provide for the transfer of 6. Champagne, doorkeeper of the Prime Minister's office, Department of External Affairs to the staff of the sergeant-at-arms, House of Commons, as a confidential messenger, to the leader of the opposition, from the 23rd October, 1935, at $1,440 with annual increases of $60 on October 1st of each year to a maximum salary of $1,620 $603.10.	'
Richard Bedford Bennett: May we have some information as to the causes of increases for clerical assistance and the sergeant-at-arms?
Mr, DUNNING: The main estimates last year provided S117,000 odd for clerical and stenographic assistance; the additional amount stated to be required for the remainder of the year is $33,000. Contingencies in the main estimates were $44,000, and in the supple-mentaries $11,000. In these supplementaries $5,507 is asked for, the main item in which is to provide for the purchase of twenty-seven typewriters to replace obsolete and worn out machines. The other items are quite incidental. For the department of the sergeant-at-arms the main estimates of last year provided $207,000. The sum here required is $9,250, made up of additional amounts required for salaries, messenger and protective service, $8,750, and for charwomen, $500. That is the detail of the vote as handed to me from the clerk of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To-day a matter was
brought to my attention with regard to one of the messengers who was appointed in 1931. He is a returned man. His wife died to-day. He has five children. In the early part of this year he was dismissed, for no reason so
far as he knows. It is true that he is very poor; he had difficulty in meeting all his obligations, because of the illness in his family. I suppose that one cannot do more than merely direct attention to these facts, that he is a returned man with five children, that his wife died this morning, and that he had been employed here since 1931. I came across him to-day weeping, as any man might do who had experienced difficulties such as he has had to meet. I was hopeful that something might have been done, because it is a case to which I alluded some days ago. Personally I do not know the man, beyond seeing him; I never knew who he was, aside from that.
I suppose this includes the salaries of the messengers in connection with the office of the sergeant-at-arms.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After hearing what my right hon. friend has just said with reference to the particular person mentioned, I am sure that his honour the Speaker will be glad to take the matter under review, and if it is possible to meet so necessitous a case, I feel that the house will support him in so doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is fair.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to Capital-
Welland Ship Canal-to provide for a grant, upon the authority of the governor in council, to P. Lyall and Sons Construction Company' Limited, in liquidation, in full settlement of all claims against His Majesty relating to the payment of wages to persons employed in the execution of the work covered by contract No. 24660, dated June 27, 1922, entered into between P. Lyall and Sons Construction Company, Limited, and His Majesty for the completion of the construction of sections Nos. 3 and 4 of the Welland ship canal, including locks Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and guard gate, $173,521.24.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister give an explanation, of this?


Mr. HOWE:: This is settlement of a claim that has been in dispute and outstandingfor many years. It arose from a contract entered into by the government with the Lyall Construction Company in the spring of 1922. In 1923 wages were rising, and the minister of labour of that day ordered a general increase in wages applying to the Lyall contract, and also changed to some extent the classifications of labour. The work was finished, I believe, in 1925, and a claim was entered with the government in the amount of about $400,000. The government, I think, admitted that something should be done, and an effort was made to arrive at a settlement. In 1925
Supply-Canals-W elland

the claim was referred to an arbitrator, Mr. Justice Maclean, of the exchequer court, Judge Maclean found that there was a just claim for about $266,000. Nothing was done in the matter until, I think, the late government came to office, when there was considerable negotiation and a further adjustment was made by which the liquidators, the estate having then passed into liquidation, agreed to accept sixty-five per cent of the Maclean finding in full settlement. The correspondence on the file is definite that a commitment was made to that extent. This claim, being outstanding, has prevented the liquidation of the estate, and a great deal of pressure has been exerted to have the matter settled. This government considers that this is a debt of which, in fairness to the creditors of the estate, settlement should be made at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The debt is assigned to one creditor, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not aware as to that. The claim is made by the liquidators of the Lyall estate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think if the minister will look at the file he will see that that is so. My point in speaking to the matter was that it had been before the late government for a period of five years. It is not necessary to refer to the justice of the claim, because I think that is admitted by everybody, and it is probable that the non-payment of it at the time the obligation was incurred through the change of classifications resulted in the firm going into liquidation. But why should not all be treated in the same way? That is what bothered the late government.


Mr. DUNNING:: And the previous government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I think the Minister of Finance is right in saying, the previous one. But it must be wrong to say that we will pay one and not the others. There were many contractors on that job, and I could never bring myself, while I had the responsibility, to put in the estimates a sum to pay one unless I paid them all. I cannot see how you can justify it. That is my difficulty. Those who had claims quite as meritorious pressed me for payment, and I am bound to say I had no answer to give them; I know of no answer to give them. Here are three contractors side by side. One has contract A, another contract B, a third contract C. A, B and C entered upon their work in the same year and about the same time of year. They had different classifications, of course, depending upon the kinds of the materials with which

they had to deal and the amount that would be payable to them, but it was on the same public work, namely the construction of the Welland canal. The then minister arbitrarily increased the rate of pay, and he did modify to some extent, the minister now says, the classifications of casual labour. That increased the cost of the undertaking to the persons who had tendered on the basis of existing fair rates of pay as indicated by the labour department. The government which is now here, in its previous term of office, properly referred: the matter to an arbitrator for the purpose of seeing whether or not there were indications that the cost of the undertaking had been increased by reason of the changed wage conditions under which the work was carried on. The arbitrator found less than was contended for by the contractors but more than the government felt reasonably should be paid, because they were of the opinion-and I am bound to say I think properly so-that in all contracts one of the risks to be undertaken is that of fluctuations in rates of pay. But when the fluctuation is not the ordinary movement of supply and demand in the labour market, if I may use that term, but rather a condition brought about by the action of the Minister of Labour, the situation is different. The liquidator said he was willing to accept sixty-five per cent of the amount awarded by the arbitrator, and I think during the time this government was in power previously I said I thought the case was unanswerable. I still think so.
I have been dealing with A, but B and C were other contractors who were subject to exactly the same conditions and who suffered similar financial losses, though not to the same extent, varying of course with the amount of their contracts. That is my difficulty, and the point I desire to make; should they not be paid? I do not even remember their names, but I do recall that there were three large contractors. I may be wrong as to the number, because it is a long time since I looked at the file, but I do suggest to the minister that in fairness to everyone, if you are going to pay one contractor you should pay them all. That is my position, and I urge it very strongly. Here the government have selected just one contractor and have said, "We are going to pay the liquidator," and that contractor has always said that if he had not been forced to do what he did, he would not have had to assign at all. The losses that were encountered in connection with this very undertaking were responsible for those financial difficulties. Leaving that out of the question, however, there are others

Su-p-ply-Canals-Welland
who have pressed their claims very strongly, and I think the government should say definitely that it is proposed to treat them all alike; for I see no reason which would justify treating one in one way and another in another way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The first question that occurred to me when this matter was brought forward was whether we should treat this claim by itself or whether it would prejudicially affect these other matters. I looked into the question very carefully. I find that a good many other claims arising out of the Welland canal have been settled; the contractors have accepted cheques in full and final settlement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those were for extras, largely, and classifications and so on.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, largely, but one or two claims outstanding are for the adjustment of wages. In those cases the circumstances are quite different; the contracts were undertaken by different parties. In one instance there was a drop in labour prices almost immediately after the contract was signed, and after taking that into account nothing is owing the contractor because of variations in wage Tates. I have a report from my chief engineer, who made a very careful analysis of the matter, and he has stated that this action will not be prejudicial to any other claim. In other words, by accepting this as a just basis for settlement we are not bound to make similar payments in connection with other claims now before us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The crown is never bound by precedents; that is one of the glories of representing the crown. But is it right and proper that we should pass this estimate for the payment of $173,000 to the liquidator of this firm? The hon. gentleman says there are one or two other claims. I must confess that I do not remember the number, but I do remember that there were others. It has been years since the matter was presented to the former government, but I took the position then that if we were in a financial position to do so wre would have to deal with them all. I so advised the liquidator at that time, agreeing that if we were ever in a financial position to pay one claim we could not, I thought, avoid paying the others also. In this case the government, in my opinion quite properly, said, "We cannot accept the finding of the arbitrator, which has not taken into consideration the normal fluctuations of wages; we are going to apply to this award the principles as to fluctuations which are apparent from a perusal of the pay lists of the other contractors on that particular work."
In doing so it was agreed that sixty-five per cent of the award would be a reasonable amount to pay to meet these fluctuations, after giving credit for what you might call normal fluctuations.
I do say, sir, that it hardly seems fair to ask this parliament to pass an estimate settling a claim made by one contractor, when my memory was that there were three other similar claims. I may be wrong as to that; I did not charge my memory with a matter of that kind, and it has been years since I looked at the file. These claims were pressed very strongly upon the Minister of Finance of that time, who is also the present Minister of Finance, and I know that at one time the government contemplated putting an item in the estimates of 1929 or 1930.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall the circumstance because some discussion took place about it. We must remember that this matter is fourteen years old, and if my memory serves me rightly this sum represents the exact amount without any provision for interest. The crown has had the benefit of all this, and I do suggest to the minister that it would be proper for him to say that the government will deal with the other claims on the same equitable basis, which will give the government a chance to deal with the question of normal fluctuations in the very few cases that remain to be dealt with.
When the minister says there have been settlements of these matters, what he refers to, of course, is the settlement that always takes place on the completion of a contract, with respect to extras, varying classifications, and so on. In every case the engineers give certificates recommending the settlement to be made. I can recall many orders in council having been signed dealing with settlements, but in every instance they were settlements certified by the engineer in charge as being fair and reasonable. Thus they have nothing to do with this particular case. Of course the chief engineer very properly says that the payment of this claim will not prejudice the government in dealing with the other claims, but here the government selects one claim out of four and pays it, leaving the others with no settlement. While we cannot amend this estimate I think if the minister made the statement, as I think he should, that the government will deal with all these claims on the same equitable basis, that would dispose of the whole matter and get it out of the way. I cannot bring myself to believe that we are being honest with contractors when we treat one in one way and another in another, and I do urge that position upon the minister.
193S
Supply-Canals-Welland


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister said there had been a reference to an arbitrator, Mr. Justice Maclean, and that the arbitrator had reported that in his opinion a certain amount should be paid, which amount was much larger than this estimate. I assume that there was no appeal from the finding of the arbitrator, but I should like to ask the minister if any of these other claims that are now under discussion were also referred to an arbitrator. Did the reference include all these claims or just this one?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know that it was a formal arbitration; I think Mr. Justice Maclean was asked to act as a sort of referee, and to decide what in his opinion was fair. I think this was the only case treated in that way. I may say that when I referred to a settlement I had in mind the case where a contractor signs a receipt in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of a certain contract. I think a good many claims were disposed of on that basis, and I do not think we can reopen them. I have a report before me in connection with one claim that has been made, and after analyzing it on the basis of this payment we find that there is nothing due arising out of wage fluctuations, because in that particular case the decisions of the government lowering wages offset decisions of the government raising wages, so in that claim there is nothing due.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The raising and lowering of wages had that effect with respect to the same contractor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: During the currency of a particular contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I say, I cannot possibly charge my mind with the details, but I think there were at least two other cases that were pressed upon us, and we did not deal with them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We feel that as a commitment was made-I have the right hon. gentleman's own letter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: A commitment having been made, we think it is proper to pay it at this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about a commitment having been made for it was made by our predecessors as well. The difficulty was, could we deal with it in fairness? Adjustments had been made with sub-

contractors and a loss was taken. That was so in this particular case, and this amount, I take it, represents compensation for that loss. My memory may not be accurate after so many years, but I am certain that at least two other cases were urged upon us in which it was contended that if we applied the principle with respect to the one, we should do so with respect to the other. When the then Minister of Public Works brought the matter to my attention and asked what we should do, there was no question about liability; I had no doubt about it then and I have none yet, because the previous administration had taken all the steps necessary to fix that, but why we should differentiate between this case and others I did not see and do not yet see. But if the others are being disposed of by some other method I am quite content. If the minister says that between now and the time of the supplementary estimates he will take these matters up and have them disposed of to the satisfaction of those concerned, I am content. I cannot now even remember the names, but I remember that pressure was brought to bear to have those concerned all treated alike, and I feel that is a fair argument to be presented to the government in cases of this kind.
There is just one other point. The minister said that they have given a discharge. Of course, they were compelled to sign a release to get their final estimates, and as a matter of fact these people signed a release. The claim was on the equitable side, an appeal to the inviolable justice of the crown. I remember Mr. Shaughnessy of the Canadian Pacific saying that he never desired contractors to lose money if they had actually done the work. The crown must act on some general principle of justice, and I think the minister should give some undertaking that all these cases will be treated in the same manner. Of course, the method of applying the principle will be in the minister's own discretion.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can say that if any contractor can make out as good a case as the contractor has done in this instance, we shall be prepared to treat it in the same manner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is fair.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I know a good deal about the settlement in connection with the Welland ship canal contract as the work happens to be in the constituency I represent. I think the Minister of Railways and Canals is to be commended for bringing the matter in part at least to a satisfactory conclusion.

Supply-Miscellaneous
I think both the present government and the previous government have given a great deal of consideration to this question, and I believe that the present minister has reached in part a fairly satisfactory conclusion. I want to assure him that if he will go carefully into one or two other contracts which were signed on the same basis as that of the Lyall Construction Company he will discover that the same principle of compensation should apply to them. I just want to urge upon the minister, as the leader of the opposition has done, to be fair in every respect. There are one or two smaller cases of the same kind, and if a presentation is made to the minister as has been done in this case I feel satisfied that he will make a fair and equitable adjustment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Deficit of Canadian National Railways
[Stage Direction]
Amount required to provide for payment to the Canadian National Railways Company of the net income deficit including profit and loss, incurred by the system during the year 1935 as certified to by the auditors in the annual report of the company for the year 1935, but exclusive of all non-cash items, including interest on dominion government advances, as further certified to by the auditors and approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals; this payment to be applied in reduction of accountable advances made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund under authority of the Canadian National Railways Financing Act, 1935:
Canadian National Railways, excluding eastern lines, $41,795,757.24.
Eastern lines, excluding Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $5,265,373.20.
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $360,334.36.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that these matters have been referred to the select committee that is going to deal with the whole situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: Excluding the non-cash items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. What is included in that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The railroad charges, for instance, some $5,000,000 a year for the retirement of rolling stock, and there are a few other charges of that sort.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this all the money we shall be called upon to pay with respect to the 1935 operations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is about $10,000,000 of capital expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean, outside capital expenditure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, this is all outside capital expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The passing of this item, of course, is without prejudice to the inquiry. There is nothing we can do but pass the item because it is now three months after the end of the calendar year and the matter must be dealt with. But in passing the item we are not prejudicing our position to inquire into the loss of the Prince Edward Island ferry, for instance, and matters of that sort.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ocean and river service-miscellaneous and unforeseen-further amount required, $13,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the details of this?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are expenses incurred in a lawsuit with the Coughlan interests at Vancouver. Action was taken against the government and this is to cover the legal expenses in excess of the appropriation we had last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was judgment given in that case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Judgment has not yet been handed down.


Grote Stirling: Is that the China subsidy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a claim going back to the war days when they built some ships.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This $13,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the legal costs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works chargeable to capital-Marine department-River St. Lawrence ship channel dredging-(A) to provide for contract dredging-further amount required, $511,401.76.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This is for dredging work
that was carried on last year in excess of the appropriation. After taking over the department I stopped the dredging as soon as I found that the appropriation had been overrun, but $500,000 had already been expended in excess of the appropriation, and I think in the previous year the amount overexpended was $1,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a provision in the contract-I recall it very well because when we were in office we met with the same situation, to the effect that the contractors, if they wish to take advantage of favourable weather conditions, may proceed with the dredging and do as much as they can, but
Supply-Miscellaneous

they have to take the risk of waiting for their money. It was explained to us that, owing to favourable conditions, it was not economical to stop the dredging at a particular season of the year, and that to postpone the dredging would make it more expensive. That is the explanation of that $1,000,000 the minister mentioned. I do not know whether this was one of the firms or not. As a matter of fact the contract was a contract to do the work, not to lift so many yards of material from the bed of the river. The work was all done down to the Quebec bridge, on the main river St. Lawrence, and in the entrance out to sea the dredging was still further completed. But the only pay the contractors could get was for what was completed in a particular year. This is to pay for the balance of the year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the maintenance and repair of retaining dams in the St. Lawrence river 

further amount required, $61,360.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the explanation of this vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a contract with the
Dufresne Construction Company for maintenance of a submerged weir in the river. I believe we have stopped the work forever. It seems to pile up and subside every year, and we believe that if we let it subside we could do without it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was backed by a
report of several eminent engineers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Labour-Annuities Act, further amount required, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We did desire to discuss
this item at length, but in view of what has been said I shall waive my right. However, this annuities matter requires a great deal of consideration. If I may be permitted to mention the name of the other chamber, I would say that the senate is now investigating the matter. In not going into it this afternoon I assume opportunity will be given for full discussion on the main estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Printing and Stationery-codifying, printing and binding, 1,000 copies of the revised edition of the Criminal Code 1927, French, $3,915.13.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suppose the supply
must have run out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there was an error
in the printing of the French version, and it had to be reprinted.


Mr. RINFRET:: There was an order to
reprint passed by the former government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health - Health branch-marine hospitals, including burial expenses of destitute deceased mariners and grants to institutions assisting sailors-further amount required, $20,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the explanation?


Mr. POWER:: It is simply an underestimation. I believe the committee is familiar with the sick mariners' fund. The moneys in the fund are contributed by vessels, chiefly larger ones, touching at Canadian ports. To a great extent the money is expended on fishermen along the coasts. Last year, owing to an increase in the activities of fishermen, there was an increase in the number of sick fishermen, and we had to find more money. The sick mariners' fund has always contributed far more to the consolidated revenue fund than it has withdrawn. There is still a credit in favour of that fund. In the present instance the amount required was underestimated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the vote to
which this is supplementary?


Charles Gavan Power: It was S163.000. I have
the amounts expended during the past few years, and for the information of hon. members I shall place them on Hansard. In
1931-	32 the expenditure was $205,000; in
1932-	33, $158,000; in 1933-34, $135,000; in
1934-	35, $152,000; and for the ten months in
1935-	36, it was $142,000. In the present instance we are asking for $20,000 more, owing to the increased activity among fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it the minister's intention to introduce at the present session legislation dealing with the situation which I brought to his attention and which concerns a disabled seaman? There was some trouble getting the proper treatment for him in hospital, as there are in Caanda only two hospitals in which he could be so treated- probably only one. The situation was that he should have been taken to Halifax, and as he happened to be in British Columbia this involved an extensive undertaking.


Charles Gavan Power: I remember the anomaly
in the act pointed out by the hon. member. It seemed absurd that a mariner shipwrecked on the Pacific coast, in order to receive the benefits of treatment under the sick mariners' fund should have to be transported to Lunenburg. However, those are the regulations, and that is the law. My hon. friend may reply that the law is wrong, but I must say that it stands that way at the

Supply-M iscellaneous
present time. I believe the Canada Shipping Act applies. This is more or less of an international matter, and so far as I am concerned I believe the department would find it difficult to interfere, particularly because the fishermen who benefit to a great extent do not contribute heavily. Contributions are made by the larger vessels.


Alan Webster Neill: Probably the Minister of
Marine would consider the matter, if it comes under the Canada Shipping Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know nothing about it,
but I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. KINLEY:: The real difficulty, as I
see it, is that under the old shipping act there was no provision for transferring a fisherman at sea. He could not be transferred to a vessel coming to port. Sometimes that is a necessary procedure. Under the Merchant Shipping Act that man cannot be taken to the marine hospital. Under the new shipping act, which has not yet been proclaimed, I notice that provision is looked after. We do not wish to have the new shipping act proclaimed, because we suggest that it is most obnoxious legislation and not in the interests of fishermen or seamen, but at the same time if in some way the department could invoke that section, a saving to the department and to the fishermen would be effected. I commend that suggestion to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs 

 Geneva, salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer-further amount required, $2,200.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This amount
is required for cable communications concerning issues before the League of Nations. There was in the last year a considerable increase in communications.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits resulting from the operations of the Jacques Cartier bridge-further amount required, $52,000.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a deficiency appropriation for operations in connection with the Montreal bridge. It arises chiefly out of the fact that a large painting contract, for which provision had not been made, was gone on with last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not include
payment of a sum due on the guaranteed bonds. Provision has already been made for that in the main estimates?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is in addition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The painting would cost
more than 852,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And this is the balance
of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, this is the balance of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses in connection with the departure of the governor general, and the reception and installation of his successor, including allowance for extra work and overtime - further amount required, $3,066.76.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Were governor general's
warrants issued in connection with these?


Charles Avery Dunning: The accounts have not
been paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan to Three Rivers harbour commissioners with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in liquidation of bank loans obtained by the said commissioners for capital expenditures, $444,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There are five items, of which this is the first and about which I should like to say a few words. If we are to discharge the duty for which we are paid I suppose we should discuss them at considerable length. However, if the minister with the limited time at his disposal is to get his bill through committee of ways and means, and have it sent to the senate, obviously there is no time for such discussion. If it is understood that these matters may be considered when we are dealing with the harbours bill, I shall waive any claim we have to discuss them now. Some of them are important.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them are items about which all of us have very strong opinions. However, a condition and not a theory having had to be faced, these expenditures have gone on, and I gather from what the minister's estimates indicate, he proposes to liquidate all of these expenditures as of December 31, 1935. I think it might be desirable when the harbours bill is before the house and we are discussing the various harbour commissions that we should deal with these matters. If that can be done I shall not take up any time discussing them now.
Interim Supply


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that these particular items are all covered by orders in council. I was going to give the references for them, but I shall be glad to reserve that for the future discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for payment to Chicoutimi harbour commissioners to be applied in liquidation of bank loans outstanding at December 31, 1935, together with interest thereon, and to provide for payment of certain overdue accounts, $44,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This does not deal with the Saint John situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is still open?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Still open.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Chargeable to collection of revenue-Hudson Bay railway-additional amount in excess of the sum of $226,000 already appropriated, required to provide for difference between expenditures for operation and maintenance and the revenues accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1936, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a case in which the loss was underestimated by $20,000?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936, the sum of $51,167,229.11 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending March 31, 1936.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Charles Avery Dunning: By leave of the house, I move that the bill be now read a second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 19, to assist in the relief of unemployment, the promoting of agricultural settlement and rehabilitation, and in the development, conservation and improvement of certain natural and other resources- Mr. Rogers-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN Mr. Johnston, (Lake Centre): When the committee rose we were discussing section 3.
Norman McLeod Rogers: The leader of the opposition had made a suggestion; I wonder whether he would repeat it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed that section 2 provides that the act shall be administered by the Minister of Labour.. There is no interpretation section, and the word "minister," therefore, is not given a meaning, though in subsequent sections reference is made to the minister. To remove any difficulties in that regard it would be necessary to say that the act shall be administered by the Minister of Labour and that whenever used the word "minister" means "Minister of Labour." That is the usual, provision in all statutes of this kind except where, as in some cases, it is provided that the act shall be administered by a minister designated by the governor in council. Here we are making the designation in parliament and it is desirable to make the provision I suggest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend wish to have the committee return to section 2?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am merely pointing this out; I am not offering any amendments to government legislation, because if I have any suggestion to offer which is of value it is not desirable that I should move it. I therefore simply suggest that if this statute is to have value, "minister" must be defined as meaning "Minister of Labour," and that can be done in appropriate words. I am only-suggesting that this is necessary somewhere.

Unemployment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We had better continue with the other sections and when we come to the end we might with the consent of the house return to section two and make the suggested amendment.


Grote Stirling: With regard to subsection 2, it appears to me that the Minister of Labour is approaching in a very gingerly manner the question as to who shall be put to work on these undertakings. The subsection reads:
... so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief.
I do not know why the government considers it necessary to hedge it round with so many phrases. Perhaps it would be of assistance to the committee if the minister would give us some explanation of the government's plans. He referred a month and a half ago to an arrangement that was under way between the government and the two transportation companies. I think references have also been made to other works of a similar kind. Would the minister tell us how these arrangements are proceeding and to what extent he expects that it will be possible to transfer men from the present relief camps to these work camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Some days ago, in answer
to a question put by an hon. member from Vancouver, I stated that the terms of the agreement between the Department of Railways and the railway companies were being discussed. I am not in a position to go further than that at this time. As a matter of fact it will be quite obvious to hon. members that that agreement between the Department of Railways and the railway companies will have to come under the provisions of this measure when finally passed, the relief act of 1935 having expired on March 31. The house is already aware that under the proposed arrangement some ten thousand men now in relief camps will be taken by the railways and used on deferred maintenance work during the summer and autumn months. In the past there has always been a reduction of the camp population during the spring and summer months. The latest figures suggest that such a reduction has taken place this year, though not by any means to the same extent as during the past summer, that being due without question, I believe, to the larger wage allowance which has been in operation since the first of March, and also to the fact that it 'has been announced that the relief camps themselves will be closed by the first of July. In due
course we shall be confronted with the arrangements that will be made during the winter months in connection with single homeless men. I prefer to cross bridges when I come to them; but there is this much to be said, that under the new relief camp policy these men, whether they go from the camps to the railways or immediately from the relief camps elsewhere, will at least have some stake for their reestablishment.


Grote Stirling: Deferred pay.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I am speaking now
of those who will be working on projects in the relief camps; and those who will work on deferred maintenance on the railways during the summer will have accumulated enough to carry them through _ the winter. Whether they will do so or not is, of course, beyond our control.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I wish to ask two
questions. In the first place, what steps are being taken to safeguard the regular maintenance of way men? Will these newcomers compete with them in any way. The other question is this: Are any steps being taken by the department to force men out of the camps at the present time-I have had complaints to that effect-that is, to get rid of them as quickly as possible on almost any pretext?


Norman McLeod Rogers: To answer the questions in order, in the first place it was understood as between the dominion government and tha railways that the normal maintenance work which would have been undertaken by the railways in any event in accordance with their existing budgets would be continued during this summer. That is to say, the normal maintenance work is not interfered with in the slightest degree under this proposed arrangement with the railway companies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In that connection would the lower wages paid the relief men tend to substitute relief men for the men normally engaged in that work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is no reason to think that will be the case. A representative of the Department of Labour has been conferring with representatives of the railway companies and we are taking every reasonable precaution to see that proper conditions will be established for these men who will go from the relief camps to the railways for this extra gang work. As regards the second question, I think I can assure my hon. friend that there has been no policy of forcing men out of the relief camps since the first of March. It was indicated very clearly that, particularly in
Unemployment

view of the larger wage allowance, men who are physically able to work must work if required to do so; otherwise they will be dismissed. But the figures do not suggest that there have been very many dismissals for that cause.


Mr. REID:: Has the minister any information as to the number of men who are leaving the camps of their own accord rather than go to this work? According to press dispatches a large number of men are beginning to leave the camps rather than take advantage of the offer of work. Has the minister any information in that regard?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the figures before me, but, as I intimated a moment ago, at this season of the year there has always been a reduction in the population of the camps. My hon. friend is aware of that. That reduction of the camp population has been less this year than in previous years. At the same time I confess to having been surprised to observe the number that have left the camps since March 1. I have no doubt that the very fact that spring was approaching accounts to some extent for that movement. Another reason would lie in the fact that not a few sons of farmers who have experienced difficult times during recent years have gone into relief camps during the winter months and have returned to their homes during the summer months. It is impossible without further information to explain completely the movement out of the camps at this time. I should say that it is less than, normal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What will be done with the older men, who form considerable numbers in some of the camps, and who are really not fitted for either farm work or construction work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree with my hon. friend that that presents a special problem. It is one that we shall have to discuss with the provincial governments. As a matter of fact you find the largest number of these older men in British Columbia, but there is by no means any certainty that they belong to that province or could establish a domicile there at the present time.


Grote Stirling: If we are dealing with section 3 as a whole, I want to draw the attention of the minister to the words "a dominion engineer" on the eighth line. "A dominion engineer," I think, means just nothing. "Dominion land surveyer" definitely means something, but there is no such thing as a dominion engineer. The minister may not think this a matter of great import,, but I

would ask my fellow-craftsman the Minister of Railways whether he knows what "a dominion engineer" is. "An engineer in the employ of the dominion government" would mean something definite.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is the intention. That is to say, the section is designed to provide that all contracts entered into shall be approved by the minister and the work supervised by an engineer of the dominion government. Perhaps that change could be made. I do not think I am allowed to-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, you are.


John Ritchie MacNicol: By a resident engineer or an inspecting engineer?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is subsection 3 of section 3.


Charles Gavan Power: moved:
That subsection 3 of section 3 in the eighth line thereof on page 2 be amended by striking out the words "a dominion engineer" and substituting therefor the words "an engineer in the service of the dominion government."


John Ritchie MacNicol: With reference to the amendment, that then would permit the employment of any local engineer in the vicinity where works may be carried on?


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is nothing to prevent the employment of inspectors locally to supervise construction works to which the dominion government has contributed. As a matter of fact that has been the case in the construction of various sections of the trans-Canada highway, which has been carried on in cooperation with the provinces. This is intended to provide rather that with respect to the approval of contracts entered into by the provinces with construction firms, the interests of the dominion shall be safeguarded by an engineer in the service of the dominion government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the provinces may
also have an engineer in their service on the same work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, quite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What really is meant
by works "under provincial jurisdiction"? Subsection 3 of section 3 reads as follows:
Where any such work or undertaking is under provincial jurisdiction, all contracts entered into with respect thereto shall be approved by the minister and the work thereunder supervised by an engineer in the service of the dominion government.
That imposes a condition that I cannot assume the minister has in mind, because there surely must be contracts which a province might desire to make without reference to the dominion; or, why should they super-


S, 1936
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment
vise a purely provincial work, unless it is meant that in every case in which money of the government of Canada is being expended this power should be exercised? But as the subsection reads, it certainly does not convey just that shade of meaning which is essential. As it reads it would give power, which would be a wholly invalid exercise of legislation, that a representative of the dominion should supervise purely provincial work.
Norman McLeod Rogers: Unquestionably the purpose of the subsection is to provide for such supervision in relation only to contracts for work to which the dominion government has contributed. I think that is made clear by reading the entire section:
The governor in council may out of moneys appropriated by parliament authorize the execution of such works-as the governor in council may determine.
Then it speaks of carrying on works in conjunction with the provinces. Highways are under provincial jurisdiction, and that has been the direction in which relief works have been carried out in conjunction with the provinces in past years. I am not suggesting that relief works have been confined wholly to highways, but certainly larger expenditures have been made in that direction than in any other.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Another example of
work that might be carried on between the provinces and the dominion, would be any kind of reforestation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Should not some words
be inserted after the word "jurisdiction," then? Is the minister satisfied that this wording covers exactly the intention of the government? I would suggest that after the word "jurisdiction" be added "and to which the dominion government is contributing."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think there is
any doubt as to what the minister desires to say. What I am pointing out is that I think he says much more than he intends to say. I think, as the subsection reads, he is subjecting to federal supervision contracts of a purely provincial character and the exercise of the legislative power would be involved, unless it were implied as a condition to any grant that is made, which I have always felt is wholly within the power of this parliament to do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the language does not
cover it I shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Subsection 2 of this
section is very interesting indeed. It reads:
In the execution of any such work or undertaking provision shall be made, so far as it may be in the opinion of the governor in council practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to do so, for the employment of persons who being available and competent are necessarily and properly in receipt of relief in the province in which such work or undertaking is to be performed.
I wonder how the minister thinks he is going to carry that out. I remember that when we had a public works construction act the hon. member for Lambton West was very specific and definite in some suggestions he had to make. I think he had eight or ten different headings; he had returned soldiers, married men with dependents, married men without dependents, residents of the particular municipality in which the work was to be carried on, and so on. I wonder if he would make some of those suggestions now in order to make this bill a little more specific and definite. Really this is a desirable provision, but it seems to me that it is practically incapable of any real, definite application. I should like to know how the minister thinks he can carry that out, and through what agencies he hopes to succeed in carrying it out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not going to suggest to my 'hon. friend that I have a complete answer to his question now; no doubt I shall learn something from experience. Perhaps he will agree with this, however, that it is highly desirable that where we are contributing to relief works we should, so far as possible, employ ablebodied persons who are on relief. In the agreements with the provinces with respect to the construction of the trans-Canada highway, for example, there are certain provisions which do require that a quota of the employees on such work shall be taken through the employment offices. As I recall it there is no specific requirement that they shall have been previously on relief, but I am not at all sure that the time has not come to link up our relief works more definitely with our relief rolls. I may say also to my hon. friend that it has been brought to my attention that certain contracts touching sections of highway in different parts of Canada, to which the dominion government has contributed, have been carried out in such a way as to suggest very strongly that there has been too little regard for their effect upon relief rolls, either in the particular district or in the entire province. I would go at least as far as to say that the existing conditions have not been wholly satisfactory, and I think it highly desirable that in work-
Unemployment

ing out agreements we should profit by that experience and see that, as far as possible, relief works shall tend at the same time to reduce the tax burden of relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the minister has made it clear that he appreciates the difficulty, and let me tell him from experience that it is very real. The minister speaks about works. Assume that a contract is given for the construction of a section of the highway, and you seek to impose upon that contractor the fulfilment of the provisions of this section. It is simply unworkable in a case where you have given a man a contract as the result of an advertisement or calling for tenders. He puts in the lowest tender, and then you come along and seek to impose these terms upon him. Perhaps it might be done if the work is carried on through some agency, by a municipality or a province, but if the work is in the hands of a contractor I think you will find great difficulty in carrying out the provisions of this section.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I agree that it would require very careful inspection, and also that we are not entitled to expect contractors to retain men who are incompetent, simply because they have been on relief. I agree with all that, but I am also convinced that we can make some progress in that direction. At least we must seek to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My observation in one particular locality has been that by confining your activities to the appointment of men on relief you place on relief those who would like to work and who are deprived of the opportunity of doing so. For instance, a large number of men would like to work on a highway, and they have reached the point where if they do not get work they will have to go on relief. If you confine your activities to those on relief, I repeat, those not now on relief will be compelled to go on relief. That I know to be the case in one locality in particular to which my attention has been directed. That is one point which I think the minister should keep in mind.
The second point I desire to make is purely a technical one, and I offer these suggestions- despite the fact that it is not regarded as a desirable profession-because at one time I did practise my profession of law. The Minister of Finance had something to say about that the other evening. I now desire to point out, however, that the word "dominion" has no place at all, as far as I can see, in the Interpretation Act. I felt that I might be in error, so I sent for the Interpretation Act.

The statute now before us is predicated upon the use of the word "dominion" and our Interpretation Act uses the word "Canada" instead of "dominion." I can only point out to the minister that, while I take it that he is not responsible for the drafting of this bill, nevertheless we see that word "dominion" frequently used. I observe that the word is used in the preamble itself:
Whereas it is in the national interest that the dominion should cooperate ...
Under the Interpretation Act there is nothing to indicate that the word "dominion" means the Dominion of Canada. I mention that because it does seem to me that there must be a rearrangement of some of these sections. For instance, in section 3 the words "the general interests of Canada" make correct use of the word, but to use the words "the general interests of the dominion" would not be correct, as far as I can see at present.


Charles Gavan Power: May I suggest, since there is some question as to the drafting of this section, that perhaps we had better allow it to stand, because there are two or three places where I think the phraseology might be changed with great benefit.
Section stands.
On section 4-Agreements with provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe there is an
amendment to be proposed to this section.


Mr. GARDINER:: I move that subsection 1 of section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out all the words after the word "may" in line 17 of page 2, to the end of the sentence in line 21, and substituting therefor the following words:
... by way of loan or advance out of the consolidated revenue fund, or by way of guarantee, grant financial assistance to any province to enable the province to provide for any expenditures for direct relief or for _ relief measures, up to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate the total amount which may be otherwise payable to such province under any agreement entered into under the authority of this act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be observed at once, Mr. Chairman, that the effect of this amendment is to ask parliament to grant a blank cheque to deal with these problems, except that the amount of the blank cheque is limited but not rigidly fixed. When I recall what I listened to during four years from the now leader of the government and his allies regarding blank cheques, I find it a little difficult to - understand how section 4 could ever find a place in a bill submitted to parliament by the Liberal party. I cannot

The Royal Assent
add anything to what was said in that regard by my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Stirling) except to point out this, that as it now is proposed to amend this section the governor in council is to draw on the consolidated fund by way of loan or advance, "or by way of guarantee, grant financial assistance to any province to enable the province to provide for any expenditures for direct relief or for relief measures, up to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate the total amount which may be otherwise payable to such province." I must say I think that is a piece of clumsy draftsmanship, and I do not say it offensively. There is an agreement by which the province is to secure a grant for relief purposes, direct and indirect, of S5,000,000, of which sum the province is to find half, or, for the sake of argument we will say 82,000,000. Under this provision the governor in council may, instead of asking the province to find the money, lend them the money or guarantee the money. In other words, the dominion will finance the whole cost of the undertaking, (a) by paying its proportion of the cost under the agreement, and (b) by either lending or guaranteeing the balance that may be necessary to enable the province to discharge its obligation under the terms of the agreement. The language means that or nothing. It was to just such provisions as these that such strong exception was taken. The effect of it is to enable the government through the governor in council to make agreements with the provinces for any expenditures that may be thought desirable, without limitation, and to provide that the province shall for the sake of the agreement discharge a certain portion of the liability thereunder; and then under this section the governor in council can go further, namely, lend or advance money out of the eoueMV. dated revenue fund, or guarantee it-in otner words, pay the piper by recourse to a cheque upon the consolidated revenue fund.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is a limitation, of course.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but the only limitation is the limitation of the amount involved in the agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read subsection 2 of section 4.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that. I am going to inquire what subsection 2 means in that regard. It says:
No agreement entered into under the
provisions of this section shall be binding upon the dominion until approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
Does that mean that after the house rises and the government enters into an agreement, having regard to the recommendations made by the commission of yesterday-it will be yesterday, too-the house, no longer in session, will be asked to give its approval to the agreement? How can the house no longer in session give its approval? When I heard the Prime Minister read this subsection again this afternoon I could not understand it. Parliament acts in two ways. In every case, as Redlich says, there must be a submission to it of a question by the Speaker from the chair. A resolution of this House of Commons has no binding value upon anybody or anything, and a resolution of this House of Commons and of the Senate has no binding value. There must be the consent of the commons and the senate and the crown in order to complete the legislation that may be required. Remember that unless this house does aprove. it is not binding upon Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right hon. friend permit me?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have just learned that the Senate has sent back certain bills which are required to be reported to this house, and I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr Speaker, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in .the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend The Dominion Franchise .Vet.
An Act to repeal The Economic Council of Canada Act, 1935.
An Act to provide for the deduction from compensation in the Public Service.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act (Special Tax).
An Act respecting a certain Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the Toronto Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
An Act to assist the Province of Saskatchewan in financing the cost of seed and seeding operations for the crop year 1936.
An Act respecting the establishment of a National Employment Commission.
An Act to provide for the Payment of certain sums of Money to primary producers of Wheat with respect to wheat of the 1930 crop delivered to provincial pool organizations.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1936.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1937.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order, until Monday, April 20.
Monday, April 20, 1936