1937-02-12

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 19, for the protection of the Dionne quintuplets.-Mr. Gray.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the -orders of the day are proceeded! with I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) if it is likely that the trade agreement between the United) Kingdom and Canada will be laid upon the table before the budget is presented, and also if he is in a position to give us any indication as to when we may expect the budget in the event of the trade agreement not being presented- before the budget is brought down.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): It is a little early to determine that. The trade agreement has not yet been finally completed. I shall endeavouf to give the house as soon as possible information as to the time of presentation of the budget and also with respect to the trade agreement.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 18, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 2-Duties of committees.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Chairman, I took advantage of the over-night adjournment to have the departmental officials and the law clerks go over the discussion which took place last evening and make suggestions as to what they thought might de done to meet the proposals then made. The chief law clerk advises that in order to clarify the position the word) "advisory" should- be added to sections 3 and 4 of the act. The addition of this word will make it perfectly clear that these committees are not charged with administration. Subsection 1 of section 3 of the act would then read, "The governor in council may establish
one or more advisory committees. . ." The word "advisory" should be added in subsection 2 before the word- "committee." In section 4 of the act the word "advisory" should precede the word "committees" wherever it occurs.
In further explanation of what was said last evening I may say that the original advisory committee found it advisable to have other committees set up. One committee was instituted to advise in connection with water work, another to advise in connection with regrassing, and so on. The committee found it preferable to have this more or less expert advice on these matters. I am informed that the main committee met only twice, once in May and again in December of 1935-that is, one under the previous government and one under the present government. The real work that was based on the discussions that took place there was carried out by these subcommittees which we hope to establish in some legal position by an amendment to the act. It is intended that these committees shall be advisory in the same sense that the original committee is advisory. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that these amendments be made to the bill, adding the word "advisory," at the places indicated. I am sorry that the typewritten recommendation has not yet reached my desk, but I expect it here at any moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I bad thought out certain amendments which I believed would meet what the minister stated was his purpose last evening.
First we must take it that he proposes to abolish the present advisory committee. I submit respectfully that that is a mistake. I should like to have placed upon Hansard the names of those who comprise that committee as it now is. I mentioned it yesterday, and the minister stated that he did not have the names then, but perhaps he will place them on Hansard this afternoon. I think it is a great mistake to destroy this committee. The minister says he may reappoint it, but why abolish what you may reappoint? That seems to be a reasonable question.
I have in my hands the report made under the provisions of the statute of 1935 which was filed on the Friday preceding the day I came into the house, which perhaps accounts for my not having seen it before. I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say that this is a report signed by nobody and ad-
Farm Rehabilitation Act

dressed to nobody, and it is a little difficult to treat it as a proper report of the kind that should be made under the act. It is headed, "Report of the work conducted under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act for the fiscal year 1935-36," and after citing the act it proceeds as follows:
Administration of this act is vested in the federal Minister of Agriculture, who is assisted by an advisory committee appointed by order in council. The advisory committee comprises representatives of farming, ranching, financial and railway interests in the affected areas, as well as officials of governments of the dominion and of the provinces concerned. The function of the advisory committee is to suggest measures to the minister for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas. Detailed organization and supervision of work under the act is largely performed by the dominion experimental farms.
In view of that paragraph in the report, I ask this committee whether they think it is quite fair to put this work in the hands of Mr. Vallance. Mr. Vallance was a member of this house. His strong predilections are so well known that it is not beyond reason to say that he could not go into any community and remain there longer than a few hours without discussing politics. That is not unfair, but I shall not say more than that in his absence. He has no peculiar qualifications for this position, and he is being paid the equivalent of the indemnity of a member of parliament, he having been a member of the last house. I submit that whatever we should do, we certainly should take out any thought of there being anything of a political flavour to the administration under this bill, and it is impossible to do that with Mr. Vallance at the head of it-absolutely impossible; and what is more, there is no member of this house who was here in Mr. Vallance's day that does not know it. He has told us on several occasions that he was born in Scotland, which of course is a great asset, a very great asset in Canada; but the knowledge he has of these areas is problematical, in view of his own statements from time to time, because he lived in a section of the country that is not concerned or has very little concern with this-


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Right in the drought area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Swift Current is, but how much of Battleford was in that area?


John Gordon Ross: Practically all of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is all in it, every bit of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will assume he is familiar with his own locality. Now I take the minister's own statement-these are the words in the report:
Detailed organization and supervision of work under the act is largely performed by the dominion experimental farms.
What is more, this report contains details of what apparently the dominion experimental farm people were doing. I put this to the committee: is it fair to the people of Canada who are to spend millions of dollars in rehabilitation that a very strong partisan should be placed in charge of this work? Remember this: the preceding government had to deal with it, and whom did they put in charge? They took the manager of the experimental farm at Swift Current, so that those who had to provide the money would feel at least that there was no political flavour to the administration.
I confess to having a great liking for Mr. Vallance personally, as many others have; but as to his fitness for this position it is quite inconceivable that anybody would seriously consider it. He could not go into any community without talking politics. He is so constituted that he cannot help it. I am not saying that to his detriment at all, because it shows a lively interest in public concerns; but it does not indicate any fitness for this job, and that is the reason that the preceding government placed the administration in the hands of the experimental farm manager at Swift Current. I do submit that to appoint Mr. Vallance to this position at $4,000 a year is to give a blow to the efficiency of the administration of this act right at the start. It is now under suspicion; it was the minute Mr. Vallance was appointed, and will continue to be, and that is unfair to the people who have to find the money. The press this morning suggests that the minister expects to get $3,000,000 for next year. When the $3,000,000 is provided, the gentleman who is to be at the head of its administration is one whose offensive political observations in this house have been of such a character that certainly he is not entitled to great confidence on the part of many people. The people in the area affected are not all of one political faith; they are people with differing political views. I put that to the government.

Farm Rehabilitation Act
After a statement of the general drought conditions, the report continues at page 2:
Under the rehabilitation program which has been inaugurated in accordance with the terms of this act, efforts are being made to effect improvements in farming practices and land utilization. An essential feature of this work is the encouragement given to farmers to solve their own drought and soil drifting problems by community cooperative action, with a minimum of material and financial assistance from governmental sources. For this reason the rehabilitation program is largely demr.nstra-tional and fact finding, with the object of supplying leadership and guidance for permanent readjustment of agriculture in the affected area rather than to provide temporary assistance during the continuance of the existing conditions.
With the foregoing general aims in view, measures are being introduced throughout the drought and soil drifting areas to secure the most economical utilization of soil moisture for crops, to prevent soil drifting and to reclaim abandoned farm land for its most suitable use in either crop production or grazing. Drought resistant grasses, with soil binding properties, are being used for the production of hay or pasture on areas of land which are unsuitable for grain production. Regrassing work of this nature is especially timely in the semi-arid areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta in view of the present trend towards grazing on these areas. Tree planting as a measure of soil drifting control is being conducted on a large scale, both for demonstrational and experimental purposes. Throughtout this work considerable attention is being given io the economic aspects.
That is a record, not a prospectus. The minister indicates his prospectus, but this is the record which the minister places before the house of what has been done, not of what is to be done. On that state of facts it is shown by the record that we have been able to do this with the aid of this advisory committee.
I would ask the committee to look at the closing paragraph on that page:
An important part of the rehabilitation program is the development of surface water resources for stock watering purposes, and for the production of reserve supplies of feed under irrigation.
In connection with all phases of this program a considerable amount of investigational work is in progress, while the demonstrational projects have valuable fact-finding qualities.
The various rehabilitation measures in use, and the agencies through which they are being introduced, are described below, together with some reference to the progress made during the fiscal year 1935-36.
Then follows the record of all these proceedings. Here are the words:
During 1935 thirty-nine district experiment substations were established at strategic points in the affected area of the prairie provinces. The location by general districts of the various substations is shown in the following list.
Then follows the list: southwestern Manitoba, three Goodlands, Lyleton, and Pipestone; southeastern Saskatchewan, Alameda, Avonlea, Radville, Strasbourg, Weyburn; southwestern Saskatchewan, Canuck, Carmichael, Fox Valley, Limerick, Lisieux, Parkbeg, Tompkins, Tugaske, Valjean, Gravelbourg, Herbert, Kincaid, Piapot, Riverhurst, Shaunavon, Willow Bunch; central Saskatchewan, Dunblane, Guernsey, Juniata, ICindersley, Lovema, Rose-town; southern Alberta, Bindloss, Castor, Cessford, Consort, Foremost, Lomond, Whitla, Youngstown, and Pincher Creek.
Inasmuch as the district experiment substations serve as the principal means of introducing the best measures of drought and soil drifting control, and of determining the relative value of different measures in various districts, the work of these stations is described below in some detail.
After which follows several pages giving in detail the work that has been accomplished.
Then follows reclamation projects and these projects are referred to at great length- at Mehta, at Mortlach, and at Kerrobert; and as to the agricultural improvement associations, what has been done is set out in some detail.
There follows what I conceive to be most important, in view of what the minister said yesterday-this is his report, not mine-on page 10: "Agricultural improvement associations under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act as of March 31, 1936." That was nearly a year ago, and here is the statement of the improvement associations that existed then. Presumably there are many more now. There was no amendment of the act at that time. In Manitoba there are associations at Good-lands, Lyleton, Medora, Pierson, and Reston. In Saskatchewan there are associations at Aneroid, Beechy, Ceylon, Chaplin, Estevan, Gull Lake, Hazenmore, Herbert, Kincaid, Lafleche, Limerick, Lucky Lake, Macrorie, Maple Creek, Meyronne, Minton, Moose Jaw, Mortlach, Orkney, Shamrock, Shaunavon, Sidewood, Tugaske, Valor, and Weyburn. In Alberta there is the Argyle-Clear Lake agricultural improvement association.
We then come to grass seed production. The question was asked yesterday what was intended to be done. Here is the record, not of what was intended to be done, but what was done, in respect to grass seed production:
Farm Rehabilitation Act

During the fiscal year the following quantities of seed were supplied for various rehabilitation projects:
Pounds
Crested wheat grass
Brome grass	
Western rye grass..
Sweet clover	
Alfalfa	
Alsike clover	
Timothy	
Reed canary grass..
Here is a record of achievement under this act that I consider to have been a fulfilment of the purposes for which it was enacted.
Then there is a reference to seed and clover, where it came from, and the conditions under which it was produced:
86.3S4
25,760
8,190
35,000
7.230
1,000
In order to determine the best methods of seeding perennial grasses and legumes seeding experiments are being conducted by the dominion forage crops laboratory at Saskatoon, in cooperation with a number of farmers in that district. In these experiments grasses and legumes were seeded at different dates on light soils both broadcast and drilled, with and without cultural treatments. While the results secured during 1935 were not sufficiently conclusive to enable recommendations to be made, they provide some valuable guidance for future investigations.
Tree planting is then dealt with, and one is amazed at the very large effort-much greater than one would have expected-that has been put forward in that regard, in the distribution of seedlings. Reference is then made to the field crop shelter belt association,-all these under this act; all in actual operation:
These associations have been formed by farmers in selected districts where it is desired to establish demonstration field shelters in order to determine their effect in checking soil drifting and conserving soil moisture. Bach member of an association undertakes to plant field shelter belts on his farm with the assistance and under the supervision of the tree planting division.
Then there is a reference to the Conquest field crop shelter belt association:
It was organized in January, 1935, and subsequently brought under the operation of the Rehabilitation Act. By March 31, 1936, this association comprised twenty-seven members representing a farming area of 51,840 acres. During 1935 over 80,009 trees were planted in shelter belts in this area, and preparations were made to plant 372,200 trees in the spring of 1936.
A statement follows of what has been done with regard to soil research and soil survey. I consider the matter of soil survey to be so important as to warrant a few observations with respect to it. One of the very richest of the station owners in Australia left his large fortune, or a substantial part of it, to establish

a laboratory for the purpose of providing a survey of the soils of western Australia,-the Waite institute. It is presided over at the present time by Doctor Richardson, who has visited this country and with whom our research department is in close consultation. A complete soil survey map of Australia is being prepared to determine what parts are capable of being used for the production of crops of grain and what parts are fit only for grazing and for the raising of cattle and sheep. Observe now what we are doing here, and I think this is one of the most important observations in this report:
The object of soil survey work is to determine the nature, extent, and location of various types of soil, with special reference to their crop producing capacities. This work, in addition to being of fundamental value in soil research work, is particularly useful in the formulation of land utilization policies and for the guidance of farmers and prospective settlers.
For a number of years soil surveys have been conducted in each of the prairie provinces under the direction of the provincial universities. Under the rehabilitation program soil survey work throughout the drought area is being accelerated by the provincial universities and the dominion experimental farms.
During 1935 the department of soils of the University of Manitoba conducted a soil survey of 1,774,080 acres of land in the southwestern part of the province. The area surveyed consisted of townships one to seven inclusive in ranges 19 to 29 west of the prime meridian. This survey covers the principal drought and soil drifting area in Manitoba.
Then follows a reference to what has been done in Saskatchewan through the soils department of the university of Saskatchewan; and these words, on page 17, are important:
This map is the result of wrork done during several years prior to and including 1935.


Mr. DUNNING:: Since 1926, in fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read it.
A reconnaissance soil map of the southern part of Saskatchewan, with a descriptive report, was prepared during 1935 for publication by the soils department of the university of Saskatchewan. This map is the result of work done during several years prior to and including 1935. The area covered by this survey, consisting of more than 60 million acres of land or about two-fifths of the total land area of the province, extends from the international boundary to township 48, and includes practically all of the settled agricultural land in the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: For the information of my right hon. friendl I may tell him that that work was done as a result of the establishment by the province of Saskatchewan a

Farm Rehabilitation Act
number of years ago of a fund at the disposal of the university as an endowment for that specific purpose, the moneys used being a surplus accruing to the province from the operations of the 1919 wheat board. The work has been going on for quite a number of years. The sixty million acres referred to really represent the accumulation of the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I have read from the report of the minister's colleague. The report of the Minister of Agriculture is a report under this act, and I assume when he states that the map was prepared in 1935 he is stating the fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, the map, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This sixty million acres is-
. . . about two-fifths of the total land area of the province, extends from the international boundary to township 48, and includes practically all of the settled agricultural land in the province. Further soil survey work in Saskatchewan will consist of reconnaissance surveys in the northern part of the province, and detailed surveys of problem areas in the south.
In Alberta, it is stated, they have already surveyed 921,600 acres located in. townships 1 to 8, in ranges 1 to 5, west of the fourth meridian.
In this work special attention is being given to blowout and drifting areas.
Then follows a report on the economic survey-all under the provisions of this act:
A comprehensive study of land utilization in Saskatchewan and Alberta is being conducted as a part of the prairie farm rehabilitation program by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture with the cooperation of the department of farm management of the university of Saskatchewan and the provincial department of agriculture in Alberta.
Passing on, we find a complete report on water development and hygrometric survey in the western provinces, and, at page 21, a summary of the expenditures that were made for these purposes. The appendix is another important part of the report. It shows the progress of water development under the supplementary Public Works Construction Act of 1935 for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1936, and' the various projects are dealt with in detail, including the expenditure that was made in connection with the Canada land irrigation project. But the important point is that this work has been carried on-
. . . Under the appropriation that was made under the Public Works Construction Act of 1935 and under the terms of the supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935-item 6, western conservation works-the sum of $500,000 was made available for the construction of water development projects in the prairie
provinces.	This sum is being used in the
construction of large agricultural water development projects in the drought areas as part of the rehabilitation program while small water development projects are cared for under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. Engineering services for both large and small projects are provided for under the latter act. Administration of this fund is through the water development committee under the dominion experimental farms of the Department of Agriculture.
Then there is a report on the progress of water development work in 1935, and a statement with regard to the large schemes dealt with:
Community irrigation projects:
Val Marie irrigation project, Sask.
Eastend irrigation project, Sask.
Wild Horse storage dam, Alta.
Middle Creek storage reservoir, Sask.
Community water storage projects:
Souris dam, Man.
Crystal City dam, Man.
Rural municipality of Edward, Man.
Drainage projects:
Municipality of Lajord reclamation project, Sask.
Rehabilitation of existing projects:
Eastern irrigation district, Alta.
Canada Land and Irrigation Company, Alta.
Water development projects for 1936.
Adams Lake dam, Sask.
Wood River storage dams, Sask. [DOT]
Red Deer experimental gas well, Alta.
Details follow as to the works done with respect to each of these, and, finally, a statement of cost. That report, as I say, was tabled by the minister under the provisions of the act, and it brings us only to March 31, 1936. Since that time nearly a year has passed, and, as the report indicates, much work that was then in progress was to be continued during the year 1936; so that I assume, for the purposes of my observations, that the work has been carried forward. I therefore suggest that the inevitable conclusion at which one must arrive is that the act has been found satisfactory, otherwise these vast undertakings would not have been carried out. Consequently there must be some good reason why, by statute, we are abolishing this advisory committee, and that reason I have not yet received. I asked yesterday whether some reason could be given, and I had in mind an amendment which 1 might have suggested, though I knew that if I proposed an amendment it would be simply courting and inviting its rejection. I merely suggest, however, that the existing section should stand and that there should be added a second section which would provide for the setting up of local committees and associations. But that can be done under the section that deals with regulations, and it has been done. Here is the report of the minister, who does

Farm Rehabilitation Act

not suggest a single difficulty in the operation of the act-not one. Nor does anyone else make any such suggestion in writing. Mr. Vallance does not offer a report complaining of inefficiency, nor does any one else complain of the inadequacy of the act. We have, therefore, an act that brings its operations to the end of March, 1936, indicating that it has been highly successful and that operations have been carried on with respect to every matter that is mentioned in it. I therefore suggest that the proper course would have been to leave the advisory committee alone-because, if it is found unsatisfactory, the minister can abolish it by order in council-and to add another section to provide for the appointment, if the minister so desires, of local committees charged with responsibility for matters in connection with local associations, agricultural and otherwise. But I need only point out, in answer to that, that they have already functioned under this act, that the regulatory power is broad enough to permit of this; and I have taken all the time I have in dealing with this matter for one reason and one reason only. I am not personally concerned about it, but I am vitally concerned that there should not be created in this country a body of public opinion that looks upon this effort as one that is political in character. I speak feelingly because the late government set it up. The late government initiated the statute and we appointed as chairman a gentleman who was charged with responsibility for the administration of the experimental farm at Swift Current, a man who was out of active politics. We placed in authority one who, at least, would carry the confidence of all those who were concerned.
It might well be desired, so far as the advisory committee is concerned, to improve or alter the personnel; it might be desired to amplify it in many ways. I am not concerned about that. But clear it is, on that report which was tabled the day after the house opened, Friday, and coming from the Minister of Agriculture, that up to March 31, 1936, a variety of operations had been carried on under the act, and I think it would satisfy most of us that it was better than had been suggested. But, mark you, the change in chairmanship from the manager of the experimental farm at Swift Current to Mr. Vallance has not been calculated to improve public confidence in the undertaking, andi it is not calculated to inspire confidence on the part of the people of eastern Canada who will have to provide largely the money which the minister asks for. It will not enhance in their minds the disinterestedness of this legislation, which, for some reason that has not been given us, abolishes the advisory

board, whose report is there without complaint from the minister, and substitutes by way of amendment sections providing for smaller committees-though in that respect I offer not the slightest objection if the minister thinks they are desirable. But one would have thought, when this report was prepared, that there would be some indication that there had been a failure of power on the part of those charged with responsibility, or that there had been inadequacy of authority, or that there had been some other want that had to be supplied by legislation. Nothing of the sort appears, however; and, stripped of everything, the bill that is now before the house is one that wipes out of existence the advisory committee and, as amended, authorizes the continuance of an advisory committee and the appointment of local committees-something that has been done during the last fifteen or eighteen months. And persumably it was done under the regulatory section; for, as I explained yesterday, the act was drawn in the most comprehensive and general terms because it was deemed inadvisable to particularize having regard to conditions existing in western Canada, inasmuch as that would be greatly detrimental to the efficiency of the act. The largest power of expansion was therefore provided for by regulation and otherwise; and this report, whatever else may be said about it, is a complete vindication of the character of the work under the provisions of the statute.
I had hoped that possibly the minister might be content to leave the advisory committee as it is, having power as he has to change it by order in council if he so desires, and to add to his bill a section providing for the appointment of additional committees from time to time if that were desirable. As to the suggestion of permanency of policy and continuity and stability, I am quite content with any language that may be employed for that purpose which expresses the idea indicated by the Minister of Finance yesterday, namely, that as projects are studied and their cost estimated the governor in council couldi appropriate out of the sums which have been provided for that purpose sufficient money to enable these named projects to be carried forward to completion.
If anyone, Mr. Chairman, supposes it is an easy thing to stand up and talk about this matter for the length of time I have, and that it is done merely for the purpose of talking, he is greatly mistaken. I desire to assure this committee that I have only one object in doing so. Having gone to western Canada some forty years ago last month, and being vitally concerned in everything that

Farm Rehabilitation Act
affects the welfare of the people who will live there long after I am gone, I have made these suggestions because I feel that this is a retrograde movement, rendering less efficient something which has been proven by the minister's own report to be highly efficient; and what is more I regret that it indicates an atmosphere, a tendency that I should like to see avoided. And I hope hon. members will believe me when I say that when we had to appoint a chairman they can have no conception of the number of people who would have liked to be appointed; for there are Vallances in all parties. But the man who was appointed was in the public service, one who according to the report of the minister, having to do with a demonstration farm, was the best suited and fitted to do that work. We therefore avoided any political aspect, although I am afraid we displeased greatly men who felt that they had claims. They were not then defeated candidates, nor had they been in the last House of Commons, but they had qualifications equal to those of the gentleman who how presides over this organization. I had hoped it would not be necessary to put a violent partisan into this position. I can speak with some degree of feeling about it, because we took steps to avoid doing it, and having taken those steps naturally I regret the course which has been taken in connection with this matter. I cannot usefully say anything more in respect to it; the government has the power to pass this legislation. But I want placed upon Hansard the names of the advisory committee, in order that there may be some understanding of what is meant by the minister when he says in the opening paragraph of his report that he was assisted by an advisory committee appointed by order in council comprising representatives of farming, ranching, financial and railway interests in the affected areas, as well as officials of governments of the dominion and of the provinces concerned. Just who they are who are now to be deprived of these non-remunerative but highly serviceable positions I think should be placed upon Hansard.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped last night, having gone as far as I did to try to meet what I considered to be the very trivial objection raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), that when we came back to-day, having met him at least half way, we should be treated to a discussion of the legislation on its merits rather than have to listen for half an hour to the right hon. gentleman who I think protests a little too much about his own political purity.
Having listened to the speech which we have just heard I think it would be well to place before the committee the full record indicating how this committee was set up in the first place, when and how often it functioned, and what was done before the committee was set up at all.
Towards the end of 1934, I think in December, the premier of Manitoba addressed clubs in eastern and western Canada proposing a scheme for the rehabilitation of the drought area of western Canada. In those addresses he suggested everything that is included in the powers given under the act which was eventually passed in this house, and a number of things which are not contained in that legislation. On the suggestion of the premier of Manitoba I called a meeting in Saskatoon and invited to that meeting representatives of the governments of Alberta and Manitoba, and took with me to the conference the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan. We met in the early part of January, discussed the drought situation, and listened particularly to the representations which the premier of Manitoba had made in these addresses and wished to present to the governments of the three prairie provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in 1935?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was in January,
1935. On January 19 I wired the Minister of
Agriculture of Canada in these words:
Three prairie premiers meeting a week ago decided to hold meeting of committee of six, two from each province, some day before February 7 to discuss drought and arrange for compilation of all information available re soil, climate, etc. All are anxious Ottawa have two representatives. Could you suggest a date when you could be represented in Regina? Writing.
On the same day I wrote the following letter to the Minister of Agriculture:
I sent you a telegram this morning which reads as follows:
And then I quoted the telegram.
A week ago to-day Mr. Reid,-
Who was then premier of Alberta.
Mr. Bracken and I met in Saskatoon and discussed the possibility of setting up a committee which would give' special attcuiion to having all information available with legard to the dry area of the west compiled at the earliest possible date.
A committee was set up consisting of the three premiers and the three ministers of agriculture of the western provinces, and it was decided that we ask the federal government to be represented on the committee by two. We are desirous of having the first meeting of this committee some time before February 7, and would like to invite your government to have two representatives appointed who would be members of the committee.
Farm Rehabilitation Act

It is the intention of this committee to arrange for the expenditure of a small amount of money to be used for the purpose of getting together in one place all of the information available with regard to the dried-out area pertaining to climate, soil, tree planting, the growth of grasses and all other information available from any source with regard to the area itself. It is also our intention to have compiled all the information available with regard to surrounding areas similarly affected, particularly on the American side, with a view to laying the foundations for systematic endeavour towards a solution of the drought problem in the three provinces.
It was thought that if each of the governments were to put up $5,000 towards the clerical work involved and the federal would put up an equal amount, namely $15,000, the sum thus set up would cover all the necessary expenses.
That is, the necessary expenses of compiling the information.
We would like therefore to invite the federal government to join us on this committee through representative whom they would appoint, to have them assist in the financing of the work and to lend every assistance possible in connection with getting the records completed.
I trust that you will be able to set a date *when it will be possible for your representatives to be present.
Now, I had a reply to that dated January 22. It is very short and very concise:
Ottawa, Ontario, January 22, 1935.
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Premier Saskatchewan,
Regina, Sask.
Re tel appreciate your wiring agenda suggested meeting re drought conditions.
That is the wire, and it is signed " R. Weir." Then, on January 24, I answered in these words:
Answering your wire twenty-second, no definite agenda arranged for proposed federal provincial conference on drought problem. We did not consider it proper to arrange agenda without consultation with federal representatives. General purpose is to arrange if possible for cooperation in collecting available information and formulating policies which could be supported by all governments concerned. Similarity of problems in three provinces and national importance of putting agriculture of drought stricken area on a more sound basis seemed to us to warrant common plans and concerted action.
And I had almost as concise an answer to that. The answer was given on February 2:
Re tel twenty-fourth,-
I had better read the whole wire.
Ottawa, Ont.,
Feb. 2, 1935.
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Premier Saskatchewan,
Regina, Sask.
Re tel twenty-fourth, regret Kirk's illness has made it impossible to set date.
R. Weir.
I assume that Mr. Kirk is one of the employees of the Department of Agriculture whom he might have sent had Mr. Kirk not been ill. But with a department of the size that he was presiding over, I would imagine there would have been someone else who could have been sent, despite the fact that Mr. Kirk had been ill. But those are the only answers we received to these proposals.
The next intimation we had that this matter was being discussed and considered in Ottawa we got through an article which appeared dated at Ottawa, setting forth what apparently was passing through the minds of at least some persons in Ottawa at that time. I would like to read certain sections of that report in order to indicate what the attitude seemed to be. This was published in the Regina Leader-Post of Regina, Wednesday, February 13, 1935, under date of Ottawa, February 12, and the heading of it is:
Provinces not included in Weir scheme. Drought area rehabilitation as proposed purely federal project.
That was just ten days after the wire that I have just read to the house.
Official information obtained from government sources is to the effect that the provincial governments will play no part in the Weir scheme of drought rehabilitation in the three prairie provinces. This scheme has been worked out by the experts of the dominion Department of Agriculture in consultation with engineers, foresters, and the members of the areas affected.
That was on February 13, 1935. And there was no advisory committee in existence at all until May, 1935, as I shall be able to show in a minute. It states:
This scheme has been worked out by the experts of the dominion Department of Agriculture in consultation with engineers, foresters and the members of the areas affected.
I do not suppose they invited Mr. John Val-lance to that meeting, although he was one of the members from the area affected.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I might interject they dad not invite any others.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not suppose they invited the hon. member for Swift Current or the hon. member for Weyburn of that time. I do not suppose they invited the hon. member for Assiniboia. I do not suppose they invited the hon. member for Willow Bunch to that particular meeting. There is very little of the drought area left in the province of Saskatchewan, if you leave out of consideration the constituencies I have just named, represented by the members I have indicated. It continued:
It has not yet been reduced to final form, so far as operations in 1935 are concerned, but it appears probable that the dominion will

Farm Rehabilitation Act
spend approximately $5,000,000 on five specially selected areas. One of these will be in Manitoba to the west of Deloraine, three will be in Saskatchewan, and one in Alberta. Each area will comprise one township or thirty-six square miles. The expenditures would he, roughly, one million dollars each.
That was the first plan mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture from Ottawa at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must now-I have permitted it to go just where I want it, just that far. I rise to a point of order, to a question of order-


The CHAIRMAN:: A point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is this: The minister has read from a newspaper known to be opposed to the then government of the day, and he has now declared that that was a statement by the Minister of Agriculture of that time. It does not purport even to be that, andi it is only an article from an opposing newspaper. The point of order is that the statement is absolutely untrue, and that it is not a statement of the facts.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order: I have made no such statement. I have had: words put into my mouth by the leader of the opposition as often as I will permit him to put them into my mouth. I read this article and then I said, having read it, that the Minister of Agriculture of that day did speak to the people of Canada at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was said. I rise to a point of order. Hansard is there.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hansard will show it to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will show what is said, now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Hansard will show tomorrow morning what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not going to have our rights taken from us by evasion.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. Has the leader of the opposition a statement on the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The statement on the point of order is that the statement as by the minister is at variance with what he said, The minister complained about having words put in his mouth by me, and I have the right to have read' what he said1, the words used, on the question of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: My ruling is that the point of order is not well taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask to have it read now. I a.m within my rights to know what has been said.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quote the rule.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not require a
rule. It has been done frequently when there have been questions as to statements, and Hansard has given the words.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, when
there is any question with regard to the statement of an hon. member the member has the right in this house, and in any other house in the British Empire, to say what he said and what he intended to say, as a fellow member of this house.


Mr. CAHAN:: No, not when you have
heard it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Even when you have
heard it. I have noticed this, that when on one occasion the right hon. the leader of the opposition made a speech-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise now, if we are
going to talk about order, the Minister of Agriculture is talking about what the leader of the opposition did at some other time. The question of order is whether he did or did not make the statement. The statement of the Minister of Agriculture, which was heard by every hon. member, was made when he began to read from a newspaper purporting to be the Leader-Post of Regina. His statement was that the words contained in the statement were those of the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the point of order-


Frederick George Sanderson: In my opinion the
point of order is not well taken.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman,
getting back to where we left the discussion: I was stating that the Minister of Agriculture prior to the time of the appointment of the committee had taken a certain position in relation to this particular matter. Now that the leader of the opposition has called my attention to it, I might say that this newspaper article is so much like what the minister did say in the house at a later date and is so much like the policy that was finally adopted, I have no hesitation in saying that whatever newspaper reporter put this in the press must have had official information, as he says at the beginning of the article.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not even say
that. Here we have a minister with some sense of responsibility rising in his place to state that he assumes the responsibility of saying that a minister made a certain statement.
Farm Rehabilitation Act


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the right hon. leader of the opposition rising to another point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems to be useless
to raise points of order, but I am raising one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no "order"
about this.


An hon. MEMBER:: There should be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that we
have a minister, even when his attention is directed to it, attributing to a former minister something which appears in the newspaper and saying that it represents that minister s official opinion.


Charles Avery Dunning: On the point of order, I
assume the Minister of Agriculture has a right to express an opinion as to the veracity of a newspaper article, which is what he is doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance should know better than that. In the British House of Commons he would not be permitted to read the article at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are not in the British house. Many articles are read here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some Speakers have ruled that they can be read and others have ruled that they cannot; some chairmen have ruled that they can be read and others have ruled that they cannot. Is it competent, when attention is directed to it, for a minister to say that a statement which he reads from a newspaper is the statement of the Minister of Agriculture of that time?


Charles Avery Dunning: He did not say that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what he said.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will say once more that I stated in my own words, not in the words of the newspaper, what I thought the Minister of Agriculture said at that time. I think I can pretty well prove what he said, not from a paper which happens to be opposed to the government of the day but from a paper just as good a supporter of the then government as the Mail and Empire in the city of Toronto, and from a number of other papers in Canada. These papers carried the same article as was seen in the western papers at that time. The article goes on to say, and I am now quoting from the article:
It is pointed out here that nothing in this program entrenches upon provincial jurisdiction and that provincial cooperation therefore is not necessary.
That is a new theory-I am now talking in my own words and not in the words of the article-of government in the Dominion of

Canada because action which is going to be taken by the dominion government does not in any way entrench upon the constitutional rights of the province, therefore there is no necessity for any cooperation. I quote again from the article:
Efforts to cooperate with the provinces in the past, it is declared, have not been successful and the scheme, it is believed, will have greater chances for success if carried through as a purely federal venture.
That makes it exactly .clear what was in the minds of at least some people at that time. There is further correspondence here which I do not intend to deal with at the moment, but which I may find it necessary to refer to later.
Coming back to the statement with regard to expenditures which was read into the record of the house a few moments ago, with the intention, I assume, of giving the impression that this was something entirely new in the Dominion of Canada, that it was an idea established in the minds of the people of Canada by the government of the day in Ottawa to be carried out by the expenditure of public moneys and that any future credit was to be given to the government of the day for having carried out that policy. All the discussion that has taken place in this committee since the second reading has been an indication, to me at least, that for some reason or other the leader of the opposition is very anxious that all the credit for everything that has been done up to date in connection with this matter shall go to the government of that time.
I have before me the list of expenditures which was read to the house a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition for the year 1935-36, and also a list of expenditures made from April 1, 1936, to January 31, 1937. Under district experiment substations there was expended $70,524 during the first year, and up to date this year there has been spent $74,468. For reclamation areas there was spent $15,875 during the first year, and $32,213.40 up to date this year. For large scale grass seeding-it will be noted the leader of the opposition dwelt upon this for some considerable time-there was no expenditure in the year 1935-36, while there has been expended $1,212.85 in the year we are now in. Reserve for grass seed: no reserve shown for
1935-	36, and an expenditure of $21,870.77 for
1936-	37 up to date. For tree planting there
was an expenditure of $18,600 in 1935-36 and $30,953.19 in 1936-37 up to date. Soil investigations, Swift Current laboratory:	expenditure in 1935-36, $7,632, and in 1936-37 to date,

Farm Rehabilitation Act
$16,354.94. Publications of data: no expenditure in 1935-36, and $2,552 expended this year up to date. Water development projects, small: expenditures in 1935-36, $123,881, and in 1936-37 up to date, $191,252. Administration-this is a very interesting item, and I am pleased that the leader of the opposition has called it to my attention-expenditures in 1935-36, $31,681.15, and in 1936-37, $16,985.97. The expenditures this year are just slightly more than half as much, and it will be recalled that even last year we did not have a twelve month year in connection with this particular work. Soil surveys-this was to be very important-expenditure in 1935-36, $12,842.69, and $30,083 in 1936-37. Economic survey: expenditures of $5,832 in the first year, and $9,627 in the second year. Hydrometric survey: expenditure of $7,483 in the first year, and $3,301 in the second.
That ends the expenditures for 1935-36, but there are seven more items of expenditures made during this financial year. Apparently no expenditures were made on these items in the previous year. There was spent this year $36,193.95 for feed relief in order that farmers might have sufficient feed to feed their horses in order to dig the dugouts. The expenditure for moving settlers was $537.40. There was no expenditure last year for distribution of pure seed grain, but the expenditure on this item this year amounted to $4,030. Then for agricultural extension work, $12,100; agricultural improvement associations, $2,824.86; special soils research, $2,889.03; distribution of Morden rust resistant wheat, $1,375.55; making a total for 1935-36 of $342,424.01, and the total for this year up to January 31, 1937, is $499,631.09, or a total for the two years of $842,055.10.
In going over the record the leader of the opposition would Leave the impression that this was all new work set up last year. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and every member of this house will know that the first item, district experiment substations, is an item which has been in the agriculture estimates for many years. That work was carried on in the Department of Agriculture before rehabilitation was ever thought of. It was extended, it is true I did make some criticisms when I came into th-e department. I took the position then, and I take the position now, that ordinary agriculture work that was always charged' up to the ordinary estimates of the department should not be buried in a rehabilitation vote, and I hope we shall be able to correct that as we go along.
Then, reclamation areas. It is just possible that the exepnditure of the federal government on reclamation areas is a new thing. If it is, it certainly is not a new thing so far as provincial governments are concerned, because that work has been going on for many years. For many years the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture has been promoting the production of better seed for use here and there throughout Canada, and last year they added' to that particular policy the accumulation of some of such seed) to be used for regrassing in the rehabilitation area. It has just been suggested to me by one hon. member that the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) started that at Manyberries many years ago.
Then, grass development. This work has been carried on by the Department of Agriculture for many years. All anyone has to do to find that out is to visit the experimental farm in Ottawa as soon as the snow goes off the ground, and walk over the grass experimental strips. The work has been going on for years, and is still proceeding. It has been in progress ever since we have had experimental farms in the Dominion of Canada.
As to tree planting, we had1 a place at Indian Head from which farmers could get free trees long before I became a resident of western Canada, and I imagine even before the leader of the opposition became a resident of western Canada. Almost every farmer in the prairie section of the Dominion of Canada can point to a row of trees around his buildings which he obtained from the experimental plot at Indian Head). There is nothing new about it. It is not a policy for the rehabilitation of the drought area of the western part of Canada. It is simply the carrying on of a policy that has been in existence in the western part of Canada ever since there was a western Canada and ever since we had experimental farms and plots.
Then, soil investigations. As was stated by the Minister of Finance a few moments ago, at the end of the operations of the wheat board following the war there had accumulated overages at the elevators at Fort William and other terminals. These overages belonged to someone, and it was decided, in the wisdom of the government of the day, that the amounts of money that could be obtained for these overages should be dis-trubted among the three western provinces which grew the greater part of the grain. I do not know what the province of Alborta did with their share of the money, nor what the province of Manitoba did with theirs, but I do know what the province of Saskatchewan did with theirs. The money
Farm Rehabilitation Act

was turned over to the province of Saskatchewan just about a month or two before the present finance minister ceased to be the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, and at that time he suggested that this money be set aside for the purpose of doing something that would be really worth while for all time to come for the wheat growers of Saskatchewan. To that end he suggested the setting up of a committee and the turning over to it of this money to be invested, the income from which, and the income only, to be used from year to year for some purpose that would be beneficial to all the farmers of the province. About that time he came to Ottawa and I became the premier of Saskatchewan and earned out the plan he had suggested. We chose a committee and turned over to it in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars. The committee invested the money, and from that time down to the present they have used the income from it to make soil surveys in Saskatchewan. For the leader of the opposition to get up in the house to-day and try to indicate to the house that a policy evolved in this House of Commons in 1935 under the leadership of the then government was responsible in any way either for the soil survey, or for the map of it, is to mislead this house and to mislead the people of Canada. The map which was drawn up in 1935 could not possibly have been brought into existence had it not been for the fact that from 1926 to 1935 there was a constant soil survey carried on in the province of Saskatchewan. It covered, as he indicated some sixty million acres in that province, and you can go over to my office today in the Confederation building and see hanging on the wall one of those maps. You can put your finger on any spot in the province of Saskatchewan, note the colour of that spot on the map, and then look at the inscription at the bottom and know the type of soil that is to be found in that section of the province. I have just been handed a copy of the map.
But the investigations did not stop there; they are still going on and will go on forever. The stage at which they have reached to-day is this:	Through that committee
which was set up through officials of the university and officials of the department, with some assistance-slight it may be, but still some assistance from the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa, ever since the beginning of the undertaking, not in 1935, but since 1926-the government in Saskatchewan to-day is able to show you another map not only with the soil survey results indicated on it but also the rainfall over the whole
[Mr. Oanlinnr.l
province for a term of years, and related to the soil conditions. It is one of the maps that will hang in the central office at Regina, where we hope to gather all the data that will be assembled by those dealing with rehabilitation, and where it can be used for the purpose of dealing with the situation that exists in the light of crop returns, rainfall, soil conditions, and the amount of settlement there is on the land in question. That work has been going on for years and will continue whether we pass this vote or not. It does not require any money from this vote in order to continue it. As to publication of the data: the very fact that this map exists is an indication that the data has been published, and published, in many instances, with our assistance.
With regard to water development projects, as I said yesterday, that you could fly over all of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and looking down on those provinces, you would' find, that the majority of people have darns that were built and dugouts that were made long before this policy was ever thought of by the government of 1935. Again, the Minister of Finance knows, as does every member from Saskatchewan or any of the prairie provinces, that before the provinces existed, in territorial days-my right hon. friend should know it, because he sat in the house at that time-


Charles Avery Dunning: He voted for the appropriation.


James Garfield Gardiner: He probably voted for the appropriation, yes,-the government of the Northwest Territories had a policy for the building of dams and the digging of dugouts, and for the digging of wells; and the discussion as to where the wells should be dug became so intense that they eventually had to dig some of them out on the road allowances, to stop the discussion that was going on as to who should have the well and where it should be. We went on building dams and digging dugouts. We scarcely built a road of any length in the province of Saskatchewan at any time in the last forty years without building a dam somewhere along the road and putting a spillway in the dam and supplying water to the farmers or group of farmers living alongside, in order that they might use it for threshing or the watering of their stock or something of the kind. All western Canada has been covered by policies of that kind, initiated not from Ottawa but by the provincial governments. In' other words, this is not a new thing. No one sat down in the city of Ottawa, either among the staffs of the departments or in the House

Farm Rehabilitation Act
of Commons or among the ministers who constituted the government of the day, and evolved a policy out of thin air and brought it into this house and presented1 it to the people of Canada. Certainly no one in this house to-day has the right to claim credit for the expenditures that were made under these policies, further than this, that certain moneys were voted in 1935 to assist in carrying on.
We come then to the economic survey. Well, an economic survey has been going on ever since the time of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell. He set up the economic branch in the Department of Agriculture, and brought from the United States Doctor Booth, who had previously held an appointment in the economics branch of the university of Saskatchewan, to be in charge of the economics branch here and carry on the work. That work was going on during all the period that the last government was in power, and is still continuing. If I were to make any criticism of most of these items it might be that they have probably been put in the wrong place, in that they represent work that has been carried on right along, and while we have been spending money in that direction to a considerable extent we have been leaving undone things that would rehabilitate that section of the country.
As to the hydrometric survey: there was a hydrometric survey under the Department of the Interior right down to the time that the natural resources were turned, over to western Canada. It was dropped because the resources were turned over, and the same activity has not been carried on so extensively by the provinces. There is need for further development of the hydrometric survey over that area that has been dried out. As to the other matters on which we have spent money this year but upon which, little if anything was spent last year, they are only a repetition or an extension of what I have been dealing with up to the moment. I recite these facts to indicate to the house that there is not one item in the expenditures that were arranged for in 1935 which constitutes a new activity in the prairie country of western Canada.
Having made that claim, may I go back to the question of the committee that seems to have so much disturbed the leader of the opposition?
I have before me the document that was prepared when this legislation was introduced into this house in 1935. It is marked "First reading, April, 1935," and is dated April 4, 1935. Let me repeat that there never was a meeting of this committee until May 3, 1935. As a matter of fact at the time this document
was prepared the committee could not have existed because the legislation had not then been passed: I refer to April 4, 1935. First, you have the act. Then you have committees, and note that it is not headed "committee," it is "committees,"-advisory committee, and the drainage or water development committee. The present bill proposes by an amendment to the section to make provision in a proper way for these committees and the organization of work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, you realize, of course, that this is a document which has not been presented to parliament, it being a minister's memorandum upon which he introduced legislation into this house. I ask to have it tabled.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall table it immediately I have finished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has never been done- that documents ministers have used and left behind them should be read by their successors for the purpose of indicating what they may have had in their mind with respect to legislation subsequently brought into the house. I direct attention to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: If there is any objection to my reading from it, I shall not do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a question of objection. So far as I am concerned I have none. It is my duty as a member of the committee to direct attention to what has been done. I am content with whatever this committee does, because it is the judge of its own conduct and its own procedure with respect to this matter, but it must be remembered that the rules provide that a public document which is referred to shall be tabled in order that all hon. members may see the whole of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall be delighted to table the document, because I certainly do not want to read all of it to the committee, and it will be news to the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it a confidential document?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it is, I presume, in that case. But it is a new experience for me to find that the matter of a discussion of the legislation presented to this house by a minister is a confidential document. It might have been confidential before he brought it here, but after he has brought it here and discussed it in the house and had legislation based on it-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He never brought it here.
Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, legislation in these exact terms is on the statute book.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One minute ago the minister said it is not in the exact terms, that he is trying to amend the legislation to bring it within the terms.


James Garfield Gardiner: My right hon. friend may have that impression from what I said, but I certainly did not say it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understood the minister to say it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall not read the document, but I will read the headlines of what was going to be considered under this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I point out that there is an elementary rule with respect to these matters that it may be important for this committee to keep in mind. We are now creating a precedent. The legislation speaks for itself. It is what this house passed. What the minister had in his possession at the time the legislation was drafted and passed must be tabled if it is to be made part of the record here, and the minister, in my opinion, may not read a portion of it. It came from his files, not from the public files of this country. It is a new departure, but if you, Mr. Chairman, think it is the proper course to pursue with reference to the business of this house, well and good.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a general rule, I think, that memoranda passing between a minister and his "officers with respect to the preparation of anything that subsequently comes to the house are privileged and are not produced in the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: It remains to be seen whether or not this document falls within that category.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said what it was.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, at the moment I was not listening.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I understood
the Minister of Agriculture to say he was going to table the document.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am prepared to table it and I am prepared not to read from it- either one or the other.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like, if the minister will allow me, to make one objection. Anyone who has been four or five years a minister of the crown has found in his department a

great number of private memoranda, prepared by the previous ministers or their deputies, and they are regarded in the department as private. I think during the five years I was minister I could have produced, had I been prepared to do so, some private memoranda that would have astonished this parliament. It is not proper; it has never been done, and I think it is unwise to establish a precedent at this time.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a question of what it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said what it was.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have no objection to refraining from reading this, but I will just say that it is the whole file on the drought work.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not public. That is the point.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact the minutes of this meeting would have to be quoted from this file; I do not think anyone would object to my quoting them. The minutes of the meeting of the committee are contained in this file. These letters are the deputy minister's letters. This appears to be the deputy's file, not the minister's. I presume that this particular document may be one that was sent to the deputy by the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, the purport of that observation? " I presume this is a document sent by the minister to the deputy"; on that statement of facts the allegation was made that that was the minister's memorandum.


James Garfield Gardiner: What is the position which the leader of the opposition takes- that this is not the minister's memorandum?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The objection is that it is the minister's memoranda to his deputy. It is a breach of good political morals for the minister to attempt to read from or to produce it to this house. There are certain rules of decency that succeeding ministers have always complied with in relation to their predecessors and the correspondence of their predecessors, especially that of their own deputies and clerks.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is that kind of document, what my hon. friend says is correct; but the only question in my mind is whether it is or not.

Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: I presume it is a
memorandum submitted by the minister to the deputy. I have never heard at any time that memoranda placed on files by ministers were confidential.


An hon. MEMBER:: And deputy ministers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Or deputy ministers
either.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You will discover it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have seen them
presented before public accounts committees at every session and no question has ever been raised. They are presented almost every day on orders for returns-memoranda prepared by ministers and by deputies.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a different thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A different thing
altogether.


James Garfield Gardiner: In any case I may refer to this file, and I can place the file on the table without reading that document. And in referring to the file I can say this. This file indicates that every matter which was eventually referred to the committee, and which has been spoken of by the leader of the opposition, was discussed prior to the committee being in existence, was to all intents and purposes decided upon before that committee was in existence, and was submitted to the committee for its consideration and consent. And I presume the committee consented to these things being done.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are too many
presumptions.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not need to
presume, because the document is on the file indicating that these matters were discussed in Regina on May 3 and 4 before a meeting of this committee and that it was there determined that it would be a proper thing to proceed to spend moneys on these particular works. May I say in passing that a note has been placed on my desk by someone to the effect that this is a departmental file and is a public record. In order to avoid any further discussion with regard to it I have made the statement which I desired to make.
Coming back to the remarks made with respect to the appointment of Mr. Vallance, I did not expect on coming into this house, and more particularly when the leadership of the opposition is in the hands of the present incumbent of that office, to hear, with regard to a previous member of this house, a criticism of the kind that was made at the beginning of the right hon. gentleman's remarks. I am
quite aware of the fact that Mr. Vallance, while a member of the House of Commons, spoke his mind with regard to public questions, irrespective of whose feelings might be hurt by the speaking of his mind. I am aware, also that during all the time he was a member of this house he spoke without fear in the interests of the people of the section of the province of Saskatchewan which he represented. And may I say, in spite of the remarks that were made by the leader of the opposition, that the part of Saskatchewan which Mr. Vallance represented previous to the last election is entirely within what I defined yesterday as a part of the drought area. Had it not been for the fine hand of those who took part in the gerrymander prior to the last election, all of the constituency in which Mr. Vallance ran during the last election would have been in the drought area, because all of the constituency he represented in this house prior to the last election was in that drought area. If part of the constituency is not now in that area it was not because of any choice on the part of Mr. Vallance, and that possibly had something to do with the fact that he is not here to speak for himself on this occasion; and when the leader of the opposition, in the light of these facts, makes an attack of the kind he made on Mr. Vallance, I am led to make this statement-that if he will go into western Canada to-day and follow Mr. Vallance over the road he has taken ever since he was placed in charge of this work, and if he will discuss his work with individuals with whom Mr. Vallance has discussed public matters with regard to the work in hand, the right hon. gentleman will find that without any regard whatever to politics, individuals throughout the length and breadth of that area will vouch for it that Mr. Vallance is one of the most energetic and enthusiastic exponents of the work that is being done under this act to be found anywhere in western or eastern Canada.
I have on my file letters which, if he so desired, I could bring to the attention of the leader of the opposition, from some of his best supporters in the southern part of Saskatchewan, telling me of the services that have been given, through organizations over which they preside, by Mr. Vallance since he took charge of this work. I may say that if there is any one in the employ of the department today reporting to me who is more careful than Mr. Vallance to safeguard the interests of all groups in the area of which he has charge, and this irrespective of political considerations, I have yet to find him or any record of him on our files. Those who are in charge have been in charge from the beginning, because after all
Farm Rehabilitation Act

the superintendent of the farm at Swift Current was not actually in charge of this work. The man who has been in charge of this work from the beginning is Doctor Archibald, and Doctor Archibald is still in charge of the work; and after his last trip to the west he reported to me on the very fine work that Mr. Vallance was doing over the whole area. I am sure that he would be prepared to make that report to this house or anywhere else.
But the thing that surprised me more than the fact that an attack was made on Mr. Vallance, was the source from which it came. I have not a very long memory in political matters, because I try to forget the things that my opponents say about me and do to me, but I have a sufficiently long memory to take me back to the few months preceding the last federal election. I remember that just before the right hon. gentleman himself called the dominion election he appointed some seventeen persons across this country to positions far more important than that in question here, some judicial in their nature, and these men had not only run elections but some of them had not even been defeated and were still members of the house up to the time they were appointed. Also he selected men all across Canada who had been defeated just previously in provincial elections and along with the others filled judicial positions, senatorships, positions from one end of the country to the other. And may I say that so far as I am aware only one or two of them, and those for very good reasons, have been removed by the present government from the positions to which they were appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I go further than that? After the discussion we have heard today with regard to Mr. Vallance, simply because he was a member of the House of Commons-a Liberal member, someone says; I would say a member-is any self-respecting man who has any regard for the leader of the opposition going to seek election to this house in the future? If to be elected to this house as a supporter of any political party is to be branded forever as a man who cannot give service to his country without being accused of being influenced by partisan and political considerations, if that is to be the criterion by which public men are to be judged, I am afraid there will not be very many running for public office in Canada.
During the last election the right hon. gentleman had put out on behalf of his party a picture. That picture was on the back of much of the party's literature. On the

top of the picture it said, "Stand by Canada." At the wheel of the ship of state stood the leader of the opposition, with a rubber coat, a rubber hat pulled down about his shoulders, holding the ship true to its course.	The inscription was,
"Stand by Canada and the captain who has weathered the storm." But when you looked about the deck of the ship there was no one there but the captain. All the others had taken refuge in these positions that he had opened up here and there across the country. The right hon. gentleman ran his election all alone; we see the results of that kind of campaigning in the house to-day, and in elections to come we shall see the results of the kind of campaigning the right hon. gentleman has been doing here this afternoon.
Not only did the right hon. gentleman make these appointments of which I have spoken, but he made other appointments. He made an appointment to the body which selects civil servants for the Dominion of Canada, and he took for that purpose a member of this house. Hon. members in the house to-day have to take it for granted, whether they like it or not, that a former Conservative member of this house forgets his politics when he is administering an office of that kind. All I would ask of the leader of the opposition is that he be as magnanimous as he expects other people to be, and that when a man who has given good service to this country is appointed to an important public position, and is carrying on his work in the best interests of the people, he should be given credit for the work he is doing and not be attacked on the floor of this house with the protection that it gives. I do not mean to suggest that the leader of the opposition would' not make the same kind of attack outside the house; I have no doubt he would, but I am prepared to say that this act is being administered under Mr. Vallance in as effective a way, at as little cost and with as great service to the people for whose benefit it was intended, as it could be under any other officer whom any government in Canada might appoint. I think that amount of defence is due to Mr. Vallance. In addition it is recalled' that he is a Scotsman. He came direct from Scotland to this country; he went on a homestead in western Canada; he occupied that homestead and made a living on it long before he came to this house, in spite of the difficult weather conditions that prevailed in that section of the province from time to time. Such was the man who was appointed, a man with that kind1 of experience, a man who has been a leading

Farm Rehabilitation Act
official of one of the chief farmers' organizations of western Canada, a man who never was an extreme partisan before he came to this house-if he was one when he left it must have been because of the kind) of attacks he heard when he was sitting here. Mr. Vallanee was one of the most independent political minds in Saskatchewan before he ran his first election, and he has remained) one of the most independent political minds in the conduct of his campaigns and everything he does. He has taken on this work and is doing it well, and I suggest to the leader of the opposition that the committee provided for in the act has nothing whatever to do with either of those matters. The right hon. gentleman has taken advantage of a proposal to amend a section relating to a committee, so as to permit the setting up of more than one advisory committee, to make an attack on the management and the work that is being done under the direction of Doctor Archibald, who is the head of the experimental farms of Canada. I suggest that the committee pass the section under discussion with the amendment that I proposed at the beginning of this discussion to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that one who occupies the responsible position of Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) should have seen fit to depart from the consideration of the bill which is before the committee and indulge in a political tirade.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who started it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire only to point out that in the reference to expenditures and to what had been done under the act I realized that the late government had very little to do with it at all. That government went out of office in August, 1935, and the statute was assented to in May, 1935; therefore they had nothing to do with the major part of the expenditures. All this discussion which has been going on to show that the new government spent more money in 1936 than in 1935 showed no more than that the government of the day spent in 1936 more than it did in 1935. I did not for a moment suggest that the late government had done more than introduce the legislation into the house. I regarded it as my duty to point out that it had worked successfully, and to do so I quoted from the report made to this house by the Minister of Agriculture, as required by the statute in question. And I did more; I read what he said with respect to these operations, not what I myself thought. In every respect in what I have stated as to the operations under the act I have been quoting from the
document which was lodged in this house by *the Minister of Agriculture. I know only this, for instance, that with respect to reclamations the minister makes this statement, filing it as a serious one.
Investigations on the reclamation of land for farming purposes were started during 1935 at Melita, Manitoba,, and Mortlach, Saskatchewan. Regrassing reclamation, with the object of restoring abandoned farm land for grazing is under way at several points in Alberta, and for hay production at Kerrobert, Saskatchewan.
That is a statement made by the minister, not by me. What I read this afternoon was not statements made in the heat of debate, but a solemn document the minister presented as a report of the operations of the reclamation body under the act. There it is.
I do not intend to do more than to point out that if these statements are accurate- and I assume they are-they indicate that the government has been carrying on these expenditures-not some other government; his own government. I did not suggest that the late government had made these expenditures. I was pointing out what had been spent, and how successfully it had been found the act operated. I had pointed out how ample were the provisions to enable expenditures to be made.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


James Garfield Gardiner: How many dams could be built after November 1, 1935; how many dug-outs could be dug after November 1, 1935?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting anything about that. I am merely citing what the report indicates has been done, and the bills have been paid by the government of the day, the government in which the hon. member who has just spoken is Minister of Agriculture. That is all I have been endeavouring to say. That is all I say now.
But what I did say-and I think it is a matter of great moment to the committee

is that when there are brought into this chamber documents which indicate that they are memoranda upon which ministers prepare their bills, and when such documents are to be treated as part of the record-well, it is going a very much greater distance than I have ever gone in this chamber.


An hon. MEMBER:: Public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not public documents. In connection with public documents, successive administrations since 1867 have taken the view that when documents
Farm Rehabilitation Act

are asked for, the minister must always exercise his discretion as to whether or not he will produce them. If they are communications between the Minister and his deputy, they may be documents containing the suggestion, "Why should we not change section so and so to read so and so?"-and so on. But, Mr. Chairman, there is another matter far more important than that, and it is this, that when a bill has become crystallized into a statute, what may have been discussed between various parties before the bill became a statute can never be any part of the record. It has been a fundamental rule, in Great Britain at least, and in the high court of parliament as well, that what have been described as preliminary discussions are no part of the ultimate end. We have a statute in existence, and I am not concerned, nor is any hon. member concerned, with what took place leading up to the statute. The fact that the statute is in the form in which it is, in itself is conclusive as to what the statute is. To state what took place between the minister and his deputy, about which no one but the minister and his deputy have knowledge, and which is contained in papers that only my hon. friend can bring into the house, has never been done by any responsible, reputable minister in the history of this house, and I think such action violates every canon of decency, so far as public life is concerned. That sort of thing I do resent. I do resent it, not so far as it affects myself- I have very few years before me-but there is a House of Commons here; there is a tradition here, and for a minister to go into his room, call for the deputy's file, find there the records which successive ministers have made, saying that it would be desirable to do this or desirable to do that, and then produce them in the house, is like a man sitting at a table and retelling the conversation of other people.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a minute; on a
point of order-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position.


James Garfield Gardiner: On a point of order:
The right hon. gentleman is citing words which were not used by me at all. This is not that kind of document, at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I repeat: The document was asserted by the minister himself to be a document which he presumed the minister had sent to the deputy-which he "presumed" the minister had sent to the deputy. And he had made a statement before that, asserting boldly that it was the minister. Sir, there are decencies in public life-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, again: I think the right hon. gentleman, if he recalls properly what I said, will remember that I stated "either sent by the minister to the deputy or by the deputy to the minister."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the minister said, "presumed to be sent by the minister to the deputy"; it was heard by every hon. member in the house-"presumed to be sent by the minister to the deputy." And upon that statement there has been dragged out of the archives of a department a file containing all the memoranda leading up to the passing of the legislation, which file is now becoming a record on that table. The file has no value. But for purely political reasons my hon. friend has endeavoured to do something to discredit the minister responsible for the legislation. I thought parliament had not fallen to that low level. Apparently, however, it has. Why, Mr. Chairman, is there any hope for a country which could have a discussion such as we have heard, take place?
I submit it was in good order this afternoon to point out not anything against Mr. Yallance-I was careful not to say anything against him; what I did say was that a bill of this kind should be so free from any possible suspicion of political bent that it would be desirable that the man charged with the responsibility of carrying out the legislation should not be a man whose violent and known political views would make it the subject matter of suspicion. That is the question, and I repeat it, as anyone would repeat it who knew Mr. Vallance. His own friends would say so. As I say, I have for him a very warm liking, and have always had it. But I am not deterred from doing my public duty simply because I have a personal liking for him.
This is something which is not political. It is an issue which far transcends politics. It is an issue affecting the economic structure, one might say, of the whole dominion. And in an effort to ensure that there will be freedom from political bias, the minute one suggests a criticism one is attacked for having violent partisan views. I am not concerned personally about the matter, but I am concerned about some of the statements which were made with respect to the matter. The minister read from a statement made in the Regina Leader-Post long before this legislation was introduced. He says that statement embodies an official view because, he said, it agrees with what subsequently occurred. If that is to be the type of debate which is to characterize this chamber, and be in order,

Firm Rehabilitation Act
where will it lead? There are rules prohibiting reading from papers, but we shall leave that aside for the moment, because there have been many rulings in this chamber and in others as well.
The article was from the Regina Leader-Post, one of the Sifton press, supporting the hon. gentleman when he was premier of Saskatchewan, supporting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and the Liberal government of the day. In it there is an article headed, "Ottawa," with a date on it, and it is read to the house, You, sir, cannot fail to have heard the conclusions that were based upon it, attributing motives to the former Minister of Agriculture, and then supporting them by dragging out a file from the deputy minister's office and reading from it all the communications which took place as to the preparation of the legislation.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Well done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where does that lead? Where does it lead? I submit that what we have heard this afternoon has been a political discussion, pure and simple, endeavouring to suggest that because observations, by way of criticism of certain conduct in connection with the legislation, were made, as to the appointment of Mr. Yallance, therefore I was endeavouring to have it appear that the late government was entitled to all the credit. I made no statement of that kind, nor did I suggest it. I repeat that what I did point out was what this report filed by the minister says. I was conscious of the fact that the new government had control of this matter, that the old government barely organized it and then left it for its successors. If the genesis of the idea was somebody else's, do I regret it? Am I endeavouring to lessen their prestige or their authority for having done what they have? Am I criticizing the fact that Mr. John Bracken called a meeting and came and addressed some clubs in eastern Canada? Did I suggest that because the present Minister of Agriculture, who was then premier of Saskatchewan, called a meeting at Saskatoon, he should be denied credit? Have I suggested anything about that? Have I suggested anything about what Mr. Reid or Mr. Bracken had to do with it, or that the three of them sent telegrams to the Minister of Agriculture? Am I concerned about that? I am not. Why drag that into this issue? Did I suggest that anybody had a copyright on this idea? Did I suggest that anyone had a monopoly of thought with respect to it? Efforts were made in 1935 to have a united house with respect to this matter. We endeavoured to have a united
front and the reason why we chose the chairman who was chosen was to try to get this matter out of politics.
I leave it to anyone to traverse the record of this afternoon and read the speech of the Minister of Agriculture. It commences with an effort to magnify the importance of himself and Mr. Bracken and Mr. Reid with respect to this legislation. Telegrams-mark you, these are not public documents-which have never been brought before this house were taken off the files-
Mr. GARDINER-What are files for?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To lay before the public and not to be used by a minister for his own credit and benefit.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are being laid before the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the position. They are dragged in for the purpose of magnifying the importance of these three persons. I have not said anything to minimize their importance and I have not said anything to indicate that the idea was trade-marked, far from it. Had I challenged the fact that we had a hydrometric survey in this country? Had I challenged the fact that reclamation work had been carried on prior to the time that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) had anything to do with the west? Had I challenged the fact that from the very start of western Canada, from the days when Sir William Van Home had to offer a price for wheat in order to get reasonable competition for the farmers, successive governments have been making efforts to improve the conditions of those who are in that part of the country? To place blame or to attach merit was not my purpose. I defy anyone who reads what I said to find therein any indication that I endeavoured to blame this government. On the other hand, I had in my poor, feeble way endeavoured to approve what they had done under this act, and to show that the act was ample for the purpose. I endeavoured to show that they had made these expenditures and I did not suggest by word or thought that the expenditures had been made by anyone else. I suggested that they had found the act satisfactory for the purpose. I think this disposes of the early part of the speech.
What was the next part? An effort was made to show that in the preparation of the legislation there were many thoughts in the mind of the minister and the allegation is made that the minister was responsible for the memorandum. First of all, there is the presumption, and finally the statement was made that it was either one way or the other,
Farm Rehabilitation Act

either the deputy to the minister or the minister to the deputy. One who has any knowledge of the preparation of legislation should know that usually the deputy minister and his expert opinion are there for the purpose of indicating to the minister just how what he has in his mind may best be made effective by legislation. We are not concerned about what may have been in his mind. This is the legislation assented to on April 17, 1935, being chapter 23. Section 7 reads:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary or expedient for the effectual execution and working of this act and the attainment of the intention and objects thereof.
Section 9 reads:
The minister shall annually lay before parliament a report of all proceedings under this act for the preceding fiscal year.
Relying upon the regulations as being ample to meet the objects he had in mind, relying upon the report as being within the act, I have, in terms of approval rather than censure, merely indicated what it has been possible to accomplish. That disposes of that.
I claim the right, which every member of this house has, to criticize the appointment of any person to the public service. The minister attacked the appointments made by the late administration and he was within his rights in so doing. But he was not dealing with the specific case of a man appointed for a specific purpose. I pointed out that efforts had been made to remove from politics this matter of such great importance to the whole of Canada, the rehabilitation of the devastated areas, if I may use that term. I have nothing to withdraw in having stated that I thought it was a capital mistake to have appointed Mr. Yallance to that position. I have not complained that defeated candidates have been appointed to positions. I have not complained when it was thought necessary to appoint Mr. Young of Weyburn or Mr. McKenzie or Mr. Somebody Else. What I have pointed out is that the nature of the observations made in times past in this house by Mr. Vallance with respect to his political opponents would tend to create a lack of confidence in his administration of the act. His disposition was genial, friendly and humorous; he was always ready to discuss politics with those with whom he came into contact, to belittle, usually in reasonable terms, those opposed to him and to support by every means in his power his own political views. That he is capable of much exertion, no one has denied, for most of us have heard him sing in this chamber. That he is capable

of much effort, there has never been any question, but that his efforts should be directed to this particular point is a question about which I think differences of opinion might exist. I have expressed myself with great freedom without in any sense attacking Mr. Vallance, for whom I have a very warm regard, and whose relations with me personally have always been friendly. I say that with great frankness, but I repeat that he is not the man to rouse public confidence in connection with the administration of an act which covers so wide an area and which affects so many people.
There is one more point to which I desire to refer. The minister read a statement from the Leader-Post to the effect that it was proposed' to carry on these operations in a federal way and that that was the first time it had been suggested that cooperation between the provinces and the dominion was unnecessary. The correspondent of the Leader-Post may or may not have been the gentleman who usually did his work from the press gallery. That gentleman* had been correspondent for the Winnipeg Free Press. He has since been transferred to London, and if you read some of his dispatches you will see that they have the same political colour as those he sent from Ottawa. I only desire to say that his statement that cooperation between the dominion andl the provinces was undesirable or unnecessary cannot be answered better than by the legislation itself. The whole purpose was that the provinces should be represented and it was provided that the advisory committee should contain representatives from, the three provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those three provinces were represented on that advisory committee.
The minister has said that the advisory committee had a meeting in May and that the minutes of their meeting are available. I expect to get the names of that committee on Hansard before we get very much further. At the moment I only point out that the work which was done was work done with, on the one hand, representatives of the provinces and, on the other, with representatives of various enterprises which were provincial in character-representatives of the farming interests and of the ranching interests and so on, from each of the three western provinces -and two representatives of the Department of Agriculture. Now, is it quite right, Mr. Chairman, to leave the impression that ministers who may never have seen the dispatch in question and who were offering to this house legislation providing for the most careful cooperation, should be charged

Farm Rehabilitation Act
with having said that the work was to be federal without provincial cooperation? There is no doubt that this house, in 1935 andi in the years preceding that, regarded the situation in western Canada as being of a national matter. It was felt that the provinces themselves could not carry the work through, and the dominion undertook the sole responsibility of providing relief for them, for Saskatchewan in 1930-31. And the house generally on all sides, without regard to politics, expressed approval of a statement which I made from my place yonder that we must regard this as a national calamity and a national emergency. When we undertook, as we did by the statute in question, to assume the responsibility in its entirety we did so with a clear understanding that any action which was taken should be supported by an advisory committee upon which the provinces had a preponderant position, for they were provincial organizations, and the provinces themselves had control.
The minister closed his observations by saying: Some people thought thus. And he read from the Leader-Post, to prove that some people thought thus. The correspondent of the Leader-Post, who was an exponent of doctrines opposed to the government of the day; the Saskatoon paper, the Regina paper, and the Winnipeg Free Press expressed opinions that "some people thought thus." Well, it got down to one man, and that is the correspondent. Now, Mr. Chairman. I submit that is not the sort of observation which makes any advance in the carrying forward of legislation of this kind. Was it serving any purpose to drag into the discussion these matters? I think not.
There is one matter further I desire to mention, and that is this. I have not personally any interest in the fact that members here may, the minute the minister rises in his place, cheer him on the assumption that I am dealing with a purely political matter.
I have said in this house, and I have said out of it, that I am impressed more than I have ever before been in my life with the seriousness of the problems which confront Canada, and to the extent of my ability 1 endeavour to give what service I can by attending in this chamber day after day. I am paid for that, and I endeavour to earn my pay. But when I do that, I do not thereby in any sense limit my right to make certain criticisms which I believe to be in the public interest, and I have not descended to the personal in the criticisms which I have offered. If I have to say that I believe the appointment of Mr. Vallance was a bad one, I gave the reasons for saying so, and they were not personal not at all.
The fact that I was head of a party which ran in the election and was not successful is patent to all. The fact that we are few in numbers is patent to all. But the fact that the government of the day did not have a majority of the electors is known to all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it possible that there is someone who did not know that. I would hardly have thought it possible.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We are quite satisfied with the result.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, quite; I can appreciate that. The hon. gentleman would be very hard to please if he were not satisfied.
Our institutions, Mr. Chairman, can survive only if there is free criticism, if the checks and balances belonging to the party system are used by which the conduct and actions of the government of the day are subject to the closest scrutiny and criticism of those who do not view them in the same way as the government do. But if hon. gentlemen opposite, with the approval of a great majority, think they are advancing the cause of democracy by personal attacks and by endeavouring to hold up to ridicule particular individuals, all I can say is that they do not get far that way in the end.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the last man that should do that sort of thing is the man who just says, "Hear, hear." I challenge any member of this house who will take the trouble to read the discussion this afternoon to point to a single observation I have made that was not wholly within the right and duty of anyone whose business it is to subject to scrutiny and analysis the measures submitted by the government and the operations carried on under the measures which are on the statute books. Mere criticism of a man who holds a job is now taken to be a reflection on the House of Commons. If I took the trouble to point out to hon. gentlemen opposite the debates of this house in days past with respect to appointments, I could show a record on the part of my friends opposite that would indeed, applying the standard just mentioned by the minister, leave them in a sorry plight. But to point out that we are dealing here with a vast expenditure and operation, the success of which depends upon a fair administration, and to say that a strong partisan is not the best man to appoint as administrator, without in any sense detracting from his qualities or fitness except to say that it is not for the benefit of the country that that appointment should be made-that is not un-



Farm Rehabilitation Act
fair criticism. I think it is fair and proper criticism, and such as has been indulged in in this house by great leaders in days past. I do not pretend to be one of them, but if one reads the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other great leaders then one will have a clear appreciation of what I mean. One may have the warmest personal regard for people, but that cannot take from one the responsibility and duty to point out that it is not in the public interest that they should get a particular position where their appointment would affect adversely the successful operation of a statute.
I repeat again, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not explained why he is dispensing with this advisory committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have repeated so often that I am not dispensing with it that I do not think it is necessary to repeat it again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has repealed the provision providing for their appointment and operation under the statute. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is present. I challenge him to say that under this statute the advisory committee does not go out of existence the minute the bill is assented to.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, the legislation provides that I may appoint any committee, and surely under that provision I can appoint this committee if I desire to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, is it quite as bad as that? I asserted a moment ago that this statute beheads the committee. The minister rises and says: I have said so often that it does not do so that I do not desire to say it again. I challenged the Minister of Justice to say that the statute does not wipe out the committee. And then the Minister of Agriculture rises in his place and says: Well, I can appoint them. Of course he can, but they are gone when this measure is assented to. Why do you destroy this advisory committee? There has been no answer to that yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: Why have a discussion of two or three hours over the fact that this committee may be out of existence for twenty-four hours and then be put back in again.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
James Garfield Gardiner: I have not time to quibble about such small points.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There again you see, w<hen you have put a question, it is quibbling. It is quibbling because I say the committee is gone. The minister says it is not. Later he says he can reappoint it. I ask, why is it being destroyed? I cannot get an answer, although it is not an unreasonable question to ask.


James Garfield Gardiner: Because it is not being destroyed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now it has got back to the point that the committee has not been destroyed. I should1 like to see that on Hansard, because-


James Garfield Gardiner: It will look well on Hansard1.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly will, when the minister says it has not been destroyed, and then says, "I have not time to waste on it, because I can put it back in twenty-four hours." Take the section and tell the chamber whether or not the result of that section is not to destroy the advisory board, wipe it out. Why should it be destroyed? That is the question. I want an answer and I cannot get an answer. The minister says it is not destroyed. When I say the Minister of Justice or anyone else who can read the English language will tell him that it has been, he says, "I can put it back in twenty-four hours." After the speech to which we have listened this afternoon, I think it is more important than ever that we should have an answer. If this was a body of men not governed' by political considerations, would they not want an answer? If they were shareholders in an organization, would they not want an answer if their board of directors came forward' and said, "We want to do this"?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would not even be discussed in a directors' meeting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it depends entirely upon the kind of business of which a man is director and his conception of his duties as such. I ask again, why has this committee been destroyed, and I have no answer beyond the statement that it has not been, and then the statement that it has been and that they can replace it in twenty-four hours. Do we want to make legislation ridiculous by wiping out the committee with one hand and putting it back with the other? That is the question.


Mr. YOUNG:: It had not been my intention to say anything in the discussion of this bill, until this afternoon, when we heard what

Farm Rehabilitation Act
I consider to be an unwarranted attack on a gentleman who was formerly a member cf this house, a man with whom I had the privilege of sitting in this chamber for many years, and who sat afterwards for five years later than I did. Mr. Vallance is a farmer. He was a homesteader. He was living in an area of the country affected by this legislation. He is a man probably as well acquainted with the work that is being undertaken as any man in the area who could be selected. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) professes great personal regard for him; one might say, "greater love hath no man" than he expressed for Mr. Yallance. But apparently there was some other reason why Mr. Vallance would not be a fit and proper person to occupy that position, and that reason was given by the leader of the opposition, because he stated that Mr. Vallance was really a partisan. As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated this afternoon, there is no man in Saskatchewan who has been more independent than Mr. Vallance in stating his views on all questions, whether within or without the house.
But let us assume that the reason given by the leader of the opposition is why he thinks that Mr. Vallance should not be chairman. I ask the leader of the opposition this question, has he been informed during this year by people in the area which Mr. Vallance has endeavoured to serve that they have found him to be an active political partisan, or has he been doing the work that is entrusted to him? I have been over that area;
I have travelled hundreds of miles through that country, and I have yet to hear anyone make a suggestion that Mr. Vallance is playing politics in even the remotest way. On the other hand, I have heard from many that he is doing the job in the best way that it could be done. Is that the reason it has been suggested that he is not a suitable man for the work? Because a man sits in this 'house, is he thereby unfitted to occupy thereafter any position in the service of the government?
Let us look at the situation. I sat in this house with another gentleman, of whom I wish to say nothing but the most kindly things; he sat on the other side, and he was made deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries. I say nothing more than that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he a fisherman?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am not saying whether he was qualified or not qualified. I merely make that statement. During the last five years an hon. member occupied a seat on the Conservative side as a supporter of the leader of the opposition. Where is he to-day? If there is
one appointment in the service of the dominion whose incumbent should be above political partisanship, it is that of a member of the civil service commission. The man to whom I have referred is a member of that commission. I am not stating that he is fair or unfair. I merely say that he holds that position and that he is a former Conservative member of this house.
A few nights ago, when the estimates of one of the departments were brought down, the leader of the opposition saw fit to remark that there was one official who apparently was not very well known to his minister. At that time the Postmaster General's estimates were before the committee. Every hon. member saw that the assistant deputy postmaster general was seated in front of his minister, and I think those who have been here for a number of years will recognize that we had in the person of that official one of the ablest men in the public service of Canada. I want to ask who appointed the deputy postmaster general, another gentleman who sat in this house on the Conservative side during the last five years as a follower of the leader of the opposition. Is the post office service in Canada an important service? I suppose there is no hon. member who will deny that it is one of the most important services carried on in the dominion. More than that, I believe every hon. member and every person outside the house will agree that one cannot become, without a great deal of experience, an efficient servant in a very important branch of the service. Yet we find that a former Conservative member of this house was placed, without having had any previous experience, in the important position of deputy postmaster general.
I come now to the tariff board, which is supposed to be of some service to this country, and what do we find there ? Another gentleman who sat in this house when I was a member. If I were to refer to him as a political chameleon, I believe I should be pretty accurate. No man knew where he stood. He was all things to all men.


An hon. MEMBER:: Until the vote came.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Until the vote came. If one goes over the records of this house and parliamentary guide, one can find, as far as I have been able to discover, no other instance where a man represented himself to be a Progressive and added the words, "previously Liberal." Everyone knows that the hon. gentleman never was a Liberal, and had it been known in his constituency that he had been a Conservative all the time, he could never have represented it in this house. To what position
Farm Rehabilitation Act

was he appointed? To the tariff board. I say to this government that if there is anything more ridiculous that I can think of than their keeping a man of that type on the tariff board, I do not know what it is.
I am inclined to think the leader of the opposition does not really like Liberals. Before this house organized itself, there were a number of members who sat here for many years, and some of them occupied very important positions. They were known to have taken part in public life, and the very first thing we had, something I regretted very much and I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman regrets it to-day, was a serious reflection on the hon. gentleman who is Speaker of the house. The same thing is true with regard to yourself, Mr. Chairman, and now we find it true of our friend Mr. Vallance. I am not saying some of the gentlemen appointed by the right hon. gentleman were not honourable men, but it ill becomes the leader of the opposition to single out Mr. Vallance and hold him up to scorn because he once happened to be a Liberal, when the right hon. gentleman himself, if it was a crime to make such an appointment, was guilty of the same thing time and again. The discussion this afternoon has been unfortunate in some respects, but there is only one hon. gentleman in this house who is responsible for initiating that discussion and that is the leader of the opposition.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Might we have repeated now the suggestions made by the Minister of Agriculture about two and a quarter hours ago? We ought to get back to the bill.


James Garfield Gardiner: My suggestion was that we revert to section one of the bill, the new section 3 of the act, subsection one. I propose that it should read:
The governor in council may establish one or more advisory committees to be known as prairie farm rehabilitation committees, the members of which shall hold office during pleasure.
And the next subsection should read:
One of the members of each advisory committee shall be appointed chairman thereof by the minister.


Major James William Coldwell: Will there be one central committee? Will the chairman of the several advisory committees constitute a central committee? It seems to me it is important that there should be one committee responsible to the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. There will be one central committee, but it may not necessarily be exactly the same personnel as the present one. There are obvious reasons for that.
[Mr Young.]
That committee saw fit to agree to there being at least two other committees, one being a committee to deal with water and another to deal with re-grassing. We desire to have that sort of committee appointed in the same way as the central committee is appointed to act. There is another committee that has been in existence. On this committee the three western provinces are represented. Only one exception could be taken to the appointment, following the remarks made this afternoon, and that is that Mr. Vallance was chairman of that committee. The provincial governments of Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have each a representative on that committee, and that committee is a much smaller one and can be got together more easily than a committee spread all over Canada. If there is any objection at all, it can be only with regard to that one committee. I believe all the members of that committee are employees either of the dominion government or of one of the provincial governments. Mr. Charlesworth of Alberta, Mr. M'Gavin of Saskatchewan and Mr. Attwood of Manitoba I think are on that committee, and these men were all originally members of the staff of the Interior department at Ottawa. Mr. Vallance simply sits as chairman at meetings which are held for the purpose of discussing the activities of the committee.


Major James William Coldwell: Are these to be regional committees or will they have charge of various phases of the work? The minister mentioned the question of water, for example.


James Garfield Gardiner: In checking the matter up since last evening and discussing it with officials who have been more closely connected with the administration than I am personally, I am informed that what was said a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition is correct, that so far as the voluntary committees in the country are concerned, no legislation is required, and we do not desire to have the authority to name the chairmen of these committees. They are named by the farmers themselves.


Frederick George Sanderson: I take it that the amendment is that the word "advisory" shall be inserted before the word "committees" in the eighth and eleventh lines.


Mr. LAWSON:: Listening to the amendment proposed by the minister, I suggest that all it accomplishes is to change the name of the committee. It makes no change in the principle of this section of the present bill as originally introduced1 by the minister. Does the minister agree with me?

Farm Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: It changes it to this extent, that we cannot appoint an administrative committee under this section. I take it that one of the objections of the leader of the opposition was that we should not have administrative committees appointed in this way.


Mr. STEWART:: I listened with a good deal of interest to the minister this afternoon, and, when he finished, the situation seemed to me to be very much confused. One part of his argument seemed to me to prove that all that was being done under this act had been undertaken, was initiated, or was under way, and that this act was unnecessary to accomplish what was being done under it. He went away back into history, starting at the beginning, to tell what had been done by the provinces and the organizations they had set up, and in my opinion he minimized the value of this act. In fact, he almost led me to conclude that he ought to be asking for the repeal rather than for the amendment of the act.
This act was drafted with great care and a special advisory committee was set up. We have asked the minister on different occasions to give us the names of those who were appointed to this committee. We have not received that information and I repeat the request. On the other hand, when we make reference to the report of this advisory committee, we find that a great deal has been accomplished, that it has really done wonderfully well in the short time of its existence. The act was not passed until April, 1935. Evidently some things that were done in 1936 could not have been undertaken in 1935 owing to the lateness of the season-seeding and that sort of thing. Then again it was necessary to have the committee organized. All that had to be done in 1935. Really I think the committee has accomplished a very satisfactory result. Its activities were based upon this act and upon the provisions of the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act of 1935. So, on the whole, I think this committee of the whole must come to the inevitable conclusion that the results of the legislation have been very creditable, very satisfactory indeed. Then the question naturally arises, why make any change when so much has been accomplished by the machinery which has been set up. It is not suggested that two committees can do more than one. In fact, there is likely to be confusion, conflict and division of responsibility. Under the act as it at present exists, there is no difficulty in subdividing the
advisory committee by regulation or otherwise, and having the members undertake special studies of any particular subject. I should like the minister to give the names of those who are on the advisory committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: Doctor E. S. Archibald, Ottawa, chairman. Dominion Department of Agriculture; James H. Girvin, Medora, Manitoba grain growing farmers; Olaf Nyland, Shaunavon, Sask., Saskatchewan grain growing farmers; P. C. Colquhoun, Maple Creek, Sask., Saskatchewan live stock farmers; Leonard Koole, Monarch, Alberta, Alberta grain growing farmers; R. P. Gilchrist, Wild Horse, Alberta, Alberta range farmers; Professor J. H. Ellis. Winnipeg, government of Manitoba; Dean A. M. Shaw, Saskatoon, government of Saskatchewan; 0. S. Longman, Edmonton, government of Alberta; E. W. Jones, Calgary, Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Doctor W. J. Black, Montreal, Canadian National Railways; F. J. Freer, Winnipeg, mortgage companies of Canada; Doctor E. S. Hopkins, Ottawa, Dominion Department of Agriculture; B. P. Alley, Toronto, Canadian Bankers' Association.
Mr. Alley was the only member of the advisory committee unable to be present. There were others present at the meeting, but those are the members of the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the reading of that list of names is sufficient to convince the committee that it is a thoroughly representative, non-political, efficient and capable committee. I do not think the minister for a moment contends that he can improve upon the personnel or nature of the committee. He has given no good reason why this committee which has accomplished so much should be set aside. The minister says, " I may reappoint them." But why set them aside if he intends to reappoint them?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I stated more than once yesterday that I have no present intention of having any different central committee from the committee named. But there is the possibility that I may have to appoint someone else because of the wishes of some members of this committee, in view of the work which is to be done this spring.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister contend that under the legislation as it exists, he has not the power to fill any vacancy?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, but I contend that this summer we may be doing something so related to some of these organizations as to make their representatives desire not to be on an advisory committee in connection with it.
Farm Rehabilitation Act


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister is crossing a bridge long before he comes to it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh, I shall come to it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, I think the minister is anxious to get to the bridge, but his statement indicates that he is setting out to cross it before he arrives. He suggests that possibly some of these men may not be willing to act, but surely it would be time enough-


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it may be the other way around; I may not wish them to act. I am sure if those conditions arose, they would not wish to act. The railway companies still have considerable interest in lands all over that country; the banks have an interest in lands all over that country, and so have the loan companies. Surely it is not contended that if we should be dealing with the resettlement of people on lands in which the banks and railways and loan companies have an interest, their representative should be on the advisory committee in connection with those activities. There is the possibility that we may not wish them to be on it, and the possibility that they would not wish to be on it. We wish to have power to change if we desire.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has it now. Can the minister suggest any gentleman more capable of giving good advice than say Doctor W. J. Black-


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -who is familiar with the development and has long been associated with settlement work. Surely the magnitude of the interests of these corporations justifies their being represented on the committee. And the basis upon which I take it other members are appointed to this committee is that they are interested in and affected by the work of the committee. Why should not the railways and the mortgage companies, which have a very substantial interest, be represented on the committee in common with those who have equal interests and must be just as much concerned in the proper development of that part of Canada as any citizens? They have a special interest and a general interest.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection to any of these men individually. For such work as I have been speaking of, there would, I think, be no desire whatever on the part of either the individuals concerned or myself for any change. But if we do start the kind of work I outlined a moment ago, I think both those organizations and the department would desire to have a different type of advisory

committee. We might want to have represented on that committee the municipal organizations, if we are going to ask such organizations to cooperate with us. If dealing with lands which really belong to the people named here, I think it would be advisable to have on the committee, say the representatives of the municipalities rather than the representatives of these companies. We would be sitting around a common table discussing what we are going to do; when we get to a certain point we may want to discuss the matter with the advisory committee, and you have on the committee the same individuals as you have represented in your discussions. That condition might easily arise under the arrangement in the present act.


James Earl Lawson: I want to come back to the question I raised with the minister before in respect to the proposed amendment. He pointed out that his amendment would have the effect of confining the activities of the committee to be appointed to those of an advisory nature. I sent for the act, and I direct the attention of the minister to section 7, which provides that:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary or expedient for effectual execution and working of this act and the attainment of the intention and objects thereof.
That is a very broad omnibus section which, I submit, would entitle the government, by order in council, to vest in the committee any power which it desired within the ambit of the statute. Merely changing the name of the committee by inserting the word "advisory" will not accomplish the purpose which he ostensibly desires to accomplish, and which he says he desires because of a defect in the amending statute, as pointed out originally by the leader of the opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course, there is section 5, which pretty well takes care of what the hon. member has in mind. It states:
No member of the committee shall receive any payment or emolument for his services, but he shall be repaid all actual reasonable travelling or other expenses in connection with the work of the committee.


James Earl Lawson: No, no; I have not anything of that kind in mind. I have in mind what the minister said he wanted to accomplish.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is not my suggestion, at all.


James Earl Lawson: May I make myself clear, because I think the minister misunderstands me. I shall try to do it briefly. The minister proposed an amendment to the bill-

Farm. Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I did not; it is proposed from the other side of the house, and I am trying to amend the bill to suit them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; that is not what I proposed, at all.


James Earl Lawson: I shall have to go over the subject in greater detail. Yesterday the leader of the official opposition suggested to the minister that his bill, now before the committee, should be constructed and worded so as to accomplish a certain purpose. The purpose was that the committees to be appointed should be limited to being advisory committees. To-day the minister says he will do this by amending the name of the committees, by calling them "advisory committees." The point I am trying to make is that the amendment will not accomplish the purpose the minister himself says he desires to accomplish, in order to meet the point raised by the leader of the opposition.
I do not believe section 5 touches the point at all. I am not considering whether they can or can not be paid, or whether or not they receive travelling expenses. That is not the point. The point is this: Is it to be limited to an advisory committee, or is it to be a committee not limited to act in that capacity? I do not think the amendment accomplishes the purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand the discussion, advisory committees would be committees which we could call together from time to time, and from which we would get advice on policies we may have under consideration.


James Earl Lawson: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The principle of the bill as I understand it, as it was originally provided and finally became law, is that no member of the committee shall receive payment or emolument. I believe the intention was to get the type of individual who would give service of this kind without consideration. If the act is amended, as now suggested, and the committees are all made advisory committees, then each of them would be of that nature. That is the only change I see which would be made by adding the word. That is, we would be compelled to appoint men who would not receive pay for their positions, and would be called in merely for the purpose of giving advice.
Section 7 reads:
The governor in council may make such regulations as may be necessary or expedient for the effectual execution and working of this act and the attainment of the intention and objects thereof.
That would apply to all the actual administration under the act. Under the act as it was originally passed, we are not bound even by the advice we get from these committees.


James Earl Lawson: The minister, in the statement he has just made, has supported the very contention I am making. He said the regulations they could pass under section 7 would deal with the administration of the act. All right. Now that, he says, is something which he does not want the committees to have power to do, namely to perform administrative functions. He wants them limited to being merely advisory.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not-


James Earl Lawson: And I say that because
section 7 gives power by order in council to confer upon them administrative functions, he is not accomplishing the purpose his amendment is intended to accomplish. That is the only point I am trying to make.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would prefer to have
the bill as I introduced it yesterday. I do not think it has the weaknesses which have been pointed out. But in order to try to meet those who have been criticizing, I am prepared to insert the word "advisory," and to confine those sections of the act to an advisory committee. I do not think anyone would suggest that we could carry on the whole administration of the act under a committee of that kind, and ask them to do all the work in connection with it. The proviso would have to be in any act. I do not know how we would proceed if we took out section 7 and made the whole thing advisory. I do not see any difficulty about leaving section 7 in, and having these advisory committees to call in at any time so that we may discuss with them whether or not we are proceeding in the right direction.


James Earl Lawson: I am not suggesting that
the minister should take out section 7. I wish merely to put myself clearly on record to the effect that the amendment now proposed by the minister will not accomplish the purpose he would like to accomplish to please this side of the house, or to please anybody. I feel it my duty to call that to his attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will be
good enough to look at his initial statement, he will observe that he said he desired to provide for the appointment of committees, other than advisory committees.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, but my right hon.
friend-
Farm Rehabilitation Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the minister said.


James Garfield Gardiner: But my right hon. friend has been trying ever since to convince me that that was wrong. Is he now going to condemn me for changing my mind on it, after three or four days of discussion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I pointed out that section 7 was employed for that purpose, namely to appoint administrative committees, because section 7 provides for the appointment of committees to administer the act. This afternoon the minister takes that view, but he suggests that I was anxious to support the appointment of another advisory committee.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not my intention, at all. I would only have to point out that if the word "advisory" is put before the word "committee," it does not follow my suggestion. The effect of it would be to give a provincial bent to the operation of the committee, because if you are going to have more than one committee they may not agree on their advice. The whole theory was for one advisory committee, and to call all other committees you may like under section 7. The effect of the bill is to repeal section 3. It states, precisely:
Section 3 of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, chapter 23 of the statutes of 1935, is repealed, and the following substituted therefor.
That is the position. The minister states he is trying to meet our views, but I am sure he is mistaken as to that because I never have suggested at any time that there should be two advisory committees.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would not suggest that I am going so far as to cut it down to one committee, but I am prepared to make all committees advisory in the sense that the first one was advisory, and to have it controlled by the fact that we cannot pay them emoluments of office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty I pointed out yesterday was that if you have more than one advisory committee your advice may not be the same. You have too much advice, because you have advice from several committees.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I had been permitted this afternoon to read from the files I could have cleaned up that point. One of the first things the committee did was to recommend that two other committees be appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is quite within his rights to read the minutes of the meeting. The fact that they are on the file has nothing to do with it; they are supposed to be somewhere else. But he should read the minutes of the meeting, if he so desires.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The business under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume consideration in committee of Bill No. 18.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 18, to amend' the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-Mr. Gardiner- Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 2-Duties of committees.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand that this clause is amended to read, "The advisory committees shall consider and advise"? Is that what is proposed?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the intention, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can only say that that does something which I did not contemplate would- be done, and which I hardly think anyone contemplated being done. This creates more than one committee of the same kind which may or may not give similar advice with respect to the problems to be considered. This creates a situation which I do not think the minister had in his mind and which I certainly did1 not have in mine Will the word "advisory" be added before the word "committees" in the last line?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be added in each line where the word "committees" appears.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 3-Committees.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there an amendment to this section?


Frederick George Sanderson: The word "advisory" is to be added before the word "committees" in the second line.

Farm. Rehabilitation Act


James Garfield Gardiner: The word "advisory" is added before the word "committees" wherever it appears.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4

Appropriations.
James Garfield Gardiner: I think the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition in connection with section 4 is that it should read in this way:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize the expenditure in each of the fiscal years from and including 1937-38, up to and including the fiscal year 1939-40 for the purposes of this act, such sum or sums as may be appropriated by parliament in each of the said fiscal years respectively, for said purposes.
That is, the words "from time to time" are to be added after the word "may" in the first line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not quite sure that is the way in which the minister would desire to have it. I would think the proper phrasing would be:
The governor in council may from time to time authorize the expenditure for the purposes of this act in each of the fiscal years

That is, the expenditure would be authorized for the purposes of the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no objection to that.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right hon. gentleman's amendment is intended to make plain the normal procedure in such cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite. While the amendment is being prepared, I should like to make one observation with respect to the statements made to this committee this afternoon by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) with reference to a member of the tariff board. Mr. Campbell came into this house in 1921 as a supporter of the present Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). Mr. Campbell was then a Progressive and continued as such, so far as I know. I mention this merely because the records in the journals of the house do not indicate what has been said here. I understand the Minister of Mines and Resources is regarded as a Liberal and Mr. Campbell came into this house in 1921 as one of his ardent supporters and continued as such, so far as I know, until he was appointed to the position which he now occupies.
I may say that the attack which was made upon the deputy postmaster general could have been made with equal force upon the
late Sir Wilfrid Laurier who appointed Doctor Coulter to the position of deputy postmaster ganeral. Doctor Coulter was regarded' as being a most efficient officer, although the same conditions as those to which reference has been made prevailed at that time.
So far as the civil service commission is concerned, it consists of three members and not one. I do not think the party predilections of the member who was appointed need be dwelt upon too strongly in the light of his speeches during the time he was in parliament. It was because he possessed certain academic qualifications and a certain independence of mind that it was thought he would make an admirable appointee, a belief which I think is shared by all who have any knowledge of the operations of the commission. In any event, this is not similar to the case which I was discussing, as would be apparent on the face of it.
I regret greatly the observations made with respect to the Speaker, but if similar circumstances arose again, as a matter of public duty I would have regretfully to follow the same course as I then pursued. I have no sorrow or regret for having done what public duty necessitated my doing on that occasion.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is trying to prove with respect to Mr. Campbell, now a member of the tariff board. If I did not make myself clear this afternoon. I should like to make another attempt this evening. Mr. Campbell came into this house as a Progressive from a constituency which had never elected a Tory. In the parliamentary guide it will be found that he states he was a Progressive and he then adds something that no other member of this house has ever added, namely, that he was previously a Liberal. Those of us who sat in this house during those thin years when we had not the majority we have to-day, have no doubt as to what his politics were when it came down bo a close vote. No one knows that better than the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dispute that and the journals show quite the opposite.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If the right hon. leader of the opposition does not know that, I think he is the only member who does not.


Mr. HEAPS:: What has all this to do with the dry areas?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not in the house in 1921.
Farm Rehabilitation Act


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Further, Mr. Campbell was never opposed by a Tory at any time. With regard bo the deputy postmaster general, may I say that I merely called attention to the fact that he had' been a Conservative member of this house during the last parliament. Mr. Sullivan was appointed to a position which, in my judgment, calls for training in a particular work. I have yet to find one man either in or outside this house, unless it be the leader of the opposition, who approves that appointment. If the right hon. gentleman wants to know what the members of the Post Office Department from coast to coast think about it, he could make the same inquiries as he dad about my friend Mr. Vallanee.
I want to say one thing more about Mr. Vallanee. I do not think I made any objection to the leader of the opposition attacking Liberals. He is well known for doing that at all times. But had he shown us that Mr. Vallanee had been inefficient in his duty since being appointed; had he shown that he had been partisan in the performance of his duty since his appointment, then I could see some purpose in the right hon. gentleman's reference to this gentleman. As I listened, Mr. Chairman, I could not help recalling the saying about "Satan rebuking sin," and if there is one hon. gentleman in this house who should not bring up such matters it is the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about the hon. member himself?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I am going to make just one observation in reply. I was not discussing Mr. Vallanee except to point out the effect on public opinion of such an appointment, in view of the fact that his predecessor was the manager of the demonstration farm at Swift Current and was doing this work as part of his ordinary duties. This position now carries S4.000 per year, which, compared with the salary paid to Doctor Archibald, gives some indication of what the general situation is.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I understand that the minister is going to set up a number of committees. I should like to ask him to what extent the expenses of these committees will prevent them from reaching the proposed objective. Of course, certain sums of money will be devoted by parliament for certain projects, and these committees will entail a certain amount of expenditure. Would the minister give us some estimate of what that will be?


James Garfield Gardiner: The original committee met only twice, and the expenses were for railway fares to the point of meeting and hotel expenses. The expenses, I imagine, would be very small, but I believe these committees will be called oftener if set up in the way we suggest. The expenses might be a little more, although in all probability they would not, because the distance the members would have to travel would be much less.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I was going to wait until the amendment was put, but as the discussion may get off on another tangent there are one or two things I should like to say now. First, I should like to associate myself with those who complimented the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) yesterday upon his presentation. I felt, however, that perhaps the financial commitments for which money would have to be appropriated by parliament had not been sufficiently emphasized in his presentation. I believe that the problem which we face in western Canada is much greater than most of even the members of the House of Commons realize, and that it will entail the expenditure of a great deal more money than many expect.
I have in my hand a copy of the report which was made by those who conducted the soil survey in the province of Saskatchewan, and to which reference has frequently been made since this legislation was introduced. They state, and quite accurately, that even a casual view of the land situation in western Canada will show that not all the land settled is fit for the plough. The minister made that very clear yesterday.
I should also like to put before the house, and on record, the classification that is made in this soil survey of the lands largely in the area to which the minister referred yesterday, although this area takes in a little more land as the line runs horizontally through Prince Albert and then south to the international boundary. The surveyors divide the soil into six groups, and give the percentages in each area. They classify as superior soil 7T per cent of that area, and included in that superior soil area is the district which I have the honour to represent and the district around Regina, Melfort and one or two other areas. The next classification is: (2) Very good, 5-9 per cent; (3) moderately good, 16-9 per cent; (4) fair, 25-4 per cent. The point I am making is this, that fair land, and land better than fair amount to 55-3 per cent of that area, while land that is poor or very poor amounts to 44-7 per cent of the area. Of course, not all that poor land or very poor land is settled, but a great deal of it is.

Farm Rehabilitation Act
I am going to ask the minister what responsibility the department is going to assume for the continuance of these soil surveys and for making the chemical analysis which I think ought to be made, because, as all of us who come from this area know, you cannot say that any particular area is all bad, since there are variations within any given area.
I am disturbed, too, by the fact that a number of new settlers have gone into the north country and settled on land which is deficient in certain chemical constituents. There is that deficient whitish soil, for instance, that we see in that north country. It seems to me that we have to face this problem in a larger way than we are inclined to do at the present time.
There is one other table which I should like to place before the committee, and that is a summary of the surveys made of farm income on this land, with its varying types of soil. According to the farm management *department of the university of Saskatchewan, a farmer on the superior soil operating a half section of land could have in an average year a net income of between $307 and $516, and on a section a net income of from $1,280 to $1,588. On the moderately good soil his income would range from as low as $4 on a half section to as high as $262, and on a section from $547 to $859. On the poor soils at the end of the year the farmer would find himself with a net loss of $10 on a half section and an income of $523 on a section. But on the very poor soils the farmer simply cannot live on a half section.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Are those figures after all living expenses, clothing, food, and so forth, and wages are taken out?


Major James William Coldwell: No, not wages.


Malcolm McLean: Wages for his help?


Major James William Coldwell: No, not wages for hired help, and not wages for any member of the family, but the figures include living expenses, which run roughly-I have not the exact figures before me-from seven to eight hundred dollars a year, according to the locality.


John Gordon Ross: Did not the hon. member say that it was net income?


Major James William Coldwell: This is net income after living expenses only have been taken out. There is no allowance in these figures for interest, no allowance for wages for the family
or for the hired man, and nothing for replacements. I think these figures will be found in bulletin No. 64 of the university of Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is it not presupposed that the family is large enough to require no hired help?


Major James William Coldwell: I would not say that, but it is anticipated that the farmer would be able to get along with the help he had around him; that is true. On the other hand, I am pointing out that nothing is allowed for wages for that family, and the living expenses figure out at about $700 or $800 a year, as the case may be.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: May I ask the hon. member whether these figures represent an average over a period of years or are they for one year?


Major James William Coldwell: A period of years.


John Frederick Johnston: For what period?


Major James William Coldwell: I think the surveys were made at different periods.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it was ten years.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe that 1910 to 1914 was taken as the basic period and-the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that 76 cents per bushel for No. 1 Northern on the farm was the basis of the wheat price that the university used.


Malcolm McLean: Seventy-seven cents.


Major James William Coldwell: Seventy-seven cents.
Thank you. Seventy-seven cents was the basic farm price of wheat. What I am pointing out is that on poorer lands the farmers cannot make a living, and something will have to be done in order to enable them to make that living.
The other afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) mentioned the success achieved at the Matador ranch. That ranch happens to be in my constituency, and it is performing a very useful function for the farmers of that locality. But let me point this out, that the Matador ranch has not been broken up. It still retains the original prairie sod, and many of the lands which we have been discussing and are stating might be used for pasturage in the future, will take a long time-
Farm Rehabilitation Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Much of the Matador has no sod at all. I have been over it many times.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister is quite right. Quite a bit of it is stony.


Charles Avery Dunning: And sandy.


Major James William Coldwell: And sandy, yes. I think it requires about forty-six acres to maintain a single animal on that piece of land. Nevertheless the ranch performs a very useful service to the community. In the rehabilitation of much of this land the problem will be to grow grass again, and in my opinion that will take a considerable length of time. It may come naturally, by the weeds holding the soil together and forming something of a cover for the growth of grass later. But the point I am making is this, that I think this committee Should support the minister in any reasonable request he may make for funds for this particular purpose. I do not believe the condition can be exaggerated, and unless we are prepared to rehabilitate this area, the entire economic life of this dominion will suffer. As was said the other afternoon, it is not a local but a national problem.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, just a word with respect to the use of figures which are so discouraging as those quoted by the hon. member. Without at all disputing their accuracy in portraying what they purport to portray, I am always a little doubtful about the value of such generalizations as they represent. I might illustrate by saying that the soil report to which my hon. friend referred, and referred quite properly and accurately, relates to all of the area in Saskatchewan south of Prince Albert. May I suggest to him and to any practical farmer in the house that what is poor land in northeastern Saskatchewan, will have, by reason of the extra rainfall which that part of the province gets, a greater productive capacity than very good land in a district which does not receive sufficient rainfall.


James Garfield Gardiner: And lower evaporation.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the advantage of lower evaporation. It happens that my farm is shown on this soil survey map as consisting to almost half its extent of what would be called good land, and of almost half of only very fair to poor land. I know that the poor land on my farm, were it located in southwestern Saskatchewan, by reason of the difference in the rainfall would not produce what

it produces in the Yorkton district of Saskatchewan. It is just an illustration I am endeavouring to give of how easy it is to go-wrong when basing one's ideas upon the necessarily rather broad generalizations of an examination of that kind. I think the same may be said with respect to the economic survey. We all are familiar with farmers in poor districts who have good incomes, and we are all familiar with farmers in good districts who have poor incomes. We must allow for the wide variation in the human factor. Personally I am one of those who-believe that while governments can cooperate, as we are now proposing still further to cooperate, in the solution of these problems,, the real working out of them will be based upon the intelligent application by the individual farmer on his own farm of the-information which is made available to him either through this source or through the agricultural colleges or other scientific institutions which are working on the problem. More of our western problems have been solved during the last forty years by intelligent work by individual farmers on their own farms, the knowledge of which work gradually extends through the community and by and by throughout the whole west,, than by any other means. I take it that this rehabilitation proposal in so far as it relates to that phase of -the problem is intended to-make available the practical knowledge to the greatest possible number of farmers in order that they may work out their problems intelligent!}' on their own farms. And may I say that I know of no better man as the active head of that sort of work than a practical farmer like John Vallance, who knows the men, who knows the soil, who knows the conditions, and who is in the work with his whole heart.


Malcolm McLean: I agree absolutely with what the Minister of Finance has said, and I do not take issue with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has said, because he did not have in front of him the document about which he was speaking. I have in my hand the document issued by the department of farm management for Saskatchewan, covering a survey of several years. The years 1910 to 1914 were taken as the base years for price. In central Saskatchewan the average price of No. 2 northern wheat during the five years was about 77 cents per bushel. But in referring to the figures on income and otherwise of farms, I do not think it would be fair to let the impression go out to members of

Farm Rehabilitation Act
this chamber or to other parts of Canada that this is a hopeless proposition, because everything depends upon weather conditions in this territory and economic conditions elsewhere.
Table 1A. which is the first table given in the management book, refers to inferior prairie soil, and the figures provided therein are cash figures. Farm living expenses in cash are allowed on behalf of the farmer and his family for groceries, meat, light and fuel, furnishings, clothing, health and miscellaneous, a total of 8708. Everyone knows that on any farm in Canada

I think I am safe in saying on any- many items are available for living purposes that do not have to be paid for or accounted for in cash. But these are farm living expenses in cash on one-half section lands, chiefly sandy and gravelly, with rolling topography, and subject to frequent loss of crops, particularly from drought. These are the poorest lands dealt with, and the sort of lands, I take it, as to which the minister would like to see a change in the location of the farmers living on them. These lands would not carry any principal or capital debt at all on the crops that the farmers were getting at the price I mentioned. In addition to the farmers' living expenses, paid in cash or allowed for, farm expenses in cash cover items such as the following: machinery repairs; gas and oil and grease; blacksmithing; building repairs, 1 per cent of value; paint and painting; fences new and repairs; small hardware; fire insurance; threshing; twine; telephone; breeding fees; taxes and miscellaneous expenses. No car expenses, but horse expenses have been provided for conveyance, and no labour expenses have been provided because these costs are on a basis of a family of four adults to the half section farm and it was not considered that on a farm of that type much hired help would be needed outside threshing.
The same type of land on a section farm would carry a debt, amortized in a period of twenty years, at six per cent, of 83,062, which would amount to S10.07 per acre of crop land or $4.78 on land per acre over the whole of the section. It is not anticipated that on land of this kind a very large percentage will be under cultivation, and that is why its debt carrying capacity is so low.
Coming to the next type of land, mixed soils with " burn-outs " or clay spots frequent, and on which wheat production is generally problematical, after allowing for living . expenses totalling $708 and farm expenses, cash, amounting to $348, we find there is a
deficit in the cash requirements. But even on a section farm there would be a deficit. This is poor soil. Taking average prairie soil, mixed textured soils, principally loams, undulating to rolling, with varying amounts of stones, sloughs and waste, and subject to considerable variation in crop yields, we find an allowance of $719 for farm living expenses, cash, and $4S9 for farm expenses in cash, leaving a net cash income of $228, and a net income of $42, after taking into account many charges in addition to those I have given. This land would carry a principal debt of $482 per half section, according to this calculation. On a section of such land, however, because of the larger income and the relatively lower expenses the debt capable of being amortized in twenty years at six per cent would be $8,086.
As we get into the better lands, though still very much in the drought area, fair to good southern park lands, we find that on a half section, using these figures as the basis of calculation, there could be carried a principal debt of $1,208 amortized in twenty years at six per cent, and on a section of such land it is calculated that a principal debt of $9,130 could be carried. In all the section farm figures there is provision for labour, but on the half section farms there is not.
As regards fair to good eastern park lands, average northern park lands, mixed textured soils, and silty clay loams, moderately free from obstructions, producing high yields of wheat and other crops, and heavy clay land which is the choicest wheat land of Saskatchewan, the figures are all set out in this pamphlet. But even on the poorest types of land, according to this survey, in reasonable years under reasonable weather conditions and at prices we regard as very moderate-77 cents for No. 2 northern wheat-there was at that time a possibility of the average farmer having $700 to spend in living expenses in addition to what he took off the farm in kind, besides maintaining machinery, buildings and so on.
It is well known that much land has been settled which should not have been settled had we known then what we know now, and I am satisfied that it is one of the objects of the rehabilitation board, as the minister said the other day, to get some of this land out of cultivation. The area under the plough in many of these lands was small in comparison with the total area of the farm, and on the poorer lands there is a possibility, indeed a probability, that many farmers would not have a half section but a section. As men have moved away, naturally more land is left
Farm Rehabilitation Act

to be divided among those remaining, and where land will not carry a heavy capital debt or, in some cases, any debt at all, it is comparatively easy for those who remain in the district either to obtain ownership of the land surrounding them and now vacant, or, if they cannot get the ownership, to get the use of it.
I would say one word about the poorer white clay soils of northern Saskatchewan. I know they are not so good in some respects as the lands around them. But they are not as poor as a stranger might imagine by looking at them. They have been under bush for a long time and snow and water have lain there much longer than on the surrounding lands, with the result that more of the mineral content has leached out. But if I were to tell the committee that in northeastern Saskatchewan some of these white clay lands produced last year cash incomes of around $100 an acre, the statement might be received with some incredulity, or I might be asked to give further explanation. The explanation is simple. It may be that these lands will not produce heavy crops of wheat or coarse grains, but they are suitable for alfalfa, which is now grown to a considerable extent in northeastern Saskatchewan. The farmers there began growing this crop only a few years ago and last year the yield was from 400 to 800 pounds per acre and sometimes more than that. At 23 cents per pound for No. 1 registered seed, with two cents allowance for handling by the cooperative selling agency, leaving a balance of 21 cents net, it will be seen that a crop yield of four, five, six, or seven hundred pounds and sometimes more than that makes it possible to secure $100 per acre income off these alfalfa lands. I do not say that this would cover the acreage of these farms, because not many acres are yet under cultivation. But it is probable that in that section are the best alfalfa seed lands to be found on this continent. How long that will continue I do not know. Many of the lands that have been under cultivation for some time and that are being put under cultivation now have not always been used to the best advantage. New uses are to be found for them, and I commend this to the attention of the rehabilitation board. I suggest that they should pay particular attention to getting these lands under some type of crop, whether grass or grain or legume, that will be more suitable to the land itself, to the climatic conditions and to the other needs of the district. I believe the rehabilitation board can do important work in that regard. Experiments have been going on for a good many

years with crested wheat grass. The former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) began using crested wheat grass in an effort to-restore prairie soil and before his time his predecessor the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) was engaged in similar work.
Let me say one last word. In my opinion the rehabilitation board might well devote some time and money to trying out seeds from other parts of the world which seeds have been found to be successful under conditions at least as unfavourable as we have in western Canada. There are parts of northern Russia and Siberia, possibly in South America and high Asia, that have made possible a reasonably prosperous type of agriculture. The Department of Agriculture of the United States has been importing some of these seed grasses, legumes and other farm products for many years, but much of the work they have done has been lost because these things have been pigeonholed. Every once in a while some new scientist, on the principle that a new broom sweeps clean, takes the packages out of these pigeonholes and makes use of them. Crested wheat grass was introduced in the United States forty years before it was tried out in Canada.
I might mention something I saw last year. I saw trucks coming from Minot, North Dakota, running day and night, hauling seed of crested wheat grass, sweet clover and alfalfa and other seeds from northern Saskatchewan back to the Dakotas and probably Montana where crested wheat grass had been left lying idle for so long.


Major James William Coldwell: I quite agree with the hon. member for Melfort in his description of the district he represents. The figures I was using were for the poorer types of land, and speaking from memory I think he pretty well substantiated the figures I used. I think it is true that we in western Canada have in days gone by drawn a picture which was a bit optimistic, and at present perhaps we are inclined to be too pessimistic. We have to try to strike a happy mean. But it is of no use, however, closing our eyes to the tremendous difficulties facing the Department of Agriculture in the southern part of the province. In the northeast it is a different story on account of the rainfall, but in the southwest and the extreme south the outline given of conditions by the hon. member and myself is, I think, substantially correct. If one looks over the income tax returns which were quoted yesterday, it will be seen, for example, that for the year 1932-33 only thirty-two

Farm Rehabilitation Act
Saskatchewan farmers paid income tax; in the following year twenty-nine; the next year, thirty-eight, and last year, ninety-six. That gives a pretty fair picture of conditions. The same thing is shown by the number of lapsed life insurance policies. The point I am trying to make is that this is a big problem, and any expenditures made by this government will be approved by the people of western Canada.


Mr. FAIR:: Having listened to the debate to-day, I have been wondering whether there is any province in western Canada but Saskatchewan. We must remember that either east or west of Saskatchewan there is a province with practically the same conditions existing. So I ask that those two provinces be not forgotten. While I do not agree with the minister in everything he says and does, I have to compliment him very highly upon the comprehensive and able report which he gave on this matter yesterday. I do not think anyone could make a much better job of it, and if he goes through to the end as he has started I think members of all parties will praise and congratulate him and the government of which he is a member.
I do not live in the dry belt, but a considerable portion of Battle River constituency is in that belt. So far we in the northern end of the constituency have been fortunate enough to have a little moisture. Last year our average crop in the northern end ran eight or nine bushels of wheat and ten bushels of oats to the acre. That, as hon. members will admit, is not very high, and even with good prices farming is not a paying venture. And this, I may say, is a pretty high estimate for the average in the northern part of the constituency, while in the southern part I know of thousands of acres where a binder has not been taken this year. In other parts they got one or two bushels, and where I live we got around eight bushels. Several problems have to be dealt with there. One is the feed situation during the winter. In the early part of the winter we felt that matters were going to be all right because we had a late open fall. But since then the west has experienced a lot of cold, and heavy snowfalls. This has brought about a serious condition for those who are short of feed, which means practically everyone in that dried-out district. How to put in a crop in the spring is one of their problems now, and I wonder whether it is not possible under this scheme to supply fuel oil so that tractors may be used instead of horses. I make this
suggestion so that the minister, following the good start he has made, may consider it. I am not making it for myself; I was lucky enough-if I may put it in that way-to have enough frozen grain in 1935 stacked up to carry me over last year too. Otherwise, as far as oats are concerned, I would be in exactly the same position as those in the southern part of the constituency.


John Gordon Ross: Following the remarks of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in which he said that we have perhaps been too optimistic in the past and now are getting pessimistic, I should like to say the same is true as far as what is known as the drought area is concerned. I think many people in Canada, and probably many members of the committee, have not a proper idea of that section of the country. There is plenty of good land in that area, although much land has been settled there which should not have been settled1 for grain growing. The governments of this country were responsible for that. But in that part known as the drought area we must remember that there has been settlement for only a short time, and that many people who went there to settle went with very little capital.	Some	of them were	not farmers.When they first settled in there, they were able to break only a very small part of their land, on which they had a good crop at that time. The next year they would have a little more broken, and again they had a good crop. They went on breaking more and more of their land, and people who were selling lumber for buildings, selling machinery and all those things that farmers there needed, believing that	it was a good	part' of	thecountry, allowed considerable credit to the fanners	there.	These farmers	went on	tobreak up their whole farm and put up buildings and buy machinery on credit, and then a drought period hit them before they had a chance to take a good crop off the whole farm or a large proportion of it. Had they been able to get a good crop on a large acreage for some years prior to the drought period they would have been able to come through	some	bad years, perhaps not	six
years, but the larger part of it, without a great deal of help from the government. The government has tried to help these people through this time of stress.
Conditions will not always be what they have been recently in that part of the country. There have been droughts there before, extending over a period of five or six years,
Farm Rehabilitation Act

but that was at a time when that part was not settled, and' therefore no one was greatly hurt by it. But if the people on the good lands in the drought area are held there and assisted by the government under this rehabilitation scheme to carry on, they will no doubt come to a period in which there will be sufficient rainfall, and with sufficient rainfall, that portion called the drought area will produce large yields of grain of the very best quality. If these people are helped1 through this period, we shall probably find that ten years from now in that part of the country they will be producing many, many millions of dollars worth of purchasing power for the benefit of eastern as well as western Canada. We shall find that although we have spent a considerable sum of money in endeavouring to help the people in that part of the country, the dominion as a whole will be well repaid for the money spent.


Mr. EVANS:: I have sat patiently for
two days listening to the discussion of the rehabilitation measure. Fortunately or unfortunately, as the case may be, I happen to be the representative of a large portion of the district which has been under discussion, and in which the rehabilitation plan is working.
About thirty years ago as a young man I went into the district, at a time when the early settlers were coming in. At that time I remember the criticism of the old timer was that the federal government of that day had allowed such a great portion of the land to be settled by farmers. I remember, too, that the then provincial member for the constituency of Maple Creek, known in those days as Fighting Joe Wiley, did make representations to the federal government in which he pointed out that a mistake was being made in permitting the settlement of large areas in the southwest section of the country.
Possibly at this time it might be well to give a bird's-eye view of what our southwestern country looks like. As the minister so ably pointed out yesterday,, the southwest is a plains area down the centre of which is a row of hills extending from the Rocky mountains, in an easterly direction. These are known as the Cypress hills, and to a certain extent they are wooded. In the hills there are numerous small lakes and springs which are the sources of creeks and small rivers. These are being rapidly developed as irrigation projects by the water conservation and rehabilitation committee.
Irrigation is not unknown in the great southwest. For more than thirty years there have been small privately owned and operated irrigation plants. Just south of the old town of Maple Creek, which is so well known in the southwest, is a rancher who has had irrigation over his land for a number of years. In 1936, despite the dryness of the season, he had 200 acres of alfalfa under irrigation, and from that land he cut 750 tons of good alfalfa hay. I maintain that in the development of our irrigation projects in the southwest, if we do nothing more than make sure that we supply our ranchers, stock growers and small farmers with a supply of fodder sufficient to carry their cattle over the winter, the expenditure would be warranted.
Yesterday an hon. member from Alberta asked the Minister of Agriculture a question regarding feed. In the last ten days I have received several letters and telegrams from southwest Saskatchewan on this subject. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, and he informs me that everything possible is being done to have feed shipped into that area. If each year we have to spend millions of dollars in shipping feed to that part of the country in order to keep the farmers' and ranchers' live stock through the winter, would it not be better business to spend an equal amount of money each year in the development of the great irrigation projects out there waiting to be developed. If people in eastern Canada would visit our great southwest and see the great developments which could be opened up, there would be no question about the house spending the the required amount of money each >
ear.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4 as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT Post Office-Outside Service
Salaries and allowances, $16,713,338.50.
Mail services, including mail services by air, $14,520,000.
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 to provide for payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties or to other persons injured while performing duties in any way connected with the postal service or in protecting His Majesty's
fMr. J. G. Ross.]

Supply-Post Office
mails, or to the dependents of such employees or other persons who may be killed while so engaged, payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,004,600.
Mr. THOMPSON:: I notice a large number of items appearing under this item, and I assume they are all under discussion. May I call the attention of the minister to the very unsatisfactory method of engaging rural mail carriers. It is well known that mail carriers in the cities and towns are paid salaries, and that the civil service commission make the appointments, selecting from the applications they receive those which, in their judgment, are the most suitable. I can never understand why in the country men are allowed to bid against each other, and why invariably the contract is given to the lowest bidder. In that way we get the man who places the lowest value upon his own labour. In these days, when a great many people are bard up, men are bidding against each other for these jobs until the point has been reached where bids are made away below proper values. I know of one rural mail route seven miles long now being operated for 87 cents per trip. I know of another one where $1,000 was being paid for a route twenty-two miles long. It was put up at auction some time ago and bid down for $480. Men cannot live on such wages.
Our government is making investigations into certain industrial plants, showing that great profits have been made and small wages paid, I do not think there is a more flagrant example of underpayment of officials than is to be found in the Post Office Department in connection with the rural mail carriers. There should be a minimum rate per mile for these rural mail routes. I admit that it may cost less to operate routes which lie along highways or in sections of the country where the roads are kept free of snow and where there are very good roads than it does to operate routes where the snow is not cleared and where the roads are not in good condition even during the summer time. I do not think any rural mail carrier in Canada should be asked to supply a horse and buggy and harness or a car for the delivery of mail at less than $50 a mile per year.


Mr. SPENCE:: Does the hon. member mean the round trip?


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Yes, on the round trip. I know of instances where men have not
been able to buy feed for their horses and keep them in condition to do this work. Quite often this job is looked upon as a sort of side line. I asked one man the other day why he had taken the contract at the rate he had and he told me that he was hard up, that he had had poor crops and was able to put a boy just out of school on the route where he could earn a little. These conditions should not exist and it is manifestly unfair to treat the rural mail carriers any differently from the carriers in the towns and cities. The men delivering mail are performing a very important duty in the community and they should receive at least a reasonable compensation.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Chairman, the matter that my hon. friend has brought up is not new by any means. It has been discussed, for some years and was discussed' at considerable length the other evening. I do not think I can add1 anything to what I said at that time. I assure him that I have as much sympathy for the rural mail carriers as has he or any other member of this committee. For years the law has been that contracts for over $200 shall be let by public tender after having been advertised. I do not know how any man can complain when he gets a contract at the rate at which he tendered for it. As I mentioned the other evening, there have been very few contracts let in the time that I have had something to do with the Post Office Department, without at least half a dozen men, either by correspondence or by requests through their members, seeking to obtain the contract at the same rate at which the lowest tenderer obtained it.
The hon. member speaks of $50 per mile, but that would1 be very much in excess of the present rate. Just the other day I had a most interesting interview with some representatives of the rural mail carriers' association. Some hon. members also attended that meeting. These men, all mail carriers, were a very fine type. Nearly all had been engaged in some other occupation before becoming rural carriers, some of them having been in two or three different occupations. Some of them had started out carrying mail by filling out a contract taken by someone else. In not one case that I know of has the contract holder been anxious to throw up his contract and go back to the job he had previously.

Supply-Post Office

I say to my hon. friend, what I do not think I need to say to him, that for the past few years the men whose mail has been carried by these carriers have been working on their farms for less money, or at least not much more money than the carriers received. No doubt some of these mail carriers are fulfilling their contract at very low rates, but they have not been in nearly the unhappy position of some of the farmers to whom they are delivering mail. I am not attempting to say that we are paying the price which I think will be paid1 when times improve, because conditions always change when times get better. As farmers are able to make more on their farms, fewer of them will tender for these mail routes. Perhaps that condition will bring the remedy which, after all, would be the best remedy.
My hon. friend is too good a business man to argue for one moment that one could fix a minimum price which would be fair all over Canada. This is a country of varying climates and conditions. In some parts of it there is very little snow and that for only a short period of the year, while in other parts there is very deep snow for much longer periods. The only solution would be to attempt to fix a minimum rate for each district, and that would be almost impossible to do. I agree with what my hon. friend has said with regard to these men working for lower wages than are received in the cities, but the remedy which he suggests of a minimum price per mile would bring up the very question to which other hon. members would object, namely, to whom would the contract be given when half a dozen bid the minimum price?
Mr. THOMPSON The civil service commission.


John Campbell Elliott: It would be quite interesting to see the civil service commission sitting in Ottawa deciding as to who would get a route up in northern Alberta or away down in the county of Essex. I have nothing more to say. I do not think the plan my hon. friend suggests is at all feasible because there is as much difference between the various miles that a rural mail carrier travels as there is between the horses that cover the ground. There are no two miles the same, and each man, when 'he is tendering, has to judge for himself what price he considers will be of advantage to him if he should be so fortunate as to have his tender accepted.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I cannot agree with what the minister says, and I think I made that clear when I said that each route should be judged on its own merits. I said that the cost of delivering the mail would not be as much on some roads as on others, for instance, on a highway that is kept ploughed in the winter time.
I can remember quite well when rural mail delivery was first started. When an application was made, a man was sent out from the department to go over the route before it was decided to start the service. I remember our good friend Mr. Coolican coming out to Almonte, and I drove him with a horse and buggy over the first rural mail route that was let. He examined the route very thoroughly, and I say that it would be quite easy to have every rural mail route examined and a price set for that route.
The minister also stated that the men could not be appointed by the civil service commission. I want to say that the appointments are made now right here in Ottawa. The applications are sent in here; the department decides who is to get the route, and it would be just as easy for t'he civil service commission to make the appointment. The lowest tenderer almost always gets the contract.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I have never yet known a mail route where the lowest tenderer did not get the contract. The appointment is made from Ottawa, and the department give the contract to the lowest tenderer. It would be just as easy for the civil service commission to do this, and I think these appointments should be made by the commission. I am not in favour of patronage, and I do not approve the manner in which these appointments are made now. I know that in the five years from 1930 to 1935, when the government I supported was in office, I was written to in every case when a rural mail contract expired, and asked whether I would recommend that it be renewed or new tenders invited. I shall tell the committee what I did. In those five years I never put one route up for tender. I did not care who the man was who had the contract, so long as he was doing his duty. I renewed them all because I am not in favour of a man putting up a mail route for tender simply because the present man on the route voted against him. I always felt that if the man was doing his duty and was being a good

Supply-Post Office
public servant, he had no right to be interfered with. But under the present system these men are at the mercy of the man who holds the patronage for the riding.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is entirely wrong.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I am not asked about these rural routes any more, but my opponent
is, and he has stated that he has been tormented about them. He makes recommendations to the department that the same man have his contract renewed or that the route be put up for tender, but he has no say as to who shall get the route if opened up, because the department gives it to the lowest tenderer. He has the say as to whether the man who is already performing the service shall have his contract renewed. I think this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I say that $50 per mile even as a minimum would not be too much to pay for delivering mail on many of our country roads, and it would be quite easy to have each route considered on its merits.


Mr. BARBER:: As the minister has said, this is a matter which has been before parliament for a number of years. The subject comes up almost every year. I agree that the ideal way would be to pay the men on a salary basis, but as the minister has pointed out, there are great difficulties in arranging that. It has also been suggested that we follow the United States system, where the postman is given a uniform and so much per mile per year for carrying the mail. This is, of course, something that we may look forward to having some day in Canada.
The last speaker (Mr. Thompson) brought to the attention of the committee a matter on which I had intended to say something, and that was the question of patronage. I noticed that when he made his statement about patronage, we heard "No, no" from a number of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I know that at present, some weeks before a contract is about to expire, a notice is sent to the member of parliament supporting the government or to the defeated candidate supporting the government. I received these levters myself for five years, and I have in my hand a copy of a letter which I have taken from my file, and which I think it would be just as well to put on record. The form is a long one. It winds up with No. 37. The letter is headed "Post Office Department, Canada," and there is a line for the date.
The letter reads:
Dear Sir,-
Re,-
The contract for the above-mentioned mail service will expire on the (date) . The contractor is	and the rate $
per annum.
Now listen to this:
The department considers the rate paid as reasonable and is prepared to renew the contract.
I should be glad of your advice as to whether it would be in the public interest to allow this service to remain with the present contractor, whose name is given, or whether you consider it would be in the interest of the department to invite tenders for a new contract.
I should appreciate your prompt reply.
Yours sincerely,
Chief Superintendent,
Air and Land Mail Services.
This is followed up after a certain length of time with another letter:
On the (date) you were advised that the contract for the above mentioned mail service would expire on the (date) . The contractor is	and the rate $
per annum.
The department considers the rate paid as reasonable and is prepared to renew the contract.
I should be glad of your advice as to whether it would be in the public interest to allow this service to remain with the present contractor, whose name is given, or whether you consider it would be in the interest of the department to invite tenders for a new contract.
If I do not hear from you by (date) the department will take whatever action it may deem advisable.
During five years I received these letters, and I opened only one contract. The reason for opening that contract was that there had been complaints from patrons of the route. I went to the department and consulted with the officials, and they also had received complaints. I thought that the best thing to do was to open the contract, and we opened it. There were twenty-two who tendered for it; it was an important route. Twelve wrote to me and said they were personal friends of mine and expected me to get them the job. Of course I explained that under the act and regulations this was impossible, that the contract must go to the lowest tenderer. Since the election of 1935, my Liberal opponent has been opening every contract.
There was a contract in my town for carrying the mail from the railway to the post office, involving, I think, three trips a day. A returned soldier with a truck had been doing the work for about fifty cents a trip over a period of ten years. His contract expired each year. I received notice of this,
Supply-Post Office

and on each and every occasion I recommended renewal and it was renewed. But as soon as the government changed, my opponent opened the contract. Another man tendered at about thirty-five cents; secured the contract; the mail is carried to-day from the station to the post office and from the post office to the station in a one-horse conveyance commonly termed in my community "the Black Maria."
That is not all. In the case of another rural route service contract the courier who had had it for a number of years was backed by a petition signed, I believe, to the extent of one hundred per cent. The department had declared that it was satisfactory, but the defeated Liberal candidate recommended that it be opened, and it was opened. The result was that another man got the job. I think that has happened in connection with every contract which has expired since the 1935 election. The trouble is that under present conditions men are so anxious to get something in order to keep off relief that they will take a contract at almost any price, and the result is that by the time they have paid for their gas and oil, they have very little left with which to keep their families.
So I should like to suggest, since we criticize the department and the minister, that members of parliament and defeated candidates must take some of the blame for the conditions which exist in respect to the rural routes. That is only fair, because it is the practice of the department to send out these letters, and unfortunately it has also been the practice, of certain, mem, either the representatives of the district or the defeated candidates, to take advantage of that system with the idea of placing in these positions some of their friends. I notice that on almost every occasion, however, they are just as badly disappointed as the other fellow, because it happens frequently that the friend does not get it. I suggest to hon. members that they could help materially in improving conditions if they would consent that where holders of contracts are giving satisfaction and the price is considered reasonable, the contract should be renewed direct by the department.


Mr. FURNISS:: I should like to add a word to this discussion about mail routes. Since I have been elected I have had some experience with the establishment of several mail routes. I have also been approached by representatives of the rural mail carriers' association, and I intend to express myself in this chamber to the same effect as I did to them.

They said that when a contract was thrown open, some person who knew nothing about the expense of carrying the mail bid the price down so low that there was nothing in it for any person. But this has been my experience. One contract was held for about twenty years at $948 per year, and the same man bid again at $480. If he was ignorant of the expense of carrying the mail on that route, it was his own fault if he bid too low.
I was also interviewed about this rate of $55 per mile that the association asked should be fixed for carrying the mail. The hon. member who has just spoken mentioned $50. I know I have succeeded in establishing several routes which would not have been established if the price had been even $40 per mile. In the back parts of the riding of Muskoka, where the roads are not good and travelling is difficult, I have had routes established and patrons all along the route have enjoyed the privilege of having their mail delivered close to their doors, which would not have been possible if the rate had been $40 per mile, and the person who got the contract at whatever price it was let was very glad to have that much ready cash coming in. The majority of the contracts that have been thrown open have been held for a long term of years. They were obtained when times were good and work plentiful and few people bid on contracts. Conditions have now altogether changed. Many men would like the opportunity to bid on contracts of long standing, and I think it is quite right that opportunity should be given them. I do not believe the fact that a man has held a contract for a long term of years at a remunerative price is any reason why he should retain the right to carry that mail all the days of his life.


Mr. TOMLINSON:: The two hon. members on my left to whom I have just been listening are, certainly, innocence personified. During the last five years contracts were changed by the former government. Now that the government has changed, we are not allowed, to alter contracts but the lowest tenderer must receive the contract. I know that some rural mail carriers are receiving but little and are working under conditions of hardship. But if an attempt were made to establish a minimum or to set a price per mile, I should have to ask that the contracts for some of the routes in Bruce, which I represent, should be let at a higher figure than for some of the other routes in the southern part of the

Supply-Post Office
province, and I agree with the Postmaster General that it would be impossible to classify these different mail routes to the satisfaction of the members of this house. If you Classify them 1, 2, 3, and 4, how would you arrive at that classification? How would you satisfy the people concerned1? One mail carrier would complain that so-and-so is getting more than I am, and therefore it is unfair. When we are asked to listen to talk about patronage and the opening of contracts, and when under this administration we must carry out the law, which the former administration did not do, I think it is time that those hon. members looked into their own party's record and1 found out their own guilt.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I am surprised at the
remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I know as a fact that every man who held the patronage of my riding, undier the late government and under the present government, is notified. I am not finding any fault with that, but I have not had a notice since the government changed; in every case it goes to my opponent. That is perfectly right. He gets the notices as to these contracts. The letter that was read by an hon. member a short time ago is the form of letter which is sent out, and the person is asked to recommend whether the rural mail route in question should be renewed or whether it should be put up for tender; it cannot be given to anybody. I have talked with officials of the department, and they told me that in no case did they give a contract to any person except the lowest tenderer, who must supply them with two sureties whom they approve. That is a mode of engaging mail carriers to which I very much object.
If the competitive system is such a splendid one and has as much merit as the minister suggests, why does he not apply it to other parts of the department? Why is it not applied to the whole civil service? I venture to say that if the duties now performed by civil servants were made a matter of tender you would have the work done for one-half of what it is done to-day, but you would not have efficiency. I am not in favour of it. I say, you would not have efficiency, but the salaries of civil servants would be cut down. In my opinion, it is unpardonable that the men who carry the mails in the country should be treated differently from those who carry them in the city. A salary should be set and the department should then select
the carriers, taking the best men from among the applicants and not those who put the lowest value upon their services. This is an injustice to the people in the rural parts of Canada. I may say that I brought the matter to the attention of the late government of which I was a supporter and I was informed that they were willing to rectify it, because they saw it was wrong, but that the finances would not allow them to do this. That was the answer I received. Nevertheless it is an evil; it is a wrong that must be rectified in the near future.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Governments come and governments go, but I seem never to get any of these little notifications from the Post Office Department. Let me say I am extremely thankful that I do not get them. A good many other members have also something to be thankful for in the fact that they do not receive these notifications.


John Campbell Elliott: Has the hon. member any rural mail carriers in his riding?


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a little rural section to it somewhere, but I do not know whether there are rural carriers there or not. I know that government is a difficult matter, but I wonder why there are different rules as between one department and another. In the Department of National Revenue contracts are let for the carrying of goods but no tenders are called for. The moment a Liberal government goes out and a Conservative government comes in, the Liberal who has been doing the job goes out and is replaced by a Conservative appointee. And when a Conservative government goes out and a Liberal government comes in, the Conservative contractor goes out and the Liberal comes in.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member show me how he works that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suggest to the minister that he talk this over with the Minister of National Revenue, and I shall give him the facts and figures.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with rural mail?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; I am speaking of contracts for the carrying of goods, exactly in the same way as there are contracts for carrying mails. The minister must not shake his head because I know the facts. I know the people who were let out last year and the
Supply-Post Office

people who came in, and they have been here to see about it. It was not many days after the new government took office before the good followers of the present administration came here to obtain contracts. I want to know why there is one method of doing business in one department and another method in a different department. The only thing I object to in the letting of contracts in the way I have mentioned, so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, is the patronage that goes with it. I do not like the patronage business, and I do not think there are many members who really care for it. In my opinion, it does not make many friends; it creates more enemies than friends, and those who are fortunate enough not to have patronage at their disposal are better off. What I am afraid of in connection with the Post Office Department is that if the work were done on the basis of so much for the job, putting it at a fair basis, there would happen in that department what has taken place in the National Revenue department. The moment one party went out of power the persons who had the contract would go out with the government and another lot would take their place.
The rural mail carriers are deserving of consideration, and it is not beyond the power of the Post Office Department to see that the persons who have these contracts for carrying rural mail receive something approaching decent remuneration for their services. If the Postmaster General believes that the tender system is the best one which can be devised for carrying mail, then I suggest that he use his influence with all other departments of the government and see that for similar classes of work similar tenders are called for.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend does not intend to criticize this department for the sins, if any, of the other departments. We do pretty well if we defend ourselves. I want to point out, however, with regard to the difference between the rural mail carrier and the carrier in the city and the civil servant, that we have acts governing the manner in which these contracts shall be let, the Civil Service Act governing the way in which civil servants shall be appointed, and the regulations by which the civil service commission shall fix the salaries to be paid to the persons who fill various positions. On the other hand, Postmasters
,
General under various governments, including the Postmasters General ever since we have had rural mail routes, have not found it possible to devise a plan that would better answer the requirements of the public and give fairer treatment to the people who tender than the present system as laid down in section 66 of the act, which provides that the contract must be given to the lower tenderer. And until the act is changed we have to follow that law. I am frank in saying that I do not see how you are going to make it any fairer. The same applies to various other contracts. It is not limited to rural mail contracts. The rural mail contracts are perhaps in a different category, and if there is anything in the tender system-and I believe there is a great deal in it-I think it is much easier to let contracts to the lowest tenderers than to start fixing a price and selecting, among a number of people who tender, the ones who shall do the work and the price at which they shall do it. But a great many of these rural mail contracts are performed by people who have little farms or garden plots or something of the kind, and the work does not take all their time.
To the gentleman who suggests a uniform rate per mile for all the contracts, let me point out that not only are there wide differences in the roads, whether they are paved or of mud, whether they are hilly or level, whether they are covered with snow for much of the year or open most of the year, but many of these are only ten mile contracts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And' another factor is the train hours.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. Are you going to fix the same rate for a ten mile contract as for a thirty-three mile contract? All these factors enter in. I am quite frank in saying that conditions among the rural people in recent years have been such that I think nobody has been getting proper pay for what he has been doing.


Charles Avery Dunning: For anything.


John Campbell Elliott: No. The
farmer working on the land has not been getting anything like proper remuneration. He was a little better off than the poor fellow in the city who had to go on relief. But when men tender at the prices they do, it shows that they believe that is a little better than anything else they know of at that particular time.

Supply-Post Office


Mr. MAYBANK:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) commented on the fact that he used to get notices asking him, I assume, whether he would like to have such a rural route contract, and1 while he said' he was not complaining that he no longer got such notices and invitations, I could not help thinking he would be better pleased if requests of that sort were sent to him from time to time. In view of the fact that I am in favour of as much harmony as possible, I should like to make a suggestion to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) that hereafter he should send these notices to the hon. member or any other hon. gentleman who applies, the same as he sends them to those, we might say, on his own side of the house. In connection with that, however, I should like t*o tell briefly a story which harks back to the time when the women were demanding the franchise. One rather hard-boiled old fellow surprised' everyone by insisting that he was in favour of giving women the vote. He said he could not see where it would do any harm; it would please them and he thought the government should give it to them. But, he said, the government do not need' to count it. I think the Postmaster General could send' out these notices, but he need not pay any attention to the replies.
To speak more seriously, and with particular reference to what has been raised here by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, he and I probably have quite a large number of acquaintances and friends in common, even though not voters in common. I do not think he was altogether fair in the statement he made, at any rate so far as it applies to his home area. I have watched' very closely this matter of patronage and* its operation in and about Winnipeg, and I must say that the changes which have been made there are very few. At the moment I cannot recall any, but I am confident that the total number could be counted on the fingers of my two hands, and in practically every case a reason entirely apart from politics could be assigned. I feel certain that is so, because while he is on one side of the political teeter, I am on the other, and I do not believe the changes that he is suggesting could have occurred without my knowing about it. When this argument developed this evening my colleague from Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) was sitting beside me and he asked me, "How many changes do you know about?" And I told him what I have just said. He replied that it was the same with him, and I hope he will not mind my reporting just what he said, as he lapsed into the vernacular. He said, "As
far as our area is concerned it is a lot of hooey, and you know it as well as I do." That is just what it is as far as changes in and about the area from which he and I come are concerned. I am very glad that is the case. I do not want to get mixed up in patronage; I do not want to have anything to do with it; I would prefer to have all this sort of thing handled in some other way. When I am asked for advice-


An hon. MEMBER:: You charge for it.


Ralph Maybank: Well, unfortunately we cannot do that with the government. As the hon. member who interjected that remark very well knows, as far as a lawyer is concerned charging for advice is a different thing from getting paid for it. However, when I am asked for advice on matters of this sort, I always think of the people behind the man who holds the job at the present time, his wife, his family; I am not concerned with switching work from one satisfactory person to another; I am concerned only with trying to see things worked out in such a way that all have work. I think the complaints in regard to patronage- I speak with reference to my own area-are greatly overdone. I am not advertising my own community as being purer than others, I fancy complaints about it all over the country are overdone.
I should like to obtain from the minister certain information with reference to this item 275. I notice that on the second page of this estimate there is the sum of $898,620 for the Winnipeg post office. Could the minister give the committee some break-down of that amount? Does it include the leases of various sub-post offices? Does it cover wages of all the employees in the post office there? Does it include the post office of St. Boniface, which is a separate city across the river, occupying about the same position in reference to Winnipeg that Hull does to Ottawa? Not in too great detail, but generally, what does this sum comprise?


John Campbell Elliott: Those amounts which appear the same for the coming year as they were for the last year, as this amount of $898,620, are for salaries and allowances for all of the staff. It does not include St. Boniface post office or any post office other than Winnipeg.
Mr. MAYBANK; What about the various leases of sub-post offices?


John Campbell Elliott: I take it the leases of sub-post offices are paid for by public works, entirely.
Supply-Post Office

Mr. O'NEILL: I have been interested in listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), because I come from that locality, and should like to know all the particulars. If possible, I should like to learn from the hon. member the names of the parties to whom he referred, so that I might get the details.
We have heard a great deal about patronage. Undoubtedly patronage exists, and will continue to exist until the millennium. But if we must have patronage, I believe a well ordered and well organized political patronage is the least of the evil. We might have blood patronage, fraternal patronage, religious patronage or some other type which would be infinitely worse. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) referred to the merit system. Any labour man must know that the merit system did not work out to the satisfaction of the labourer, because we had not the right to pick the man who was going to say who had the merit. It all depends upon the point of view. In the discussion which took place this afternoon, different points of view were expressed as to whether or not a man had merit. In referring to the merit system, it is the point of view which rules. In order to do away with the merit system, labour men had to put in a seniority rule, because unscrupulous employers would place certain men at the top of the list, regardless of their merit. Doubles they had merit in the eyes of the men who put them there.


Mr. GREEN:: Would the minister give a statement as to the present position of the trans-Canada air mail? I believe every hon. member is interested in the trans-Canada service. This service will be of vital importance to the nation, because most certainly it will draw the different parts of the country closer together. I should like to know when it is expected that part of the route from Vancouver to Winnipeg will be open, and also those parts from Winnipeg to Montreal and from Montreal to Halifax. In addition, would the minister give us some idea of the schedules, indicating the times which will be taken in flying the mail, and whether or not it will be a daily service.


John Campbell Elliott: First of all, the trans-Canada air route is within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). The question as to the arrangements made with the Post Office Department for the carrying of mail is a matter which has to be determined between the two departments. As yet, no arrangements

have been completed. I believe the landing fields are fairly well completed. It is expected that when the service is under way, the mails will probably leave Montreal at the close of business in the evening and be in Vancouver the following morning for afternoon delivery. Of course, the matter is unsettled because the details are not yet completed. These are matters of government policy concerning which I know the hon. member would not expect me to make a statement, prior to official announcement. I believe an announcement would not be expected under such circumstances, even if the matter were confined to my own department, and in this instance to a great extent it comes under the Department of Transport. It is hoped that the service will be under way as soon as arrangements can be completed for carrying out the service in a way that the finances of the country will permit.


Howard Charles Green: Will part of the air route be opened this year. I understand the western portion is to be opened first, and different announcements have been made in the press. I was told last year in the house that the western portion would be opened by July of this year. Is that correct?


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. member were told that-and I do not question it for a moment-it illustrates the danger of making prophecies far in advance in connection with matters of this kind. I am not in a position either to confirm or to deny the report. A number of questions of policy have to be settled before an announcement can be made as to the actual time of opening.


Howard Charles Green: Is any portion of this vote to be spent on the trans-Canada air mail service?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, 8390,500. The total amount is $705,000. For 1936-37 the amount was $314,500, and in the present estimates it is increased by $390,500.


Howard Charles Green: For the trans-Canada air mail service?


John Campbell Elliott: To help take care of it, yes.


Howard Charles Green: What air mail routes are now being operated?


John Campbell Elliott: I was asked that information by the hon. member for Yale, and I have in my hand a list of all the contracts. Unless the hon. member or any

Supply-Post Office
hon. members of the committee are interested in a particular route, perhaps the best way would be to put it on Hansard, as I did last year.


Mr. STIRLING:: Yes; that is the best way.


Howard Charles Green: Have any new routes been opened since last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How many?


Grote Stirling: It will be helpful if the minister would do as he suggested, put the whole list on Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the hon. member wish merely to have it placed on Hansard, or does he wish it read?


Grote Stirling: Just put it on Hansard, as far as I am concerned.


John Campbell Elliott: I believe the purpose would be served if we do as we did last year, namely, put the whole list on Hansard. The hon. member will then be able to see it and if there are any questions to be asked concerning it they may be asked on the supplementary estimates or on these estimates, if we do not finish to-night. The information is as follows:
Supply-Post Office



AIR MAIL SERVICES OPERATED

[Stage Direction]
Service
Contractor
Distance
(miles)
Frequency of service
Amos-Siscoe-Val d'Or Bourlamaque.
Atlin-Telegraph Creek	
Cameron Bay-Coppermine	
Kenora-Red Lake	
Sioux Lookout-Casummit L	
Sioux Lookout-Red Lake	
Winnipeg-Lac du Bonnet	
Charlottetown-Magdalen I	
Fort Chipewyan-Goldfields	
Fort McMurray-Aklavik	
Fort Resolution-Cameron Bay....
Gods Lake-Cross Lake-Norway House.
General Airways Limited, Toronto, Ont.
Northern Airways Limited, Carcross, Y.T.
Canadian Airways Limited, Winnipeg, Man.
146
210
(round trip) 212
(round trip)
(round trip) 396
round trip) 106 108 1,459
177
Approximately 121 round trips per annum.
10 round trips per winter
season.
2	round trips per annum. 4 round trips per week.
3	"	"2	"	"3	"	"
1 round trip per month. From 6 to 45 trips per annum.
1 round trip per month.
! round trips per month.
Goldfields-Fond du Lac. Hailey bury-Mud Lake...
lie & la Crosse-La Loche.
Kenora-Cole	
Kenora-Machin	
Kenora-Whitefish Bay	
Leamington-Pelee Island	
Moncton-Charlottetown, via Summerside Montreal to Albany	
Montreal-Rimouski	
'Quebec-Sept lies	
Sept Isles-Natashquan	
Havre St. Pierre-Port Menier__
superseded by
Quebec-Rimouski	
Rimouski-Sept lies	
Sept lies-Natashquan	
Havre St. Pierre-Port Menier..
Natashquan-Harrington Harbour Oskelaneo-Chibougamau	
Ottawa-Montreal	
Prince Albert-Goldfields.
Prince Albert-lie A la Crosse. Prince Albert-Lac la Ronge.. Rouyn-Kewagama	
Sioux Lookout-Pickle Crow..
Vancouver-Seattle	
V ancou ver-V ic tor ia..
Winnipeg-Gods Lake	
ti	it
Dominion Skyways Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
M. & C. Aviation Co. Ltd., Prince Albert, Sask.
Canadian Airways Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
Wings Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
Canadian Airways Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
Air Trails Limited, Huntsville, Ont.
Canadian Airways Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Colonial Airways, Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Airways Limited, Montreal, P.Q.
ti	it
ti	ti
it	it
it	it
it	it
ti	it
a	a
tt	a
General Airways Ltd., Toronto, Ont. Canadian Colonial Airways Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Airways Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
General Airways Ltd., Toronto, Ont. Canadian Airways Ltd., Winnipeg, Man.
it	ti
ti	it
Winnipeg-Pembina
Northwest Airlines, Inc., St. Paul, Minn., U.S.A.
42	4 round trips per annum.
50	2 round trips per week.
96	1 round trip per month.
230	2 round trips per week.
(round trip) 25	2 round trips per week.
40	1 round trip per week.
22	Daily except Sunday.
100	Daily except Sunday.
200	Daily except Sunday.
309-5	2 trips per week.
339	2 round trips per week.'
205	1 round trip per week.
45-5	2 round trips per month.
175	1 round trip per week.
183	3 round trips per week. '
205	2 round trips per week.
45-5	2 round trips per month.
112	2 round trips per month.
130	1 round trip per week.
108	Daily except Sunday.
1 round trip per week.
133
125
61
(round trip) 66-4
1 round trip per week. 1 1 round trip per week. / Approximately 121 round trips per annum.
Daily except Sundays and holidays.
Daily except Sunday. Daily except Sunday.
1 round trip per week.
Daily.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Post Office

[Stage Direction]
Rate of Payment	Total Mileage	Total Poundage	Total Cost	Remarks
			$ cts.	
35c. per mile-700 lb. per round trip-ex-	9,620	72,671	4,211 09	Discontinued 15-4-36.
cess at pro rata				
$1,800.00 per winter season, excess of 225	3,212	3,446	2,148 40	(Winter only).
lb. each way at pro rata.				
53c. per lb	3,465	3,071	1,627 63	$16,000.00 per annum for all mail up to	39,275	89,540	8,954 00	160,000 lb.-excess at 10c. per lb.	29,122	31,433	3,143 30	32,190	52,243	5,224 30	98,356	109,899	10,989 90	80c. per mile	3,392	11,451	2,374 40	(Winter only).12$c. per lb	11,988	12,854	1,606 77	845,000.00 per annum	117,338	76,161	45,000 00	Resolution-Rae 15c. per lb.-Rae-Cameron	34,824	18,032	6,823 90	Bay 35c. per lb.	10c. per lb. minimum of 2,000 lbs. per	5,887	5,015	452 00	annum.	12%c. per lb	504	960	120 03	82,200.00 per annum excess of 600 lbs. per	3,950	4,764	835 42	Established 21-7-36.single trip at 4c. per lb.	$360.00 per annum 4,500 lbs. minimum,	756	2,064	165 12	Established 18-11-36.excess at 8c. per lb.	$600.00 per annum 6,000 lbs. minimum,	4,390	10,809	1,105 10	excess at 10c. per lb.	8c. per lb. 6,000 lb. minimum	2,450	3,597	287 76	Established 19-5-36 anddiscontinued 11-12-36.$600.00 per annum 6,000 lbs. minimum,	3,760	5,273	527 30	excess at 10c. per lb.	$30.00 per round trip excess of 200 lbs. per	3,520	18,062	2,416 28	(Winter only).trip each way at 15c. per lb.	$20,000.00 per contract year for 100 p.c.	62,500	245,500	20,005 65	performance.	'90c. per mile	50,538	46,175	44,640 00	$1.25 per mail mile	16,014	42,676	20,034 38	(Summer only).65c. per mile	16,096	29,796	10,462 40]	65c. per mile	8,364	23,961	5,436 34]	Winter only.65c. per mile	455	3,912	295 75J	Re-arranged on close of59-96c. per mile..	350	300	209 86]	Navigation 1936.$19,987.50 per winter for 100 p.c. perform-	2,013	5,363	1,206 99]	ance.	1,230	1,752	737 51	Winter only.91	554	54 561	59-96c. per mile	224	166	134 31)	9c. per lb	1,820	349	31 43	Established 1-10-36.$1.00 per lb	21,708	1,035	1,053 57	Established 27-7-36.:25c. per lb	29,295	8,383	2,095 75	Established 13-7-36.7c. per lb	26,051	26,250	1,837 50	$975.00 per annum 175 lbs. per round trip	1,550	5,383	371 57	Discontinued 17-4-36.excess at 10c. per lb.	10c. per lb	33,995	46,505	4,650 50	50c. per mile	72,346	32,002	36,173 00	35c. per lb	29,890	1,912	669 20	Temporarily discontinued.10c. per lb	54,588	72,667	7,265 70	40c. per mile	47,146	27,836	18,804 48	884,263	1,153,812	274,183 15	
Supply-Post Office
Howard Charles Green: Last year most of the
routes were in northern Canada. Can the minister state whether there has been an increase in the mail flown in the more thickly settled parts of the country?


John Campbell Elliott: The increase
is to a great extent in territories which were otherwise inaccessible. I refer to mining areas, and districts of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: How much air mail goes
out of Vancouver each day? I believe there is a very heavy air mail going out of that city.


John Campbell Elliott: Just a little
over 32,000 pounds of mail goes out on the Vancouver-Seattle line.


Howard Charles Green: Is that per day?


John Campbell Elliott: That is for the calendar year. There were 1,912 pounds carried on the Vancouver-Victoria route.


Howard Charles Green: Last year the statement was made that this air mail was carried at a profit to the post office; is that still the case?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think that was the case with regard to inter-city services, but it is the case with regard to some of the new services.


Howard Charles Green: What about the air mail
as a whole?


John Campbell Elliott: The outlay
for air mail is included in our total outlay. New air mail services have been inaugurated to some places which otherwise would not have any mail service. The mail may be carried by air only a small part of the trip. The total amount expended was $274,183 and the value to the department of the mail carried was something like $605,000. I repeat again that in many instances the mail is carried by air for only part of the trip and that is the value of the postage which we receive.


Howard Charles Green: I suppose air mail service
is much cheaper in the north than mail service by dog team.


John Campbell Elliott: Where there is a fairly large quantity of air mail being carried, such as into the newer places, it is pretty profitable. However, I would not say that it is cheaper than the service by dog team. The cost varies with every route, but as a rule, except for first class mail, we charge an accordingly higher rate on account of the extra cost of the service.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister give the total amount of mail carried by air in 1936, 1935, 1934. 1933 and possibly 1931?


John Campbell Elliott: The mileage for the last calendar year was 884,263 and 1,153,812 pounds were carried at a total cost of $274,803.


Howard Charles Green: What are the figures for
1933?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1933-34 the vote was $300,000, of which $270,600 was expended. In 1934-35 the vote was $300,000, of which $275,386 was expended. In 1935-36 the vote was $323,650, of which $266,382 was expended. In 1936-37 the vote was $290,000 and the estimated expenditure is $284,000.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister the figures of the mail carried in 1933, 1934 and 1935?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1932-33
there were 454,303 pounds carried; in 1933-34, 592,758 pounds; in 1934-35, 691,767 pounds, and in 1935-36, 1,189,982 pounds.


Howard Charles Green: How much mail would have to be carried on the trans-Canada air route in order to make it profitable?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think anyone could make a very accurate estimate of what it is going to cost.


Howard Charles Green: I understand a fairly close figure has been arrived at.


John Campbell Elliott: The information has not reached me.


Howard Charles Green: What is the position with respect to the transatlantic air mail service?


John Campbell Elliott: Negotiations are going on among various governments to complete arrangements for an air mail service across the Atlantic, but it is not expected that that will commence this year. I think the expectation last year was that it would commence in 1938.


Howard Charles Green: What is the estimated time for bringing mail from Great Britain to
Canada?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give anything like an accurate estimate.


Howard Charles Green: Just approximately.


John Campbell Elliott: I would prefer not to say. The machines which are expected to carry the mail have not yet been built.


Howard Charles Green: Similar machines are in use in other parts of the empire by the Imperial Airways. Surely this could be determined within a few hours.

Supply-Post Office


John Campbell Elliott: There is no reliable information available.


Howard Charles Green: Have negotiations been commenced for a transpacific air mail service?


John Campbell Elliott: No; there has been nothing with regard to that.


Robert Fair: Have any requests been received from small towns and rural districts to have the post offices remain open for four hours on holidays? In small towns where there are only two mails per week, it does not seem reasonable to have the post office kept open for four hours on holidays when the elevators and stores and everything else in the town are closed. There seems to be some objection to this in the section of the country from which I come, and I was wondering whether any requests had been made along these lines or whether it is just the general policy of the department. Generally, when the mail comes in, the people are there to receive it and the mail is handed out almost immediately. There is absolutely nothing for a postmaster or his helper to stay in t'he post office for and it seems to be a penalty placed on rural and small town post offices that is not at all necessary.


John Campbell Elliott: The rule with regard to the small post office is that it must be opened on holidays as well as other days to receive the incoming and to dispatch the outgoing mails. As for the rest of the day, in some of the offices there is a wicket service. If my hon. friend will give me the names of the particular place or places he has in mind, I can probably tell him fairly accurately just what the position is.


Mr. McIVOR:: Why is it that there is an increase of $2,400 in the expenditure this year over last for the Fort William post office? Is it because Fort William is a growing city, or because of having to staff the new post office?


John Campbell Elliott: The increase of $2,400 is made up as follows: two statutory increases of $120 each, two statutory increases of $60 each, and $2,200 to provide for the reestablishment of an assistant postmastership, making a total of $2,580, from which there is a deduction of $180, being the difference between the salary of an employee who left the service and the salary of the employee who replaced him.


Mr. TUCKER:: Various members of the official opposition have indicated very strongly to-night that during the last administration
contracts were always awarded to the lowest tenderer. I should like to refer to sessional paper No. 126 of the first session of this parliament, which was brought down as a return to an order of the house, and in which the first question asked was this:
According to the records of the Post Office Department, from August 7, 1930, to October 29,	1935, how many times the Postmaster
General exercised the discretionary powers vested in him under section 67 of the Post Office Act, whereby mail contracts are not always awarded to the lowest tenderer.
And the answer to that was 829, so that hon. members who are contending that the last administration always awarded the contract to the lowest tenderer were out just 829 times. The next question was this:
According to the records of the Post Office Department, from August 7, 1930, to October 29, 1935, how many mail contracts were awarded to persons who, not being originally the lowest tenderers, were allowed to reconsider their tender and reduce the figure thereof.
I venture to say that hon. members will be surprised that the number of cases where people were permitted to get the contract under those circumstances was 323. In view of these figures, I would ask the Postmaster General if he has been able to find out from his investigation of the records of the last administration, upon what basis they awarded mail contracts; further, if he thinks this system of allowing people who did not submit the lowest tender to re-tender at the amount of the lowest tender and take the contract away from the lowest tenderer was in accord with the Post Office Act, and whether, in accordance with the Post Office Act, when the lowest tenderer did not get the contract, a return was made to parliament by the Postmaster General indicating why the lowest tenderer in each case did not receive the contract.


John Campbell Elliott: During the time I have been in the department I have found my time fairly well occupied with matters that arise from day to day, and I have not the information which my hon. friend asks for, but I suppose it could be obtained. I would suggest to him, however, that I doubt if it would facilitate the passing of the estimates which we have been considering now for some time for us to enter into such a discussion at the moment. I should be glad to obtain any information which the hon. gentleman desires, although he already seems to have provided himself with a considerable amount. I do not think, however, it properly comes under the item under discussion.
Supply-Post Office


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken on this subject (Mr. Tucker) wished to complete the record, I think he ought to ask the minister how many contracts since he came into office have not gone to the lowest tenderer, and how many instances there have been similar to those mentioned in the return. The explanation in regard to some of these within my own knowledge is perfectly simple. Occasionally the man who has submitted the lowest tender reconsiders it and refuses to enter into the contract when it is offered to him. I am sure the minister has had experiences of that kind. I know I have in the constituency I represent. When the man was asked to take the contract at the amount of his tender, he refused because he had reconsidered the matter and found out that it was not profitable to him to complete the contract. That occurs from time to time.
Now that- we have returned to the subject, I should like to place before the minister one or two representations in connection with rural mail contracts. These contracts contain a clause which permits cancellation of the contract upon, I think, two months' notice. Still, I think a contract ought to be a contract. I know of cases where representations have been made to rearrange routes with a view, upon some pretext or another, to terminating the contract and having new tenders called for. I have called one or two such instances to the attention of the minister and he has looked into them. All I ask is that in other instances of this kind where the contract has been entered into in good faith, where good service is being rendered, and where petitions are presented for a continuance of the service on the lines that have been established, these contracts shall not lightly be set aside simply on a patronage basis or because it is the desire to put up the contract for tender in order to give some other person a chance to tender upon the route. That is all I wish to bring to the minister's attention in connection with these contracts in the constituency which I represent.
As to the other class of cases, where a man was allowed to reduce his tender to the amount of the lowest tender, I do not know of anything of that kind in my constituency. I do not know what the reason might be, but there must be some. Possibly it might occur where a man has a contract and has been giving good service, and somebody has underbid him. Petitions come in asking for the service to be continued under the former contractor at the lower rate. I am sure the minister, if he investigated, would find some special circumstances in these instances. There

is a danger, as the minister knows, in accepting statements of this kind of a rough and general nature, without going into the details. I am sure the hon. gentleman would find out before very long that there are instances where an action of this kind is justified.


John Campbell Elliott: First of all, with regard to the notice, there is a clause providing for notice. I recall no instance, in recent years at any rate, where a contract that was being performed well was terminated by exercising the notice in the contract, unless there was a change to be made in the route or the system of routes of which that route was a part. Then, as to contracts not going to the lowest tenderer, the act is imperative that they shall go to the lowest tenderer unless the Postmaster General knows of some reason why it is not in the public interest that they should go to him. The Department of Justice has given a ruling defining what are the instances when the authority under that clause should be exercised. Unsatisfactory service is one.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The character of the applicant is another.


John Campbell Elliott: The character of the applicant is another. If he has been convicted of a crime. In certain instances, if he is not a British subject and British subjects are available for the service. Also of course, drunkenness on the route. I think these exhaust the list set out by the department as being within the exception mentioned' in section 67 of the act.


William Rae Tomlinson: 
Mr. LENNARD:: Did I understand the minister to say the other evening that he had had no complaints from postal or labour organizations about letter carriers having to work on statutory holidays and Saturday afternoons?


John Campbell Elliott: My statement was that the trades and labour council, which meets the government annually, interviewed the government some weeks after these changes were made, and there was not one mention, by way of protest, of the men working on statutory holidays.

Supply-Post Office


Frank Exton Lennard: Has the minister received protests from different branches of the Federated Association of Letter Carriers?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, some protests have been received. Perhaps I should say that some reference was made the other evening, I think by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) as to who were the officials of the various services who waited on the government and discussed with them these changes before they were actually put into effect. I have the list of those officials. The organizations included the Amalgamated Civil Servants and the Union of Postal Employees. They came to see me a day or two after the announcement was made, which I think was about November 24. As I recollect, we had a meeting on November 27 andi discussed the matter most of the morning. The position taken was that if the service were deemed necessary, the employees should be paid1 for the overtime, and that the forty-four hour week should not be exceeded. There was a further request that the arrangement should not be put into effect for a week later. At that time, I believe, we intended to put it into effect on November 28. They requested that it be deferred one week. That request was granted. I think the object was to enable them to have some consultation with those whom they represented. A matter of a day or two days was spent in consultation with the officials as to how best the plan could be worked out. It was pointed out to them that the time which would1 be most useful by way of relieving the difficult unemployment situation in the winter time would be prior to March 1, and while some of them felt that they would prefer to be able to take their week off at some other time, it was generally agreed, I think, that that was the most reasonable proposition, for the half day off each Saturday meant, of course, practically twenty-six days in the year. They were given one week off for every eleven Saturday afternoons that they put in. While, probably, they still would have preferred to be paid for the extra time rather than receive time off, the arrangement was fairly well received by those officials. I can give the list of officials if my hon. friend wishes to hear it. I have it before me.


Frank Exton Lennard: No; I do not wish that.


Ralph Maybank: I am pleased, in a way, that this subject has been raised. I must also say that, in a way, I regret it, because I feel that it falls on me to state frankly my strong and emphatic dissent from the policy of administration in regard to this change in post office deliveries. To me the sudden taking
away-as I have thought, without any consultation at all-of holiday time and Saturday half holiday time from postal employees after they had enjoyed it for years, amounts really to a turning back of the hands of the clock. In industry the half holiday has become practically a world-wide institution; indeed, there is a considerable tendency toward what is called the five day week. Labour, both organized and unorganized, has had a long and hard struggle to get to the point of having a half holiday and statutory holidays recognized as an almost inalienable right. Indeed, I was confident that it had come to be recognized as inalienable. However, that turns out not to be the case.
I wonder what possible representations could have been made in favour of this change. I have placed a series of questions on the order paper asking for that information. I feel sure there must have been representations in favour of it; yet I wonder what survey was made first with reference to it. I say that because, after the institution of this change making for greater frequency, all manner of friends and acquaintances in business asked me what the dickens was the idea of delivering mail around to empty offices on Saturday afternoons and Christmas day as well as on New Year's day and other statutory holidays. On a Saturday afternoon and again on Christmas day-and this last Christmas period was a long week-end-people went to their offices and found their floors piled with a litter of mail of one kind and another. So far as people in the residences were concerned, the only kind of mail that was delivered to them consisted of belated Christmas cards, which surely, in all conscience they could have waited for until a day or two after Christmas. The good wishes of their friends would have been equally acceptable to them after Christmas as on Christmas day, morning and afternoon. I remember when the mail was formerly delivered on Christmas, and I can remember the change, and recall there was universal satisfaction over that change and the fact that the postie could stay at home with his wife and kiddies the same as other men.
I look at the position of the postman pretty much the same as I do with relation to myself. I was in Ottawa prior to Christmas and was afraid that I should have to stay over; I made every possible effort to catch a train, and if necessary I was thinking of taking an aeroplane to get home in time for Christmas. Why? Because, like every other man, I wanted to lie on the floor with the kiddies and play with them all day and do
Supply-Post Office

nothing in the way of the ordinary duties of life. And I regard myself in that respect as no different from any postman. In my opinion, the proper place for him on Christmas day is at home with his family.
I understand it was suggested that it was desirable to -make certain the delivery of air mail. If that is the case, this could be effected without this very radical change which has been made. I also understand, though I speak subject to correction, that this scheme was not carried out in all cities of the dominion. I am not sure of that, but I have been so informed. I have put on the order paper a question in that regard. I want to say this as a Canadian of Anglo-Saxon lineage and not of French lineage. If the Canadians of French lineage were able by pressure or influence to obtain any special consideration for themselves and their postmen in this respect, more power to them. Any pressure or influence which was used in that regard was brought to bear, in my opinion, in the service, shall we say, of a humane institution in our life, and if they did succeed they certainly have my admiration.
I cannot believe that the action taken would make for any great improvement in the unemployment situation. A return was brought down in the house to some questions of mine a few days ago as to the number of persons it was estimated would be employed as a result of the change, and the information is, 478 throughout the dominion and 33 in the province from which I come. I doubt very much whether that will turn out to be the case because mail delivered Saturday afternoon will lie unopened until Monday and there will be a slackening at the beginning of the week and a slackening after the holidays, which there would not have been if it had not been for this unusual delivery.
Some reference has been made to organized labour and the representations it has made, and I wish to place on record the statement of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada made to me with reference to this question of extra employment or assistance in solving the unemployment problem. The letter addressed to me is dated January 25, and is from the president of that organization. I quote:
Extra employment can well be given to government employees who do not now enjoy the forty-four hour week. Here are some examples:	Firemen in the Department of
Defence work a seven-day week, eight hours per day; hospital orderlies in some parts of Canada work a six-day week, twelve hours per day; inspectors in the Department of Agriculture work a six-day week, nine hours per day;

canal employees work seven days per week, eight hours per day and yet some people on the outskirts of cities receive only one mail per day while formerly they had two deliveries a day.
The letter goes on to state that extra staffs have been requested in various departments, but without success. I am also impressed with what they told me about other grievances they have. I was surprised and pleased as well to learn from the Postmaster General that a conference had been held with the employees. In the same letter they say:
It is felt that the principle of collective bargaining has been set aside in this case and many others. The organization are of the opinion that the officials of the P.O. Department and the representatives of the organizations should have been consulted before the order was issued and it is reasonable to suppose that had this been done, in all probability the order would have been a great deal more acceptable to the staff.
In my opinion the only satisfactory way for an employer to deal with a large number of employees is to deal with them, in all important matters, in advance of decisions affecting them. That is to say, the principle of collective bargaining should be applied. I do not suggest that it should be carried to the nth degree, but it should be recognized in the normal acceptation of the term. We have on our statutes, affecting other industry, what is known as the Conciliation and Labour Act. I cannot quote the section, but it is one of the principles of that act that changes in hours of labour and working conditions shall not be made by an employer until he has given notice to his employees and given them an opportunity of protesting. That is the policy we ought to follow. The government of this country is one of the largest employers of labour in the country, if not the largest. Canada should follow that principle in dealing with its employees. We ought to be the model employer of this country and not lag behind the principles in our own statutes. We ought to be at all times on the qui vive to discover abuses in respect to employment in the various departments of the civil service and to rectify them without waiting until there is widespread complaint. Just this word further with reference to these complaints. Since this new plan went into force, I have not met one citizen in my city who is particularly in favour of it, and every person to whom I have spoken has expressed his disapproval, particularly in regard to the removal of statutory holidays. In addition, a large number, of their own volition, have come to me protesting about it. It is my hope that the

Supply-Post Office
government will reconsider this edict with reference to frequency of delivery, which affects these men in the way I have suggested, and make some change in it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Supplementing what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) has just said, I may say, in reference to the business men of Hamilton, Ontario, that I have myself circularized a good many of them and I have not found one who is in favour of this holiday and Saturday afternoon deliver)-. Furthermore, not one of the letter carriers or the staff of the Hamilton post office is in favour of this change. I therefore urge that this regulation be rescinded.


Mr. TOLMIE:: Is there any air mail
service between Victoria and Seattle?


John Campbell Elliott: No. There
is between Vancouver and Seattle and between Vancouver and Victoria, but I understand there is not one between Victoria and Seattle.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Do they still carry the mails arriving by transpacific steamers at Victoria, from there to Seattle by air? If so, who pays for that?


John Campbell Elliott: No; I am advised that that has been discontinued? It is not a Canadian service.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank), if I heard him aright, said that there was no mail delivery in certain cities on Christmas *day. Would the Postmaster General tell the committee whether that is the case, and if so, what were the cities in which there were no deliveries on that day?


John Campbell Elliott: There were protests from some cities, one in particular. In the city of Quebec objections were made on religious grounds, and the matter was left in the hands of the postmaster with authority to exercise his discretion. That, in fact, is nothing new in postal administration. In the offices where there is fairly large business the postmaster is now the district superintendent as well, and he is authorized to exercise a certain amount of discretion with regard to delivery on religious holidays, so long as the mail is cleared. I am told that the mail was cleared on Christmas eve; everything was out, so that there was no danger of a glut the following day.


Angus MacInnis: Was Quebec the only [DOT]city?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it was the only city. In Montreal and Sherbrooke, for instance, the population is more mixed; the volume of mail did not permit of closing on the holidays, and the employees worked on 'the holidays where it was necessary to get the mail out.


Angus MacInnis: It is not yet clear to me from the Postmaster General's answer whether there was mail delivery in Montreal on Christmas day or not. That could be answered yes or no.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, there was delivery in Montreal.


Mr. NEILL:: Without going into the main question of the government's policy in this regard, I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he could not see his way to allow some discretion, say to the district superintendent in dealing with small country post offices. I shall take an extreme case-but it goes all the way from there up-where the mail comes once a week by boat, very often on a Sunday. The post office is open on that Sunday; that is the regular custom in the country. The boat does not come back until the following Sunday. The postmaster or postmistress gets $100 a year-not a month. Along about Thursday she may take a notion to go out and pick berries or see some old friend down the bay; then someone writes in and complains and asks that she be fired because she is not adhering to the rules and keeping the post office open six days a week, although she kept it open on Sunday. In cases like that no good is done by maintaining the strict letter of the law, and I am sure it would not be abused if the minister would allow the district superintendent some discretion in dealing with such cases. These cases exist to my knowledge in little country places where for an afternoon the office could be closed and never be missed by the bulk of the people.


John Campbell Elliott: That was the practice in the old days when we had service on these holidays, the practice followed in Quebec and it may be in one or two other places, but I am not aware of it. I know it was asked for in a couple of other places where the postmasters reported that the mail was so heavy that they would have congestion on the day following Christmas if the holiday were observed. In those places it was cleared. It might be interesting to my hon. friend to refer to what took place in the old days when we had service on Christmas day and New Year's day, as well as Saturday afternoons.

Supply-Post Office

That is not very long ago. Gradually we got away from those services, a day or half a day at a time. But in those instances, even in the old days, the district director, or the postmaster, in the large post offices, who exercised the same authority as the district director, was given a certain amount of discretion.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister has not got
my point at all. I was not talking about cities or about statutory holidays, I was asking about a weekly half day closing in small country post offices where you could put the mail in your two pockets, and where it comes in perhaps once a week. I was suggesting that he allow the district superintendent, of whom he talks, to exercise discretion to give permission in those small remote country places, which sometimes keep their offices open on Sunday, to take a half day off on some other day of the week. That could be done, when mail comes in only once or twice a week. That is the situation to which I should like to call his attention.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume my hon. friend would take it for granted that if we were doing it in the larger places, we would give the district director power to exercise discretion in the smaller places.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister give that
discretion?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, we do.


Mr. RYAN:: Do I understand the minister to say that the policy will be to give the district superintendents jurisdiction to exercise discretion in cities, as to the delivery of mails on Saturday afternoons and holidays?


John Campbell Elliott: This is only in cities where the bulk of the mail is not so large that it cannot be cleared on the following day. In a city like Toronto or Montreal it will be impossible, with mails like we had this Christmas. No persons would be more in favour of getting the mail out on Christmas day than district directors, who know what it means to allow a congestion on that day. But in the cities such as I have mentioned, and in the instance mentioned by the hon. member, there will be a discretion similar to that exercised in the old days. The district directors will exercise reasonable judgment, so long as they can get the service and get the mail out on the following day.


William Michael Ryan: I thank the Postmaster General for that explanation, and would ask that he consider the city of Saint John. I join with some other hon. members in protesting

against the deliveries. I do that not in an idle way but because I have had many protests concerning them. In the summer months Saturday afternoons are half holidays, and many people go to their summer residences. As a result, it is next to impossible on such days for the postmen to deliver mail. The same applies equally in cities of about 60,000 population, such as Saint John. I put the matter seriously, and I am pleased to hear the Postmaster General say that discretion is to be left with the district superintendent. I am satisfied, if the district superintendent is given the opportunity to canvass, and makes a report back to the Postmaster General, he will bring some beneficial information and will help to solve some of the difficulties.
I make these observations to-night because I have been waited upon not only by those engaged in the postal service but also by residents who have brought to my attention what they considered to be more or less of a hardship and an injustice upon employees. I am pleased to hear the Postmaster General give us the assurance that to a certain extent discretion will be given the superintendent,


Mr. BROOKS:: I should like to ask the Postmaster General a question concerning the attitude of the department in connection with the appointment and dismissal of returned men. Lately we have heard a great deal about the employment of these men. A commission has been appointed to look after the providing of employment for them. My attention has been called to a great many dismissals of returned men recently from the postal service. Also, I have been informed that returned men who were qualified for the work have not been obtaining the preference.


Mr. FINN:: Where?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: One instance was called
to my attention recently. It had reference to the town of Woodstock, New Brunswick, a town of over 3,000 people. The vacancy occurred following the death of the former postmaster, and some four or five returned men applied. However, when the appointment was made, it was given to a man sixty-five years of age, a Mr. Creighton from that town, who had been chairman of the Liberal organization for the town of Woodstock. Protest was made by the different returned men's organizations in the town and in the province of New Brunswick.
While discussing the matter, I should like to call attention to certain dismissals. I am not going to mention all of them, because there have been quite a number, but would draw

The late Matthew McKay
the minister's attention particularly to one which occurred last year at Canterbury Station in the county of York, New Brunswick. The postmaster was a returned man. A complaint went to the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Clark) and he, in turn, wrote the department stating a complaint had come to him that this man had been partisan, and that during the election he had taken an active part. The Postmaster General, or his department, wrote the member explaining the necessary procedure to have investigation and a commission appointed. One of the requisites was that affidavits be forwarded to the department, and that certain persons agree that they would furnish information when the commission was formed. I have a sessional paper before me containing correspondence in connection with the matter. A very weak affidavit, which meant almost nothing, was made. After receiving the affidavit and other information, the department evidently decided there was not sufficient information upon which to base a commission. So, no doubt through his advisers from that section, the hon. member for York-Sunbury decided to try another scheme. He then stated that the people were not satisfied, and that the location was not central. Any person who knows the village of Canterbury Station knows that it is a small one.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume the committee does not intend to pass the item.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, February 15, 1937