1937-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider the subject matter of Bill No. 6, to amend the criminal code (death penalty), and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. W. GRAY (Lambton West) moved:: That the private bill entitled An Act for the Protection of the Dionne Quintuplets, filed with the clerk of the house on February 4, based on the petition read and received by the house on February 5, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders to ascertain the extent to which standing orders 93 (1) and 95 have been complied with.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Privilege-Mr. Bennett


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, to amend the Railway Act.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: The proposed bill is the same as that introduced last session. It asks that the freight rates on grain and1 mill feed, including flour, from the prairie provinces to British Columbia for use within that province shall not be higher than the rates for like mileage on grain and mill feed carried eastward from the prairie provinces. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill asks that British Columbia be discriminated against no longer and that the Crowsnest pass rates on grains and mill feeds shall apply westward as well as eastward,.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, to amend the criminal code (noises).
He said: The purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to adopt the law of England in order to prevent unnecessary noises, which have been shown by health officers throughout this country to be most dangerous and injurious to the public health.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret the necessity of mentioning again in this chamber a matter of privilege. Yesterday I made a statement, which is reported in Hansard; the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement, which is reported in Hansard, but the Citizen and Journal of last evening, and again of this morning, contained a grossly inaccurate statement as to what took place. It is grossly in-

accurate not only as to what was said by the Prime Minister but also as to what was said by myself.
I am reported to have taken advantage of the opportunity afforded by a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to explain certain incidents in connection with my absence from the country beginning last August. The statement contains these words:
He (Mr. Bennett) observed that Prime Minister Mackenzie King had taken a messenger from the permanent civil service on some of his journeys abroad.
Mr. Mackenzie King said that in such cases he had paid personally the salary of the employee concerned.
"Certainly-of course," Mr. Bennett agreed.
The record makes it clear that I spoke because of a question which was placed upon the order paper by a member of this house, and further that I referred to the fact that I might have adopted the course of taking one of the permanent messengers, as the then leader of the opposition did when he went to England in 1934. I did not pursue that course, for reasons which were good enough for me. The Prime Minister referred to the fact that the salaries of all permanent messengers were paid by the state, and that he had paid the expenses, transportation and otherwise, of the messenger he took with him. I said "certainly," but the right hon. gentleman then also pointed out the fact that the messenger of the department, the permanent messenger attached to the office of the leader of the opposition, was still drawing his salary from the state whether or not I was here, which was a correct statement.
I do deprecate having to mention these matters, but I am sure this chamber realizes that it is grossly unfair to have these statements published in the press, for which the newspapers themselves are not to blame. It does seem to me that a little care on the part of those who report the proceedings of this chamber would obviate the necessity of one having to explain what is distasteful to talk about and still more distasteful to have to refer to again.



STATEMENT OF MRS. BLACK ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE-SUGGESTED ISSUE OF SILVER DOLLARS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in the press a few days ago I saw that the governor in council at Ottawa

Suggested Issue of Silver Dollars
had adopted a ruling that certain duties should be imposed on coronation souvenirs, and that seemed to me a correct thing for any government to do. Immediately after the recent abdication I also noticed in the press that hundreds of people in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania and other central European countries had been thrown out of work because of the cancellation of orders for coronation souvenirs.
It does seem to me that the British Empire is quite large enough to furnish its own coronation souvenirs. In England we have well-equipped factories producing most beautiful china of all kinds. In this country as well, in New Brunswick, in Alberta and in British Columbia, we have china clay that would make excellent souvenirs. But above and beyond all that, coming as I do from a mining constituency it seems to me that this would be the time for the government to consider issuing silver coronation dollars. The government could: issue dollars, as the government did at the time of the jubilee ceremonies, but of course they could not force people to take the dollars. For some time the banks failed to supply to their customers the silver dollars issued at the time of the jubilee, for the obvious reason that they had to pay cartage on the silver, which amounted to a fairly substantial sum; but the situation later was rectified by an arrangement with the government. Canada is the third silver producing nation in the world, and the silver mines of Ontario, Quebec, the middle west, British Columbia and my own constituency of Yukon could very well supply the minister with the silver out of which these dollars might be made. The Minister of Finance has authority, under the revised statutes of Canada, to purchase silver and other precious metals, and I should think the government could well afford to put on the market a million silver dollars.
At the time of the jubilee about half a million silver dollars were coined, out of which I believe the government made a profit of about $300,000. For every sixty cents worth of silver which is struck off in silver coins the government clears approximately $1.15. It is not very often that a member of this house is able to rise and tell the government how to make money; rather we are all holding out both hands and saying, "give me." I should like to feel that the government, through the Minister of Finance, would be willing to authorize the striking of a million silver dollars in order to help the miners and the communities in which the silver is produced, and also because of the fact that it would be a money-making proposition. Next
summer we will have thousands and thousands of tourists. All of us, men and women alike, are more or less souvenir hunters. Practically every tourist would take back a souvenir dollar, as happened in connection with the jubilee dollar. It would not be like the Aberhart money, for which some of us paid a little premium. I know I paid $1.50 for a dollar scrip, but that is scrapbook money. If, however, the government issued a silver dollar it would always, so long as government endures, buy a dollar's worth of material. After the first expense, the cost of striking copper, bronze, nickel, silver, or gold coins is not great.
In the name of the mining constituencies, and especially on behalf of the Yukon, I would ask the Prime Minister to consider the matter, and show his willingness to strike as souvenirs for Canada one million silver dollars.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not like to interrupt the hon. member (Mrs. Black) when she was speaking, but I am not quite sure whether she was speaking to the notice of motion which stands in her name on the order paper and which, in the ordinary course of events, would have been the first order of business to-morrow. When the hon. member began to speak I assumed she had in mind saying something on the orders of the day. However I imagine the house will grant permission to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to answer the hon. member's questions, if he is in a position to do so. Perhaps the minister's answer will cover what the hon. member has in mind.


Martha Louise Black: Thank you.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I cannot deal with the portion of the hon. member's question which relates to souvenirs. I believe my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) could give information as to what is to be done in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member indicated that the matter of souvenirs is only incidental.


Mr. DUNNING:: But with regard to the main question, namely that regarding coinage, may I say that the government found itself in some difficulty. At the time of the abdication of the former king certain steps had been taken and certain approval given with respect to the image of the king which was to appear on our new coins. None of the new coins had been issued because in fact dies had not been received from London, where their final

Suggested Issue of Silver Dollars
preparation was undertaken. It was necessary therefore to begin all over again, and only recently has the necessary approval been received with respect to the image of the head of King George VI which is to appear on all Canadian coins minted in the future. There is some doubt as to whether we will receive the dies in time to have the issue of any new coins in circulation by coronation time. Every effort is being made to bring that about, but under the circumstances no arrangement has been made for the coinage of any special coins.
I believe I am in a position to give some information regarding silver dollars. Up to the present time we have issued 743,720 silver dollars. Of course, as required, the minting of the King George V coins is proceeding until such time as King George VI coins can be minted. A reserve supply of these silver dollars is kept available at all offices of the Bank of Canada throughout the dominion, and the chartered banks therefore can secure conveniently from the provincial headquarters of the Bank of Canada a supply of these dollars in order to meet the public demand for them. There is a substantial demand in the parts of Canada which are interested in the production of silver, but generally speaking, in the other parts, the demand appears to be moderate and mainly for souvenir purposes. I believe that is all I can usefully say in the matter.
I do not believe that at this stage it would be practicable to attempt to evolve a special jubilee dollar, nor would it have been possible in the time at our disposal before the coronation of King George VI to secure the dies necessary for a special dollar. Of course it would differ in some respects from the ordinary one. May I explain to the bon. member that the side on which the king's heart aoes not appear is not changed as the result of a change in the person of the monarch. The only change would be on the side on which the monarch's head appears.
In order to issue a souvenir dollar in time for the coronation we would require a die with a completely different obverse side. I believe the hon. member will readily understand that in the manufacture of dies for coins we cannot complete the finishing process in Canada. As other parts of the empire have their work done in London, the bouse will realize that at this time there is a heavy strain upon the facilities there available.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to speak to this subject when the notice of motion should come before the house to-morrow. I speak now, however, because, although I am not as conversant with the rules of the

house as many hon. members may be, I am afraid in view of the observations to-day of the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black) there will be no opportunity to-morrow to speak to this matter. Personally I should have liked to see a full dress debate on this important matter and in support of silver.
As an advocate for the past six or seven years of the use of silver, I feel it incumbent upon me to support the hon. member for Yukon in the suggestion she has made. May I point out to her, however, that if it is her object only to popularize the silver dollar it might be as well to place on one side the image of the Duke of Windsor and on the other that of Mrs. Simpson. If that is the hon. member's only object, may I observe that the mere issuing of one million silver dollars will do very little to popularize the greater use of silver, as such, in Canada.
I should like to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) seriously consider taking over all silver in Canada, and issuing silver certificates. Such action would do much for Canada. Not only would it provide employment for many thousands of our citizens, but it would also put currency in circulation at no cost to the government. It is not my intention to delay the house on this occasion, upon going into supply, because possibly I may have more to say at another time. I feel it my duty, however, to join in urging that serious consideration be given to the issuing of silver coinage, including silver dollars, to a greater extent than has been done.
It is true, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, that over 743,000 silver dollars have already been issued, but as they can be produced at the rate of 20,000 per day with the present equipment at the Mint, only about fifty days would be required to issue a million.
It is true that perhaps silver dollars are not as popular as they were in days gone by, but in view of the fact that the government is making seventy per cent profit there is no reason why another machine should not be purchased to run at full blast. This would not in any way injure the credit of Canada. Hon. members who bewailed the fact that such procedure might injure our credit need only look at what has happened across the boundary line. Would any person say that to-day the American dollar is worth less than the Canadian, or that the credit of the United States is not as good as that of Canada? Yet during the past two or three years that country has purchased over one billion ounces of silver, and paid for it by issuing silver certificates. That could be

Supply-External Affairs
done in Canada, if we had only the intestinal fortitude as against the bankers, if I may use the term, to go ahead and do it. That could be done, despite what they tell us.
I am not unmindful of the cry against any inflation in Canada. Germany is usually pointed out as the horrible example. I am not advocating that we should repudiate everything, but I will say that the credit of Germanj' is just as good to-day as that of any other country, because it would appear that Great Britain is only too willing to lend money to that country. There is nothing very serious in that argument.
However, I shall leave any further observations in this connection until later. As I say, I join with the hon. member for Yukon in the suggestion she has made, but I am sorry the discussion has taken place on such short notice. I should have liked to see the resolution discussed in the regular manner when called on Wednesday, but, speaking as a comparatively new member, may I say that one never can tell what will take place in this chamber.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on frequent
occasions I have endeavoured to ascertain why fifty cent and one dollar silver coins circulate so little in Canada. In England the half crown is greatly in circulation, and our silver dollar, at least the last one minted, is not so large a coin. I may say that I have never recived one of these dollars over the counter as change since they were first issued. The difficulty is not, as suggested by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the unwillingness of the country to coin them; it is the unwillingness of the people to use them. I rise only to ask the minister if there is not some method by which we could popularize the use of these coins. The fact is that people will not and do not circulate them. Could the minister say how many of the 743,000 silver dollars which were issued are now in circulation, as against those in the custody of the receiver general?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot give an exact figure. We endeavour to adjust the supply to the demand., holding merely a reserve sufficient to enable us to supply what experience indicates the demand to be. I think most of them will be found to be in circulation.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion was made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) that the heads of the present and former
kings should be placed on these dollars. I do not think anyone could take the place of Queen Elizabeth. King George and Queen Elizabeth are equal and no one could take the queen's place. It would be less popular to have the present king and the former king on these coins.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My remarks have been misrepresented by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Mclvor). What I said was that if it was merely a matter of endeavouring to popularize the silver dollars, that would be the best way to do it. I did not suggest that the two names should appear on the coins.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to discuss this matter, but I should like to make just one observation in passing. It must be a source of encouragement to hon. members of this group to see members in the government ranks agreeing with the social crediters as to the issuing of new money.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
Salaries, $31,240.50; contingencies, including allowance of $2,500 per annum to the secretary to the Governor General, $69,500.
["I doubt whether the Prime Minister's statement is altogether correct, that the people of Canada are greatly interested in seeing that Canada makes as good a showing as South Africa and New Zealand and Australia. There are thousands of people across\n\nDivorce in British Columbia-Mr. Green\nthe dominion who are not particularly anxious about the kind of showing we make, but who are face to face with their greatest problem, that of making a living. When passing expenditures of this sort, and one to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) referred the other evening, this parliament should bear in mind that there are people in Canada, people in the province and the constituency from which I come, who are living on relief grants of from $6.50 to nineteen or twenty dollars per month, people who are receiving five dollars in their home when they are expecting the arrival of a child, people unable to get eye glasses or proper dental or medical care. To such it must be a striking contrast that we pass votes, one of $35,000 for the delegation to the coronation, one of $197,000 for a contingent to attend the coronation, one of $65,000 to decorate buildings across the dominion with flags at the coronation, one of $40,000 for the imperial conference. If we omit the item for the conference, there is a total of around $300,000, and it is in striking contrast to the fact that to the people I have mentioned we dole out a few cents here and a few cents there, sometimes after a most humiliating examination of their circumstances. When the Prime Minister feels that we are particularly worried over the matter of keeping up with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations, may I remind him that there are thousands of people who are much more interested in seeing that we properly discharge our responsibilities to our people who are in need throughout the dominion."]
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This amount for
the Governor General's office is the same as in previous years. The increase shown is brought about by the statutory increases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil Government-
Salaries, $104,051.
Contingencies, $69,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is an increase of S2.000 in the salary of the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. The rest of the increase is accounted for by the statutory increases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As one who has occupied the office I think it is only fair to say that I believe that everyone who knows the character and the extent of the duties discharged by Mr. Skelton will join with me in congratulating the first minister upon providing for an increase of $2,000 in his salary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
690	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-London
[Stage Direction]
Salaries, including appointment of A. Tunwell as a clerk, grade three, at $1,620, $42,487.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain the appointment in this manner of a clerk, grade three. This is a matter to which attention always used to be directed and I am curious to know why it is done in this case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right hon. friend is aware, there are a large number of clerks in the service who have been serving year after year as temporaries. The clerk mentioned here has been in the service in one capacity or another during the last fifteen years. As he has personal responsibilities of his own to meet and performs necessary duties it was thought advisable to have him made permanent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The objection which has been taken in this house during the last five years to this course of action is that it sets at naught the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and provides for a salary based upon the exercise of arbitrary discretion. I agree with the Prime Minister that there are occasions on which it should be done, and it has been done, quite properly in my judgment. I only point out that it comes within that category of cases about which in days long since past we used to hear quite frequently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
point has been well raised. It does seem to me that there is a good deal of injustice being done to a large number of persons in the public service who are kept on as temporaries from year to year and who have no guarantee as to the permanency of their positions. I believe the whole situation ought to be reviewed at the proper time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
London.-Salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $1,900 additional salary for the high commissioner to that authorized by chapter 15, R.S.C., $137,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is undesirable to modify a statute by an item in the estimates rather than by amendment of the act itself, in order to increase the salary of the high commissioner. While I am not going to quarrel with the excellent reasons that will be given for increasing the salary, I do suggest it would be far more desirable from every point of view that we amend the appropriate act that deals with the matter. If the Prime

Minister's attention had been directed to it I think he would have agreed with me that when you are dealing with a statute which itself provides for the compensation to be paid to the officer named in the statute, the proper course to pursue, if it is desired to increase the salary, is to amend the act by deleting the words "twelve thousand" and substituting therefor the words "fourteen thousand." But what has been done here is to add to the salary $2,000 less five per cent, which means $1,900. I can only voice my objection against the practice in the strongest possible terms and have it go on the record of this house, because it constitutes a precedent that I think is very dangerous, and what is more, very undesirable. The statute itself should always indicate the compensation that attaches to the office.
Beyond that, I think the Prime Minister should give us some explanation of the increase, as I am sure he will; because certainly it would be difficult to justify the increase in view of the criticisms that were made in the past with respect to the cost of administration of the office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point
raised by my right hon. friend is a good one, but may I say that his criticism is rather of himself than of the present administration, because what has been done in the present estimates is simply to carry forward the item in the form in which it appeared during years my right hon. friend was in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I amended it one year, to my certain knowledge.


Mr. LAWSON:: Two wrongs never make
a right, anyway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An increase was made in the salary during the time Mr. Ferguson was high commissioner, I think, and the item in this particular simply carries forward what appeared in the estimates before. That I think answers one point of my right hon. friend.
As to the extra amount required, there has been a good deal of additional work thrown on the high commissioner's office of late. This past year the pilgrimage to Yimy had to be in large part managed through the London and Paris offices combined. There was a great deal of work thrown on the office when the pilgrims were in London. This year the coronation ceremony and the preparation for the imperial conference, which will come immediately after, will also involve a great deal of

____	Supply-External Affairs-London
additional work. Then, too, the Quebec government and the Ontario government have withdrawn their offices in London and Paris, occasioning a largely increased number of inquiries to be directed to the high commissioner's office with respect to many matters. A number of questions have also come up which have required additional stenographic assistance in the high commissioner's office, matters which the house will probably find referred to in the report. I think that covers all that was asked.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As one who has had nothing to do in the past with the method of fixing these salaries, it seems to me that the leader of the opposition is quite right in saying that if there is an act, the proper method of increasing the salary is to amend the act instead of putting in the estimates an item such as this. We are left completely at sea if we pass a statute and then disregard its terms. Whether or not the leader of the opposition, when he was responsible for the administration, did the same thing is quite aside from the question. It seems to me the statute ought to rule in such matters, and I oppose very decidedly this method of proceeding. I see a little bit further on in the estimates another example of what is getting to be very common, a vote "notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments." We are simply driving holes through our statutes.


James Earl Lawson: Are the details of this
$125,000 of expenses shown anywhere?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find in the auditor general's report pretty full details of the expenditures.


James Earl Lawson: But the difficulty is that the auditor general's report deals only with expenditures up to March 31, 1936. We are now almost one year past that, and are being asked to vote money for the year that is to come.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot tell my hon. friend what the expenditures will be for the coming year, but I can give him the particulars of current expenditure which I have here.


James Earl Lawson: The information is available with respect to other departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can give my hon. friend general figures showing how the total is made up for nine months, April to December, 1936. The salary of the high commissioner is S12.000 a year, and staff salaries for nine months, $50,000. The other
31111-44$
details are as follows: Allowances, high commissioner and secretaries, $25,874.91; travel, $1,630.08; motor expenses. $1,372.60; telegraph and telephone, S4,852.33; postage, $1,462.64; printing and stationery, $2,538.09; newspapers, $938.12; sundries, $2,642.26; petty cash, $985.48; extra typewriting services, $2,232.46; removal, Mr. Massey, $2,157.75; removal, Mr. Ferguson, $1,010.12; and an amount in suspense of $970.60.


James Earl Lawson: Is	the item of $25,000
for salaries for secretaries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Allowances
for high commissioner and secretaries.


James Earl Lawson: It goes to them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there not an allowance of $40,000 also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: High commissioner, $12,000 salary and $28,000 allowances.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we should
have a statement from the Prime Minister as to why we should disregard the statute. The Prime Minister did not answer that, but went off on another track and suggested that the expenses were very heavy. That does not answer the point at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must beg
my hon. friend's pardon if he thinks I in any way tried to evade answering the question. I thought I did state that the estimates in the particular mentioned were no different this year from what they had been during the time my right hon. friend was in office, and the only reason the statute has not been amended is that we have simply followed the procedure that was adopted in the past. I agree with my hon. friends that usually it would be better to amend the statute. That can be done another year if the house thinks it advisable, but I can assure my hon. friend that there was no intention in any way to adopt a different method from that which had been pursued before.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May we have the
assurance of the Prime Minister that the statute will be amended another year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
glad to see that the matter is considered between now and next year, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister is quite right in saying that the form in which this additional compensation is provided for in the estimates is as it was done in previous years. I certainly remember having dealt with it once, but as I recollect, the answer given to me was that it was in the nature of a temporary arrangement, and that there

Supply-External Affairs-London
was a reduction of ten per cent in the amount, making it $1,800 one year, and this year it is $1,900; $2,000 has been paid in addition to the $12,000, I surmise, over the last ten or twelve years. My view was and is that it would be desirable to change that figure of $12,000 into some more appropriate amount, much more than $14,000. It is idle to suggest that the salary of the high commissioner should be twelve or fourteen thousand dollars, and then in lieu of salary vote other amounts. We have been doing it consistently, one administration following another, for the last twenty-five years, but the allowance has been increased as the years have gone by. But just why $2,000 was added to the salary and then $28,000 added by way of allowances I have never been able to make out. The practice is not new; it has been followed in the last five years excepting as to variation of the figures; indeed it has been done for a long time. It is one of the matters that engaged the attention of the right hon. gentleman's predecessor, as to whether we should not provide a salary in the High Commissioners Act that bears some relation to the responsibilities which devolve upon the high commissioner and the duties he discharges. It seems a nonsensical thing to provide $25,000 for secretaries and services of that kind for which account is given, and $2S,000 for personal allowances, the whole of which is used for the purposes of his office, and then provides that the salary, which is $12,000, shall be increased iby $2,000 less five or ten per cent. I think the whole matter should be put on a proper basis. I recall that on one occasion the explanation given to me was that it was because of the temporary character of the $2,000 item. The Prime Minister was quite correct in saying that it was carried in the same manner in the previous estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to all these positions in the diplomatic service I might point out that the service is a new one, and it is difficult to anticipate within the course of a few years what the necessities of these different offices may be. I think it was felt by the previous administration, as it has been by the present, that we ought, if possible, to review the whole situation and arrange not for salaries only but also for pensions, allowances, etc., so that the diplomatic service may be duly regularized. There has not been up to the present the opportunity to effect this. I hope that it will be possible to accomplish it within the next few years.


Mr. LEADER:: I hope I am not presumptuously criticizing the estimates of the Prime Minister when I say that to my mind our
I Mr. Bennett.]
expenditures in connection with our offices overseas and in the United States have been growing at an alarming rate. Last year in this house I criticized the increase under the late administration in the cost of upkeep of Canada House. To-day I find myself in a peculiar position, supporting a government for whom I have a great deal of respect, but which is increasing the estimates for this'very same institution. With regard to the salary that our high commissioner enjoys in London, it is difficult to know just how much he gets. I think the salary is actually about $14,000 a year, and on top of that he gets an allowance of $28,000, which means that he receives a salary of over $40,000 a year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Harry Leader: And if I understand aright, this estimate provides an additional salary of $1,900.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is part of the


Harry Leader: At that rate he is getting
$42,000 a year. I listened to the Prime Minister as he read the different items of expense, but I did not hear him read the item to which I am about to refer, and which to me would be ridiculous if it was not an imposition on the taxpayers of this country. In the auditor general's report you will find that the Canadian taxpayers are asked to pay a dog tax of $2.25 to the high commissioner in London. Looking a little further one finds that we are paying S28 for dog tax to our ambassador at Washington.


James Earl Lawson: The question is, who is
the dog.


Harry Leader: To me it seems ridiculous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I at once correct my hon. friend? The dog tax that is being paid for by the government is not for any official of the Canadian government. In the case he mentioned it was a tax which was paid for the High Commissioner of Great Britain who is resident in Ottawa. I believe there are also dog taxes paid for some of the ministers of other legations. That is done because of a custom that exists as respects the diplomatic service generally whereby local taxation is borne by the government of the country to which a minister may be accredited. That explains the dog tax item.


Harry Leader: I thank the Prime Minister for his explanation, but I still think the taxpayers of this country should not be called upon to pay a dog tax for anyone.

Supply-External Affairs-London


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pleased that the Prime Minister made the statement to which we have just listened, because I remember being asked a similar question. The truth is that the government is paying taxes of all kinds in the city of Ottawa that are imposed against the offices held by the representatives of foreign governments in this city. I was shocked when I first heard about the dog tax-1 daresay the Prime Minister had the same feeling-and I found that it is not an item that goes before officials as a matter of detail; all the taxes that are paid to local authorities are lumped, and the cheque issued accordingly, whether it be for one dog or two, or a dog and a pup. Payment is made of the amount of taxes that is exacted by local authorities. That is a matter of custom, just as France pays our taxes in Paris, just as our high commissioner's office taxes in London are borne by the British government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say a further word to the hon. member who has raised a question concerning allowances. In the matter of diplomatic representation abroad the government is necessarily obliged to take account of what is done by other countries. Canada cannot afford to have her representative go to London and live or have an office on a back street, while Australia and South Africa and New Zealand and other parts of the British Empire have the best of accommodation for their high commissioners. Also my hon. friend must know that in London the expenses of living in certain parts of the city are very much greater than they are, for example, in Ottawa or other cities in Canada. All these factors have to be taken into account. It may be unfortunate that this is so, but I feel sure that if the hon. member would make a comparison of the costs he would find that Canada's expenditure on her representative institutions abroad are very much within the mark of what is being paid out by most other countries.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish to question
that statement of the Prime Minister. Canada House is located in the very heart of London, in one of the most expensive sites imaginable. That involves of necessity a very heavy expenditure. Several years ago I happened to visit Tokyo, and I found there again that the Canadian legation was one of the most expensive in that city. We are a small country. As a matter of fact that legation was built without the knowledge of this house. It was done under a former administration ; apparently the administration was afraid to bring the matter before the house; the whole of the very heavy expenditure was authorized by order in council, and thus we as members of the house knew nothing about it formally until the building was erected, and then we were required to refund the money that had been borrowed privately. I object to that way of doing business. It is not the proper way. In my judgment there is no necessity for such a costly establishment, as we have at Tokyo, although we had as the then minister a delightful man, but of expensive tastes, who wanted to be second to none in Tokyo. Once you have your legation established on the grand scale there is no end to the expenditure involved. I do not want to be regarded as a demagogue, but tens of thousands of our people are living on the very narrowest margin; tens of thousands are unemployed, and others, middle class people, are doing their best to educate their children and can hardly make ends meet. It seems to me there is nothing humiliating in the representatives of Canada living on a little more moderate scale, representing as they do a country which in population is not a great country, one which of course wants to maintain its self-respect but at the same time should seek first to do its very best for its own citizens. I do not want to single out any one particular item, but rather to offer a general criticism. As representing in a special way the poorer classes of people of this country, I protest against the steadily increasing expenditure we are asked to vote for official and ceremonial affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First with
respect to the London building, I submit that the offices which Canada has there are really unpretentious as compared, for instance, with what Australia and South Africa have.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I spoke of the
site.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but may I say that no better investment could be made for Canada than to have a building on that site. It is not money wasted; it is part of the permanent property of this dominion, and as long as Trafalgar square remains the centre not only of London bub one might say of the British Empire, that property will go on increasing in value. From that point of view it is a thoroughly good investment. I submit that, abroad and in foreign countries, it is all-important that a country should keep up appearances, if I may use that expression.

Supply-External Affairs-London


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: Keep up with the Joneses.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not keep
up with the Joneses, but at least keep up appearances. I ask my hon. friend quite frankly whether he would be content to have Canada still represented on Victoria street as it was years ago, with Australia, South Africa and other parts of the empire represented as they are in London at the present time. I am sure he would not.
With regard to the building in Tokyo, my recollection is that the former prime minister made a statement to the house with regard to that matter when the estimates were before the committee-in fact I questioned him on it myself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The building was
erected before the estimates were brought down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I tried in vain to
get a copy of the order in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not accurate, Mr. Chairman. All the hon. gentleman had to do was to move for it and get it. He got it without moving for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was not brought down before the close of the session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to the building in Tokyo may I say that it was obtained for the government of Canada at a remarkably moderate cost for the style of building that it is. I question very much whether it could be built to-day for double the amount that was paid at the time. I understand that the reason the previous administration proceeded with the construction at that particular time was because conditions were so favourable for construction then. If Canada is to have legations abroad it is necessary that we have suitable buildings in which to house ministers and to carry on the business of the legations. Is it not advisable, therefore, to secure the right kinds of buildings to begin with, and is there any economy in postponing the making of the necessary arrangements? One has only to look about this city to see what the governments of other countries are beginning to do with respect to their legation buildings and the housing of their representatives here. Can we afford to make less adequate provision in their capitals for our own officials?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the right hon. gentleman wants to misrepresent what I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN:: On a point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not say that our expenditures are higher than those of other dominions. What I did say is that they are higher than are warranted1 by the state of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well Mr. Chairman, I have a fair memory of what I have recently heard. I heard what the Prime Minister said and I heard also what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said. He wondered why the Prime Minister had made the statement that the cost of maintaining our offices was less than that of other countries, and he wondered what he would say if he looked into the cost of the offices maintained by other dominions in London, and

Supply-External Affairs-London
he referred to South Africa and Australia. Remembering these estimates, recently passed, I sent for them and I gave them to the committee.
As far as Tokyo is concerned I cannot think the hon. gentleman would deliberately misrepresent it, but certainly he succeeded in doing so, whether by inadvertence or deliberation is a matter that he himself must determine. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he did it inadvertently and not deliberately. The fact is it was made known by a statement in this house that the then minister at Tokyo was prepared to advance money for the purpose of constructing the building at that time because conditions made it possible to purchase the land and erect the building at a cost so much less than it was believed it would be later, in view of the trend of prices, that we should not lose the opportunity. I am bound to say it was a departure from ordinary practice and procedure, and I am bound to say also that we did not have the money at that time. The Minister of Finance said he could not find the money at that moment, but the minister was prepared to provide the money and he did so. The site was acquired; this house was made aware of the fact. The plans were approved; this house was made aware of the fact. The building was completed; this house was made aware of the fact, and, what is more, this house voted the money to repay the cost of the building before the late government went out of office. It is in the estimates. Therefore there was nothing done secretly or evasively, and the fact that a statement was made was all that was necessary, as far as the order in council was concerned. I cannot think the hon. gentleman strove very hard to get the order in council, because there was nothing to keep back about it. It was an open and aboveboard transaction.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When was the
house apprised of the plan to erect a building?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the building was
started at all, right here in this chamber, if the hon. gentleman will take the trouble to look it up. What is more, before the late administration went out of office we were able to provide the necessary money to enable parliament-not the government, but parliament -to vote an amount covering the cost of that building, and parliament did so. If my memory serves me aright it was thought to be a good bargain, and I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that it has turned out so satisfactorily. The last time I saw the minister he told me the work could be done
to-day only for a very much larger sum than it cost at that time, and certainly those with whom I have come in contact tell me that we have one of the most favourable and desirable sites that could be obtained. And of course it will be within the knowledge of this house that under international arrangements the taxation is borne not by Canada but by Japan. As far as we are concerned we have a building and a site upon which taxes accruing in Tokyo are paid by the Japanese government, and it was acquired at a price that I believe was not much more than half the present value of the property.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before I could accept the statement of the leader of the opposition, Mr. Chairman, I would require to have some definite reference to Hansard to show that the proposal to erect a building was brought before this house; that the plans were approved by the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not by the house; I did not suggest that they were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How were they
approved, by order in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were approved by
the government. Did the hon. member ever hear of plans being approved by the house?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought the right hon. gentleman said they had been approved by the house. My statement was that the house knew nothing about the matter until the building was erected, and then the estimates contained an item to cover the cost of refunding the loan which had been advanced privately to construct this building. I know the building was erected at a very low cost. Advantage was taken of the depreciated yen. I know it is a beautiful building; I am not suggesting that it is not. My point was this: I objected to a private individual lending money for the erection of a building, the whole thing being done simply by order in council without this house being consulted. I do not think that is the right way for this country to make expenditures. My second point was that it seems to me that these buildings, these great establishments in the hearts of these big cities, beautiful as they are, are more elaborate than they need be. That was my statement, and I see nothing whatever to retract. I feel that with Canada still a comparatively small country there is no need' for us to try to equal or outshine some of the legations of the great nations in Tokyo.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
696	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Washington
Washington-Representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $100,000.
Mr. DOUGLAS:: Could the Prime Minister give us an itemized1 statement of the proposed expenditure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. This is the same amount that was voted last year. The expenditure in 1936-37 was considerably less than that of the previous year, largely because of the fact that during part of the time the office of minister was not filled. The items are as follows from April 1 to December 31, 1936:
Salaries-Minister and staff, $27,420.37.
Allowances-Minister and staff, $18,683.89.
Travel, $507.95.
Telephone and telegraph. $1,242.09.
Printing and stationex-y, $362.12.
Newspapers, $738.87.
Fuel, light and office keeping, $1,084.09.
Postage, $150.
Residence furnishings, $468.10.
Office furnishings, $775.12.
Legation maintenance, $3,032.70.
Sundries, $398.91.
That makes a total of $54,864.21 for the nine months, April to December. I cannot give the details beyond that date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tokyo-Representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $68,000.
Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to say a word with regard to this item. If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation continue in their present ways, and if we are to open up embassies the world over, I would nominate the hon. gentleman who spoke to-day to occupy one of them. A year or two ago it was proposed to open still another embassy. I do not represent the opposition; I am a private member of parliament. There is a very considerable body of public thought in this country that does not agree with the extension of these useless embassies and separatism the world over. It was very fortunate that we did not open an office in Italy, since we challenged Italy with such disastrous results that the Minister of Justice had to rise in his place and disclaim our responsibility for sanctions. And then we have been doing nothing but offer moral lectures to Japan, with equally disastrous results to the British Empire in the Pacific.
The other day, Mr. Chairman, I was reading a long article in a leading English magazine, the English Review, which devotes more space to foreign affairs than any other publication within my knowledge, in which reference was made to the fact that the British people do not understand the situation as far as Japan is concerned, because the papers have suppressed much of what should have been printed. The article stated that there is a large body of public opinion in Japan looking to the next war; that to-day the young people in the universities, the professors, the artisans and the tradesmen are talking of the coming war on the Pacific with the American people. I think it would be well for Canada to take notice of the handwriting on the wall, and have no more of this separatism.
I hope Tokyo will be the last legation to be opened by this country. We have trade commissioners, all that are necessary, in these various cities throughout the world, and it appears to me that this division in our empire, to which I referred the other day, has progressed to such an extent that to-day the British Empire cannot act as a unit in time of trouble like France and other countries, because of separatism in the dominions so fatal in peace, and in war it would be most disastrous for us to have separatism. In Canada we are holding a great heritage in trust for the British people. I speak only as a private member, and not as one belonging to any particular political party. May I say that there is a large body of sensible public thought in Canada which is very much alarmed at the division taking place in our empire to-day among the dominions in empire matters. Only recently the French Prime Minister said to one of our foreign ministers that to-day Great Britain cannot deal properly with a foreign country because she cannot act as a unit. I believe that statement is correct; it was borne out in the matter of sanctions against Italy. South Africa would not act because she was interested in the sale of horses to Ethiopia. Canada agreed to sanctions, and then, in a most lamentable fashion, backed out because we have no army and no fleet to protect our shores. Mussolini had only to come west and sail up the St. Lawrence rather than go south. We might have had a rude awakening if he had landed. As a British subject, both in and out of the house 1 shall pi-otest against opening up throughout the world any more of these useless embassies. It was proposed to appoint one to Rome and open an embassy in that city.

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
A lew days ago I saw a map of the world, which I believe was published by one of the departments. On that map were little red patches indicating the members of the British Empire. One was struck by the way in whioh they were distributed, with the inscription, "the Empire on which the sun never sets." The principle of dividing British peoples in peace and war is most disastrous. We were fortunate that at the time of the constitutional crisis the empire acted as a unit; that may not happen again. The Prime Minister did well, and showed wisdom and judgment. Canada's part in the crisis was to do nothing, but to do it well. I suggest that if we were to do nothing about the embassies the world over it would be much better for the future of the British	Empire. I	know many	peopleare becoming	very much	alarmed as	to	thefuture of the	empire, and	undoubtedly	in	thefuture it will	have to act	as a unit. We	are
occupying the greatest heritage in the world. Before God to-day Great Britain stands as trustee for the peace of the world. Why, then, should not hon. members sitting to my left, who are devoting their attention to ambassadorial and foreign affairs, devote the same time to a discussion of domestic affairs, especially in view of the suffering which prevails throughout Canada. I believe we should send them overseas to try to pacify Europe. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would be a most eloquent representative in Rome, where it was once proposed an embassy should be set up. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) could be sent to visit our friend Hitler to see if we could not get a little better results from our relations with that country.
So far as I am concerned I am opposed to setting up more embassies. Had I been in the house when the system was begun there would have been one member at least, out of the two hundred and forty-five, who would have voted against it. Sooner or later I believe they will bring about the dismemberment of the British Empire.
We can now make our own treaties. We have a seat in League of Nations discussions. Hon. members to my left, however, seem to have abandoned the league in favour of the star-spangled-banner policy of pan-Americanism at Washington. They seem to rely on that and the Monroe doctrine as protection for Canada in time of trouble now and not the league. Let me tell them that if that is what they depend upon for protection they would be very sorry for not having seen the handwriting on the wall if the enemy were to sail up the St. Lawrence. Not only is
there a possibility but, in view of the condition of affairs there is a probability of attack. I am not prepared to say who is responsible for this separatist policy, but I can say that a great body of public opinion in Canada, a British country, do not believe in it.
I do not believe in the procedure of setting up ambassadors throughout the world, and I have not believed in it since I have been a member. We know they are supposed to look after trade matters. Under the Statute of Westminster we are a separate country and make our separate treaties. Only invisible ties bind us to the motherland. We are as independent under the Statute of Westminster as Spain or Ireland, and I repeat that if the present policy is carried to its logical conclusion it will most certainly lead to the dismemberment of the empire.
In connection with the trouble with Italy Canada announced as an independent nation that she would apply sanctions. In my constituency I have three or four hundred first-class Canadians who wanted to know what it meant. "Does it mean that Canada is opposed to Italy?" The same question was asked candidates throughout the country during the last election campaign. So far as I am concerned if I have the honour to sit in the house any longer-and I do not care whether I do or not-I shall consistently oppose these votes for useless ambassadors who wear three-cornered cocked hats and go among foreign peoples representing Canada, a nation with no army, no navy and no air force to protect its shores but that of the motherland for its defence.
Instead of leaning on the Monroe doctrine let us seek something more substantial. May I tell hon. members to my left that in the late war, without the protection of the British fleet the American government could not have transported a soldier. That is how much independence we may expect in the future, if we depend on that country.
I believe the work in Tokyo could be done just as well by a trade commissioner and that the embassy might as well be closed up. It is fortunate that we did not open an embassy in Spain or Italy, because had we had one in Spain it might have been lost. We might have had to send Canada's ignoble and vainglorious navy over there to protect us. The people of Ontario do not believe in the policy of establishing embassies, and they are definitely opposed to the doctrine of separatism, because, sooner or later, it will mean dismemberment of the empire.
Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo


Thomas Reid: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the hon. member spoke about a trade commissioner I believe he must have been referring to a minister. As a matter of fact at present there are trade commissioners at Hong Kong and Shanghai. However, the question of appointing a minister to China is one which will have to be carefully considered, and I trust it may be. Beyond that, I cannot give the hon. member any assurance at the moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find it very disagreeable to say what I have to say, but I do not think it is fair to Canada to be represented as we are at Tokyo. It puts us in an extremely humiliating position. I say this in the best of good feeling, but I must say it. I do not think it is right to send to represent this country a person whose sight is gone and who finds it difficult to get about. In saying this I know I repeat the views of thousands of people who have business there and who feel that something should be done about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my right hon. friend found it very distasteful to say what he has just said and I know he is only fulfilling what he believes to be his duty when he raises the point he does. In taking exception to the fact that the minister at Tokyo has found difficulty with his sight, I would recall to my right hon. friend's mind the well-known instance of Fawcett who held the office of Postmaster General in London during years in which he was totally blind. The fact that the Hon. Mr. Bruce was able to fill the position of lieutenant governor of British Columbia for many years, notwithstanding the infirmity of sight from which he suffered, is a very good indication that he is not unduly handicapped in that regard.

It so happens that very few men in Canada have a knowledge of conditions in British Columbia comparable to that enjoyed by Mr. Bruce. Many of the questions that come up as between Japan and Canada relate more particularly to that province. I may say that it is a very difficult business to secure a person for any of these positions who combines all the qualities needed. Notwithstanding what has been said as to the expenditures being made by this country on legations, they do not begin to meet what is necessary on the part of whoever holds the office of minister. At the present time those who are representing Canada abroad, either in England as high commissioner or in other countries as ministers, without exception have had to draw upon their own private means in order to supplement the allowances made by this country. At the time of making the appointment to Tokyo Mr. Bruce was available as one who had a first hand knowledge of some of the conditions to which I have referred and who was able to accept the appointment immediately. He was a gentleman in whom the government had' every confidence. The word I have received from those who have seen Mr. Bruce in Tokyo and from the representative of Japan in this country is that he has filled the position which he now holds very admirably since the time of his appointment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not going to labour a matter about which I prefer not to speak. I have known Mr. Bruce from my earliest days and have acted for him professionally. I know his condition perhaps as well as any man in this house, but I share the view expressed by those who are in a position to speak with authority that it is not fair to the Dominion of Canada that he should be our representative in Japan. I would not expect a Japanese minister, with the well known courtesy of that race, to do other than express the greatest satisfaction with any person who might happen to be appointed to that position. I know that Mr. Bruce discharged with complete satisfaction the duties of lieutenant governor, but I still think it is unfair to this country to have the present representation. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Ohurch), who represents a substantial body of opinion in this country, has expressed considerable opposition to the maintenance of these legations, and the present situation makes it much more difficult for those of us who believe that a minister may serve a useful purpose to support the institution as it is at present organized and presided over by our minister. I know that what I say, and

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
say regretfully, represents the view held by those who put truth above all other considerations and who are not concerned about what the effect may be of the mere statement of it. I am hoping that possibly the directing of attention to this matter will bring about a very necessary change on the part of the gentleman himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I asked Mr. Bruce to accept this appointment he directed my attention to just the criticism which my right hon. friend has made as something which might have to be met. He told me that in the circumstances he would like the government to feel that he would be quite prepared to retire at any time the government might wish to make some other appointment. He said that at most he could not remain in Japan very long. It was thought by the administration at the time of Sir Herbert Mailer's transfer from Tokyo that it was advisable not to leave that particular post without a minister. Mr. Bruce possessed the necessary qualifications for the post from many points of view. The only possible limitations were his years and a certain infirmity of sight. He possesses some qualifications as a diplomat which I imagine are not excelled by any man in any post anywhere.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Could the Prime Minister give us an idea of what is spent by Canada in maintaining ministers abroad, and also what is spent by other countries in maintaining ministers in Canada? We would then be able to see what balance there is as between the money spent in other countries by Canada and the money spent in Canada by other countries.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have never tried to balance the sheet in that way, but I imagine if I were to attempt it I would find that a good deal more money was being spent by representatives of other countries resident in Canada than is being spent by our representatives abroad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When did the present
minister present his credentials in Tokyo?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letters of credence were signed on September 2, 1936, and he presented them in November.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was
appointed when the house was in session last year and he did not take up his appointment until November, 1936. He has been in Tokyo for a matter of only three months, so that the urgency of his appointment could not have been very great.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointment was not made until the time I have referred to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was made when this
house was in session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointment was not made; there was an announcement of the intention to make an appointment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva-Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1937, including secretariat, international labour organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $155,775.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the reduction because
of a smaller assessment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is due to
the devaluation of the franc in Switzerland and the florin in Holland.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the decrease due only
to the devaluation in the Swiss franc? There has been no decrease in the contribution of Canada to the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was also a devaluation of the florin in Holland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no decrease in
assessment, I think.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give
the full particulars.
As a result of the devaluation of the Swiss franc and the Dutch florin (salaries and most other expenditures being incurred in Geneva and The Hague), it was possible to make a reduction of twenty per cent all round in the contributions which would otherwise have been required. The Canadian contribution will be 155,775 gold dollars; provision for an equivalent number of Canadian dollars is made in Vote 208, while the balance, approximately $100,000, varying according to exchange fluctuations at the time payment is made, will, as usual, be met from the vote for exchange, No. 213.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses of Canadian delegates to the Assembly, conferences and commissions of the League of Nations, $14,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: This is for the
expenses of the delegates to the league. I should like to ask if it covers the expenses of all the delegates, including the ministers of the crown, or whether some expenses are paid for in other ways, by allowances such as are usual when a person is sent on a commission somewhere.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that the item covers all the expenses, including those of ministers and others who may be representing Canada.


Mr. BARBER:: Can the Prime Minister
tell us who represented Canada last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the last
assembly we had three delegates, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and Senator Dandurand. The delegation also included Doctor Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs; Mr. Vanier, who is in the London office, and Doctor Riddell.


Mr. MARTIN:: Mr. Chairman, the question put by the hon. gentleman who spoke immediately preceding the Prime Minister provokes me to make one or two observations in connection with the personnel of the Canadian delegation that attended the last assembly of the league.
I have criticized a good many of those who represented Canada at the League of Nations, and I know it was not because of anything that I had said, but perhaps in spite of it, that the delegation this year was of an exceptionally high order. I had the privilege of attending on my own account the last assembly of the league and of being present at its discussions both in committee and in general assembly, and I am sure I am expressing an opinion that will be shared by every member of the house when I say that we must always feel it a great honour for Canada to have been represented at the league by the Prime Minister and the ministers and others in attendance with him.
I seem to have been in the habit of following prime ministers. I was in Geneva when Sir Robert Borden was in attendance, and I was also at Geneva when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was likewise head of the Canadian delegation. I want to say first of all about his representation that unfortunately bis indisposition at the moment precluded him from giving that attention which normally he would have given to the affairs of the league, but his was a representation of a very high character. The Prime Minister of Canada when he attends the assembly of the League of Nations gives to the delegation a distinction and a prestige which normally it does not possess, and that was particularly true, Mr. Chairman, this year. I think some mention should be made of the character of that delegation.
There was first of all the Prime Minister. I have taken pains to go through the list of all the delegates, and our Prime Minister was the only head of a government in attendance

at this year's assembly. In addition we were represented by two other ministers of the crown, the Minister of Labour and Senator Dandurand; also by Doctor Skelton and Colonel Vanier. Of equal importance is the fact, which should be noted by the committee and which has not been mentioned for obvious reasons, that the Prime Minister of Canada was singled out for very high distinction at the assembly, having been selected as one of the four vice-presidents.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that members of the house on all sides are fully convinced of the importance of proper representation at international conferences generally, and it is a source of gratification to the country that the government decided to send a delegation so fully representative of Canadian thought, and clothed with the fullest authority.
While I am on my feet may I make one or two other observations that are made from a study over a period of some time. I believe we are fast approaching the period when we should have in this country a foreign service act. That may not be altogether in harmony with the views of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I believe it is essential that not only those in charge of our legations but as well those who are acting in minor capacities in our legations should be given ample opportunity, particularly if their own pecuniary circumstances do not permit, to keep fully in touch with what is going on in this country. I know at least two gentlemen in our foreign service who have not visited Canada for some time, who have not had the means to come to Canada. One in particular, in my judgment, in spite of his good intentions and wishes, is no longer seized with the current thought of his own country. I think that is to be deplored. It should be possible for minor and major officials to visit their own country periodically, as officials of the League of Nations are permitted to do, and indeed as minor officials in other legations of other countries are permitted to do.
I simply make these observations, Mr. Chairman, but I think they have great merit. In conclusion, it does seem to me that the time has come in this house when these matters- I do not refer particularly to the Geneva estimates but rather to questions coming within the category of international affairs- should be discussed by a properly constituted committee. If we are to attain some measure of thoroughness in dealing with them we should pursue in respect of international affairs the same course that we pursue in respect of our purely domestic problems.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I venture to agree with and if necessary supplement what has just been said by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It does seem to me that there ought to be a better opportunity given to the house to study our foreign affairs than is given upon consideration of the estimates. We have a committee known as the industrial and international relations committee. It is only occasionally that any matter referring to international relations has been referred to that committee, and I am afraid the committee has not been taken very seriously. The whole range of matters coming under external affairs, at least those that are not strictly confidential in character, might automatically be referred to that committee. The members of the committee would benefit very largely by their study. Certain representations by the committee might be made to the house. It could have before it the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, who might at least outline many of the problems that face us at this time. There should be before the committee a detailed report of what was done at the last assembly of the League of Nations. Only as members of the house secure fuller knowledge of international affairs than most of us have at the present time can it be hoped that there will be a deep interest in these matters on the part of the people generally. On several occasions I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this matter. I hope he will see his way clear in the near future either to refer these matters to the present committee or, even better, to appoint a separate committee charged with studying on behalf of the house the whole of our foreign policy and international relations generally, as is done-a colleague suggests-by the foreign relations committee in the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have followed from time to time the statements made by members of this house who suggested that the foreign policy of Canada should be studied by a committee, and the more I have looked into the matter the more certain I am that it would do harm rather than good. No one would suggest that the foreign relations committee at Washington has at all times served a useful purpose. The essence of foreign policy in England, for instance, has been continuity of policy and, so far as might be, unity of thought and action on the part of successive governments; that is a Liberal government succeeding a Conservative administration has endeavoured to carry out the general outline of large policy which its predecessors thought desirable in the interests of the country. Public
examination into details of foreign relations tends to create the impression that that which must be withheld from the public has a sinister meaning, though in fact it has not. One cannot discuss foreign problems-and when I use the word "foreign" I employ it in the sense of everything external to Canada-as one discusses domestic problems, because the other man's point of view must be considered, and yet it cannot be disclosed; he does not do business on that assumption, and without his specific consent his communications or dispatches or expressions of viewpoint cannot be made known to the public.
One of the difficulties in connection with foreign policy that have been experienced by countries which have pursued the course that has just been suggested is that they find it hard to do business in the way in which foreign relations have usually been maintained. The essence of democratic government is that so far as possible the government shall be responsive to the mind and will of the people. But if people's minds are to be distracted by extreme views and the suggestion of sinister purposes and motives in connection with matters that cannot be fully exposed at the moment to the public mind, because their disclosure must be delayed until something further has occurred, a government may experience the negation of the very effort it is making to secure a successful issue of the matter in which it is engaged. During the last few months every government in the civilized world has been worried and worn by the conditions that obtain throughout the world. Now if we are to resolve ourselves into a committee, small or large, and have statements made by prominent officials, and examine documents and papers, when an announcement is made that this or that paper cannot be produced at the moment, someone will say, "Why can we not have it? Are we not the people?" and the net result will be that you will create an atmosphere unfavourable to the sense of tranquillity and confidence on the part of the public which every government, I think, aims to secure.
When Lord Granville went out of office in 1870 he told his successor that the horizon had never been clearer than at that moment, yet within a few weeks the Franco-Prussian war broke out. That is an illustration of the uncertainties that pervade the atmosphere of foreign offices. At the moment we have no such terrific responsibilities, but our partnership in the commonwealth of nations does place us in a position wherein a public discussion by a committee of matters that I could name, were I so disposed, might and I

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
think would be most injurious in respect of many problems that are constantly engaging the attention of the prime minister and his government. For these reasons I have never been able to bring myself to an appreciation of what is meant by the proposal to refer to a committee matters relating to our foreign policy.
The foreign policy of this country is so obvious that it does not require much discussion. On points where there may be differences or wherein an acute situation may arise, the responsible ministers are always desirious of informing the public, not only for their own safety but because they have a sense of responsibility in that regard. But there are some matters which can be peacefully adjusted by reason of the very fact that they are not made known for public discussion, whereas such a result would be made difficult if they became the subject matter of bickering and unpleasant and unhappy reflections. I am certain of that. I have made it my business to ask in many quarters, not only in our own empire but elsewhere, and I have received but one answer, and it is this: with the tremendous responsibility that rests upon those who have to accept the duties of office, to meet a committee of parliament and be asked about matters which cannot be divulged because they may be in a state of partial completion, would be impossible without creating that very suspicion and unrest and distrust which all governments endeavour to prevent or allay. I cannot bring myself to any other view. I should like to feel that there was something in the suggestion that has been made, but I cannot see that it would have any effect other than to injure rather than advance the cause which the hon. member has in mind.
The discussions in the foreign relations committee of the United States are of two kinds, one public and the other private. The senate of the United States goes into executive session about every matter that affects the interests of the United States with respect to treaties when they are up for discussion and ratification, and it does not permit the general public to have any knowledge of them. It was asserted that this had always been a matter of tradition. There is said to have been such tremendous applause that the windows of the old senate chamber rattled when, in connection with the Alabama claims, Sumner quoted:
It was that fatal and perfidious bark,
Built in th' eclipse, and rigged with curses dark,
That sunk so low that sacred head of thine.

That is what he is alleged to have said at the height of his eloquence. In the United States they do not permit public discussion of those matters which are of tremendous and vital force in connection with their foreign policies. Surely there has been in this house no limitation by any government to the fullest possible discussion of every matter that affects the relations of Canada to the empire and to foreign countries; I have seen no such effort on the part of anyone, and I know of none on the part of the late government at least. But to send matters of that kind to a committee for discussion I cannot but think would have the effect of destroying that very sentiment and sense of solidarity and continuity which is so desirable in connection with our international relations, whether with other members of the British commonwealth or what one might technically call foreign nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that in bringing on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs at this early stage of the session, I had hoped that this year at least the government would be meeting his wishes in the matter of affording early opportunity for the fullest discussion of external affairs. Two or three times my hon. friend has complained that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were held until near the end of the session with the result that no opportunity had been given for discussion of External Affairs. This year I tried to bring on the estimates early so as to avoid that criticism. As to ample opportunity of discussion may I say that opportunity is being offered now. The house is in committee, there is no desire in any way to limit discussion. I must say however that I agree with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just said about the great responsibility which rests upon a minister in charge of foreign affairs to-day. If there is any time or occasion where the doctrine of ministerial responsibility applies to the full it is in these matters which relate to the affairs of foreign nations and other countries. For example, I cannot imagine a committee calling before it the under secretary for External Affairs and expecting him to take responsibility either for giving or withholding information in relation to foreign affairs. That is something for which the minister himself must take responsibility. That being the case, it seems to me it is much better that the minister should take his stand before the house as a whole rather than appear before

Supply-External Affairs-Miscellaneous
any committee. With the condition of the world what it is to-day, I feel very strongly that there are some things which it is just as well to avoid discussing. On the floor of the house a minister can give his reasons for withholding discussion and will be expected to do so. I do not see what could be added in committee that could not be given on the floor of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appreciate the kindness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in bringing down the estimates at an early stage of the session. But it seems to me that both he and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) have a wrong idea of what is involved in my proposal. I recognize that there are certain matters which, by their very nature, must be more or less confidential. No one wants to drag those out, especially when delicate negotiations are going on. I recognize also that no under secretary ought to be asked to give information with regard to matters of policy. But I believe there is much taking place in the world to-day that ought to be known to our general public. Comparatively little information is given in our press concerning international affairs; even in our schools and universities little opportunity is given to follow them. If even we in this house are to form an intelligent judgment on these matters, an opportunity ought to be afforded for studying them.
What I speak of is the setting up of a new piece of machinery. With regard to the business of almost every department we have committees; every hon. member is familiar with what is done in those committees; the head of the department or other officials may be called in, not to discuss policy but rather to give information. Sometimes outsiders may be called in; representative men or women from many walks of life appear and give information or their expert knowledge. It is for the government to decide later what the government's policy shall be, but at least the committee is more or less informed as to the subject matter under discussion. Surely we should get away from this idea that foreign policy must be conducted in secret. The suggestion is made that if the public knows just a little more, it will become restless. I cannot see the force of that argument. The fact is that if it is considered that foreign affairs must be conducted in secrecy, the public is much more likely to imagine that something is wrong.
The leader of the opposition suggests that we ought to have continuity in our policies as regards both commonwealth affairs and dealings with foreign nations. I would suggest to
him that it did not look as if he were very strong on continuity when immediately on accession to office he altered our representation in both London and Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was not any representation at Washington at the time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, very shortly afterwards there was representation of a very different kind. I am not urging that in committee we should cover the whole field, but instead of merely passing an item to cover the expenses of our delegation to Geneva, we might well have that delegation appear before a committee, tell its experiences in Geneva, share with us some of the information acquired there. Then, with regard to relationships that we have with other countries, instead of our being forced to discuss in the house details with regard to our relations with China, Japan or any other country, it seems to me it would be far more intelligent to have some definite machinery through which this could be done to greater advantage. That is all I have in view. I do not think the answer of either the leader of the opposition or the Prime Minister has really touched the proposal which I made in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-To provide for hospitality in connection with visitors from abroad, $15,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask when the vote pertaining to the International Joint Commission comes up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Provision for the International Joint Commission is made by statute. It is not necessary to discuss the appropriation in committee because provision is made under an act which sets forth the amount to be paid year by year. If however, my hon. friend wishes to ask any questions on the matter, he is perfectly free to do so at the present time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I remember the figures correctly, the auditor general gave them for 1935-36 as $38,272, whereas for 1936-37 and 1937-38 they are $73,000. I was going to ask if the increase arises because of the meetings of the International Joint Commission during the past summer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of fact, the statute provides for the larger amount but only the smaller amount was actually paid1. I think that explains the point raised by my hon. friend.
704	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Miscellaneous


John Ritchie MacNicol: And does the International- Joint Commission report directly to the minister on matters that came up at the meetings of the commission last fall?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commission makes a report to the minister, yes, upon the different matters that come up for discussion.


John Ritchie MacNicol: At the moment I have nothing to say with regard to what was discussed- at the meetings of the commission that I attended, I refer particularly to the part of the reference to the commission concerning the Richelieu river. This matter will come up under the public works department, and I shall have something to say then. I must say, however, that I was amazed at the proposal- of the Lake Champlain Valley Council Association before the commission, to divert water from lake St. Francis across country, having it flow by gravity into the Hudson river. The water level of lake St. Francis, above sea level, was proposed as stationary at 152 feet. The proposal was to run a canal directly across to lake Champlain, the water to enter that lake through one or two locks having a total drop of about fifty feet. It was proposed that the level of lake Champlain should be maintained at 100 feet above sea level by constructing works at the outlet of the lake in order to regulate the flow into the Richelieu river at, I suppose, approximately a thousand second feet. The balance of the proposed diversion of 5,000 second feet-


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not like to interrupt, but we are on item 210, to provide for hospitality in connection with visitors.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Prime Minister gave me permission to ask a question about an item that was not called, and in any case I shall be through in a moment. As I said, the proposal was to control the flow of water at the outlet of lake Champlain so as to maintain the level at 100 feet above sea level. Then it was proposed to tunnel or excavate through the height of land south of lake Champlain andi take the water across country to Northumberland on the Hudson river. That height of land is about 147 feet above sea level. I covered that territory very thoroughly during the fall, and I am familiar with the whole layout of the country.
It struck me, Mr. Chairman, that if anything of this sort was ever permitted it would be ruinous to the harbour of Montreal, and anything that would ruin the harbour of Montreal would ruin the whole economic fabric of this country. I am confident that the minister would never permit the diversion

of 5,000 seeond feet of water out of lake St. Francis, across country and through two locks into the Hudson river at Northumberland but if an association carries on propaganda and keeps it up for a long time there is no telling how far it may go. I wondered whether that report had been received by the minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the inquiry was originated at the instance of the United States. Some hearings have been held already, and the commission will be holding further hearings in April. It will be some time before any report is made, and when that report is prepared it will be printed and sent to the governments of both countries. The commission will not be in a position to commit either country to any project. The purpose of the inquiry is to get information which will enable the government to decide what may be best with respect to any project of the kind.


Harry James Barber: Would the Prime Minister explain this item and give us a statement as to the money expended last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just before that point is left, I wonder whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has given any thought to the effect of the privy council decisions, which I have read in the newspapers but of which I have not seen the full text, with regard to the meaning of section 132 in relation to the treaty having to do with the International Joint Commission. If the newspaper reports are accurate, I am not quite clear as to whether or not the treaty is invalid. Perhaps when the minister gets the opportunity, he will look into that question when he is looking into the other matters that have to be dealt with.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I have just received the information that the text of those decisions has reached the department, so I shall be able to communicate the text to the house to-morrow and the matter to which my right hon. friend calls attention will certainly be investigated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked for an- explanation of the hospitality vote, which shows an increase of $10,000. This again brings up a point, which will come up in connection with -other items which will be presented this afternoon, as to the position which a country is obliged to take as a country when belonging to the family of nations. The custom does exist among different nations of extending something in the way of hospitality to important personages irom other countries. When Canada is

Supply-External Affairs-Miscellaneous
represented) abroad by its public men they are frequently entertained by the governments of the countries to which they go, and on our part we are obliged to extend similar courtesies, or at least we feel that we should do so, to distinguished personages visiting Canada from other countries. This year, due to the coronation and the imperial conference, we expect that there will be a considerable number of persons of importance visiting Canada to whom some hospitality should be extended by the government, and for that reason the amount is somewhat larger than otherwise would be the case.
I might mention in particular that we have learned that Prince Chichibu the brother of the Emperor of Japan proposes to go to London for the coronation via Canada. His Royal Highness will be visiting Ottawa on his way to London, and will be staying in this country for a short time. The government feel that it would wish to extend appropriate oourtesies to the emperor's brother.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is no overestimating the importance of having this dominion properly discharge its duties to those from other parts of the British Empire and elsewhere who visit us. It will be within the memory of this house that we did entertain the brother of the Emperor of Japan and his wife, and we did1 entertain the King of Siam. They intimated that they were passing through this country, and we considered it our duty to extend some courtesy by way of entertainment. I can not in any sense come within the qualification imposed by the first minister in his observations, as being a distinguished person, but I was embarrassed by the kindness and courtesy extended to me in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. The governments of those countries certainly make it their business to extend hospitality to people from other parts of the dominions. We have done less of this than most of our sister dominions, and in view of the great stretch of country we have it is highly important that we should provide that those who come among us and, .to put it on a selfish basis, who may do us a great deal of good, should get the best possible view of the country as they pass through it and .the best possible impression with respect to it. I feel quite certain that this view, which is held in other countries, should prevail here. As far as my information goes, there is no country that does not maintain a hospitality fluid of substantial proportions. In Canada the *accounts are audited by the auditor general, and I think it may be said in the main that there has been little cause for complaint either as to the method of inspection or as to the persons who have been selected to be what
one of our friends once described as the victims of our hospitality, there being some danger that hospitality may be extended too generously.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required to meet loss on exchange, subject to approval of treasury board, $135,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a matter which would come under the Department of Finance, but there is no reason why we should not pass it. It is an exchange item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a reduction in the item. It is due to the devaluation of certain foreign currencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's portion of expenditure of the Imperial economic committee, the Imperial shipping committee and the executive council of the Imperial agricultural bureau, for 1937, $18,690.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a fixed item, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Advertising and publicity in the United Kingdom and Europe, $350,000.
. Mr. COLD WELL: What is the advertising for, and why the increase?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. COLD WELL:: If the results are satisfactory, I suppose the expenditures are warranted. I have noticed that recently some of Canada's advertising in old country papers has been greatly improved. I was wondering whether the increased expenditure is due to the new or improved method of advertising. May I ask if included in the amount is the advertising done by the Department of Agriculture in connection with Canadian farm products?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, this does
not include the agricultural item. An amount is voted specially for that purpose. The present high commissioner has given particular attention to the whole question of the organization of publicity in the United Kingdom. What the hon. member has observed, by way of improved conditions is I believe the result of careful study which has been made in connection with advertising, in which there has been an attempt to bring together all the interested parties, and to include all departments of government which advertise abroad. The expenditure for the Department of Agriculture remains separate.


Mr. MASSEY:: What proportion of the
vote is allocated to the United Kingdom and what to the rest of Europe?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe it is something like ninety-five per cent to the United Kingdom.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A sharp issue is raised
here, in connection with advertising. It will be recalled that the former high commissioner endeavoured to consolidate in Great Britain the advertising done by Canada. The Prime Minister will recall that he directed attention to certain efforts made by one department to carry on advertising "on its own," so to speak.
The statute dealing with the office of high commissioner provides that he shall have general supervision and control of our activities in the United Kingdom. I read and always have read the statute as indicating that he should be in charge, and I use the expression "in charge" in the colloquial sense in which we use it in Canada. The former high 
commissioner endeavoured to consolidate advertising services. I believe the Prime Minister will recall that in one year we increased the vote to, I believe, about $250,000. That represented all the advertising expenditure to be made in the United Kingdom and Europe in that year, and we endeavoured to bring it under the control of the high commissioner.
Mr. James Spence, to whom reference has been made, is in charge of that section of the advertising carried on under the direction of the high commissioner's office. Various departments have endeavoured to conduct their own advertising campaigns. At one time it was the Department of Trade and Commerce, to which exception was taken, and at another time it was the Department of Agriculture. The question as to the relationship between these two departments I purpose discussing at a later time. The story is a very old one, and involves a close and careful analysis of the situation. If the Department of Trade and Commerce is to be treated as it has been on several occasions in the past, then it will fail in the discharge of its duty. That department is responsible for the trade commissioners.	.
I read an article in one of the weeklies-* I believe it was Canada's Weekly-dealing with the impingement by one department upon the operations of others. Our trade commissioners are highly efficient and effective men. The principle underlying the agricultural activities of Canada will be found in the British North America Act, and in the statute dealing with the department. It was never intended that it should be charged with a responsibility outside Canada. Its duty was to see that our products were standardized, that they were of the highest possible quality and that every possible step was taken to ensure that they met the requirements indicated by the Department of Trade and Commerce. So the trade commissioners are responsible for the work outside Canada. If the testimony to their effectiveness and efficiency that one receives in other parts of the world is correct, these men, who are mostly young, have discharged their duties and responsibilities in a highly satisfactory manner. If another body is to be set up to do the same work or to have any responsibility in connection with it, the result will be disastrous. I know that in times past acute differences have arisen between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Those of us who have listened to the statements of a former minister of agriculture and of a former minister of trade and commerce will realize the necessity of there being a clear delimitation of their activities as provided by the statute. The

Sup-ply-External Affairs-Miscellaneous
Department of Agriculture should be charged with the responsibility of seeing that the requisitions as to fitness and quality and everything connected with the preparation of our exports have been complied with. When they leave these shores the responsibility should belong to the other department. I mention this because it touches the question of advertising. The Prime Minister says that the question of advertising does not touch the Department of Agriculture, that the statute makes it perfectly clear that the trade commissioner's office should be responsible for it all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my right hon. friend says, any advertising is carried on through the high commissioner. I was answering the hon. member who spoke a moment ago with reference to using money voted to the Department of Agriculture for its work. That money is used for the purpose of gathering information through officers of the department in England as to what would be helpful in determining types of commodities required and in connection with grading and the like. I think that is what my right hon. friend is referring to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the right hon. gentleman had made that statement before, he would have been saved having to listen to my observations of the last few minutes.


Mr. HEAPS:: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Canada's
Weekly. This paper goes into every public library in the old country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the circulation of the paper outside the libraries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that information.


Denton Massey: Could the Prime Minister tell us how this money is allotted? As some of us who have been in the advertising game know, there are advertising agencies and other aids to those who would place advertising accounts of considerable dimension. I am not attempting to criticize what has been done, as I agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he says that the advertising has been excellent and is a credit to the high commissioner. Are Canadian advertising agencies having branches in London consulted with regard to this advertising, or are British agencies used exclusively? What is the course of procedure?
31111-45j


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Denton Massey: Will the nature of the campaigns for advertising onions, apples and so on, be left to the discretion of the high commissioner's office in London, or will they be governed from Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that will be a matter of conference between the two.


Denton Massey: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say a while ago that advertising for the Department of Agriculture would be handled by the high commissioner's office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not
make myself clear in my reply. I was answering a question about a vote which had been made for the purpose of agriculture. The purpose of that vote was to enable the officers of the department to gather information in England with respect to quality grading and other matters which would be helpful to the department here. Such advertising of agricultural products as is done will be done by the high commissioner's office.


Denton Massey: I congratulate the high commissioner's office upon the advertising they are doing. Such advertising as I have seen of late has been of a very high quality, and this vote, large as it is, is well justified by the returns to this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses in connection with the negotiation of treaties, $20,000.
Mr. CAHAN:: I trust the chairman will allow me to ask a question as to the matter which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) mentioned a moment ago. I understood him

to say that he had received copies of the judgments on the recent references which were made and came before the judicial committee of the privy council.


Ernest Lapointe: I have just been sent the information that we have received them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I wonder whether it would not be possible to have them printed so that the members of the house might have access to them. It will be one or two months before the law reports are published. We have now on the order paper certain bills introduced, strange to say, by a private member for the repeal of certain statutes enacted by this parliament in 1935, and the question of their repeal must depend very largely upon a careful consideration of the opinions delivered by the judicial committee of the privy council. On that ground alone it seems to me that we should have at an early day copies of the judgments made available to all members who are interested.
Another more important matter was mentioned by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) a moment ago, and that is that the opinions of the judicial committee of the privy council, as summarized and reported in the press, seem to go to the very root of the previous constitutional practice and to suggest that the government of Canada no longer has the legal authority or the constitutional right to negotiate with foreign nations treaties except those to which the parliament of Canada can give legislative validity. As that question must, I think, come up for discussion, it is important that the text of the opinions delivered by the judicial committee of the privy council should be made available. Certainly I trust that the government will not allow certain bills which have passed a first reading to come up for a second reading until we have the text of those opinions available.


Ernest Lapointe: I realize the importance of those decisions being made available to all the members of the house, and it was my intention to lay on the table to-morrow, at the first opportunity, copies of all the decisions. Then, perhaps, either the house will order that they be printed and distributed, or possibly if they are not too lengthy they might be inserted in the Votes and Proceedings, so that they would reach all the members of the house the following day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And a few extra copies of the Votes and Proceedings might be printed.

Supply-External Affairs-Coronation


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has said that certain bills for the repeal of certain legislation have already received their first reading. Those bills are still on the order paper for first reading. The decisions of the privy council doubtless have much to do with the consideration which members will give to those bills when they come up, if they do come up.
As far as the right of Canada to enter into treaties is concerned, the only references in which the question of treaties arose were the labour references respecting minimum wages, hours of labour and the weekly day of rest. They were special. It was even represented in this house that they were not treaties at all. They were conventions which were accepted by the house in 1935, and I believe it will be seem from the decisions of the privy council that their lordships did not consider them as ordinary treaties, such as my hon. friend suggests. However, we had better wait until we see the text, which I myself have not yet seen.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses of the reference by the governments of Canada and the United States of certain complaints arising out of the operation of the smelter at Trail, B.C., to the tribunal constituted pursuant to the provisions of the convention signed at Ottawa the 15th April, 1935, $50,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is only the voting
of money that will be repaid to the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses connected with Canada's representation at the coronation of His Majesty, $35,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister indicate how much money altogether it is proposed to spend on the coronation ceremonies?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have estimated $35,000 as the amount required, but that is exclusive of the $197,000 which will be required for the contingent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, here again I am afraid I must protest against these large amounts. It seems to me that this country might very well be represented by the Prime Minister and several individuals who could represent it with dignity, but I cannot quite see why there should be these very heavy expenses for what is, after all, simply an elaborate ceremonial, I turn over to the next page of the estimates, opposite
vote 249 for $197,000 for the expenses of the contingent, and I find these grants: grant to the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, $13,100; grant to the Canadian National1 Committee for Mental Hygiene, $10,000; grant to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, $5,000; grant to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, $18,000; grant to the Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $20,250; grant to the Victorian Order of Nurses, $13,100; grant to assist the Canadian branch of the St. John Ambulance Association, $4,050; grant to the Canadian Red Cross Society, $8,100; grant to the Canadian Dental Hygiene Council, $750. I give those as examples of the comparatively small grants that we make to these important institutions.
I am thinking more particularly of the large number of people who are living on very low standards, some of them in actual destitution, and who will have to pay the large sums required to send this contingent and the various delegates to London. We have just passed large votes for the advertising abroad of wheat, fish and so on, but the actual agricultural workers, the fishermen, the miners and the textile workers, whom we were discussing here last "night, and generally the great masses of the producers of this country who really are the foundation of our national life, are to-day receiving in their personal incomes very small amounts indeed. Some of them are trying to bring up families on the small wages they are receiving. I do think-though I may be the only one in the house who ventures to express himself along these lines-that we are getting away from the earlier ideals which inspired the people^ of Canada, ideals of simplicity, ideals of liv

ing within our means. We have a sort of false front; we have to live in as good a house on the international street as anybody else. This is all wrong. We are not living within our means, and in our efforts to advertise this country or to be present at a great ceremonial, we are making large expenditures, when as a matter of fact we refuse to make even comparatively small expenditures to meet the needs of the producers and of the large numbers of unemployed who are constantly begging us for alms.
. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: My hon. friend is hardly fair in the comparison he has made. He was trying to draw a contrast between what is being spent for the purpose of representation at the coronation and what is being spent in the way of money for social services. For any such purpose he ought to give the committee a statement in full, which would include what is being spent by the provinces for all social services-
710	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Coronation


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the municipalities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and what is being paid out by municipalities. He ought to take account of what has been disbursed by the federal government in the last few years in unemployment relief-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And by private benevolence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and for old age pensions, and now we have pensions for the blind which are being proposed this session. All that the hon. member has quoted are a few contributions being made from the federal treasury to help some private agencies which are carrying on a very creditable work and wish to be assured, through assistance given them by this government, of an amount sufficient to pay their secretarial staffs. I mention that only because I think it is important that a true perspective should be preserved.
With regard to the matter of representation, I believe citizens of Canada generally will wish this country to be represented at the coronation on a par with Australia and South Africa and New Zealand and India and other parts of the British empire. After all Canada is the largest and the oldest of the dominions. We take a certain pride in having a status of our own as an autonomous nation with all the powers and rights of a full nation. If we are to be represented at all at the coronation, surely it should be with some regard to the position that Canada holds in the eyes of other parts of the empire and other countries of the world.
My hon. friend speaks continually about what we are spending for one purpose and another and asks why we cannot afford a little more for peace policies. Many of the items that he has questioned this afternoon are for purposes which perhaps go further than any others towards promoting good will and good relations between countries. Our legations have been instruments for avoiding conflicts, for getting at the root of difficulties at their inception. The amount that will be expended in connection with the coronation will be a means, I am perfectly sure, of bringing together representative groups from all parts of the empire in a way which will further effect cooperation and good will among them. I think we must view these questions from the larger point of view that we are a full .grown nation, with not only the opportunity of fulfilling the obligations of a nation but with a certain pride in the way in which we do it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Send farmers and fishermen and textile workers, then, instead of sending soldiers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the hon. member that I believe the young men who are in our defence forces, who are prepared to give, if need be, their lives at a time as critical in the affairs of the w'orld as the present time, are deserving, whether they serve in the air force or the naval forces or the militia, of all the encouragement and all the honour that this parliament can give them. I resent strongly the imputation that a man who is prepared to offer his life in the service and for the protection of his country, on behalf of those who are unable to defend themselves, is not discharging an all-important function for the nation to-day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such imputation. I said that we should send as our delegates persons who represent the different classes of our people. The Prime Minister has stated that we should send people who would promote peace. My suggestion was that if we were sincere in our desire to promote peace we might well send representatives of farmers and fishermen and miners as well as sending soldiers.


An hon. MEMBER:: You said, instead of sending soldiers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All we are sending represent one class. I suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be equally possible for me to say that he insinuated that the farmers and the miners and so on were not the people who were at the foundations of our life. I do not charge he did say that, but I resent his suggestion that there was any justification for the statement he imputed to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that in the militia service there will be many taken from the ranks of the artisans of this country; there will be farmers, miners and representatives of other trades and callings. I was not making any insinuations. My hon. friend remarked that we had better not send soldiers, and I was trying to point out that in a world such as we are in to-day those who are offering their services to the state as soldiers are deserving of all the recognition we can give them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I doubt whether the Prime Minister's statement is altogether correct, that the people of Canada are greatly interested in seeing that Canada makes as good a showing as South Africa and New Zealand and Australia. There are thousands of people across

Divorce in British Columbia-Mr. Green
the dominion who are not particularly anxious about the kind of showing we make, but who are face to face with their greatest problem, that of making a living. When passing expenditures of this sort, and one to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) referred the other evening, this parliament should bear in mind that there are people in Canada, people in the province and the constituency from which I come, who are living on relief grants of from $6.50 to nineteen or twenty dollars per month, people who are receiving five dollars in their home when they are expecting the arrival of a child, people unable to get eye glasses or proper dental or medical care. To such it must be a striking contrast that we pass votes, one of $35,000 for the delegation to the coronation, one of $197,000 for a contingent to attend the coronation, one of $65,000 to decorate buildings across the dominion with flags at the coronation, one of $40,000 for the imperial conference. If we omit the item for the conference, there is a total of around $300,000, and it is in striking contrast to the fact that to the people I have mentioned we dole out a few cents here and a few cents there, sometimes after a most humiliating examination of their circumstances. When the Prime Minister feels that we are particularly worried over the matter of keeping up with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations, may I remind him that there are thousands of people who are much more interested in seeing that we properly discharge our responsibilities to our people who are in need throughout the dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to provide for appeal to the court of appeal of the province of British Columbia in divorce and matrimonial causes.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to provide for an appeal in divorce causes in British Columbia to the appeal court of that province. At the present time, in divorce and matrimonial causes, the only appeal in that province from the trial court, which is called the supreme
court of British Columbia, is direct to the privy council, which means in actual practice that except for very wealthy people there is n.o appeal at all. This is an, anomalous situation, for in every other province in which the courts have and exercise jurisdiction in divorce matters there is an appeal to the appellate court of the particular province. Let me make it quite clear at the outset that the purpose of this bill is not to give a new or wider jurisdiction to grant divorces in British Columbia. It is merely to give power to our appeal court to review decrees which are made by the trial court.
Hon. members may wondeT how it happens that the trial court, known as the supreme court of British Columbia, has jurisdiction in divorce causes, while the court of appeal, which is a senior court, has not such jurisdiction. It does seem a ridiculous situation. It came about in this way: When the colony of British Columbia entered confederation in 1871, there was a trial court known even then as the supreme court, but there was no appellate court. At that time the law of England as of November 19, 1858, was in force so far as it was not inapplicable through local circumstances. This law of England included the divorce law of England, which accordingly was in force in the colony of British Columbia. Upon that colony entering confederation, the law-making power in so far as divorce matters were concerned passed by section 91 (26) of the British North America Act from the colony to the dominion, where it has ever since reposed. But the dominion passed no divorce legislation, so under section 129 of the British North America Act the divorce law of England remained in force in British Columbia, and it so remains to this day.
In 1877, a few years after the province entered confederation, it was held by the supreme court of British Columbia that this divorce law of England was still in effect in the province and that the supreme court of British Columbia had power to grant divorces. Those who would care to check the decision will find it in Sharp v. Sharp, reported in 1 B.C. Reports at page 25.
So much for the trial court. The appeal court has not been so fortunate. As the population of the province grew, the need for a court of review became apparent, so the provincial legislature passed legislation setting up a court of review, which was known as the full court, and giving to that full court ths power to review every judgment, decree or order made by a judge of the supreme court. One might think that was wide enough to give an appeal in divorce causes. But in 1891 the full court itself held that it had no
712	COMMONS
Divorce in British Columbia-Mr. Green
power to hear appeals in divorce matters, because under the British North America Act the provincial legislature had no power to confer divorce jurisdiction upon any court. That remains the law to this day. It was confirmed within recent years by the present court of appeal for British Columbia, which has replaced the full court, and also confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Claman v. Claman, the decision of the appeal court of British Columbia being found in (1925) 35 B.C. Reports, at page 137, and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in (1926) 68 Supreme Court Reports, at page 4.
I should like to quote an extract from the judgment of Chief Justice Macdonald of the appeal court of British Columbia in this case. He said:
In the early history of this province, the courts considered that the English Divorce Act was in force here, and that an appeal would lie only to the privy council. Since that time appeals have invariably been made to the privy council and not to the court of appeal of the province, so that that became the established or recognized rule and has remained such for many years unquestioned.
That, of course, leaves the only appeal from the trial court an appeal direct to the privy council. In every other province in which the courts have and exercise jurisdiction in divorce causes, there is an appeal to the appellate court of the province. For example, in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick I believe the divorce laws which they had as colonies before confederation remain in force, and there is an appeal. In Ontario, where there was no divorce law before confederation, this parliament by chapter 14 of 1930 declared the English divorce law as of July 15, 1870, to be in force in the province. And this parliament went further and gave the Ontario courts jurisdiction to hear divorce causes, which included, of course, the right to hear appeals. In the three prairie provinces privy council decisions have established that the English divorce law of July 15, 1870 is in force, and decisions of the provincial appeal courts within the last few years have established their own right to hear appeals. British Columbia remains the only province where there is no such right to hear appeals. In that province the court of appeal can hear appeals of all other kinds; for instance they can hear an appeal from a county court judgment in the sum of $100 or over, but they cannot hear an appeal in such vital matters as a decree dissolving a marriage, eul order for the custody of the children of that marriage, or an order for alimony.

For some time this position has been recognized as unsound by the barristers and solicitors in British Columbia and by the benchers of the law society there. The law society at its annual meeting two years ago passed a resolution requesting that provision be made for appeals to the court of appeal in British Columbia, and the benchers of the law society on April 6 of last year passed the following resolution:
That the benchers request that provision be made for appeals from divorce matters to the court of appeal in the same manner as in civil cases, and that copies of the resolution be sent to the Minister of Justice, Hon. Ian Mackenzie, and the Attorney General of British Columbia.
. Now the provincial legislature cannot provide for such appeals because the British North America Act gives the dominion parliament exclusive authority in divorce matters, so an appeal is impossible unless it is provided for by this parliament. We are not asking that divorce jurisdiction be conferred on the provincial courts as was done in the case of Ontario, because our supreme court already has that jurisdiction. We are merely asking that the right of appeal be provided.
The question is of great importance. After all, the setting aside of a marriage is a serious matter; deciding as to the custody of children of that marriage is a serious matter; and yet in British Columbia a marriage can be set aside and the custody of the children determined without any right of appeal except to the privy council, which in the great majority of cases means no appeal at all. As a result I fear that our people think that divorces are easy to get; I fear that they do not give the serious consideration to the question of divorce which it merits. I suggest that it is not fair or wise that there should be no appeal in British Columbia when there is an appeal in all the other provinces exercising divorce jurisdiction.
I ask that the bill be passed, because 1 think it is really constructive legislation meeting a great need. It is put forward without any idea of partisanship, and, as I have said, simply to meet a condition which must be remedied. This parliament is the only body that can provide the remedy.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, this bill has come before the house for second reading only this evening and it was introduced, I believe, only last Friday. My hon. friend has set forth very clearly his arguments in support of the bill, but I must say that, knowing this matter would come up this evening, upon investigation this afternoon the officers of my department told me that some representations

Supply-Secretary oj State
had been made by the legal department of the province of British Columbia in regard to this question. I do not know as yet what they are; I have not had an opportunity to consider them. So, unless other members desire to speak this evening, I should like to move the adjournment of the debate in order that I may be able to take a stand on the bill when it comes up again at the end of the week.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

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



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
Exchequer Court of Canada-Contingencies

Judges' and court officials' travelling expenses; remuneration to sheriffs, etc., printing, stationery, etc., and $150 for judges' books, $6,200.
Printing, binding and distributing court reports, $2,000.
Ernest Lapointe: I may tell my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that I just want to call this one non-contentious item, so that I shall be able to come in with my estimates later on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-[DOT]
Salaries, $299,264.
Contingencies, $86,760.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Would the minister explain the details of this item?


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: This includes the salary votes of the Department of the Secretary of State and of the patent and copyright office, which have been merged, with contingencies appertaining to both departments. I may point out that there is a decrease in both branches. In the Secretary of State's department there is a decrease from 96 permanent clerks to 89; in the patent and1 copyright office there is a decrease from 90 to 83 permanent clerks. The same will be observed in other departments. This decrease is due to the fact that we have generally decreased the number of permanent clerks in the service in the different departments, and their work will be carried on by temporary clerks provided for by the contingencies vote. I may say that in the Secretary of State's department in addition there has been a slight decrease in the activities of the naturalization branch, due no
doubt to the fact that there is always more work in that branch around election time. Probably there is also a slight decrease in the activities of the companies branch.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask how many naturalization certificates were issued last year?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: There were 24,334 in all sections, as compared with 22,469 in 1935, and a much larger figure in the previous year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Patent record, $25,200.
Harry James Barber: What is the reason for the reduction?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We did not spend the extra amount voted last year, so we decided not to ask for it this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International office for the protection of industrial property, international copyright union office and union for the protection of literary and artistic works, $2,700.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister explain what this vote is for?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is our contribution to the international patent office and international copyright office in Berne.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for salaries and expenses of the bureau for translations, $233,961.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is the total amount for translation work in the several departments the translation work of which has been brought under the one bureau. The reason for the decrease is that certain senior translators have been superannuated and replaced by young newcomers who have passed their examinations and have been appointed at lower salaries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask if this bureau is now working satisfactorily?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I do not suppose the committee would expect a long statement, but I may say that there is much merit in this way of organizing the translators. This brings them all under the one control. That applies especially to the translators of Hansard and the senate debates, who formerly were busy only during the session. Now we can use their services throughout the year.
There are still some departments the translation work of which has not been brought under the bureau, but I may say that I have been in communication with the departments of Trade and Commerce, Labour, National
Supply-Secretary oj State

Defence and Mines and Resources, and I expect the translators of those departments to come under the bureau on April 1 of this year. The work has been quite heavy. We had the reciprocity treaty with the United States, which had to be translated in so many hours; we had conferences in Ottawa the proceedings of which had to be translated, and during the abdication crisis there were very important documents that had to be translated. I may also mention the reports of the inquiries that are held, which reports previously were translated outside the bureau in a more or less haphazard way. All the duties of the bureau for translations are now carried out methodically. May I point out that the translation of Hansard has been speeded up. Hon. members may have French or English translations of Hansard on the same day as the original transcription appears. In fact, there have been issues of Hansard where the English translation has been annexed to the original copy. The senate have asked us to deal with their Hansard. Their translation used to be delayed for weeks, but now it appears the day after the original copy is printed. All this is due to the fact that all the translators are under one head, which permits their being used to the fullest extent, and the work being distributed in a methodical way. In my opinion the bureau for translations is working very well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be a matter of satisfaction to those who initiated the legislation to have now the stamp of approval of those who a few short months ago gave it their greatest condemnation.


Mr. McCANN:: Are there any translators in the department of the minister connected with the translation service?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; the bureau is in my department. I have one translator who, at the same time, is an editor in the patents department. He works under me, not under the bureau for translations. His work is done in a dual capacity. The same thing applies to a few clerks in other departments who act partly as translators and partly as editors.


James Joseph McCann: I see under an item passed a few minutes ago there is an amount of $3,000 for a chief translator acting under the Department of the Secretary of State.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: That is the gentleman to whom I referred. His name is not in my mind, but he works in the patent branch as editor of the Patent Record.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Expenses under the Naturalization Act,
Harry James Barber: Would the minister explain the item?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: We carry i<t every year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it carried for purposes of investigation?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is for expenditures, printing of certificates, and expenses incurred in courts in different parts of the country. It is not used for investigation purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Expenses under the Canada Temperance Act, $5,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the present position in regard to this item?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It is a small vote which is not used, but which is voted every year in case it might be needed. The Canada Temperance Act is now in force only in a very few remote parts of the country. But if a plebiscite were asked for from any such portion, we would have to carry it out. The amount has been voted from year to year, but we have made very little use of it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was anything spent la9t year on the item?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am told we spent $1,500 on an appeal to the privy council respecting a case in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the result of the
appeal?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am informed that the Ontario government withdrew the case, and therefore we withdrew the appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the status of the county affected? What is its position with respect to the Canada Temperance Act? I was out of the country when the appeal was being carried forward. Hon. members will recall there was litigation as to whether or not the Canada Temperance Act was in force in a particular locality. What is the present position?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am informed that in
the counties of Peel, Huron and Perth the effect of the act was suspended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was litigation over it. if I remember correctly. What was the result of the litigation?


Ernest Lapointe: I believe there was a county court decision to the effect that the Ontario liquor law was more strict than the Canada Temperance Act, and that,

Supply-Secretary of State
therefore, the former should prevail. So far as I can remember, however, this was not the decision of the higher courts. There was an appeal by the county of Huron, but the appeal did not proceed. For these reasons the matter would not seem to be very well settled. It is not clear as to which of the two laws is more favourable to temperance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Printing and StationeryPrinting, binding, etc., the annual statutes, $8,500.
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is the usual amount voted for the printing of the annual statutes.


Harry James Barber: I understand there are purchases of the statutes made throughout the country. Is any revenue derived from such purchases?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes; some copies of the statutes are distributed free to a certain list regulated by order in council, and some are sold. In 1935-36 the approximate revenue was $8,035. including statutes for that and previous years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Gazette, $23,0-00.
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: What is the circulation of the Labour Gazette?


Charles Avery Dunning: The vote is for the
Canada Gazette, not the Labour Gazette.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am afraid I have not the figures showing the circulation. In 1935-36 the revenue amounted to $49,295.14, including advertisements paid -by the public. I am sorry to say the king's printer is not here, and I have not the figures showing the circulation. Perhaps I could give them at another time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any idea
how many people read the Canada Gazette.


Ernest Lapointe: All members of parliament.
Mr, RINFRET: I cannot say how many.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are a great many interested parties.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: It would be hard to tell in connection with any paper.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could the minister give the committee any idea of the income and outgo in connection with this paper? Many discussions have taken place in this chamber
as to whether or not it could be made a self-sustaining paper, and on one occasion the Secretary of State gave many details with respect to the matter.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have the figures from 1930-31, which are as follows:
Expenditures Revenue
193-0-31	$31,008 46	$71,197 141931-	32	
29,925	80-	73,589	821932-	33	
24,023	04	73.835	721933-	34	
21,196	41	55,721	701934-	35	
20,943	82	47,256	761935-	36	
22.749	66	49,295	14
Generally speaking, the revenue is about twice the expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Plant-repairs and renewals, $10,000.
Mr. THOMPSON:: What repairs and
renewals does this item refer to?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is for the printing plant. There is a reduction this year. A couple of years ago extensive expenditures were made to renovate the plant at the printing bureau, but this vote is to provide for any emergency which might arise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps this might be an appropriate place to bring to the attention of the committee a matter brought to my notice by the custodians of documents in South Africa and Australia. These gentlemen tell me that they have been unable to secure a complete record of all our public documents which are issued from time to time, although they supply a similar record to us. Perhaps the best way to direct attention to this matter is to have it placed upon Hansard in order that those responsible may endeavour to remedy the existing difficulty. These countries are sending to us a complete record of all public documents published under the authority of their parliaments. They attach considerable importance to some of our documents wdiich apparently they have not been able to get. It is possible they have communicated with the libraries instead of with the proper authorities, and I know they would greatly appreciate it if they could receive complete copies of all blue books and other publications authorized by parliament.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thank my right hon. friend for his valuable suggestion. I shall read his remarks in Hansard and give them my best consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Secretary oj State
[Stage Direction]
Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of this item was expended last year?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In 1935-36 the expenditures were $35,139.03 and the revenue amounted to $67,459.33.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-To provide for the expenses of delegation to the imperial conference, 1937, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this would be
an appropriate moment to ask the leader of the government if he is in a position to indicate what will be the general matters that will engage the attention of the Imperial conference at its approaching meeting and what we might expect will be the attitude of the administration toward the problems that will have to be considered. As nearly as I can remember, this is the form in which the right hon. gentleman usually put the question in the five years from 1930 to 1935. If I have not put it as succinctly or as delightfully as he did, he will have to take it as having been put in that sense.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall try to follow my right hon. friend by giving the reply which, as I recall, he made to me. At that time he was in possession of the agenda of the conference and was perhaps able to give more detailed information. The agenda of the forthcoming imperial conference has not yet been prepared. This is a matter of consultation at the moment between the British government and the governments of the different dominions. As soon as the agenda has been definitely prepared, it will be made known simultaneously to the parliaments of the different countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the right hon. gentleman has adopted, the answer which the one then occupying his position gave, because it adds lustre and distinction to the answers thus given.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February, 5, consideration in committee of Bill No. 11, to increase employment by encouraging the repair of rural and urban homes-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

On section 6-Conditions of loans.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, when the
committee reported progress the other day, sections 6 and 8 had been allowed to stand in ordier that consideration might be given by the law officers to various suggestions which had been made by members of the committee. As a .result of that consideration. I hold in my hand- amendments to these two sections, and for the convenience of the committee I arranged for them to be printed in Monday's Votes and Proceedings.
It is proposed to strike out paragraph (e) of section 6 and1 substitute the following therefor:
(e)	no service, insurance or any other additional charges of any kind shall be made by an approved lending institution as long as the borrower is not in default.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move
accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Langton Church: I would ask a question, Mr. Chairman, under paragraph (e). Suppose the owner of a property gets into some kind of default with the bank. Has the bank power to raise the rate up to 10 per cent, as the motor car companies do?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our regulations at the present time provide for a rate not exceeding 7 per cent interest on arrears under such circumstances.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Does paragraph (e) mean that no insurance will be placed upon the building?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. The insurance referred to is not insurance with respect to the buildings but what is sometimes described by instalment finance corporations as an insurance charge on the loan. This paragraph provides that there must be no such charge.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 8-Regulations.
Charles Avery Dunning: The proposed amendment to this section will also be found in the Votes and Proceedings. It is to cover particularly the suggestions made for the improvement of the section by .the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Caban), and one suggestion made, I think, by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). It is proposed to amend the section as follows:
That clause 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"8. (1) Subject to the provisions of this act, the governor in council may by regulation:

Home Improvement Loans
(a)	prescribe the forms of applications for home improvement loans, notes, agreements, certificates and any other documents necessary or desirable for the effective operation of this act;
(b)	provide that, in the event of actual or impending default by a borrower, an approved lending institution may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this act, with the approval of the borrower alter or revise by way of extension of time or otherwise, any of the terms of his agreement, and that such alteration or revision shall not operate to discharge any guarantee given under this act, and in the event of default by a borrower the legal and other measures to be taken and the procedure to be followed for the collection of the amount of the home improvement loan outstanding and the rate of interest to be charged on payments which are overdue;
(c)	provide for the determination of the amount of loss sustained by an approved lending institution and the procedure to be followed in making claims in respect of any guarantee given under this act;
(d)	prescribe tables showing maximum charges for loans of varying terms and varying methods of repayment;
(e)	require reports to be made periodically to the minister by approved lending institutions;
(f)	define for the purposes of this act the following expressions:
(i)	"owner" with power to include as owners life tenants, persons holding property under agreements for sale or under long term leases and any other persons having rights approximating ownership;
(ii)	"rural and urban homes" with power to include in such expression all such property as may reasonably be considered as part of a rural or urban home;
(iii)	"repairs, alterations and additions';
(g)	make provision for any other matters concerning which regulations are deemed necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes and intention of this act.
(2) Regulations made hereunder shall, when published in the Canada Gazette, have the same force and effect as if they had been included in this act.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); I move accordingly,. Mr. Chairman,


Thomas Langton Church: This amendment provides that the governor in council may make regulations covering the various matters described in paragraphs (a) to (f). Suppose the owner of a property has borrowed money from one of these shark loan companies, which charge anywhere from 20 to 40 per cent. Under this power of the minister to make regulations, is there any way by which such a man could give up the shark loan company and come in under this scheme?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid that there would be no opportunity under this scheme for an approved lending institution to take over a loan which had been previously made by another lending institution. Obviously
that would create very great difficulties, and it would not be in accord with the spirit of the legislation, which is to provide employment through the improvement of homes. If a man had previously borrowed from some other lending institution, presumably that money is already spent, and we could not under this legislation make provision for taking over loans made by other lending institutions.


Thomas Langton Church: I think the minister might very well consider what I say in this connection. A large number of our industrial workers are out of work, and have gone to these shark loan companies. The minister will remember that last session he very kindly brought down a list of them and the rates they charge. Some of our industrial workers, after pleading with parliament for three or four years to do something, have finally gone to one of these shark loan companies and borrowed a small sum, perhaps fifty or a hundred or two hundred dollars, to fix up their property, put a roof on, fix the verandah or paint the house. Surely these men should be allowed to do what the farmer and the fisherman is allowed to do, namely, wind up their affairs with the private mortgagee and come under the government subsidized scheme. If you do that, I venture to say you will find a lot of people coming under this scheme who otherwise would not, and whose case ought to be considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there is some little difficulty in using in paragraph (f) the words "approximating ownership." I do not like to see that in any statute because it confers a power to define something which is wholly at variance with what is ownership, and to leave it to the discretion of any person to say that something "approximates" ownership is to invite a wide variation in the administration of the statute.
I have discussed the proposed amendments with my colleague from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who is not in his place to-night. They cover in a general way the suggestions which we made to the committee, except the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling) that there should be an annual report or an annual statement of the claims for losses on loans by the lending institutions. It will be recalled that the question was raised, When was this to be determined?
There is a conflict with the Bank Act that I did not mention the other day. It will be recalled that the Bank Act provides that it is the duty of the directors to put certain classes of loans in what may be called the bad debt
Home Improvement Loans

class. There is a special provision about it, and if these loans are in default and provision may be made for their renewals and extensions, it might come in conflict with that section; I have not had an opportunity of looking it up to see to what extent it might do so. I take it, however, although I am not quite clear on the point, that if there were any such conflict, this legislation would prevail.
There is one other criticism which I desire at this time to offer to the minister. To say that they shall pay nothing exceeding 7 per cent specifies a rate which is too high ini legislation of this kind. Having regard to the fact that the interest is 3i per cent, I submit that provision of a rate not exceeding 6 per cent would be fair to everybody. It must be remembered that the lending institutions themselves make the selection, and they must be assumed to do so with care. To give them the right, when default does occur, to make a new agreement that would contemplate a payment not exceeding 7 per cent is too dangerous a power, having regard to the general influence that lending institutions may exercise upon their debtors. I should have felt happier if the provision had been of a rate not exceeding 6 per cent, which I conceive would be more in keeping with the action taken by the government in reducing the initial discount of the 5 per cent discount rate to 3J per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thank my right hon. friend, particularly for his latter suggestion, because it will help me in connection with the regulations to which he has referred. He will understand that the regulation with respect to interest on payments which are overdue is still the subject of negotiation, and his remarks in that regard, with which I entirely agree, will be helpful in arriving at a conclusion. I do not want to be too definite, but I think there is every hope of arranging for the maximum of 6 per cent instead of the maximum of 7 per cent.
With regard to the other point, approximate ownership, my anxiety was to have a broad enough power to ensure that nobody who is reasonably entitled under this legislation to borrow should be debarred from doing so. I agree with the criticism of the word "approximate," but it must be remembered that the power conferred by the legislation is on the governor general in council by regulation. The regulations will have to deal with a class of cases, not a particular case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the lender, of course, has something to do with it. One admits that in connection with new and somewhat experimental legislation of this kind it is difficult to devise something which will cover all cases and at the same time not be general in terms. I suggest that we might try it as it stands. The law officers have given very careful consideration to it. With respect to the report to parliament, section 9 provides for a report. I do not think it wise specifically to include in it-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not say, "annual." That was the point which was raised.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will be annual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not say annual, I think.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes: "Shall annually prepare a report."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That covers it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The point with regard to possible conflict with the Bank Act is dealt with, I think, by reason of the fact that this is a partly guaranteed loan; it does not fall into quite the same class as those which are dealt with under the section of the Bank Act to which my right hon. friend referred. In any case, if the committee of the house passes this legislation substantially as it stands, I think we can operate successfully under it during the year. We may and probably shall discover weaknesses in it. If such weaknesses develop I shall come here next year to tell the committee of the house frankly what they are and ask for amendments. I think, having regard to the experience of the last three months, the bill as now amended deals fairly well with all the situations that have arisen in actual practice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of the use of words in connection with ownership is, of course, one of great importance. When one says "approximate ownership," it must not be forgotten that the word "ownership" in relation to real estate refers to a fee simple title, to a life estate, and to a lease-hold in interest, which is an estate for a term of years, and when one speaks of "approximate ownership," a 999-year lease was declared by statute in Great Britain on one occasion to be interchangeable in terms with a fee simple. But if we put it in at 30, 10, 15, 20 years, is that ample? I am not going to labour the point, but to have a regulation passed by the governor in council that a five year lease approximates ownership is stretching one's conception of the value of language in connection with estates in land.

Home Improvement Loans


Charles Avery Dunning: That is dealt with under the previous wording, long term leases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that, but I am using it as an illustration of what approximates ownership. What does approximate ownership? The other day the position of the squatter was mentioned. If the squatter has not been in possession for a sufficient length of time to prohibit by operation of law the statute of limitations being set up, he is nothing more than a person who may be ejected at any time by writ of ejectment. His squatter's rights can grow into a title only if he has had adverse and continuous possession for a period in excess of the period of the statute of limitation.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is five years, is it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twelve years:	twelve
years in the British Real Properties Act; in some of the provinces of confederation it is twenty years, and against the crown it is sixty years. Suppose a man has been in possession for, thirty years of a piece of land belonging to the crown; the average citizen would say that that approximates ownership, but as a matter of fact he has no title and is subject to eviction by the crown the next day if it sees fit to take proceedings. I use this only by way of illustration. It does not matter to me one way or the other, except that I do not care to see the use of the words "approximate ownership" in a statute that affects the question of title to real property, because it is real property we are dealing with.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I do not know whether this matter arises under clause 8, but I have been asked on several occasions whether, when a home owner goes to a bank and makes arrangements for a loan and then goes on and does his work, he receives the money from the loaning institution or whether the loaning institution pays the contractor.


Charles Avery Dunning: It depends upon the nature of the arrangement. He can, if he wishes, do the business through his contractor and arrange for the bank to pay his contractor, or he may borrow money directly and pay his contractor.


George James Tustin: The reason I asked the question was that one of the members of the advisory committee for Ontario, giving an address in my home town last week, used these words: "When the banker is satisfied the applicant will be able to make repayment of the loan, the loan is granted. The work is completed and the banker pays the contractor. The householder does not handle the money."


Charles Avery Dunning: That is one method of procedure. The other is also available.


Mr. ISNOR:: I feel that the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is worthy of consideration. I am a little fearful of the danger that may result in connection with the purchase of loans. In reading section 8, we must take into consideration paragraph (c) of clause 2. It is more far-reaching than merely the purchasing of loans. It could possibly mean the advancing of sums of money by business firms in large amounts such as could be made available only by large business institutions, and so would be discrimination in some measure against small business concerns. I draw that to the attention of the Minister of Finance because there is a danger there. Paragraph (c) reads:
"Lending institution" means any chartered bank and any other company authorized to lend money or to purchase obligations representing loans and advances of money.
The last part of that clause has, I think, a direct bearing on section 8. I would ask the Minister of Finance to bear that in mind when he is compiling the list of approved lending institutions. I would like to see inserted the words "or recognized" after the word " approved." That would overcome the possibility of large firms taking advantage of this lending scheme to establish a better line of credit, or, let me say, of a firm with large capital, at the expense of the government, being guaranteed to the extent of 15 per cent, being more generous in extending credit to its customers than otherwise they would be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, an "approved lending institution" involves an examination, in advance of approval, of the institution and all the matters mentioned by my hon. friend. There is involved also in administration the necessity of continuous check by the Department of Finance with respect to applications granted by each lending institution. I appreciate the force of what my hon. friend says, and these matters will be borne in mind by the department in determining approval.


Mr. NEILL:: I call the attention of the minister to the sixth line of paragraph (b):
-and in the event of default by a borrower, the legal and other measures to be taken and the procedure to be followed-
There is nothing to connect it with the first two words of the paragraph. The word "provide" should be added; otherwise you leave that suggested action up in the air. It should read:
*-'and provide, in the event of default by a borrower, the legal and other measures to be taken'-
Home Improvement Loans


Charles Avery Dunning: I should not care to debate the matter of language, when so many lawyers have had to do with shaping it. The intention certainly is that the words " provide that" with which the paragraph commences shall carry through to the end of the paragraph.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not a question of law; it is a question of grammar. If you start with the words " provide that," and there is a comma, then it will read:
-provide that, in the event of default by a borrower

If the first " that " was not there, it would be different. You have to carry the words " provide that " along. It lacks a verb. It is bad grammar.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: In the case of a lending institution being paid by the government, say 15 per cent, would the ownership of the notes be in the government or in the lending institution.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a matter of practice yet to be determined. Under the United States plan the notes themselves are transferred to the Department of Justice, presumably for collection by that department. We have not yet determined to follow that course. Regulations in regard to default and how the notes shall be dealt with are still in process of negotiation with the lending institutions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The lending institution still has an 85 per cent interest in the note.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act so as to constitute committees instead of one advisory committee, and to appropriate the necessary moneys for the continuance and extension of the work under the Act for the fiscal years 1937-38 to 1939-40 inclusive.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the better course would be to have the minister give the explanation now with respect to the resolution, so that questions may be asked, rather than to enter upon a discussion before it is taken up by the committee.


Mr. GARDINER:: The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act is a short act passed in 1935. It was brought into being as a result of conditions which prevailed over a section of western Canada which includes about twenty municipalities in Manitoba, about one hundred and fifty in Saskatchewan and probably one hundred in Alberta, an area which has been affected by particularly dry seasons during the past seven years. The act provided for the setting up of an advisory committee. That advisory committee was to be composed of representatives of different organizations and corporations in Canada. The act provided also for the doing of certain work in western Canada, the Department of Agriculture, which under the bill was designated as the department responsible, acting on the advice of the committee which was set up under section 3. This was in order that certain things might be done, such as providing supplies of water for farmers attempting to raise live stock in that area and for tree culture, in order to protect lands against blowing, if possible, in certain areas; the promotion of strip farming; the regrassing of some of the lands that had been found unsuitable for wheat growing, and anything else that might be found in the interests of the farmers of that area or that might rehabilitate them as farmers.
In order to carry out the intentions of the act it was provided under section 8 that during the first year, which was 1935-36, a sum not exceeding three-quarters of a million dollars should be provided for expenditure in that area, and that during the succeeding four years a sum not exceeding one million dollars a year should be available for expenditure. Members of the house will recall that a year ago we voted 8750,000 as the amount that would be available for expenditure. I may say that during the two years that have gone by less than 8850,000 has been spent. The amount that was set aside for the first year was not exhausted, nor was the amount set aside for the second year. This was largely because of the fact that the work was in the experimental stage, and it was not thought wise to proceed more rapidly with the expenditure of money than our experience would warrant. Now, however, we feel that we have gained sufficient experience in the work to have more definite ideas as to what ought to be done and as to the amounts of money which may be necessary in order to carry out the original intentions of the act.
We also feel that in carrying out some of the work which is contemplated it will be necessary to have more than one advisory committee. The committee that was created

Farm Rehabilitation Act
under the original bill advised on matters of general policy, but we think it wise to have, in some of the local areas, advisory committees that will be more familiar with what is being carried out in those areas and that can give advice which probably will be more advantageous to the department. Therefore we are suggesting that section 3 be amended in order to make it possible for us to have more than one committee and so that we shall not be confined to the appointment of the representatives of any particular organizations in forming such committees. Just in passing I may say that the members of those committees act without remuneration.
Then it is intended by amending section 4, to widen to some extent the work that may be undertaken under this act. The experience of those living to the south of the international boundary line in dealing with similar problems brought to our minds the thought that something similar might be done north of the boundary line, altered in some measure so as to meet the different conditions which exist in this country. In other words, we are hoping to make use in a larger way of the available water supplies and to provide artificially water supplies for the purpose of assisting in resettling people in this vast area. In addition to that, we hope to take advantage of the experience of the government of Saskatchewan in connection with what is called a community ranch, which is operated more in the form of a community pasture, available to the people of a considerable area to the north of the Saskatchewan river, and which is known as the Matador ranch. Similar experiments have been conducted in the states immediately to the south, though some of them have differed slightly from what has been done in Saskatchewan. Some experimental work has been done in Alberta in making available to farmers who are settled in the drought area larger areas for pasture, and we hope to enlarge our work to assist further development of undertakings of that sort.
The only other important amendment is the one having to do with the supply of funds for carrying out the purposes of the act. We fee! that the government could accomplish more without the limitation of a million dollars which is contained in the bill. As the act now stands, a million dollars is the limit which may be spent in any one year, and we are asking for this change in spite of the fact that we did not think it wise to spend even three-quarters of a million last year or the year before. We think that with the experience we now have we can probably spend more than a million dollars during the
year, if we can get such an estimate adopted by this house, and 'it is in order to provide more than that amount that I am asking for this amendment.
Those are the important changes to be made in the act if the present bill passes, and if any other information is desired, I shall be pleased to try to furnish it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The problem with which the original legislation dealt is at this time one of extreme gravity to something like three hundred municipalities in the three western provinces. At the time the legislation was passed in 1935, the number of municipalities affected was not so large as it is now, but in the great provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta practically 250 municipalities are affected by this legislation, a number of which, added to the municipalities in Manitoba, makes a total of nearly three hundred municipalities, a vast area in the three western provinces, that may be described as being almost incapable of producing crop at the present time. I believe that over a period of years these municipalities have not produced a crop. I have not the figures before me, so I am not in a position to state what period of time has elapsed during which they have produced no substantial crop, but certainly in Saskatchewan and in a portion of Alberta that period is in excess of five years. As to how long it may be in Manitoba I have no recollection, and therefore I cannot speak with any authority.
I rise to point out the seriousness of this situation. It is so serious as to have ceased to be regarded in any sense as a local matter. In the truest andl largest sense of the term it is national. I have heard various suggestions made, some by men with a wide scientific knowledge, as to whether or not we can look for any rehabilitation of some of these areas. I have newer been regarded as a pessimist with respect to these matters, but I confess to this committee that during the last twelve months I have become extremely apprehensive about the situation. That fact does not make it any more or less important; I merely record my opinion. When I last saw that area, in the great heat of the closing part of the month of July and the early part of August, it was calculated to depress the spirits of almost any Canadian who looked at it. The minister of that day closely investigated the matter, and came to his colleagues with certain recommendations and suggestions. As a result of the suggestions and recommendations, the statute chapter 23 of the statutes for 1935, was enacted. The minister now suggests that it is desirable to amend the statute by creating advisory councils in local areas.

Farm Rehabilitation Act

I am bound to say that the minister of that diay, supported as he was by those with whom he had conferred, was of opinion that it was wrong to endeavour to give a purely local bent to the efforts which were being made, and that in the largest and best sense of the term we should secure, as an advisory committee, representative men in all of the provinces who would deal with the problem as one common to all, and not as one which affected merely local interests in the municipalities concerned. If the government are of opinion that the best purpose will be served by setting up small advisory committees in the municipalities, it is not for me, without having the knowledge that they possess, to offer objection. But I do say this: I was struck at the time, and I still am, with the fact that it may be possible to create purely local interest as distinct from what I conceive to be in the truest and best sense of the term an interest which is widespread, which concerns the whole area, which is concerned, not with the fortunes of individuals but with the fortunes of the whole three hundred municipalities, and the large numbers of people residing in them.
Having in mind the purpose the then minister had in view when making the recommendations, recommendations which were not made until he had conferred with many people, we find the advisory council was to comprise certain members whom I shall indicate shortly. The committee was known as an advisory committee, and it owed its origin to the governor in council. One of the members was to be appointed chairman by the governor in council, and the committee was to consist of the following:
(a)	One representative of the Manitoba grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;
(b)	One representative of the Saskatchewan grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;
(c)	One representative of the Alberta grain growing farmers from the drought and soil drifting areas;
(d)	One representative of Saskatchewan livestock farmers from the drought areas;
(e)	One representative of Alberta range farmers from the drought areas;
(f)	One representative of mortgage companies of Canada.
That is an organization which, while having no statutory being, is a voluntary organization of mortgage companies of the country. In addition there were to be the following:
(g)	One representative of the Canadian Bankers' Association;
(h)	One representative each from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways;
(i)	Two representatives from the Dominion Department of Agriculture; and

(j)	One representative of the government in each of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The committee, hon. members will observe, is in no sense local. It was believed-and I think the belief has been wholly warranted by the results-that the committee would take a broad view of the situation, and that Manitoba would be deeply interested in what affected settlers in the drought and soil drifting areas of Manitoba or Alberta, and vice versa.
To set up a local committee in a municipality will, I trust, be a success. I think, however, it is only fair to point out-


James Garfield Gardiner: May I say it is not the intention to set up municipal committees. Perhaps I should have explained that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is proposed to place a limitation upon the size, is it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The intention is to maintain the committee now operating, and it is just possible that we may require in a ranching area a special committee of ranchers, or in a wheat growing area a special committee of wheat growers, to deal with questions peculiar to a particular part of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The very reasons I have given are responsible for the personnel as I have read it. It was felt that there was a danger of self interest dominating judgments with respect to policies, and that the wisdom and experience of men of divers occupations concerned with areas some of which were fit only for grazing and ranching, and some of which were fit for farming, might result in the formulation of plans which would be more conducive to the well-being of the whole.
I make these statements only because I would hesitate to support any proposal which might bring about a measure of friction between the central committee, to which I have referred, and any committee which might feel a deep and abiding concern about one matter, and one only. That is, you might have a committee which would be concerned only about the farming area, and another only about the ranching area, and you would have the age old struggle as to what constitutes a purely ranching area or a purely farming area. For instance, I think there is no difficulty to-day in getting at least seventy-five per cent of people affected to say that areas which were opened for agricultural settlement never should have been so opened, and that they should have been retained as ranching lands. The problem is not one which is wholly singular to Canada. It has arisen in other countries as well. I believe it has arisen in Australia. I suggest that the

Farm Rehabilitation Act
danger of a conflict between what I describe as the national interest dealing with the national problem and the personal interest dealing with the purely domestic or local problem is one which must be ever present.
I assume the government is taking discretionary authority, and does not make it in any sense obligatory that the committee should be set up, because I apprehend that if it were obligatory that it be set up, there might be conflict such as would not be beneficial to the interests of any.
There comes then the question as to the measures to be taken. I for one at the proper time would like to hear a complete statement by the minister as to what has been done and what he hopes may be done. If there is to be provision in the appropriation bill, that would seem to be the appropriate time to make such a statement. I confess that in looking at the situation from my angle I have been a little depressed, and have found it most difficult to get much encouragement from any reliable source as to the method which can be adopted to bring about a solution of this difficulty, short of providence once more smiling upon the land with steady rains.


Charles Avery Dunning: A change in the sun spots is said by the Smithsonian people to be our best hope.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, changes in sun
spots, as indicated by the Smithsonian institute, would, I suppose, involve spelling the word s-o-n and attributing the changes to the present government. But, be that as it may, I see nothing short of that, at the moment. Impounding water has its merits, but there must be water to impound. That is the difficulty. While I was absent from this country I took the trouble to look at efforts made to impound water in one of the dominions I visited. In that instance this was done for the purpose of watering cattle, and I am bound to say they had supplies of water that I had not seen impounded in this country.
The question of making available for farmers the waters in our rivers is one which received the attention of the advisory committee which acted last year, and I believe there are certain recommendations to which the minister will no doubt refer when the appropriation is before parliament. I am bound to say some of the recommendations contemplate an expenditure so vast as to make it almost inconceivable that one would suggest it. There is a limitation from the economic standpoint of the amount which may be expended, having relation to the benefits to be derived therefrom.
31111-I6J


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the joker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the information which I have received can be relied upon, suggestions have been made for expenditures which bear no relation at all to any possible value that the land could have after the expenditure has been made, unless you place upon the land a value that far transcends any suggested value I have heard of in my time.
I am deeply interested in this matter. When the proposals came before us in 1935 they followed the drought of 1934. When that statute was being prepared, it was quite apparent that we were going to have a dry season in 1935, dry from the standpoint not of lack of rain, but of lack of moisture from snow. There was no accumulation of waters resulting from melting snow and the impounding of it in any part of the country. It is not a matter of importance, but I cannot say that I view with great approval the question of authorizing expenditures in excess of $1,000,000 a year. One million dollars a year is a substantial sum of money. I thought possibly the minister was going to suggest that he was going to amend the statute by striking out the provisions with reference to any period beyond this year and to make in the estimates such appropriations as experience warranted in the light of the knowledge which he would then possess. The statute, as it is now, reads as follows:
For the purposes of this act the sum of seven hundred aud fifty thousand dollars shall he appropriated and paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada during the fiscal year 1935-36 and for each fiscal year for a further period of four years a sum not exceeding $1,000,000 per annum as may be necessary to continue and extend the work undertaken under this act.
I understand the minister to say that he thinks $1,000,000 is a limitation that should not be imposed upon the expenditures contemplated by the act. He is in possession of information that induces him to believe that he can usefully expend over $1,000,000. In view of the position taken by the leader of the government with reference to the absolute necessity of including any such appropriation in the supply bill, I suggest that instead of including it in this bill, which would be superfluous, expenditures be authorized up to March 31, 1938, at a figure which the minister may regard as being reasonably satisfactory, having regard to the knowledge which he possesses. In view of the position taken by the government as to the desirability, nay the necessity, from their standpoint, of any provision of this kind being included in the appropriation bill, which we refer to as the estimates when before the committee of the house before being
Farm Rehabilitation Act

embodied in the bill, it would perhaps be desirable to repeal this section in its entirety and make provision for a single year. The government could then adopt the policy which they urged strenuously in days gone by and ask for an additional sum of money in the light of the experience derived from the operations of the past year.
I hope, when the appropriation is before the committee, the minister will prepare himself to give us as complete a statement as possible of what has been done. I say this because I believe in every part of Canada and in many parts of the world eyes are being directed to what is being done in western Canada in an effort to bring back these lands to their former fertility. For instance, this matter is of tremendous importance to this province.


Charles Avery Dunning: To our whole economic structure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On one occasion I said that there was not a citizen of this country who was not interested in it, and I still believe that to be true. When the appropriation is before the committee, I hope the minister will have prepared himself to make as full a statement as the facts warrant with respect to what has been done and with respect to the possible results of the efforts that may be made. For one, I would greatly appreciate it.
I think there are many people in this country who are deeply concerned about the problem which arises from the fact that about three hundred municipalities in western Canada are suffering from a lack of moisture to such an extent as to make farming operations not only unprofitable but impossible. In many instances this condition has compelled the rancher to move his herds from the areas affected. I can conceive of no problem at the moment that is of greater importance to Canada. The government with which I was associated was responsible for initiating this movement and we are perhaps more anxious than one can readily understand to see that some results accrue from the efforts that were initiated and carried out with small expenditures. I am advised that it is well that these expenditures were not larger for this would involve the loss of the moneys which might have been expended for that purpose.
I am not unmindful of the fact that south of us there exists a situation not unlike our own. Although it has existed for a shorter period, it has been acute. The methods adopted there to deal with the situation are similar to those we have used. Consideration has been given to strip farming and to the question of the cultivation of certain grasses. In the desert

areas of one of the dominions I found that they have a particular kind of grass which has been found exceedingly valuable. I made inquiry of the Department of Agriculture with respect to it, and I was informed that it would make an excellent binder and is of fair nutritive value. I cannot say whether it would bring about any satisfactory results in a soil such as ours, which is largely alluvial as compared with that of the other dominions.
Hon. members should visualize a situation in which the grass binder which covered this area has been cut to pieces by man's efforts. The soil has just become like talcum powder. When exposed to wind it blows about like snow on a winter's day. I saw one farm, which at one time produced the largest quantity of wheat per acre in that locality, covered with great drifts of earth as high as the desk in front of me. There were no visible crops and there had been none for years. How this situation is to be met is a, problem that faces the government of this day. Something must be done to recover the economic strength and the fortunes of the people who occupy this country. At one time these people had good homes and fine outbuildings, and they thought themselves to be in circumstances beyond the possibility of any disaster that might come to them in their lifetime. As the minister has said, some of these people are to-day on relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: A great number of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A great number of them. Under those circumstances anything we can do by timely suggestion, by support of any action to strengthen the hand of the government in dealing with this problem, we shall do, not only because it is our duty to do it, but because we all realize how important is the problem from the standpoint of the maintenance of the integrity of this country.


Harry Leader: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I should seize this opportunity to offer a few remarks in regard to conditions which prevail in western Canada. I feel that the magnitude of the terrible disaster which has overtaken that portion of our dominion cannot be too often impressed upon this house, and I believe the people of western Canada will be very grateful indeed for the remarks which have been made to-night by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).
While I do not live in the dried-out area, yet it is coming pretty close even to Portage la Prairie. While we had a crop last year, one did not need to go over fifteen miles west before one ran into the dried-out area. I had the opportunity to drive through that

Farm Rehabilitation Act
dried-out portion of Manitoba two years ago, and to see for myself the conditions that exist there, and so true is the picture which has been painted by the right hon. leader of the opposition that one's imagination can scarcely grasp it. One has to see that country for oneself. A person will drive hundreds of miles and not see a green shoot anywhere. Even the leaves on the trees are dead, and the shrubbery along the road has died off. Even the gophers and the grasshoppers have left those districts, for want of something to eat.
As a farmer and from my experience as a live stock breeder, I should like to suggest to the minister, when he brings down his legislation for the rehabilitation of that area, to have some regard also for the live stock industry and what it means to that part of the country. We must all recognize that wheat growing in a portion of western Canada must give way to the raising of live stock, and the remarks I want to make to-night bear especially upon the beef cattle industry.
I assume the government is going to make some expenditure in providing capital for the dried-out area, and I want to impress upon them the necessity of procuring good stock, especially good sires. The quality of our live stock has depreciated during the last seven or eight years, and there is a reason for it. People have not had the money to buy good sires. At the recent cattle-breeders' meeting held in Regina, the prevalence of scrub bulls which infest western Canada, and especially that dried-out area, was declared to be alarming, and the cattle breeders are asking the government to furnish more money so that the farmers may be able to procure better sires and to build up a better quality of cattle. Realizing the possibilities of the British market for good cattle and the possibilities of the American market-we know what these markets demand because we have men both in the United States and in Great Britain whose business it is to find out what the pepple demand, and I am aware the officers of the department know the quality of cattle that these markets demand-I believe it is only good business on the part of the department to see, when they are building up the live stock industry in that devastated area, that any money spent in that direction will be spent especially for the purpose of procuring good sires. I want to impress that upon the minister and upon the committee tonight because, from my experience in the business for a good many years I know the value of good sires, and I know what will happen to any live stock grower if he persists
in using poor ones. The government, I understand, realize that the farmers must desist from wheat growing and that facilities must be provided for rearing live stock, and I say that facilities must be provided because they do not exist at the present time.
Owing to the drought and other conditions, such as draining the country, we find that there is not enough water even for the animals. The government realizes this, and is providing dugouts, damming up streams, and conserving the water supply of that area. This is an indication that they intend to rehabilitate the live stock industry in the area.
Just before resuming my seat I would again impress upon the minister the necessity of providing good sires, and sires of the proper beef type if any pretence of raising good beef cattle is being made.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, might I suggest to the minister that when he brings down his legislation for the rehabilitation of the prairie farms, he be prepared not only to tell the house what has been done and what it is proposed to do, but that he give the house a survey of the actual conditions which exist and of the problem which really arises out of those conditions. This is very largely a new House of Commons, and although in the last house very much was said about the conditions then arising in western Canada, this House of Commons is unfamiliar with the problem. Moving around eastern Canada I find that people do not appreciate the vastness of the area which is affected and the tremendous problem which faces not merely western Canada but the whole of Canada because of conditions in the prairie provinces. Very few members can realize an experience which I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has had as well as I, of driving for a whole day across a couple of hundred miles of territory in Saskatchewan, and during the whole day not seeing our radiator caps except occasionally through the dust that was caused by the soil erosion. Yet people are living there under such conditions.
The leader of the opposition said that in some parts there has been no crop for five years. I know of districts that have had no crop for seven years. I do not believe, however, that all these lands are by any means lost. There are areas-I do not think they are very large-where the top soil has drifted away, and where the erosion has gone to such an extent that you will see holes six and eight feet deep blown out of the surface. But, as I say, those areas are, I think, comparatively small. If proper steps are taken,
Farm Rehabilitation Act

I believe the country can be largely rehabilitated, but in my opinion the rehabilitation will involve not only a land rehabilitation plan but also a resettlement plan. When the minister brings down the legislation, might I suggest that he give us some of the figures from the recent soil surveys which have been made in our province. The university of Saskatchewan has done a great deal of work along these lines, as the minister told the house the other afternoon, and we know something of the soil constituents, of the moisture deficiency, of the loss of fibre, of the future possibilities of that vast area comprising over three hundred municipalities, now suffering from various degrees of drought. If we are to consider this measure intelligently, we should have that background. Not only has the minister the required data available, but, as the head of a government in Saskatchewan during several recent years, and with his long experience of administration on the prairies, I do not think there should be anyone better fitted than the present Minister of Agriculture to give the house authentic information. I believe that we should have this information and that the people of Canada, through the minister, should be informed of the condition that really faces us, because, like the leader of the opposition, I have been sometimes depressed and very gloomy concerning it.
When I went west last summer, I drove through the United States, and for a thousand miles from Minneapolis to Regina. As one saw the crops withering, and realized1 that one oould go another six hundred miles west and south of Regina and see the same condition everywhere, one wondered what was going to become of the country that appeared to some of us twenty-five years or more ago as among the most beautiful pieces of prairie land which could be found anywhere in the world. I think it would be not only interesting but useful to the house to have that information, because men and women in the stricken area are suffering; children too are suffering. As I said the other afternoon, the schools axe sometimes1 cold. We are told authoritatively that last winter for days on end some schools did not have fuel enough to keep the temperature above freezing point. Teachers are working for, ten dollars a month. There are people on the farms who have not seen much in the way of money for many months, indeed for years, and there are people without proper clothing. Although the people of eastern Canadh have responded splendidly to the appeals which have been made, and we express to them our thanks whenever we get the opportunity, nevertheless that is not going to solve the problem. The
IMr. Coldwell.]
problem remains unsolved, and I suggest to the minister that when the legislation comes down, it would1 be well for this house to have presented to it a clear picture of the problem in western Canada as it affects the entire dominion. Incidentally, I do not think it can be solved in a short time; a long range program will have to 'be inaugurated by this parliament.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want to attempt to shorten the discussion, but I should like to take advantage of the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and also by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, to say that I intend to move this bill to second reading for Thursday, and I shall attempt between now and Thursday to prepare for the house not only a review of the situation as we know it in the department and as I knew it in the province before I came to the department, but also a review of what past governments have spent in that country, and, through past governments having made these expenditures, of what people in other parts of Canada have really done in order to assist in rebuilding not only the soil of that country but the morale of the people themselves. It would be good for all of us to have a complete picture of that side of the whole experience. If, after that is presented to the house, there is not sufficient information1 to form a background) for any discussions that it is desired to have of the whole problem, another opportunity will arise, as was suggested by the leader of the opposition, when the estimate is brought before the house setting forth the amount of money the government desires to make available for expenditure in that area this year.
With regard to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, I wish only to say I am a little afraid1 that setting up a sum for one year without anything in the form of a statutory provision for an expenditure in at least two succeeding years would not be an improvement on the present act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You would be just as
well off.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I would rather see no definite limiting dates at all for the time being. I may Say that the United States- although I speak from memory I think I am correct-is dealing with an area of country which is not materially greater than the area which is affected in western Canada; perhaps its situation has been a little more serious in some years than it has been in western Canada, but the area is not materially larger-


Richard Bedford Bennett: More densely settled.

Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Thomas Langton Church: The minister presides over a department that is spending $7,500,000 on commissions and! committees. Coming from the prairie provinces, he is very fond of this committee and commission business, but I may tell him that in the United States, with 130.000,000 people, similar work is handled by one man only, Mr. Hopkins, and they did not have the bungling and muddling that have gone on in the last six months in connection with the administration of this particular farm rehabilitation act. I have heard! and read a good deal about it; it has been very badly handled by those who have had charge of it in the last year. The minister now proposes to have a vaster committee system than before to handle this vote. Everyone wants to see that the poor people on the prairies who have suffered shall get every possible assistance. It is to come, no doubt, out of the revenues of the consolidated fund and income derived from the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which pay about eighty per cent of the taxes.
Hon. members will recall the rosy picture which was painted by the minister in the last few days of last session, when he indicated that everything was going to grow like the flowers upon the prairie. His committee of one hundred will soon expand to two hundred. This committee system, as I see it, is against the whole principle of responsible government. This is a department which is spending seven and a half million dollars for deputy ministers and their apostles to go all over this country from coast to coast. I think the time has come for us to get back to responsible government instead of this government by committees inside and out. Why does the minister not look around the country for another famous dynamic figure like Mr. Purvis who was to get all the unemployed on the payrolls in the industrial cities and has yet found no jobs. As one who comes from Toronto, an industrial city, I believe-this is a protectionist doctrine-in helping these unemployed to the utmost credit of the country, but let us help these poor people on the prairies too. I believe in equality of treatment. Let us play the game fairly, as the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) said the other night. He always plays the game fairly himself, and he knows a great deal about agriculture. The time is coming when this farm rehabilitation scheme must be applied to all the provinces; I would not limit it to the prairies, although I would give them every support. But last summer I saw farmers in the province I come from, when the temperature was 108 to 110 degrees, suffering very nearly as much as those on the prairies.
There should be an end to all this committee system. I am sick and tired of the way in which this parliament is appointing commissions and committees, and the next year we get a report and we find it is not as rosy a picture as has been painted. We see the mistakes that have been made in rehabilitation schemes in the United States. I fail to see where the new system of committees, we do not know how many, will produce any better results than the old. There should be equality of treatment; the minister's department should look after the other provinces where farmers are suffering in much the same way as they are in his own province.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Would the minister kindly
outline the operation of a community cattle ranch, as carried on at the Matador, I think he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Matador ranch is situated in the bow of the Saskatchewan river northwest of Moose Jaw. At the time that territory ceased to operate as a ranch the provincial government took over the area, fenced it and put a man in charge, and the people of the community round about put their cattle in, paying a fee of so much a head. I understand that ranch has paid more than the running expenses; it has cost the government nothing from the time it was started. It has given accommodation to the people of the surrounding area for pasturing their cattle, relieving them of the overhead for maintaining and carrying extra lands themselves. Anything that is done along that line will naturally have to be done in cooperation
Farm Rehabilitation Act

with the provincial governments, because they now own the lands and control the operation of them. Anything done would be done by the province, probably with some assistance from Ottawa in the way of direction and otherwise in connection with the stocking.


Mr. BAKER:: What is the size of this area?


James Garfield Gardiner: About three or four townships, I think. It is irregular in form, the river forming the southern boundary. A township contains thirty-six square miles.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Is that ranch growing its own hay and winter feed?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well the stock is mostly taken out in the winter and taken home by the farmers. The stock belongs not to any one person but to scores of persons round about, and they look after putting up the feed for the winter.


Joseph Needham: I should like to ask the minister when bringing down this report to have in mind the enormous wealth which those prairies have produced during the last thirty-five years. I say that for the special benefit of our comrades from Ontario. Had the west not poured out that great wealth, there would have been very little manufacturing in Ontario.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to say a word to encourage the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He does not need to worry about that great move he made in introducing the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme. There is abundance of water, especially in the foothill areas on the east side of the Rocky mountains. There is great opportunity for storing that water; the possibilities seem to me to be well nigh limitless. I should like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) for his ambition in reaching out and setting no limit within reason to the amount of money which he will spend as he deems wise. There are tremendous possibilities. We should remember this also, that although we have not been in this country long enough to be able to be certain, it appears that the weather goes in cycles. In my constituency we have had great scarcity of moisture during the last several years until we began to think we were deserted entirely by the deities controlling precipitation. But now we have more snow there than we know what to do with, and it looks as if we are going to have abundance of moisture in the coming season. So I feel that we need not be greatly alarmed by this talk about an insoluble problem. If we go at it in a systematic, persistent way it will be solved. The prairie farm rehabilitation scheme is a good one which will give excellent results in the days to come.


Mr. QUELCH:: Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage
There are quite a few questions I should like to ask the minister but I shall leave them until the estimates are brought down. I just want to stress the point that drought is really a permanent condition. There is no use in hoping that a change of climate will take place in the near future and bring about a change in these conditions, because we can go right back to 1857 and find that we have had to face this problem ever since that time, so it is not likely that these conditions will change within any short period.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Subsidies for cold storage warehouses under the Cold Storage Act, $44,896.65.
James Garfield Gardiner: The Cold Storage Act, as hon. members know, provides that when a cold storage plant is constructed according to the regulations laid down by the department, which cold storage plant is to be made available to the public, the federal government will pay thirty per cent of the cost, and the payment of that thirty per cent is spread over five years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Cost of construction?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, cost of construction. The payment of that thirty per cent is spread over a five year period. This money is to provide for the amounts that may have to be paid under the act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that a permanent provision in the act?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is, until the act is changed, governments will always provide a thirty per cent subsidy for the erection of cold storage plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, so long as the government leaves the act on the statute books.


Thomas Miller Bell: The reduction is due to the fact that some subsidies have expired.


James Garfield Gardiner: The real reason is that at this time of the year it is almost impossible to estimate the amount which may be necessary. In other years, when the session has run on until the month of June, we have followed the practice of bringing down supplementary estimates. This vote is identical with the one passed a year ago, but the additional amount was covered by a supplementary brought in later in the session.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was actually paid out in the last fiscal year?


James Garfield Gardiner: In round figures, $84,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why is only about half that amount provided this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the reason I gave a moment ago. It is impossible at this time of the year to estimate exactly how many applications will be made throughout the year. Later in past sessions we have been able to estimate more nearly the amount, and have brought down a supplementary to cover it.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: How many cold storage plants are being operated in the different provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The plants operated in the provinces are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 5
Nova Scotia	 12
New Brunswick	 2
Quebec	 8
Ontario	 36
Manitoba	 1
Saskatchewan	 4
Alberta	  2
British Columbia	 22
Total	 92
The total subsidies are as follows: Prince Edward Island.. .. $ 39,202	05
Nova Scotia	
833,578	67New Brunswick	
57,773	10Quebec	
100,136	19Ontario	
605,200	60Manitoba	
9,600	00Saskatchewan	
80,612	10Alberta	
72,600	00British Columbia	
700,080	47


Abraham Albert Heaps: Those are not annual payments?


James Garfield Gardiner: The total amount paid since the act came into force.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When was that?


James Garfield Gardiner: 1907.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are these chiefly cooperative plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: Both cooperative and privately owned plants in which there is customs storage.

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage


Mr. MARSHALL:: What are the two plants operated in Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Merchants Cold Storage Company of Calgary and the Edmonton Cold Storage Company of Edmonton.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Can the minister tell the committee how many of these plants are privately and how many cooperatively owned?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have not the figures on that basis. We would have to go through them, and get the totals.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many new cold) storage warehouses have been erected during the past year for which subsidies have been requested?


James Garfield Gardiner: The contracts entered into since April 1, 1936, are at the following points: Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Kensington, Prince Edward Island; Grand Pre, Nova Scotia; Aldershot, Ontario; Kingston, Ontario; Simcoe, Ontario; Strathroy, Ontario; Thornbury, Ontario, Kelowna, British Columbia; a second one at Kelowna, British Columbia; Naramata, British Columbia, and at Summerland, British Columbia.


Major James William Coldwell: What four plants are subsidized in Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: The Moose Jaw Cold Storage Company at Moose Jaw; the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Regina; the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Saskatoon, and the Saskatchewan Cooperative Creameries at Vonda.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before the Department of Agriculture agrees to granting a subsidy, are the plans and specifications submitted to the department, or does the company which proposes to build simply go ahead and build, and then make application for the subsidy? In other words, is there any regulation or control over the erection of plants or cold storage warehouses?


James Garfield Gardiner: According to the regulations, plans have to accompany applications, and inspections are made. Not all applications are passed by the department. In many instances they are sent back and the applicants are asked to make provision in addition to that shown in the original plans. I brought down a special supplementary last year to take care of two plants which in previous years had started operations before making application to the government. It took them about three years to satisfy the government that they had provided facilities sufficient to warrant the payment of the grant.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose in a district there is more than sufficient accommodation to take care of the requirements; in such case would the government give a subsidy for another cold storage plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the government would not give a grant if in its opinion the building was too costly or of dimensions greater than required to satisfy the existing conditions.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Do I understand the minister to say that when the federal department makes a grant for the erection of these buildings, they are then turned over to the operating company, or does the government make grants in addition to those made in connection with the erection and equipment of the building?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grants are paid over five years, and under certain conditions additional grants are paid. But the plants are always subject to regulation with regard to charges, and are open to the public for storage purposes, as long as they are operated.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: In that event the federal government will not derive any benefit from charges made for storage?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; the federal government does not get any financial returns. In the first instance the intention was to encourage the construction of cold storage plants.


Mr. SPENCE:: Do we understand from the minister that in some cases the department gives more than thirty per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: No more than thirty per cent is paid on any plant that is built. It is only when an addition is made to the space that another thirty per cent is paid.


James Houston Spence: If an addition is added, the department adds another thirty per cent?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. SENN:: Have certain of these companies gone out of existence? Are all the cold storage warehouses being operated at a profit? What is done in the case of a warehouse which is not making any profit?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as the department knows, they are all operating. Some of them are operating in connection with trading concerns and probably are not operating exactly in accordance with the provisions set up at the time they were first built.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there any tariff of charges
issued by the department, or are these different warehouses allowed to make their own charges?

Supply-Agriculture-Cold Storage


James Garfield Gardiner: The organization
or individual building a storage plant must file with the application, a list of the rates to be charged-. These rates cannot be changed without the consent of the governor in council. I think it will be admitted that this is a necessary condition in view of the situation in the different localities.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suppose different rates are
charged for the different classes of goods stored.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is true.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Could the minister give
the names and locations of the plants in British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are as follows:
Farmers' Cold Storage Company, Limited, Hatzic.
Kaleden Cooperative Growers' Association, Kaleden.
Apex Orchards Company, Limited, Kelowna.
Kelowna Cold Storage Limited, Kelowna.
Kelowna Growers' Exchange (1), Kelowna.
Kelowna Growers' Exchange (2), Kelowna.
Occidental Fruit Company Limited, Kelowna.
Okanagan Packers Limited, Kelowna.
Naramata Cooperative Growers' Exchange, Nnramata.
Kootenay Cooperative Storage Association, Nelson.
Pacific Coast Terminals Limited, New Westminster.
.Tames Fitzpatrick, Penticton.
Penticton Cooperative Growers' Association
(1)	, Penticton.
Penticton Cooperative Growers' Association
(2)	. Penticton.
Maple Ridge Cooperative Produce Exchange, Port Haney.
Canadian Fish and Cold Storage Company, Prince Rupert.
Salmon Arm Farmers' Exchange, Salmon Arm.
Summerland Cooperative Growers' Association (1), Summerland.
Summerland Cooperative Growers' Association (2), Summerland.
Inland Ice and Cold Storage Company Limited, Vernon.
Vernon Fruit Union, Vernon.
B. Wilson Company, Victoria.


Mr. BROOKS:: Are these plants used for the storage of any products other than market products? For instance, are they used for the storing of fish?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are used for the storage of fish or any other products of that kind.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I notice that there are thirty-six of these plants in Ontario. Would the minister give the names and locations-


James Garfield Gardiner: They are as follows:
Aldershot Distributing Cooperative Co., Aldershot.
Brantford Cold Storage Company, Brantford.
Whyte Packing Company, Brockville.

McGeachy's City Dairy, Chatham.
Wilson Company Limited, Chatham.
W. L. Hamilton, Collingwood.
Lambton Growers Cold Storage Company, Forest.
Wellington Produce Company. Harriston. Kingston Cold Storage, Kingston.
Flavelles Limited, Lindsay.
Meaford Fruit and Canning Co. Limited, Meaford.
Whyte Packing Company, Mitchell.
R. H. Ashton, Morrisburg.
Lemon Brothers, Owen Sound.
Palmerston Cold Storage Company, Palmerston.
W. Scott Company, Limited, Peterborough. Prince Edward County Fruit Growers, Picton. Algoma Produce Company, Sault Ste. Marie.
Norfolk Simcoe.	Fruit	Growers	AssociationNorfolk Simcoe.	Fruit	Growers	AssociationNorfolk	Fruit	Growers	Association
Siracoe.
J. D. Moore Company, St. Marys.
Elgin Growers Cooperative Limited, St. Thomas.
St. Thomas Cold Storage Company, St. Thomas.
Middlesex Growers Cooperative, Strathroy.
Middlesex Growers Cooperative (2), Strathroy.
Thedford Cold Storage Company, Thedford.
Georgian Bay Fruit Growers Limited (1)>
Thornbury.
Georgian Bay Fruit Growers Limited (2), Thornbury.
Georgian Bay Fruit Growers Limited (3), Thornbury.
United Farmers Cooperative Company, Toronto.
Trenton Cooperative Mills Limited, Trenton.
Trenton Cold Storage Company, Trenton.
Federal Warehouse Company Limited, Windsor.
Windsor Ice and Coal Company, Windsor.
Oxford Fruit Cooperative Limited, Woodstock.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have been struck with the apparent discrepancy in the number of cold storage plants in the different provinces. I believe there are five in Prince Edward Island, two in New Brunswick and twenty in Nova Scotia. Is there any particular reason for there being only a few plants in some provinces white there are more in others?


James Garfield Gardiner: The number of cold storage plants in a particular province depends largely upon the necessity for cold storage in that province. Where fruit and fish and dairy products are largely produced, naturally cold storage is needed. British Columbia has a large number of storage warehouses, as have Ontario and Nova Scotia.


Mr. LENNARD:: Is the pknt at Aldershot being operated successfully? I have no criticism to make of this plant, but I should like to have that information.


James Garfield Gardiner: The departmental officials think it is being operated successfully.

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying


Frank Exton Lennard: Has the government been requested to subsidize a plant at Burlington?


James Garfield Gardiner: No application has been received.


James Houston Spence: Some time ago the government took over a large cold storage plant at Brighton, which at one time belonged to Simmons Shuttleworth and Company, of London and Glasgow. Is the government still operating that plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not in the list before me as having been subsidized.


Richard Langton Baker: In view of the fact that these plants are subsidized by the government, is there any control over where a plant shall be erected? When an application is made to erect a plant, does the government sometimes say that there are already sufficient plants in that locality?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is optional with the government whether a grant will be given. Consideration is given to conditions existing when the application is made. If there is no need for the plant, of course the government does not agree to give a grant.


Richard Langton Baker: The government has control of that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: What inspection and supervision are exercised by the government over these cold storage plants?


James Garfield Gardiner: As long as the instalments are being paid, the plants are inspected at least annually. After that time there is no regular inspection, but there may be an inspection at any time.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the minister sure that the list he read from is up to date as far as Ontario is concerned? I understand from what he just said that after the instalments are paid regular supervision is not exercised. I have an idea that some plants which he mentioned in Ontario are not operating today at all. That is one question I asked the minister some little time ago. What action would the government take in case one of these cold storage plants found it impossible to carry on? Would they be allowed to be abandoned, or would some action be taken?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as we know,
two of them were destroyed by fire, but they have been rebuilt. There may be one other that is not operating. If there are any others not operating, I should be glad if the hon. member would give me their names.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understood that there was
one at Morrisburg which is not in operation at the present time. Is that the one to which the minister referred?


James Garfield Gardiner: It was one that, I
understand, was burnt and has not been rebuilt.


James Houston Spence: I know the minister does
not mind taking a little advice, and my advice would be to make a close scrutiny of any applications for cold storage plants. He is not only losing the 30 per cent he put in, but encouraging others to put their money in and lose it:	I know several cold storage
plants that had better not have been built at all. I am not going to name them. He can look them up himself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dairying, $290,000.
Thomas Alfred Thompson: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a condition which I think has more to do with the quality of our cheese exported than anything else, and that is the practice of shipping our cheeses too green. There is a regulation that the graders are not supposed to grade a cheese until it is eight days old, but any regulation that might be passed compelling a cheese maker to hold cheeses in his factory for eight days, or whatever other time might be specified, does not remedy the evil for this reason:	It
is not the shipping of the cheese, it is the boxing of the cheese that causes the trouble. If green cheeses are placed in boxes before they are sufficiently dried, the moisture causes a mould that discolours the cheese and very often causes a soft rind. Many of our small cheese factories have not enough shelf-room to hold more than two or three days' make of cheese, and if they are compelled to hold cheeses more than a week in the factory, they simply box them up, put them in the comer and leave them there over the week. These cheeses should be left on the shelves without being boxed, and should be turned every day for a week. One exporter told me that he had worked up a splendid trade for cheese for a certain firm in the old country, but that he could not supply them with these mouldy cheeses which had been boxed before they were properly dried out, because while the mould on the outside very often does not deteriorate the cheese itself, it certainly spoils its appearance.
There is another matter that is bothering the dairymen at the present time. Some years ago parliament passed legislation prohibiting the importation of oleomargarine. That prohibition was of great benefit to the dairy farmers, but its advantage is being nulli-

Supply-Agriculture-Dairying
fied to a certain extent by the importation of vegetable oils. Vegetable oils are coming in and being manufactured into shortening and other ingredients used in baking and cooking, and these are taking the place of butter. We manufacture in this country on an average ten million pounds of butter a year more than we can consume, and for that ten million pounds of butter we must find a market outside Canada. These vegetable oils which are coming in are coming from countries with a low scale of wages where the standard of living is very low. They are bought very cheaply, and after they are refined, the better class of oils goes into shortenings and other ingredients used in cooking and baking, and they take the place of our butter and lard. This displaces the consumption of our own butter and animal fats, as the shortenings are frequently used in the place of butter. The lower grade oils are made into soaps. About eighty million pounds of vegetable oils are imported annually, and the importation in the last two years has increased by twenty-four million pounds, so that they have become a serious contender with butter in this country.
I would point out to the minister that the United States has protected its dairymen by imposing a duty of 4J cents a pound on vegetable oils entering that country, while they enter Canada free. That duty has turned the tide of vegetable oils into the Canadian market. I would ask the minister to take this matter into his serious consideration because our dairymen to-day are becoming alarmed at the ever-increasing sales sf shortenings which are made from vegetable oils and which are taking the place of our butter and animal fats.


James Garfield Gardiner: An application with respect to vegetable oils, has been made to the tariff board and is now receiving its consideration, so I do not think I am in a position to say that any further consideration can be given the matter at the moment.


Mark Cecil Senn: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which I think ought to have been brought to the attention of the house sooner. On the previous day the agriculture estimates were considered in the house the evening papers carried the announcement that the whole Department of Agriculture was to be reorganized and that there were to be three main branches: production, research and marketing. It came as rather a surprise to me and, I think, to other hon. members, that this had not been mentioned before the agriculture estimates were considered.

I should like first of all to commend the action of the minister for choosing the men he did to head these branches. Doctor Archibald and Mr. Rothwell are well known to agriculture generally throughout the dominion. I do not think there is a better authority on agricultural matters in Canada to-day than Doctor Archibald. The administration of his department in the past has been very excellent indeed. The same may be said for Mr. Rothwell. He has made himself deservedly popular with the live stock men of this country. I am glad the minister has seen fit to retain the services of these two men in the department.
It is difficult to understand how the estimates are to be allocated after this reorganization takes place. Take, for instance, this branch of dairying. We have the production activities, the research branch and the marketing branch. Just how this vote is to be divided among the different branches is difficult for me to understand. Again, as far as the marketing branch is concerned, if I am correctly informed or if my ideas are correct, marketing within the province is solely within the jurisdiction of the province. The supervision of marketing outside the country or interprovincial marketing has largely been, as I understand the matter, the work of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I think the minister would be wise, in view of the reorganization, to make a statement as to how these estimates are to be divided, so that we may discuss them more intelligently.


James Garfield Gardiner: I had intended to discuss fully the matters referred to upon the vote for marketing, which is the last vote, on page 19. If hon. members will permit of it being done at that time it would be preferable, I think, to starting in to explain the matter at five minutes to eleven o'clock.


Mark Cecil Senn: Then I think the minister should let this item stand until we have a chance to hear his explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it really has very little to do with this item. The marketing item covers the whole matter under consideration; anything that is to be taken out of the different branches and put under marketing will be dealt with under the marketing vote.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I should like to ask the minister how many dairy cows there are in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: About 3,800,000.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am afraid the minister is out by many millions. How many of them are under test?

Elections and Franchise


James Garfield Gardiner: About one and one-third per cent of the cows in Canada are under test.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do those figures apply to pure bred cattle? How many pure breds are there in Canada? They are all registered.


James Garfield Gardiner: That includes all the pure bred cattle. I am not in a position to break down the figures in order to give the pure breds and the others.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister explain why the vote for dairying is so small in proportion to some of the other votes for agriculture? Last year I gave the house a few figures showing the relative importance of dairying as a branch of agriculture. I do not wish to be understood as finding any fault with the size of the votes allotted 'to the other branches, but it would seem to me that, in view of the relative importance of dairying as compared with other branches of agriculture, its vote is quite small. The value of animals and animal products from 1932 to 1936 was approximately S636.000.000; of our poultry and egg products, $327,000,000; of our dairy produce, $1,169,000,000, and of our wheat, $900,000,000. When we consider the size of the vote in comparison with the importance of these different branches of agriculture, the amount of money that is derived from them and their value to the industry itself, it seems to me that a very small amount is being expended for daily purposes. It is not necessary for me to go into percentages. I think the amount of the dairy vote is something like four per cent of the total vote for agriculture. The vote for live stock amounts to about twenty per cent. If one turns to the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce, one will find nearly $2,000,000 is allocated for the administration of the Canada Grain Act alone, which has largely to do with the sale and marketing of wheat.


Charles Avery Dunning: The grain pays for it.


Mark Cecil Senn: I know, but after all, that amount of money is expended on marketing and-


Charles Avery Dunning: Not by the government.


Mark Cecil Senn: Perhaps not by the department itself.


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmers pay for that themselves, direct.


Mark Cecil Senn: At least there is a vote in the Department of Trade and Commerce for that amount.


James Garfield Gardiner: And a revenue of the same amount.


Mark Cecil Senn: My argument is that if it is necessary to expend large amounts to market our wheat successfully, which has a value considerably smaller than our dairy products, the amount allowed here is too small, and I think the minister might very well explain to the committee why this vote is so small.


James Garfield Gardiner: The vote for dairying has been increased this year by $18,000. It was increased last year. I might draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the subsidies paid for cold storage are an assistance to dairying.


Mark Cecil Senn: And to other branches as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: The item for live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions- a considerable percentage of that is intended to be assistance to dairying. Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases-a large part of that vote is in order to encourage dairying and to make it possible for dairy farmers to have better stock and better feed for their dairy stock. The health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, an expenditure of $1,817,000-a very considerable part of that is to improve the dairy herds through improving the health of the cows throughout the country. I might say that the greater part of the vote is really a vote for dairying. It can be very easily argued and shown that more of the vote is spent for dairying than for anything else.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have something further to say, but it is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 10, 1937