1938-03-21

RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher) moved that the first report of the standing committee on radio broadcasting, presented to the house on Friday, March 11, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, under standing order 31 I desire to ask leave to move the adjournment of the

house for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance namely, the proposed lay-off of large numbers of employees of the Canadian National Railway shops throughout Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce his motion?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, just before my hon. friend proceeds, may I ask your honour whether notice of his intention has
been brought to your honour's attention and if you agree that the matter is one of urgent public importance?


Walter Edward Foster: The matter was brought to my attention this morning by the hon. member, and I think it would be in order for him to proceed to discuss the matter if he has a sufficient number of members to support him.
And leave having been granted:


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I do not propos. to discuss the general question of unemployment; I shall confine myself to the terms of the motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing the proposed lay-off in the Canadian National Railway Shops, not only in the greater Winnipeg area, but as I understand it, throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. The lay-offs are to take place within the next few days, when, according to my information, many thousands of employees of the Canadian National Railways will find themselves without employment, and many without the means of subsistence.
It is rather a serious thing, Mr. Speaker, that the government, who are really, in a sense, the owners of the Canadian National Railway shops-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister is quite right, I should have said the management of the railways. It is a serious step for the management to take, and reduce the personnel by approximately fifteen per cent. I am not entirely blaming the management of the railway for the drastic step they are taking, probably by reason of falling revenues and the falling business barometer. Nevertheless we have a responsibility in this house when we find that employment conditions are becoming worse and that the management of the government railway propose to discharge a large number of employees at a time when there is very little opportunity for the men to find employment in any other part of the dominion.

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
I maintain that the government have a responsibility for two reasons: first, because the railways are a government owned institution; and second, because large orders have been placed by the railways with private concerns for the manufacture of railway equipment which, I have been told by employees of the railways, could have been produced in the railway shops themselves. That may not be a very important factor if we discuss the unemployment situation from the dominion standpoint, but in so far as the government shops are concerned it is indeed a most important consideration.
I wish to draw the attention of the government also to the fact that if numbers of men are laid off, as stated, it is going to throw upon the municipalities a burden which it is almost impossible for them to bear. We have been told time and time again in this house that unemployment is in part a municipal as well as a federal responsibility, but in a matter of this kind I do not think that any member of this house would care to suggest that the municipalities ought to be burdened with the additional cost that would no doubt be thrown upon them if this large number of men were without employment.
I have received, as no doubt other hon. members have, communications from the municipalities showing how apprehensive they are of the existing situation with regard to this proposed lay-off. I will not do more than quote a part of one communication from the Winnipeg Suburban Municipal Association. Under date of March 12, they have written a letter-I have no doubt the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other members have received a similar communication-which reads in part as follows:
The Winnipeg Suburban Municipal Association view with very serious alarm the announced policy of the Canadian National Railways to lay off a large number of their employees^ in the Transcona and Fort Rouge shops which would result in increasing considerably the relief burden of municipalities already taxed beyond their limit, and which measure would also constitute an incentive to other large employers of labour to follow suit.
This is signed by Ernest Gagnon, secretary of the Winnipeg Suburban Municipal Association.
Perhaps it would not be out of place for me to indicate what it means to the municipalities when a large number of men are thrown upon public relief. I will give the figures for the city of Winnipeg covering the seven year period from 1931 to 1937 inclusive. During that period the total cost of relief in Winnipeg was 824,162.191. Of that amount the share which the city of Winnipeg had to carry was $9,944,083. The peak of this load
was in the year 1935, when Winnipeg had a burden on its own account of $1,886,504. The estimate for 1937-the fiscal year and the calendar year in Winnipeg being identical- was SI.520,000 for unemployment relief. While it is true that unemployment has decreased by a small percentage, about ten per cent as regards relief, the burden is practically the same as it was in the peak years, for the reason, as I am informed by those who administer relief in Winnipeg, that owing to the increased cost of living the reduction in the number of unemployed makes little difference, and the burden is therefore more or less the same from the standpoint of the municipalities.
The city of Winnipeg had to provide this amount by borrowings; it could not do it out of taxation. I am further informed by an alderman who was here last week to interview the government that Winnipeg has now to provide annual interest charges to the extent of over half a million dollars as a result of capital expenditures incurred for unemployment relief during the past seven years.
At this time, when unemployment relief expenditures are breaking the back, not only of Winnipeg, but of many another municipality in Canada, it becomes a very serious matter to have a further load placed on municipalities in consequence of any large lay-off in the railway shops, whether they belong to the government or are privately controlled; and the government should either see that the thousands of men laid off obtain employment, or, if it is said that this cannot be done, see to it that they shall not be thrown upon the municipalities, thus adding to the cost of relief.
I do not want to go further into the question at this time. We have been hearing a good deal in this chamber about the more prosperous conditions that prevail in Canada, but I am inclined to think that the proposed lay-off in the railway shops is indicative of conditions that are beginning to manifest themselves in various parts of the country. I understand that in other large industrial establishments employing considerable numbers of men the same conditions are becoming apparent. This ought to act as a warning to the government of what may happen in the immediate future. We as the elected representatives of the people cannot allow a condition of this kind to prevail without taking definite steps to meet it.- My only object in bringing this matter to the attention of the government and of the house is to ask that definite steps be taken to meet the conditions that have arisen and are likely to
C.N.R.-Shop Employees

arise in other industries, to the end that the men involved will not become a public charge. These men do not want to be the recipients of public relief; they ask for an opportunity to work and to earn their own living.
Without going into the greater question of unemployment at large, which no doubt will be taken up later in the session, I should like to see the government take definite action to avert the threatened catastrophe so far as thousands of men on government railways are concerned.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I am glad that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has raised this question, but sorry that it was necessary for him to do so. I had not been aware that the lay-off he has been speaking of was to be so widespread. I had rather had intimation that it would take place only in the neighbourhood of my own city; it is all the more serious if it is to apply over the entire country. I look at the matter, of course, from the point of view of my own city. It is a sad and serious circumstance, and if anything at all can be done to avert the calamity I urge most earnestly that it be done.
I do not propose to speak at length on the subject. I believe that the main point with reference to this tragedy-one can call it nothing less-was very well covered by the hon. member who has just spoken. It seems strange that remarks should be made about men going on relief coupled with the incident of a short, or relatively short, lay-off. It might be thought that persons who have been at work a considerable length of time would not immediately reach the relief rolls. But the situation in railway life is briefly this. In the first place, men work according to their seniority; those who are junior in the service will be laid off first, and all the men to be laid off, variously estimated at from 500 to 1,000, will be junior men. For the last several years they have not had any opportunity of saving money. The matter came home to me most pointedly when I received in the mail a letter signed by a large number of men-I estimate at least about 350. It was the original document, with the actual signatures -not a copy. I was pained and greatly surprised to see included in the list such a large number of men I know personally, and of whose circumstances I am keenly aware. If men such as these are put out of work at this time they are bound to reach the relief rolls almost immediately, and they will be a charge upon the dominion government, the provincial government and the municipality. The city of Winnipeg and the surrounding

municipalities are simply unable to carry the load which may thus be imposed upon them. Winnipeg itself is in a very difficult situation financially at the present time and cannot carry any more. If there is anything the government can do to avert such a catastrophe, I urge most earnestly that it be done.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: A large number of the men to be laid off if this proposal is carried through are my own people, a large percentage of whom live in the constituency which I represent, in which the Fort Rouge shops are located. It occurs to me, knowing the conditions which have obtained with respect to railway workers generally in that locality for a number of years, that at this time, the government-owned railway can hardly afford to lead the procession in creating unemployment. We have had a situation in our city which amounts to the maintenance of what I call a labour pool. As far back as last September or October I had some communication with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) with respect to this labour pool. Last summer we had a lay-off on the other railway, some 590 men, and about that number of families found themselves on relief within thirty days. A few of the men found some kind of temporary employment. The situation on the other railroad has been more or less similar, and I fear that this is the beginning of it, or rather a renewal of it, on the Canadian National. The taxpayers of the greater Winnipeg area have been maintaining 500 to 600 trained railway workers for about nine months of each year for the last four or five years in order that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company might enjoy their services for the remaining part of the year; last year I think they worked about nine weeks. We have been congratulating ourselves that the city was not asked to bear that kind of burden imposed upon it by the government-owned railway.
The situation is made even worse by the fact that those who should know tell us that there is enough outstanding work to keep everyone who has been trained in railway shops working. The men have been gratified at the measure of employment and the sense of security they have had in their jobs; and then this kind of thing comes along and spoils it all.
Frankly, I am more interested in the humanitarian aspect than any other. I know a large percentage of these people; many of them have been working only part time for the last six or seven years. They have had barely enough work to keep themselves

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
going, and their resources and their household goods have been constantly diminishing. Whenever they got work they had to do a certain amount of replenishing, so that there have been no savings over their daily needs. If, therefore anything can be done to avoid a repetition of what happened last summer on the other railroad in respect to the laying off of men, I hope the government will do it.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: I could not very well claim to represent the constituency that sent me here if I failed to say a word on this occasion. The shop that will perhaps be most largely affected by this lay-off is the Transcona shop. When the Grand Trunk Pacific railway was built the starting point was made at a point about five miles from Winnipeg, called Transcona. Extensive shops were built there, and a plant established covering between a quarter- and a half-section of land. A town of about 7,000 inhabitants grew up around the shops. As Ottawa depends on the seat of government and the civil service for maintenance, so the town of Transcona depends on the shops of the Canadian National Railways. North Winnipeg and south Winnipeg, and to a very large degree the city of St. Boniface, from which I come, also have considerable numbers of men working in the Transcona shops.
The government have stated time and again that there shall be no political interference with the management of the Canadian National Railways. But years ago the government assumed the role of government ownership of this railway, and it makes little difference what attitude may be proclaimed from this house or elsewhere; the government is in some degree held responsible for the welfare of the railway. When the last administration was in office an advance of some $15,000,000 was made to the two railway systems for the purchase of equipment. We naturally thought that this money would be expended largely by the railways directly in their own shops, but a very large proportion of it went to contract shops. I have heard quite recently that the Canadian National Railways are expending a further $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 in railway contract shops. The government ought to be consistent in this matter; having adopted government ownership of the railway, they should see it through. It is true that the men who work in the contract railway shops need to live, the same as the employees of the Canadian National Railways. But that is not so much a direct concern of the government as the continued operation of the shops of the government owned railway.
As has been already pointed out by previous speakers, if these men are thrown out of
employment there will be thrown on Transcona and St. Boniface and Winnipeg and other municipalities an insupportable burden. I feel that this matter can be readily adjusted, and therefore I wish to add my word of protest and appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and the government in this connection.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, so far we have heard from hon. members who live in or near the city of Winnipeg. I represent a constituency in which there is a very large group of Canadian National railway workers, and I might add that I know of no finer group of people anywhere. It has been and must be recognized that the government has not direct control in connection with this matter. This railway is under a board of management, who in turn have under them officials of the road, and I have always been very proud to think that by and large there has not been political interference at any time in the management of the Canadian National Railways. I do not think we should urge the government or the management of the company to do something that should not be done, but I do believe that in times like these, particularly in western Canada, to take away employment from men under the conditions which exist there is something which, if at all possible, unquestionably should be avoided.
In regard to Saskatchewan in general we have heard in this house very much about the general difficulties that exist, and it will be recognized that when men are laid off work it is going to add to an already intolerable burden. My suggestion to the government is that if there is work that can properly be done, particularly in these western provinces, by all means let us advance to the railways whatever money will be required in order that such useful and proper work may be carried on. I would very much rather see public works constructed than have men receiving the dole. I have never advocated the construction of public works merely for something to do; they must be of a type and kind which will be useful, and which will not thereafter add to the burden on the state. I believe that in these railway shops useful work can be done, and I am going so far as to ask the government to urge the officials of the Canadian National Railways to go the limit in providing work during these very difficult periods for the men who are engaged by that company.


Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to endorse what has been al-
C.N.R.-Shop Employees

ready said, and particularly the remarks of the last speaker. In my constituency there are a great many employees of the Canadian National Railways at Transcona and Fort Rouge. These men live in East Kildonan, but work in the Canadian National shops. I have received many complaints from them in regard to this matter, and I urge the government to do whatever can be done for these men.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), and the other hon. gentlemen who have spoken. It does seem to me that at a time in the history of Canada when there is so much unemployment-though it has been largely reduced-the government through the management of the Canadian National Railways, should not set a new pace in regard to further unemployment. In my own constituency of Halifax there are very many men out of employment under the National Harbours Board, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). I regret that the minister is not in his place to-day to deal with the question that is before the house for consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He is here.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am very glad he is here and that he will hear what I am going to say. It seems to me that, since seniority counts, it is the juniors who will be put out on the sidewalk if this retirement is carried out, and while we have not direct responsibility in connection with the Canadian National Railways, which are under Mr. Hungerford and a board of directors, something should be done. Not long ago there was appointed to that board a gentleman from Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, the president of the Liberal association of that province. It seems to me things are coming to a pretty pass when we pick a political friend, the active head of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia, and put him on the board of management of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What about Mr. Guthrie?


Robert Emmett Finn: Who is that?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was not speaking to the hon. member.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am speaking now, and my hon. friend has no right to speak. I do not desire to embarrass the government or the opposition. The opposition have nothing to do with it. It is a pity they are not a little stronger; then perhaps they would be heard more, and greater attention would be paid to them.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Mr. Guthrie?


Robert Emmett Finn: Does my hon. friend mean the chairman of the board of railway commissioners? He has nothing to do with employment on the Canadian National Railway system; he has to do with rates on all railways as chairman of that board. If my hon. friend did not know that he knows it now.
With reference to conditions in Halifax, the gentleman who is chairman of the National harbours board, Mr. Campney, went to Halifax together with the coterie that surrounds him. I believe my colleague went down also. His efforts were absolutely in vain. Men who were police officers were reduced to watchmen, at watchmen's pay, when that should not have been done. That cannot be defended, and that wrong must be righted.


Mr. ISNOR:: The hon. member has made the statement that I went to Halifax with the national harbours board. I must ask him to withdraw that statement, because it is incorrect.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I will say this, that my hon. colleague was in Halifax while the board were there, whether or not they went on the same train I do not know, but he was present at some of the meetings that were held.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That also is incorrect.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I will say that my hon. colleague was present and found out just what was what.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member is not discussing the matter before the house. We are concerned with the laying off of certain employees of the Canadian National Railways, and that is all.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is not only a matter of the men being laid off at Winnipeg.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, yes it is.


Robert Emmett Finn: Oh, no; it is a question of men being laid off over the whole system, including Nova Scotia, particularly in Halifax. Do not let us narrow the question or bind ourselves to conditions that exist in only one place, Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba. If we do, the electors will not be blind when they go to the polls-we will not return as many members, and we will probably be sitting over there instead of over here. We must deal with matters openly and aboveboard.
Mr. Hungerford is the head of the Canadian National Railway management. I understand that he is to retire shortly, and the gentleman mentioned to fill his position is the purchasing agent of that railway system, Mr. Vaughan. If you can tell me that a pur-

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
chasing agent of a railway of twenty-two thousand miles is the right man to be president of the Canadian National Railways, then I will go to a phrenologist and have my head examined, to find out whether I am right or wrong. I am loyal to my party, and it is that loyalty which makes me say what I am saying to-day. I do not know what my colleague is going to say, but he can speak for himself. All I do say in reference to him is that the arrival of the centralized harbour board synchronized with his arrival in Halifax, and I had no knowledge of his going or arrival until I received a letter stating that he was there. I have not interfered in matters affecting the policy of the harbour board, but I intend to do so in parliament at the proper time. I have discussed-


Walter Edward Foster: I would ask the hon.
member, as I pointed out, to discuss the affairs of the Canadian National Railways from the standpoint of the lay-off of employees, and not the affairs of the harbours board.


Robert Emmett Finn: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I believe you are correct, but the Minister of Transport controls six branches and they are all interlocked. However, I bow to your ruling and will discuss the lay-off, which comes within the purview of the motion for adjournment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps).
Already there has been a reduction in the staff of the Canadian National Railways. The management and the president and directors are mute, so far as any information given to the house is concerned. No information can be obtained. In the language of the Minister of Transport they are a separate corporation-and a corporation is supposed to have no soul. From the motion of the hon. member it would seem that their soul is not as big as I thought it was. I would go farther and say this: Start from the top-the executive -to reduce their salaries, and see how they would like it. Do not start with the juniors who have wives and families to keep, and who would be put on the street with no opportunity of receiving employment. The city of Halifax is about to stop giving relief on May 1. Where are the unemployed to go? To the city home in Halifax? Would that be a desirable thing?
We had a commission headed by Mr. Purvis which, dealt with the question of unemployment, but to-day it would seem that Mr. Purvis has lost interest in unemployment. His attention is devoted to his position as director of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to which he was just appointed, and to that alone he owes his allegiance.


Mr. ROGERS:: That was after the commission dissolved.


Robert Emmett Finn: I did not say it was not; but it synchronized with his going. Further, the board of management, which is made up of lawyers, like myself-perhaps better lawyers than I am-some laymen, and Mr. Hungerford, sit in judgment. They are the men who want to be able to present to parliament a smaller deficit, and want to bring it about by a reduction of the wages of the poor men. They are putting the juniors on the street in order that the deficit may not be as large as it otherwise would be.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and my leader, has always taken the stand that parliament is supreme and must settle all questions. I appeal to him as my leader, for whom I have the greatest respect both as to leadership and ability, to join with the Minister of Transport and to see to it that Mr. Hungerford does not make other people hungry while he and the board of directors enjoy good meals, amusements, and are happy and contented.
These are the only statements I have to make. Perhaps some hon. members on this side of the house may think me disloyal.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Not at
all; you are speaking the truth.


Robert Emmett Finn: But I have a strong recollection with respect to an hon. gentleman who in 1924 crossed the floor of the house and sat on the opposite side-there were not many over there then-


Mr. PELLETIER:: The numbers are growing all the time.


Robert Emmett Finn: If it is the wish of the
people that they grow, like a plant, then I hope they do grow; if it is not, I hope they dwindle. But let nature take its course, and the will of the people reign supreme.
Finally let me say to the Prime Minister that in the early days when I was in the house, two other gentlemen voted against us on the budget; and one, who voted against a government measure, sits in the cabinet of the Prime Minister to-day. So if I am disloyal, there are others in the same position, and they will have to cross the floor of the house before I do. That is all I have to say respecting those hon. gentlemen. I am more interested in the railwaymen from the Atlantic to the Pacific who will be placed on the sidewalk and will not know in a few weeks where their next meals are coming from.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will forgive me, I believe what I have to say might

C NJt.-Shop Employees

Better be said before he speaks. I cannot miss this opportunity of saying a word in support of the observations made here this afternoon. After all, there is something bigger than one's party, or bigger than the likelihood of coming back or the danger of not coming back to this house as a member. There is something of far greater importance, of supreme importance-the homes and livelihood of our people. For that reason I am offering these few remarks. This proposed lay-off will affect railway men not only in the city of Winnipeg but throughout the whole dominion. It will affect my own city of Portage la Prairie. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) made a remark which to me was significant. He said that if the government allow this lay-off to take place they will be setting an example to industry in general to do likewise. It is possible that we are on the verge of another recession, and I think it behooves the government to do everything possible to maintain employment at least at its present level.
We have a flour milling industry in the city of Portage la Prairie which has been established for forty-five years. The mill was remodelled recently but to-day it is standing idle. It was reported last summer that the mill was likely to close. The board of trade got busy and made every effort and advanced every argument to induce the milling company not to close the mill. I made a special trip to Montreal to interview the head officials, and they told me it was impossible to continue to run the mill, because they could make flour cheaper somewhere else. The mill was closed in the latter part of February, I have a letter here from the board of trade which gives the true significance of that move. They tell me that forty heads of families have been laid off; they are still out of work and are now an additional burden on the rest of the taxpayers of that city. This is just an example of what might happen, and I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and this government to do everything in their power to see that unemployment is not increased.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member Should confine his remarks to the question before the house, which has to do with the laying off of certain employees in the shops of the Canadian National Railways.


Harry Leader: May I be allowed to conclude with one or two sentences which I think are significant? To-day the world is standing upon the brink of war-cruel, devastating war which will ruin the bodies and souls not only of the present generation but of generations still unborn. Why has the world gone mad?

The foul seeds of war are being sown by such deeds as those of which I have spoken. The causes of war are founded upon the ungodly principle of bigger dividends for shareholders and unemployment for the working man, all of, which results in poverty for him and his family.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops):	Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be fair to the people of the city of Kamloops, whom I represent, if I did not rise to speak on this motion. I do not believe there should be government interference with the Canadian National Railways, but I submit that industry generally is not carrying its fair share of the burden. During the war it was found that the shops of the two great railway companies, ordinarily used for the manufacture of locomotives, cars and so on, could be readily adapted to the manufacture of munitions. It seems to me that instead of the railway companies farming out the building of new locomotives and cars, the work should be done in their own shops, thus giving work to a certain number of employees the year round rather than taking on a hundred men for -three months at a time and then laying them off for the rest of the year.
Many people have the mistaken idea that all those who work for the railroad companies are highly paid; indeed some think they are overpaid. But for the past five or six years many men in the shops have been working only fourteen or eighteen days a month, and most of these men do not earn more than $100 or $120 a month. When a man who is trying to keep a family on that wage is thrown out of employment, he simply has to go on relief. If there is any suggestion the government could make to the Canadian National Railways to avoid the laying off of a large number of men, I urge that it be made immediately.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is the contention of the government that unemployment insurance is a federal responsibility; surely unemployment should be a greater federal responsibility. A condition is now arising that will affect thousands of people all over this country. It will affect a goodly number of homes in my own constituency. These people have absolutely no other means of maintaining themselves than the remuneration they receive for working in the shops. We know that in these trying times it is exceedingly difficult for heads of households in western Canada to keep going, without having to face the misfortune of losing their jobs. I cannot fathom how the

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
cities of Calgary and Winnipeg can possibly assume the additional responsibility that will be placed upon them if these employees are thrown out of work. The minister himself has been spending some of his valuable time electioneering in the west when no doubt he should have been looking after the business of the department. If that had been done, it is possible that such a situation would not have arisen. Now that he is back in his place I hope he will consider this proposed lay-off as a matter of national responsibility and do everything in his power to see that it is not carried out.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. O'Neill) as I think it is particularly important at this time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has brought a very serious matter to the attention of this house. At this time the city of Winnipeg and the surrounding municipalities are making a special effort to carry the heavy load that rests upon their shoulders in providing unemployment relief, and it seems unfortunate that the Canadian National Railways should now be contemplating this extensive lay-off. After all, the government does own the Canadian National Railways and it should not be setting such an example at this time. I hope the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops will receive the serious consideration of the government, and that an effort will be made by the Canadian National Railways to find work for the men so that they will not be laid off.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, so far the discussion has been carried on exclusively by representatives of the larger centres, but this matter affects also both directly and indirectly, men employed in the smaller centres. I should just like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) this fact, that the smaller municipalities are to-day in a position where they cannot finance the relief obligations now placed upon them, and that in quite recent days the railway men in the smaller towns have suffered most acutely.
I believe the suggestion made by the member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) and other members that a great deal more work could be done in our larger shops is worthy of consideration. I do not know to what extent to-day the Canadian National Railways buy equipment from corporations nor to what extent the financing of this equipment is undertaken by United States financial corporations, such for example, as the
51952-96J
Chase National bank, whose plates I notice on some of the equipment of our railway company. If the building of this equipment could be undertaken in the dominion it would have a beneficial effect.
I should also like to associate myself with those who have said that this is setting a bad example to private corporations. If a government-owned institution lays off hundreds of men-and my colleague says thousands- undoubtedly that will be taken as a signal for private corporations in this country to lay off men also.
Last night we heard over the air two excellent speeches on the railway problem. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) discussed the matter, and I noted that even the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in discussing lay-offs made the point that they should not occur, even if his proposals were carried out, without compensation for the men. Now if the head of what is sometimes called a heartless business corporation can make that plea in the course of an address with which in the main I disagreed-


An hon. MEMBER:: He may not practise it.


Major James William Coldwell: He may not practise
it; nevertheless the suggestion was made, there surely we might expect something better from the government-owned institution, the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is in his seat. I feel sure that when he visited the people of Edmonton East he did not tell the electors there that it was his intention to support the lay-off of a number of men in the city of Winnipeg. The city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba are on the verge of bankruptcy. The laying off of a number of men in Winnipeg will mean that the city will have more people to support on relief, the volume of business will drop, and the people of Manitoba will greatly resent the action of the government, particularly in view of the government's promise to the people of western Canada that they would issue money and credit to meet the needs of the people. That is what they promised, and yet they have not the money to meet the needs of the Canadian National Railways, one of their own institutions. Never mind about the needs of municipalities or of provinces; this government was going to issue money to meet the needs of all people.
C.N.R.-Shop Employees


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member should confine his remarks to the matter now before the house, the proposed laying off of men from Canadian National railway shops in Canada. He should not discuss theories about the issuing of money.


John Charles Landeryou: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that to maintain and operate efficiently the Canadian National railway requires money, and I was suggesting that as the government had promised to issue money and credit to meet the needs of all the people, they might issue it to meet the needs of the Canadian National Railways. Again, there are many high-priced officials on the Canadian National railways, and if there is to be any cutting down I suggest that you cut down their salaries. Then again, if you are going to cut down, you might cut down the interest on perpetual bonds; if there is anything else to be cut, reduce the interest on the other bonds, and, as a colleague behind me now suggests, cut down possibly on some of those levies on contracts that we have heard so much about.
This laying off of men would set a bad example to private industry in Canada, and I therefore hope that the minister will not see fit to carry out the proposed lay-off.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that this debate has taken place at this time, because at this very time the management of the Canadian National Railways is negotiating with the representatives of their shop employees to determine whether there shall be any lay-off whatever.
Ever since railroading began in America there have been seasonal fluctuations in business and seasonal fluctuations in employment. The number of conductors employed on trains depends upon the number of train miles being operated from week to week, and similarly with the number of brakemen employed and the number of locomotive engineers. Every railroad man in Canada understands that, and the schedules governing employment provide for such fluctuations.
The situation of the shop men is this. During the depression years there was no class of railway labour that suffered so heavily as the shop men. As the number of train miles was reduced the use of equipment decreased, and it was perhaps only natural that the railways should retire equipment in need of repairs and continue to use a better class of equipment. I think that the average time of employment of shop men over considerable periods was two days of employment per week. However early in 1936 the Canadian
IMr. Landeryou.l
National Railways undertook a rehabilitation program and since then down to the present time I think practically every shop man in Canada, having seniority on the Canadian National railway, has been employed eight hours a day and five days a week, which under the schedules is regarded as full time for shop men. In that period the equipment of the railway has been brought up to a standard which places all the useful equipment in a condition to operate. At the same time the railway management has placed in the shops all the capital expenditures for equipment which the shops were equipped to construct efficiently, and so by a combination of the rehabilitation work, and the capital work that has been put in the shops, it has been possible to maintain the shops on full time for the last eighteen months or more.
The Canadian National Railways are now facing a condition under which they have not sufficient work to continue to maintain those shops at full time and the directors of the railway have decided that it is necessary to curtail shop hours by about twenty per cent. The schedules provide, and have provided for many years, that the shop employees shall work full time, but throughout the years the shop men have cooperated with each other and with the management to provide that instead of a lay-off in times of short work there shall be a general reduction in hours. The management fully expected to meet the present situation by a reduction in hours; that is to say, instead of a five day week there would be a four day week. And that is all that is involved in the present situation. Much to the surprise of the management, the shop unions have taken the position that they will not accept a reduction of hours and that if there is to be a reduction in shop work it must be at the expense of the junior employees, who must be thrown out of work. Negotiations between the management and the shop men are continuing, the management taking the position strongly that the shop men should cooperate as they have done in the past and meet the situation-which we hope is only a temporary one-by accomplishing the reduction through a reduction in hours rather than by means of a lay-off of men.
The wages of the ordinary shop men are about $30 a week-a little more, I believe- and this proposed reduction in hours would mean that the employees, for the period of short work, would work four days a week and have their income reduced to about $24 a week. Under this arrangement there would be no lay-off whatever.

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
No one regrets the circumstances more than the management of the railway. The matter is one for the management and not for the government, the latter having no right to interfere in matters of management. It is most unfortunate, however, that while these negotiations are going on and the railways are meeting a situation which they have had to face every year since railroading began in this country, a political debate should be precipitated in the House of Commons. Reference has been made to the debate last evening over the radio. Every hon. member knows that there is a terrific drive at this time for a program which is called unified management under private control, and the strongest argument in its favour is the contention that it is impossible for the government to own a railway and have it operated without political interference. I think that this debate to-day is one of the strongest indications that there may be a measure of truth in such representations; but I have always taken the view that it is possible for the Canadian National Railways to operate without political interference, and I have endeavoured during the time I have been Minister of Transport to give it an opportunity so to operate.
It has been suggested that the Canadian National Railway system is taking the lead in reducing the hours of shop employees. Every hon. member who has spoken here today must know that, with the privately owned road, this reduction took place last August, or as soon as it became generally known that the last crop would be a failure. The Canadian National Railways considered the matter at that time; as a matter of fact its management discussed the situation with me, and they decided then that every effort should be made to anticipate work. Wherever work required to be done, the management decided that it should be done, and that no lay-off should take place until the winter months were over and they had a chance to see how the traffic level would hold up during that period. The traffic level has not held up; there has been a very serious recession since the turn of the year. The result is that the wear and tear on equipment is not taking place to the same extent as in the early months of last year and consequently we have not the work to be done in the shops to enable the shops to operate at the capacity that would provide full time employment for every employee who has seniority on the Canadian National Railways. I trust, however, that the common sense of the shop men through their union heads will prevail; that this situation can be met in the future as it
has been in the past, and that no general lay-off of the type that has been discussed in this house will take place. I sincerely hope that that will be the result of the negotiations now continuing between the management and the men.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I did not say anything earlier because I thought that my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) had adequately covered the ground. But I would urge even more now, since the minister has spoken, the necessity for the government considering the matter more seriously than the minister seems inclined to do. Some of us from Winnipeg are particularly concerned; but it is only a few days ago that I had a very strong representation from the city of Montreal with regard to the position in which the workers will be placed in that city, especially since the city administration is apparently not going to continue relief.
I cannot quite follow the logic of the minister when he expresses regret that a discussion of this kind should take place to-day; and more, I absolutely fail to understand his position when he suggests that such a debate might indicate that there was something in the suggestion made by Sir Edward Beatty with regard to amalgamation. That is a great disappointment to me. I had thought that the minister stood foursquare for the idea of the Canadian National.


An hon. MEMBER:: So he does.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, I cannot
understand the remark he made a few minutes ago.


Mr. TURGEON:: He only said that there might be difficulty in running it without political interference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we ought to know very distinctly where the minister stands. If there are difficulties in running the Canadian National Railways it does not necessarily mean that we have to plunge into an amalgamation, involving still greater difficulties, under private ownership. And if private ownership has shown its heartlessness in turning off a number of its men last fall, I fail to see why we should turn off Canadian National employees a few months later.
Again I wish to protest against the minister apparently taking the ground that the government had no direct concern or responsibility in this matter. Surely the Canadian National is a government concern. It is all very well to have a board set up so that the railway will not be dragged into partisan politics
C.NJt.-Shop Employees

It is very well to have that board set up for that purpose-though evea then apparently a good deal of patronage manages to creep in. But that is altogether different from taking the position that the government can divorce itself from responsibility.
The government took over the road largely to save the system financially, and now a proposal is brought forward that the government ought to stand behind the employees financially. If it is not right, from the standpoint of the national welfare, that the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways should suffer, surely it is not right that the employees of the system should be made to suffer.
The minister pointed out that there had been seasonal fluctuations and that men in the running trades had from time to time been laid off. Surely that is a different problem from that of the shop men. He admitted that the shop men have suffered severely for a number of years. For a number of years, according to the minister's own statement, they have been carrying the load. Their regular time was lessened from six days a week to five, which means a reduction in wages, because wages did not go up to offset that shorter working time. Their standard of living has been reduced for a number of years, and now what do we find? According to the minister there appear to be two alternatives: either the junior men must be laid off altogether or the whole staff of the shops must have their wages still further reduced. So that instead of getting what they really need to live decently, a working week of six days, eight hours a day, they are being told that they ought to spread the work so that they will get only four days a week.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he advocating a six day week for shop men?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I said that a few years ago. the men had been getting six eight-hour days a week and that that had been reduced to five days. Now the proposal is to reduce their time still further until it becomes only a four day week.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On a temporary basis.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister says, on a temporary basis, but this temporary basis of a five day week has lasted some years now, and I do not know that there is any guarantee that the proposed four day week will be any more temporary. The next thing I suppose will be a three day week.
TMr. Woodsworth.]
If there were an increase in wages, it would be a different matter. And why not an increase? If every time there is a depression the government step in and government money is given in order that shareholders shall not suffer, why should not government money be given that the wage-earner should not suffer?


Mr. DUNNING:: Who are the shareholders of the Canadian National Railways? They are the people of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And who are the bondholders?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member said shareholders.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, let me correct
myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very important difference.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, there is, and I thank the minister for correcting me. But I say that the bondholders have been helped again and again; finance has been helped again and again. Now the government apparently are going to permit a definite degradation of the standard of living of large numbers of railway employees. I cannot see why the employees and workers should suffer and the shareholders and bondholders not suffer. To me the reply of the minister- and I presume he gave a reply which is satisfactory to the whole government-is far from satisfactory to the workers concerned, very far from being satisfactory to them. Imagine the feelings of nearly a thousand people in Winnipeg when they read the response of the government to their plea as brought before the house-people for whom the five day week has meant a struggle just to keep going, to keep their families fed and clothed, in many cases being unable to send their children to school to get proper education, at least in the higher grades. Some of us know very intimately the homes concerned in this matter and what the lay-off will mean to these homes. But all we can get from the government is that they have no direct responsibility, that they hope this is a temporary arrangement and that really we should not talk about the matter in parliament. I cannot understand that. Where else should we talk about these matters?


An hon. MEMBER:: East Edmonton.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I am not going to make it a question of politics. We were particularly careful not to make this a political question as we introduced it. There was not a word by my colleague to make it a political

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
question, although we might readily have done so. But if parliament amounts to anything it is in parliament that great national questions of this kind ought to be dealt with. Although we want action in this case, we instance this as a part of the greater problem that is facing this country. We are told that we cannot discuss unemployment or cannot hope for very much in the way of a solution until some commission reports.
I shall make this a party question right away. The government are evading responsibility. They say, "The Canadian National is under a board; we are not responsible." Again they say, "A commission has been appointed; we are not responsible." Surely this parliament still has responsibilities. If there is coming what is called a recession, or another depression, across this country, surely it is time now that the government indicated to the country at large where they stand with regard to matters of this kind. I instance my own city of Winnipeg again; everyone knows the condition of that city-almost bankrupt, unable to get assistance from the province, and doubtful how much will be forthcoming from the dominion in the matter of relief. This large number of people involved are not ne'er-do-wells, not people who do not want to work. I am not holding the government wholly responsible for the depression; it is in part due to world-wide conditions, but I do urge that governments exist in order to meet depressions and other economic problems. The government cannot escape that responsibility.
The poor individual, whether he be railway employee or other employee, is to-day almost helpless. In the pioneer days if a man could not find a job in one place he could go to another. If he could not find a job in one occupation he could change to another. If he could not find a job in the city he could go to the country. But to-day if he goes to the country he is met by an army of people coming into the cities looking for work. Under these circumstances we have a right to introduce a question of this kind here. I resent the implication of the minister that such a question should not be introduced into this house, which primarily is charged with maintaining the welfare of the people of Canada.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: I rise merely to correct an error in the statement of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Woodsworth). The intensity of bitterness of his speech is probably because he is unaware of certain facts which should be called to his attention.
My hon. friend suggested that there has been no cut in the wages of money. I would point out that the cut in the wages of money has been greater than the cut in wages of railway men. In 1920 the average rate of interest upon the bonds and treasury bills of the dominion government was 5-121 per cent. In 1937 the average rate had fallen to 3-748 per cent. The reduction therefore in the wages of money-I figured it out rather hastily-appears to be twenty-seven per cent. I am going to ask my hon. friend if he will be good enough to check something which I have not the opportunity of checking because I have not the material available here. I should like him to check up the real wages of the men employed on the railways of Canada from 1920 to 1937. I read some time ago-speaking from memory-that when the cost of living is taken into consideration those wages have gone up thirty-six per cent since 1920. My authority is a book which was published from McGill university, and I think I can get it for my hon. friend. I should like this dealt with purely as a matter of fact-not of discussion, not of anger, not of antagonism; I should like to know exactly what the facts are as to the issue raised by my friend of the relative wages of money and of men.
There is another thing which I think should be called to the attention of this house. I want as much as anyone to see railway men get a high wage, a fair wage, a wage in relation to the wage which other men get for similar work. But it must be remembered that when their wages are raised it is a charge upon the cost of moving goods. In addition I point out to my hon. friend that it is a basic charge and, as there are sometimes three, four or five different freight rates imposed upon the movement of goods, the added cost is pyramided. I question if those who seek to advance the rate of wages paid in particular industries are in reality producing an increase in the real wages of the people of the country. When you raise the wages of the railway men either freight rates must go up or the deficit of the railway must increase, which causes taxes to go up. Then it falls particularly upon one class in the community, the farmers; for they pay the freight rate both ways, and, as I pointed out in this house a short time ago, the average wage rate of the farmer, if you can put it in the form of wages, is much lower than that of the other classes of the community. I think this should receive some consideration when we are discussing a proposition such as this.
C.NJZ.-Shop Employees

I go on to ask my hon. friend this further question. I want to know what the Canadian National Railways is expected to do. It has a certain amount of repairs to make. Is it to make repairs which are not needed, in order to provide employment? If the railway is forced into that position there was substance in the argument of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) when he suggested that people will eventually come to the conclusion that there is something in amalgamation and that we ought to consider seriously some different method of approach. I suggest to you that we want to handle the affairs of the Canadian National Railways as the affairs of a business institution are handled; that we want to be careful in spending our dollars; that we want to have some regard not only for the wages of the men but also for the wages of those who are paying the freight bills; that these things must receive some consideration from the house, far beyond a mere statement that men shall be employed whether or not there is work for them to do. There are principles of sound economy in the administration of a business enterprise, even when it is under the control of the government, and I suggest that after all these principles are very much the same as those followed by ordinary business concerns in their transactions. We should try to look at things from the broad viewpoint, not in the interest of one section of the community, as my hon. friend appears to do, but in the interests of every section of the community. Only in that way can we reach the natural balance in our economic institutions which will permit the progress being made in this countiy that ought to be made.


Mr. L. P. A. ROBICHAUD (Kent, N. B.):: Mr. Speaker, while I agree with most of the previous speakers that at this time the railways should not lay off men, not only for the sake of the men themselves but also because of the bad moral influence it would have on the business of the country, since we are endeavouring to prevent the invasion of business , recession from the country to the south of us, permit me to express my amusement at the wild enthusiasm of some of the speakers in behalf of government interference at this time. Those same members would be the first to rise, in a week or a month, and criticize and upbraid the government for interfering with the management of the railways. We have heard that in this house before. On the other hand I can well imagine the enthusiasts for amalgamation being tickled to death over the debate which has occurred to-day. They will say, "It will

help us. They are not going to effect economies, therefore they cannot reduce their deficit, and that is a mighty good thing for our argument in favour of amalgamation."
I really do not think we should interfere. We have a board of directors and railway officials who are endeavouring to carry on their business as a private business should be conducted. We have been saying in the press and in this house that there should not be any government interference; we have heard some very severe criticism of the government because they allegedly had interfered, but to-day the same hon. gentlemen are upbraiding the government and the minister because they are not interfering. I hope I am not being rude to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), but I cannot help saying that in the three years I have been in this house I have marvelled at the apparent inconsistency of some hon. members here. We heard them on the question of sanctions against Italy, for instance. They rose in their places and upbraided the government because they did not take a certain stand which naturally would have implied a certain line of action. Then the next day or the next week they rose again and denounced some other stand on the part of the government that would have been the natural consequence of the first action they suggested. A man should be consistent in this house, and I do not think an hon. member with the experience of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre should set such a bad example to the new members.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to find that the farmers have an advocate and friend in this house in the person of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). But as time goes on I am afraid he is going to have difficulty in reconciling his advocacy of agriculture with his defence of the poor bondholders. One of the difficulties I find in connection with the farmers of my constituency, and I dare say it is true in other constituencies in Ontario at least, is that they tend too much to think that an increase in wages means a loss to them, while actually it is a fact that the wages received by the workers buy the eggs, butter, wool and beefsteak they have to sell. On the other hand it is true that for the most part the bondholders already have enough money to buy all these things they need. The worker never has sufficient to buy the best or the highest quality of food. The letting out of men employed by the Canadian National, which is the question now before the house, would

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
at once affect the amount of farm products consumed by the families concerned. There is no doubt of that, and I think people who pose as friends of the farmer ought to make it very clear that a fairly even spread of purchasing power to all the people of Canada would be the best thing that could happen for agriculture.
Then may I ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) what is parliament for? We cannot talk about foreign policy because it is going to start or stop a war, whichever it may be. We cannot talk about the Canadian National Railway letting out men. We cannot talk about unemployment, because a commission has not reported, and it always takes a commission so long to report. What can we do?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Already there have been three or four debates on unemployment, and there will be more.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Then they must have been out of order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not at all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Since parliament, during this session at least, has done nothing but talk, it is going to be a serious matter if we cannot do even that.
I feel that the greatest extravagance Canada has permitted herself in the last six or seven years has been the vast amounts of money spent on relief. The amount has been great, and it has been detrimental to the people who received it. For very many years to come we will be paying large sums of money resulting from the deterioration of people who have received relief. So that it will pay us to keep away from it, and to keep people by giving them useful work, even though at the time it may seem to cost more. The relief business is bad-and we know it; at least in private conversation everybody admits it. And may I say to the gentleman sitting at the rear, in the rump of the Liberal party and with the hon. member for Halifax-


Robert Emmett Finn: Which one?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The senior member- that it is to be hoped that the day may speedily come when the government members may all sit on one side of the house. That will be very much better.
The hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick (Mr. Robichaud) seemed very much upset about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre needs
no one to help him defend himself, but I must point out that there has been no hon. member in the House of Commons who, over a long period of years, has given more unselfish service for the masses of the people. It ill behooves a member who has been here only three years to get excited about this matter when there are so many other matters which he might helpfully excite himself about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of some of the observations made this afternoon by some hon. gentlemen opposite, there is a danger of the position of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) being greatly misrepresented. It is only to remove that possibility that I say a word or two at this time.
It must be recognized by hon. members that, while the Minister of Transport is a member of the government and therefore when speaking, speaks on behalf of the government, he is also the only person in the house who is in a position to place before the house the views of the management of the Canadian National Railways, when any question bearing upon the conduct of the railways comes up for discussion in parliament. This afternoon the minister has necessarily been in a difficult position in presenting the views of the management, as distinguished from those of the government. During the course of his remarks I believe he has made quite plain where he was presenting the views of the management of the Canadian National Railways and the views of the government. Because of a reference to the matter being the concern of the railways, one or two hon. members have construed the minister's remarks as meaning that the government was not concerned with the question of the dismissal or the lay-off of a large number of employees. May I say at once what I know the minister was equally anxious to say, that there is no concern of the government which is greater than that affecting the livelihood of numbers of men and women. We all realize that there is no other single question which can affect so intimately the well-being of the citizens of our country as the question of unemployment. For years past this problem has been with us, on a very large scale. The mere mention of the possibility of any increase in the numbers of unemployed, especially at a time when we have hopes that matters are going to improve materially, makes the question one of the deepest concern to members of parliament generally, and particularly to the government. So I wish to point out that when the minister spoke of the question as one which was not the
C.NJt.-Shop Employees

concern of the government, he did not mean the government was not concerned about it; he meant that the question of what men should be laid off or what men should be retained in the employ of the Canadian National Railways was a matter for which the management and officers of the railway had a primary responsibility, and that it was not the primary responsibility of the government.
May I point out that the minister's remarks with reference to the bearing of this debate on what is taking place at the moment have also been misconstrued. They were not intended in any way to imply that the government did not wish all hon. members to feel free to discuss this question, or any other question. May I say to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) who has just taken her seat, that, far from showing any evidence of a desire to stop discussion, only one member of the government has spoken thus far, and the debate has been in progress for nearly two hours. There has been no suggestion that the subject should not be fully discussed.
When the minister voiced a regret that the discussion had taken place at the moment, he made his meaning perfectly clear by stating that at this particular time the unions were negotiating with the management of the railways in connection with the lay-off of some of the men. He said he felt it was unfortunate that, at a time when the matter was being discussed between the two parties concerned, a debate should be taking place in the house, which might lead to some misunderstanding on the position of the Canadian National Railways, a publicly owned railway vis-a-vis the Canadian Pacific, a privately owned railway. The minister's remark, as I understood it, and as I believe the house understood it, far from being an argument in favour of unification, was an argument directly the opposite. What the minister stated was that the Canadian Pacific railway, a privately owned company, can apparently take up these questions-as it did a question similar to this one some months ago-and settle them without any discussion in parliament. But the moment the Canadian National Railways, under similar conditions and for similar reasons, follow a like course of action, immediately that course of action becomes the subject of a political debate, or of a debate in the parliament of Canada which, to a certain extent, seems or seeks to bring the railways under political control.
The concern of the government is not only with the well-being of railway employees, but with the success of the operation of government owned railways. That is the phase

of the question to which the minister had special reference when he mentioned the debate which had taken place last night respecting the merits of government and privately owned systems. His point was that the management of a privately owned system appeared to be free to act in accordance with what they believed to be in the best interests of the road, from the economic point of view, and that it would seem from the discussion in parliament that the government road could not be operated in the same way, without the possibility of political interference.
With respect to all government owned enterprises I believe we must recognize that we cannot have it both ways; we cannot have political control and at the same time complete absence of political control. That is something which has to be kept in mind in connection with all government owned enterprises. If they are to be operated as privately owned business organizations are, then they must be operated free from political influence and control. There is always the possibility, in connection with any government owned enterprise, that there will be more in the way of criticism and of interference than would ever occur in connection with a company under private management.
Coming back to the immediate matter before us, I personally do not complain of the discussion which has taken place. Rather, I see as a result of what has been said the possibility of further and even more careful consideration of the question by the management itself. I am sure the management of the Canadian National Railways have no desire to be indifferent to the wishes of the government and members of parliament with respect to refraining, wherever justified in so doing, from increasing the numbers of unemployed. I am sure, too, that the management will be the first to take cognizance of what has been said in the discussion this afternoon with respect to the serious nature of any change at the present time which might affect employment.
I remember that some years ago, with respect to the same organization, we had the same question before us. For economic reasons, a number of employees were being laid off. I believe hon. members who were in the house at the time will recall that I told the house of having personally spoken to Sir Henry Thornton, the then president of the railways, about the situation. But I had pointed out to Sir Henry that, while it was perfectly true that the government had no desire to interfere with the management of the railways in the discharge of its duty, never-

C.NJt.-Shop Employees
theless we were directly and vitally concerned with the all-important question of unemployment in Canada. I said we hoped that, as one of the great employers of labour in this country, we might, without being guilty of anything in the nature of political interference, say to him what we would say to all other employers and all other enterprises, namely, that so far as it was possible, his company should seek to cooperate with the government in helping to meet the difficult situation of unemployment. I believe that such will be the case of the present management of the national railways with respect to the present situation, and I hope that hon. members will understand that such also was what the minister sought to convey in the remarks which he made.
Right Hon, R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the debate this afternoon has served one very useful purpose: it has brought home to every hon. member a sense of the tremendous responsibility resting upon us as the representatives of the people in this house. All who are familiar with the conditions and circumstances alluded to this afternoon must have had their sympathies stirred and their emotions quickened as they realized the plight in which so many people find themselves. It was my sad lot, perhaps you will say, to have had to deal with this problem from much the same angle as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I can recall how hon. gentlemen who then sat on this side of the house thundered anathemas against the government of the day for nob having taken steps to deal with this problem as it should have been dealt with. Hon. members who were in the house in those days will recall the bitterness of some of the observations then made, but to-day another set of men are charged with responsibility. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is new to this house. He was not a member of parliament in the days from 1930 to 1935, and we now have the Prime Minister interpreting his remarks. It reminded me of the interpretation which Pharaoh sought amidst great difficulties because he felt that his dream had not been properly understood. I looked this up and find it is as follows:
And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.
But the Prime Minister is now interpreting the observations of the Minister of Transport, and all is well in Israel. He has made it quite clear that the Minister of Transport
did not mean what he said, that "what he meant to say is what I now say, speaking as Prime Minister," and that you must draw an acute and sharp difference between what he said as Minister of Transport and what he said to this house as interpreter for the management of the Canadian National Railways. This dual capacity in which he found himself is rather difficult, and it was a kindly act on the part of his Prime Minister to interpret his vision to the house in the terms in which he has. I am sure it will be appreciated both in and out of this house that an interpreter of dreams has arisen, so that there will be no difficulty hereafter, when the Minister of Transport speaks, in the matter of attaching any importance to it until his remarks are interpreted to us by the Prime Minister.
The real reason why this matter is of tremendous importance to the House of Commons lies in the fact that this government and this parliament must provide all the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways. Not only the deficits but also the capital expenditures must be provided in some way by the Minister of Finance. I looked up the statute a few moments ago and I found that in years gone by we did anticipate some of the capital requirements of this road as well as of the Canadian Pacific in order that there might be some form of regular employment- not that it should continue at forty-eight hours a week. The Minister of Transport was quite correct when he observed a few moments ago that the men in many of the shops found their time seriously cut down during the period of greatest depression; but this country did anticipate capital requirements, and in anticipating them, employment was furnished. I am quite sure from what the Minister of Transport said-I hardly thought it was correct, but he must know and I do not'-that all the maintenance requirements in connection with equipment had been taken care of. Certainly that was not my understanding of it, but if it is right, it creates a condition of very great difficulty. If all the requirements with respect to equipment have been met and provided for, of course it creates a*much more serious situation than if there were-


Charles Avery Dunning: Maintenance requirements.


Mr. BENNETT:: The situation is much more difficult than it otherwise would be. The fact is that there are only two great shops in the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific systems capable of constructing locomotives and certain kinds of equipment.
C.N.R.-Shop Employees

I understand that both these shops are in Montreal, the one at Point St. Charles and the other the Angus shops. The complete building of cars is possible at other shops, such as the one at Calgary. It has always been considered important by those having to do with the economic situation in that locality that provision should be made to produce a limited number, however small it might be, of cars. The same thing can foe said with respect to Transcona and the other shops in the Canadian National system.
There need be no apology for bringing up this matter in the house; parliament has always had to do with the capital expenditures of this railway and has had to find the money for them. It may well be, as the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) has said, that it would foe desirable to ascertain at the earliest possible moment what would be involved in relief expenditures, based on the facts as stated by hon. members from Winnipeg, Calgary and elsewhere, and what additional sums would be required if the work were carried on in the shops as indicated. However, if there is no work to do, that is a different thing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I just repeat what I said before with regard to relief expenditures? It is the earnest hope and the real expectation of the management that no one will be laid off in any shop in Canada. If the work is distributed, as it has been for years, there is no question of relief. It is a question of an income of $130 per month being cut to about $105 per month, so that there is no question of relief.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the Minister of Transport will relieve us all of a great sense of anxiety. If, as he says, there is no likelihood of anyone being laid off, then we need have no further cause for apprehension. That is what his last remark amounts to, so it seems to me to be undesirable and unnecessary to traverse further this phase of it. I am sure it will come as a matter of great satisfaction to the hon. member who moved this motion and to those who have spoken to know that such is the case. I certainly had thought that a situation had arisen where owing to a shortage of traffic the railway companies had found it desirable or necessary from a purely economic standpoint to lay off some of their employees, but the assurance given by the Minister of Transport relieves me of any anxiety on that score. I am sure we are all very happy to know that that difficulty has been overcome.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I might make myself clear. Negotiations are under way between the company and the men to decide whether the strict letter of the schedule, which has not been observed for years, shall be adhered to. The men are saying that they will insist upon those men who are retained, working the full forty hours per week. This would mean a twenty per cent reduction in the personnel, whereas the management are pressing for the continuation of the system which has been applied for years, under which there would be a twenty per cent reduction in the working time and no reduction in personnel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would mean instead of the junior men being laid off, both the senior and junior men would continue to work, but for shorter hours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is purely a question whether the distribution takes place through the lessening of hours, on the one hand, or the maintenance of hours with the dismissal of some men, on the other. That is the story, as I understand it from the minister, and I must congratulate him upon making it clear.
There is one observation that should be made with respect to the wages of money, anti I am sure that the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) did not intend to leave a wrong impression. What was said in this house is strictly accurate. The wages of money with respect to railway securities has continued at a high rate on those securities outstanding and not callable. Unfortunately during the dark days after the war the railways emitted large amounts of securities that bore a moderately high rate of interest and were not callable. The result is that the wages of money has been maintained at a high rate with respect to them, and will so continue unless the owners voluntarily accept a security bearing a lower rate. It is that circumstance to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) referred.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reduction in rates of interest on railway securities is not as rapid as in those on government securities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot possibly be unless they are callable or unless the owners are willing to accept a lower rate. With respect to certain Grand Trunk Pacific securities and with respect to the income bonds of the Canadian Northern, a settlement was made by the management of the Canadian National and 4 per cent securities were issued. It would be difficult to anticipate that those securities would bear a lower rate than the

C.NJt.-Shop Employees
4 per cent they now carry. With respect to the other securities bearing a rate of 4J and 5 per cent which do not mature for some time, it is difficult to expect that the owners would voluntarily surrender them for securities bearing interest at 3, 3| or 3jj per cent. That is the position to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred on more than one occasion in this house, and the hon. member for Huron North will admit that he is strictly accurate in what he said to-day.


Mr. EULER:: Is the right hon. gentleman now interpreting the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. I am delighted to think that that affords the only amusement hon. gentlemen opposite have had this afternoon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. members would learn a little better manners in this house, it would be desirable. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen opposite have had a little amusement in consequence of the observation made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The only point I desire to make is that I was endeavouring not to interpret the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but to express my appreciation of what he said. He has said it on more than one occasion, and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not so understand my remark I very much regret it.
I do not think it serves any useful purpose to discuss at this particular time the pros and cons of government and private ownership. That is not the issue before us, nor is the rate of wages paid the issue, nor the wages of money. Those are not the questions which have to be considered at the present moment. The question is whether or not this house could take any appropriate action to lessen unemployment among that class of people who have been accustomed to security of employment in the work in which they were engaged. The observations made by the Minister of Transport indicate that if the views of the management prevail, there will be no lay-off of anybody in the shops of the Canadian National in this country, but if on the other hand certain other views prevail, the junior men will have to sacrifice their positions. I know this from personal discussion with a large number of men who may be senior employees in the shops of the railway. They have had during the last seven or eight years almost a minimum of employment. During part of that time their employment has been as low as three days a
week. It rose to four and then to five days a week, and during a limited period has been six days a week, or, I believe, forty-four hours in all. Under those circumstances their surplus, if they had any, has long since gone, and they have been endeavouring to save their homes, to pay the interest on their mortgages, and to pay back taxes; in other words, they have been endeavouring to save what they put their money into, their homes, from loss. In Calgary-and I do not think the situation in that city is different from that in almost any other part of Canada-the average railway employee usually puts his money into a home, on which he gives a mortgage. During the dark days these employees were unable to make sufficient money to pay off the mortgage or, sometimes, even the interest, and often they found it difficult to pay the taxes. During the last year or so they have been able to come up more nearly level with their obligations, and now they approach the whole situation with feelings of great apprehension because of their difficult financial position. I think the average man in the city does not realize the plight of many of the employees of the railway. Feeling a certain sense of security in their employment they have built homes and mortgaged them, undertaking to pay certain sums per annum to enable them ultimately to own their homes. One part of the city in which I live was built entirely in that way, and it is certainly an extremely difficult situation that is facing them. But I am hopeful, in the light of what has been said by the minister, it may be possible that none of these men will be laid off; and as we have to find money for capital expenditures it may be possible-I do not know to what extent-to anticipate some of the requirements in order to provide employment for these skilled artisans without whose services this country would be lost. They are skilled shop men; from what I have been told, they are the equal as machinists and otherwise of skilled artisans anywhere else in the world. We cannot afford to lose them, even if there was any place elsewhere for them to find work, and there is none at the present time; nor can we afford to let that deterioration come about which is often the result of long absence from employment.
I do not wish to add anything controversial to this discussion. My attitude in this respect may differ from that of our hon. friends opposite in days long since past; but I have learned from discussion and observation how very acute indeed are conditions in some parts of this country, and anything that this parliament can do to diffuse a little sunshine
C.N.R.-Shop Employees

among these people we must do, not only on their account, but because unless we do it the very fabric of our confederation itself will be destroyed.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take part in this debate particularly because I am obliged to follow such an eloquent speaker as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but in fairness to the employment situation on the Canadian National Railways in the province of Nova Scotia, I think I should say a word or two. I do not know the situation at Winnipeg, and therefore I hesitate to mention that city; but I know the situation in our own province, and more particularly in the city of Halifax, and I cannot but express my surprise that some hon. members who have taken part in the debate to-day apparently do not know what the situation is in regard to employment.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman who says, "hear, hear," knows what the situation is at the present time in regard to employment on the Canadian National Railways in the city of Halifax.


Robert Emmett Finn: Better than you do.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I certainly do not wish to bring personalities into this discussion; this is not the place for such tactics, and I would not do so if I had not been more or less put on the spot by the hon. member who is referred to as the senior member of a certain constituency. It is immaterial whether he is senior or junior; I do not think that matters very much, because the members are not interested in it.


Robert Emmett Finn: I never said so.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The fact that the member speaking at the present time managed to procure 840 votes more than the senior member does not make the junior member any the less important in the eyes of his constituents.


Robert Emmett Finn: Where did you get them?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have said enough on that point.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you do not wish to hear as much from the junior member as from the senior member, and I do not want to bother you with the recital of events of long ago. I believe, however, that we are dealing with an important subject. I

am considering the question whether there are fewer Canadian National employees in the Halifax constituency than there were a few years ago, and I am happy to say that there are not. Without introducing any political consideration, I believe it is due largely to the policy of the present government that there has been increased employment in the ranks of Canadian National railway employees. I can refer to almost every constituency in Nova Scotia, and believe hon. members will support me in the statement that not only are there as many employees in each constituency as there were a year ago, but there has been an increase. The junior men have been taken off the spare roll and new men have been put on in addition. I make this statement so that the rest of Canada will not think that the maritimes are trying to paint a picture as dark as some would like to have it.


Robert Emmett Finn: It is pretty dark.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: While it is not as promising as we should like, we hope that the discussion introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) will do some good. I am not going to go over the ground already covered by different speakers, but I would make a constructive suggestion. If the conditions outlined by different hon. members do exist, I suggest that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) make greater use of Canadian National lines in an effort to carry more goods from the extreme eastern section of Canada to the central parts, now being served, I understand, by lines other than the Canadian National. With that idea in mind I put on the order paper a question as to the amount of freight, grain in particular, which was being carried by the Canadian National Railways, so that we might have a comparison between the Canadian National and its competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway. I believe that in the answer to that question lies to some extent the solution of this problem.


Robert Emmett Finn: Oh, oh.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Mr. Speaker, I endeavour, when other speakers are trying to take part in debate, to give them my attention, and not to interrupt, and I trust that my hon. friend and senior colleague will pay the respect that years of experience such as he has had should warrant towards a junior who is inexperienced.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is camouflage.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should perhaps analyse the situation and make a comparison between

C.N.R.-Shop Employees
the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, because, after all, the Canadian Pacific is a privately owned company.


Walter Edward Foster: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the question under consideration, which has to do with the lay-off of a certain number of employees in the Canadian National railway shops.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was going to show how, by a greater use of the Canadian National lines as compared with the Canadian Pacific, the problem before us could be solved in part. However, Mr. Speaker, if you rule that I must not introduce the Canadian Pacific, railway into this discussion I shall not do so.
May I come back now to the question of unemployment. So far as the Atlantic region is concerned, not only has the Canadian National added to its employment, but I believe that we in the maritime provinces appreciate the efforts which have been made to keep certain industries moving at almost one hundred per cent of efficiency. Last year-something that had not been done for many years -there was spent on equipment the sum of 86,000,000, and that was undoubtedly a wonderful help to the county of Pictou. Moreover, a total of $17,000,000 in purchases was made. Wages to employees on eastern lines amounted to $15,000,000. In view of these figures, instead of feeling that there has been a recession in the railways we have reason to look on the bright side of things and to say, "Thank God we have an efficient management which has brought about the results that the people of Canada and the chambers of commerce from one end of the country to the other have been looking for". Instead of condemning the government and the Canadian National management we ought to appreciate the fact that they are trying to conduct the business of this great system in a businesslike way. But as soon as they bring in a measure of economy they are criticized.
The reduction from six to five days, which I believe took place in 1929, was, if my memory serves me correctly, at the request of the railway men themselves. I believe the principle behind it at the time was sound, rather than have a large number of men laid off it was decided, in a spirit of loyalty to the junior men, to accept a five day shift instead of the regular six days. And the plan which the minister has indicated to-day in connection with the present situation is based on the same principle. The question then arises, as
stated by the leader of the opposition, whether all employees including the juniors should have part time employment, or whether only the senior men should be kept on and the junior men laid off. With conditions as they are now I think the older men should be quite willing to allow all employees to participate in the employment.
I should like to quote some words used by the president of the Canadian National Railways at a banquet tendered to him by the Halifax board of trade. He expressed a thought which, I believe, is endorsed by practically every sound thinking person in the dominion. He said:
It is the aim of the Canadian National management to make the system serve to the maximum extent its owners, who are at the same time the principal users of its service; so to conduct the enterprise that it will aid. in so far as possible, in the development of every industry, including agriculture, and in every activity of business life. It must be operated with the greatest economy but it must also be ready to meet the development needs of the communities it serves; it must render transportation service to Canada of as high a standard and at as low a price as is available to producers of other countries which are competing with the dominion in the world's markets.
That is the aim of the management. We are but stewards of your property, and it is the aim also of the railway's staff of more than 80,000 workers.
I think that answers the question whether the management are trying to meet the problems of unemployment as far as their system is concerned. I believe they are making an honest effort to carry out the wishes of the people of Canada, to give them efficient railway service and to carry on in such a way that they will not be termed a political organization but will rather be considered as one serving the best interests of the whole of Canada.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know whether I have a right to say a word or two before I ask leave-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has no reply.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I have no right to say a word in reply, now that the discussion is over I ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Radio Broadcasting



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, respecting radio in Canada.
He said: This bill involves no new principle of radio regulation. The Radiotelegraph Act which governs the regulation of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in its more technical aspects requires amendment by reason of the fact that control of radio communication as affecting shipping has been transferred to the shipping act. While the necessary changes are being made, it is the intention to modernize the wording of the Radiotelegraph Act, which was passed many years ago, and to strengthen a few of its provisions without in any way changing the principles of the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alice Cecile Pinder Hartt.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Ruby May Foster Ryder.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Ethel Sadie Davidson Case.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Ray Simon Stern.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Norma Adelaide MacKenzie Hird.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mabel Marjorie Thompson Maynes.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Walter Edward Gorham.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Margaret Anne Eddie Bender.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Kathryn Chronis Briggs.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Vera May Levis Holloway.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Robert Andrew Young.-Mr. Walsh.

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

Mr. MacRAE:: 1.	Was there a breakwater constructed on the north shore of lake St. Francis in the vicinity of Bainsville in the year 1935?

2.	If so, was there an appropriation voted by parliament for this purpose?
3.	Under what department was the work constructed ?
4.	What amount was spent on it, and was this amount sufficient to complete the work?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No; repairs were made to existing breakwater.
2.	Funds were provided from item No. 5, Supplementary Public Works Act 1935-36.
3.	Department of Railways and Canals.
4.	The expenditure was $2,490, which was sufficient to complete the work.


* WELLAND SHIP CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	Were Messrs. Edward Steel, William Liseomb, William Loosemore and Edward Walker employed on the Welland ship canal?
2.	If so, how many years was each employed, at what work, and what salary was paid to each of them?
3.	In the way of special leave, with pay, or otherwise, what allowance, if any, was paid to each of these men upon retirement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Three of the names given
in this question were incorrect. In order to straighten the matter out my department has been in touch with Mr. Lockhart, and it is my understanding that he has been given in writing the desired information, so I suggest that the question be dropped.
Question dropped.


PRINCE ALBERT, SASK., SUBMERGED WEIR
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Is the submerged weir or dam at Prince Albert satisfactorily impounding the water, and is any trouble anticipated when the ice goes out of the south Saskatchewan river?
2.	Who were or are the present engineers in charge of the construction of this dam?
3.	How much has been expended on the scheme to date?
4.	How much will it require to complete the dam, and is the federal government providing all the money or is the city of Prince Albert making a contribution ?


Mr. CRERAR:: The submerged weir at
Prince Albert is on the North Saskatchewan river. From information so far received it appears that the weir is satisfactorily impounding the water. No trouble is anticipated when the ice goes out of the river.
2.	Provincial engineers.
3.	The dominion has contributed $47,253.02 to a total expenditure of $75,555.20. This

Questions
covers work carried out prior to November 15, 1937. No subsequent claims have as yet been received from the province.
4.	The weir or dam has been practically completed. Final costs are expected to be about $128,000 to which the dominion will probably contribute a total of about $82,300. The province will bear a portion of the cost. The city of Prince Albert has provided some material.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Net income available for interest (after taxes, rentals, hotel operations and all other income charges)	
Interest on funded debt in hands of public..
Net deficit on current year's operations.. ..
Profit and loss adjustments (principally abandonments of property, equipment, etc., not chargeable to current year)	
Interest on government loans (since cancelled by C.N.R. Capital Revision Act of 1937)..
Total deficit	
Note: 1937 figures not yet published.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-INCOME AND DEFICITS
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: What is the comparative income results of the Canadian National Railways for the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, under headings: (a) net income available for interest; (b) interest in the funded debt in the hands of the public; (c) net deficit or income of interest on funded debt; (d) interest on government loans; (e) total deficit?
1934	1935	1936$ 6,305,051 55,811,746	$ 4,590.610 53,468,792	$ 5,987,277 49,184,623$49,506,695	$48,878,182	$43,197,3464,161,080	30,453,831	12,684,81835,994,578	35,949,677	36,428,874$89,662,353	$115,281,690	$92,311,038


SALES OF BUFFALO
Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Were any buffalo sold by the government during the years 1936 and 1937?
2.	If so, how many were sold and to whom?
3.	Were such buffalo sold on the hoof?
4.	At what points were deliveries taken?
5.	Were tenders called for such sales?
6.	If so, who tendered and what were the respective amounts of tenders?
7.	Were the hides retained by the government?
8.	Who were the successful tenderers?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	A number were slaughtered and the meat and hides from same sold.
2.	1936-1,500 slaughtered.
Meat sold to Messrs. Burns and Company Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
No tender received at time of slaughter for hides. The hides were sold later to different furriers.
1937-2,023 slaughtered.
Meat from 2,000 sold to Messrs. Burns and Company, Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
Meat from 23 sold to F. Scrase & Sons, Dauphin, Manitoba.
2,000 hides sold to Messrs. Burns and Company, Limited, Calgary, Alberta. Balance retained.
3.	No.
4.	At Buffalo and Riding Mountain national parks.
5.	Yes.
6.	1936 tenders for meat-
Messrs. Burns and Company, Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
Choice quality, 3 cents.
All other saleable, good and top medium, 2 cents.
Aged and boner (for processing only), i cent.
Canada Packers Limited, Toronto, Ontario.
Choice quality, 3 cents.
All other saleable, good and top medium, 1| cents.
Aged and boner (for processing only), J cent.
Hides-No tender.
1937-tenders-
Messrs. Burns and Company Limited, Calgary, Alberta.
For meat only:
Choice quality, 5 cents per pound.
All other saleable, good and top medium, 4 cents per pound.
Aged and boner, for processing only, li cents per pound.
Alternative tender for meat and hides. Choice quality, 4i cents per pound.

Questions

All	other	saleable,	good	and	top
medium, 3i cents per pound.
Aged and boner for processing only 1 cent per pound.
All hides from the above animals slaughtered, S7 each.
Canada Packers Limited, Toronto,
Ontario.
For meat only:
Choice quality, $3.05 per cwt.
All	other	saleable,	good	and	top
medium, $2.05 per cwt.
Aged and boner for processing only, 65 cents per cwt.
Alternative tender for meat and hides,
Choice quality, $3.05 per cwt.
All other saleable, good and top medium, $2.05 per cwt.
Aged and boner for processing only, 65 cents per cwt.
Hides-$3.50 each f.o.b. slaughter house, Buffalo national park, Wain-wright, Alberta.
F. Scrase & Sons, Dauphin, Manitoba.
Choice quality, 3 cents per pound.
All other saleable, good and top medium, 2 cents per pound.
For processing only, i cent per pound.
Note-(a) Tenders included certain slaughtering services.
(b) F. Scrase & Sons were the only bidders on the 23 animals slaughtered at Riding Mountain national park.
7 and 8. Answered by No. 2.


SEED GRAIN PURCHASE GUARANTEES
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What is the amount, if any, by provinces, that the federal government has been called upon to pay with respect to guarantees given for the purchase of seed grain or for providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations?
2.	What is the present liability, if any, of the federal government, by provinces, with respect to guarantees given for the purchase of seed grain or for providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Nil.
2.	Guarantees given to banks under authority of "The Saskatchewan Seed Grain Loans Guarantee Act. 1936"-$2,555,113. Under "The Seed Grain Loans and Guarantee Act, 1937," no guarantees have as yet been given, but the act authorizes maximum amounts as follows:	Manitoba, $750,000; Saskatchewan,
$6,600,000; Alberta, $1,600,000.
fVr. Crerar.]



UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	How many applications have been accepted under the farm improvement and employment plan: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
2.	How many employees have received notice of the cancellation of their applications: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
3.	How many of these applications were cancelled during the months of February and March: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
Mr. ROGERS;
1 (a) and (b). The provinces report the following placements under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, as of March 14, 1938:-
Manitoba	 10,142
Saskatchewan	 26.858
Alberta	 5,358
British Columbia	 275
42,633
2. (a) and (b). The provinces report the following cancellations as of March 17, 1938:-
Manitoba	 193
Saskatchewan	  4,559
Alberta	 Nil
British Columbia	 Nil
4,752
3.	(a) and (b). The provinces report the following cancellations during February and March as of March 17, 1938:-
Manitoba	 146
Saskatchewan	 584
Alberta	 Nil
British Columbia	 Nil



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD-LOANS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Major James William Coldwell: What amounts, if any, were paid to Messrs. Davis and Davis, of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, in connection with loans granted by the farm loan board in 1936 and 1937, for: (a) fees; (b) as disbursements out of moneys loaned by the said farm loan board?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following information is furnished by the Canadian Farm Loan Board:
(a)	Answered in reply to question on February 21, 1938.
(b)	The Canadian Farm Loan Board does not maintain a system of accounts covering items of this nature as the borrower is responsible for the payment of same.
The scale of fees payable as disbursements out of monies loaned, is set by the board.

Questions



LIVE STOCK PRICES AND EXPORTS

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1. During the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, what were the prices paid for animals for slaughter such as cattle, calves, swine and lambs?
2. During the same period, what were the exports of such animals from Canada: (a) to the United States; (b) to England?


Mr. EULER:: 

DETLOR-BOULTER, ONT., MAIL CARRIER

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	Who is the mail carrier between Detlor and Boulter, Ontario?
2.	Whom did he succeed?
3.	Was his predecessor dismissed?
4.	If so, for what cause?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Elvin Whyte.
2.	J. W. Hudson.
3.	& 4. No. His contract expired in ordinary course on 31st December, 1937.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY, ISLAND OF MONTREAL

Mr. MALLETTE:: 1.	What was the original route of the Trans-Canada highway on the island of Montreal?
2.	Have there been any official requests for changes in the route of said highway since the original plans were first deposited?
3.	What changes have been made in the route following such requests?
4.	What is the exact route which has been decided upon on the island of Montreal?
5.	What are the prospects of completing such highway during 1938?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The trans-Canada highway is a series of provincial highways forming a continuous route across the dominion. The federal government has, at the request of the provinces, contributed under relief legislation to the provinces' cost of constructing and improving provincial highways which have been designated by provincial executive order as trans-Canada highway. The actual construction and matters pertaining to the so-called trans-Canada highway are however a provincial responsibility.
A report of a committee of the honourable the executive council of the province of Quebec, dated October 1, 1931, approved by the
Questions

lieutenant-governor on October 2, 1931, designated the trans-Canada highway in part as follows:-
"Highway No. 2, from Quebec city to Montreal following the river road connecting Saint-Sulpice and Charlemagne.
Highway No. 8, from Montreal to Hull."
While changes in the route of the trans-Canada highway in the province of Quebec, as designated by the above referred to provincial executive order, have been made by amending executive orders, those submitted to the dominion do not affect the route on the island of Montreal.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What were the amounts of the advances made and for what purpose were they made, to the Canadian National Railways for capital expenditures: (1) during the year 1936; (2) during the year 1937?
2.	What is the estimate by the government as to the amounts of advances to be made to the Canadian National Railways for capital expenditure during each of the following years: (a) 1938; (b) 1929; (c) 1940?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.
(1)	1936-Nil.
(2)	1937-17,252,283.97
General Additions and Betterments	$3,798,461.43
Construction of Senneterre-
Rouyn Branch	Line	 2,603,822.54
Trans-Canada Air Lines-Pur-chase of Stock	 850,000,00

2. Estimates for 1938 not yet presented to parliament. Estimates are not prepared beyond one year in advance.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What were the amounts of the government
guarantees of the Canadian National Railway's securities issued for the Canadian National Railway's capital expenditures and for what purpose were these securities issued:	(1) in
the year 1936; (2) in the year 1937?
2.	What is the government's estimate of the amounts of the government's guarantees required for the Canadian National Railway's securities to be issued for the Canadian National Railway's capital expenditures and for what purpose will these securities be issued: (a) in the year 1938; (b) in the year 1939; (c) in the year 1940?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No issues of Canadian National Railway Company dominion guaranteed bonds were made in the years 1936 and 1937 for capital purposes. Capital expenditures in 1937 were financed temporarily by way of loans from the government.
2.	Details of the capital requirements of the Canadian National Railways will be submitted annually to parliament and it is impossible to forecast the amount of capital expenditures to be financed by guaranteed bond issues.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE

Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	When was the Royal Canadian Aviation Corps established?
2.	What is the total number of its present officer staff?
3.	How many students are there now enrolled?
4.	How many were enrolled in the corps in 1936 and 1937?
5.	Where are these training schools located?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The Royal Canadian Air Force was established on April 1st, 1924.
2.	The total number of officers at present on the strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force (permanent) is 143.
3 and 4. Fiscal year 1936-37:	Seventeen
(17) officers underwent training for permanent commissions in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and eighty-one (81) airmen underwent initial training.
Fiscal year 1937-38: Thirty-five (35) officers are undergoing training for permanent commissions in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Three hundred and eighty-seven (387) airmen are undergoing initial training, and fifty-nine (59) airmen have graduated.
5.	The training is carried out at Royal Canadian Air Force Stations at Trenton, Ont., and Camp Borden, Ont.



BROADVIEW, SASK., TELEPHONE AND RADIO RECEPTION

Mr. PERLEY:: 1. Have any protests been made to the Department of Transport by residents in the district south of Broadview, tributary to the power line leading to the landing field south of Broadview, Saskatchewan, with respect to interference with their telephone and radio reception ?

Questions
2. If so, will consideration be given to such protests and steps taken to find a remedy for the interference?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Only one complaint received to date, and that from a householder within eighty-five feet of location of new power line.
2.	Matter being investigated with a view to eliminating interference.
Months
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
Total



RED CLOVER SEED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	How many pounds of domestic red clover seed were exported from Canada during the year 1937: (a) to what countries; (b) what quantity each month?
2.	How many pounds of red clover seed were imported into Canada during the year 1937: (a) from what countries; (.b) what quantity each month?
Mr.	EULER:		
United	United	Newfound-	TotalKingdom	States	land	ExportsLb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.408,060	408,060504,720	....	504,720315,960	315,960104,280	104,28068,460	540	69,0002,340	2,3409,480	120	9,600101,820	101.82014,400	89,340	103,74037,260	....	37,260108,960	108,96014,400	1,750,680	660	1,765,740
2.
Months	United Kingdom	United States	New Zealand	France	Poland and Hungary Danzig	Rou- mania	Total ImportsLb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.January.. ..	77,175	77,175February ..	.. 123,400	33.000	163.000	33,075	352,475March.. ..	.. 105,205	40,875	134,417	88,184	77,172	9,500	44,000	499,453April	30,000	81,156	111.156May	8,400	....	33,069	41,469June	
July	....	August.. ..	September .. October.. .. November ..	.. 197,244	....	44,800	-	66,150	308,194December ..	.. 1,236,491	11,000	44,100	1,291,591Total.. ..	.. 1,662,340	112,275	423,373	99,184	231,522	42,569	110,250	2,681,513



NOVA SCOTIA FISH HATCHERIES

Mr. PURDY:: 1.	At what points in Nova Scotia does the federal government operate fish hatcheries?
2.	To what per cent of its capacity did each of these operate during the past two years?
3.	What species of fish is reared in each hatchery ?
4.	What was the total distribution by species during the past two years in: (a) Nova Scotia; (b) other points, from the above hatcheries?
5.	Was there any stock produced outside of Nova Scotia distributed in the province during the above period?
6.	What is the annual cost to the government of maintaining the above hatcheries?
Questions


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Antigonish hatchery, South River, Anti-gonish county; Bedford hatchery, Bedford, Halifax county; Cobequid hatchery, Second River, Cumberland county; Grand Lake Ponds, Grand Lake, Halifax county; Kejimku-jik Ponds, Grafton lake, Queens county; Lindloff hatchery, Lindloff lake, Richmond county; Margaree hatchery, N.E. Margaree, Inverness county; Middleton hatchery, Middleton, Annapolis county; Nictaux Falls pond, Nictaux river, Apnapolis county; Yarmouth hatchery, South Ohio, Yarmouth county.
2.	100 per cent.
3.	Antigonish-Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, speckled trout; Bedford-Atlantic salmon, speckled trout; Cotoequid-Atlantic salmon, speckled trout; Grand Lake-Atlantic salmon, landlocked salmon; Kejimkujik-Atlantic salmon, speckled trout; Lindloff-Atlantic salmon, rainbow trout, speckled trout; Margaree-Atlantic salmon, speckled trout; Middleton-Atlantic salmon, salmon trout, speckled trout; Nictaux Falls-Atlantic salmon; Yarmouth-Atlantic salmon, Kamloops trout, rainbow trout, speckled trout.
4. (a) Species	1936	1937Atlantic salmon.. .	. 11,913,339	9,950,955Kamloops trout.. .	. 6,500	20Landlocked salmon.	. 19,335	10,447Rainbow trout.. .	. 26,160	240,112Salmon trout	. 71,472	227.000Speckled trout.. .	. 3,326,219	7,653,85915,363,025	18,082,393(ib) Atlantic salmon.	. 2,600	-Speckled trout.. .	. 	1,0005. Yes.	6. For 1936-37-	Maintenance and	operation. .$	81,862 71Construction.. ..	8,272 26



S 90,134 97 BUTTER EXPORTS

Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were exported from Canada in each of the years from 1933 to 1937, inclusive?
2.	To what countries?
3.	How many pounds of butter were exported from Canada in each of the last six months?
4.	To what countries?


William Daum Euler: 1 and 2.
Calendar Years
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937Countries	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.United Kingdom	, 3,718,500	400	7,135,800	4,433.000	3,567,900United States	, 2,300	6,600	65,900	18,400	14,700Nigeria	800Bermuda	110,700	2,100	33,800	79,000	23,500Straits Settlements	1,300	British Guiana	, 30,800	1,700	3,800	8,900	3,000British Honduras	, 20,000	20,800	20.000	18.000	14,100Barbadoes	6,900	1,100	2,900	2,900	2,300Jamaica	13,200	2,200	1,300	30,200	2,200Trinidad and Tobago	11,200	26,000	13,200	13,000	14,300Other Br. West Indies	. 95,000	49,700	81,900	114,700	87,000Hong Kong	, 67,200	47,600	11,200	Newfoundland	262,700	178,300	200,S00	246,900	247,300Belgian Congo	100	100	100	China	, 100	100	19,600	Colombia	100	1,200	Costa Rica	200	French Africa	100French Oceania	100St. Pierre and Miquelon.. ..	86,900	87,100	105,700	101,900	82,200Guatemala	300Haiti	3,000	1,000	2,000	Honduras	200Japan	400	700	1,300	Nicaragua	100Panama	3,200	800	Peru	2,300	600	12,300	15,100	30,500San Domingo	1,300	1,100	
Questions
1 and 2.-Con.		Calendar Years				
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937Countries	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.Alaska	100	2,200	400	13,300	5,700American Virgin Islands.. ..	2,900	600	1,000	7,500	100	3,000	300
Total		4,437,200	428,300	7,697,000	5,128,800		4,096,600
3. and 4.						
Countries	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.	Jan.	Feb.Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.	Lb.United Kingdom	1,678,100	1,845.000	44,800	58,600	United States	. .. 1,200	300	2,000	800	400	Africa, British South	....	200	....Nigeria	500	Bermuda	. .. 1.100	1,800	1,800	3,400	1,600	900British Honduras	. .. 900	800	2,300	200	1,100	700Barbadoes	. .. 200	....	1,200	200	Jamaica	. .. 300	100	800	600Trinidad and Tobago	5,100	1,800	2,300	1,000Other British West Indies.. .	. .. 3,000	6.100	11.000	5,000	6,300	5,700Newfoundland	. .. 26,000	19,300	37,600	15.400	10,700	14,400French Africa	... 100	St. Pierre and Miquelon.. ..	. .. 14,500	11,800	9,900	5,700	2,100	1,700Guatemala	300	Honduras	200	Nicaragua	100	Peru	. .. 4.600	1,300	2,600	2,300	1,900Alaska	... 100	2,100	1,600	900	American Virgin Islands.. ..	500	200Puerto Rico	300	600	Total	. .. 52,000	1,724,600	1,918,100	82,200	84,000	27,100



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What amount of money has been expended on air-landing fields in Canada?
2.	What are the names of the fields, where are they located, and what amounts were expended in each case?
3.	What proportions were expended by the municipalities and the dominion in each case?
4.	Have any negotiations been carried on in connection with the city of Halifax and the government of Canada or any branch of the government relating to the use of the Halifax airport as a landing field?
5.	What amount has been expended in connection with the airport at Halifax?
6.	What amount, if any, has been expended by the Dominion of Canada on this airport?
7.	If no amount has been expended, what proportion or amount is the dominion prepared to expend on this airport?
8.	Who corresponded with the government, with date of last communication, in connection with this airport?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. PERLEY (for Mr. Brooks):: For a copy of all payrolls in connection with repairs to Morden wharf-so called-Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the years 1936 and 1937.



CHIBOUGAMAU MINING ROAD

Sir EUGENE FISET (for Mr. Sylvestre):: For a copy of all letters, reports, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Mines and Resources or any officer thereof and the Department of Mines in Quebec or any officer thereof relating to an agreement for the construction of the mining road at Chibougamau during the summer of 1937.



CANADIAN MERCHANT MARINE-SALES OF SHIPS

Richard Bedford Bennett: For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams, reports, and other documents, relating to the sale of any ships of the Canadian merchant marine since the date of the present government assuming office.
Canada Grain Act



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence-for the Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members of the House of Commons and to make provision for the printing and publication of the Dominion Elections Act and instructions issued thereunder, the printing of voters' lists and other election documents, including forms and ballot papers, and to provide for the salaries or other remuneration of certain officers and employees.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, commends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay to the National Battlefields Commission the sum of $75,000 a year for a period not exceeding ten years from the first day of April, 1938, to be expended by the commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 29, to amend the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act, 1937.

He said:	The amendment by the senate
was to strike out the word "mail" which was introduced by amendment in this house when the bill was being considered in committee. A subsequent study of the bill has indicated that the word "mail" was not appropriate in section 15 where we placed it. Section 15 deals with the agreement between the Department of Transport and the air line company affecting the movement of goods and passengers, while section 16, which is not included in Bill No. 29, deals with the agreement for the carriage of mail as between the air lines company and the Postmaster General.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 27, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
On section 4-Commencement of act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What do the words
"without amendment" mean, as they appear on the order paper?


William Daum Euler: The standing committee
considered the bill and agreed to report it without amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the grain act is to
be amended, why should we provide that this act shall come into force on the first day of August? If we are going to draw up a new act this session, why should this be a separate act coming into force on that date?


William Daum Euler: I suppose because by the
first day of August the crop will be harvested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But presumably the new act will have this in it.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but this amendment
is passed now in order to give such information as might be possible to the farmers who are going to plant seed. They can adapt themselves to the new conditions laid down in this bill.


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

Soldier Settlement Act


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 11, consideration in committee of Bill No. 33, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act-Mr. Crerar-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.	,
On section 2-Time extended for credit on payments of arrears.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: When the bill was before the committee on the last occasion, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) moved in amendment:
That after the word "arrears" in line one, page two, there be inserted the words "or of any instalment" and that the figures "1938" in line two, page two, be struck out and the figures "1941" substituted therefor.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, when on the last occasion the bill was before the committee and the hon, member for Comox-Alberni moved his amendment, there was a doubt in my mind as to whether his amendment was in order. Since then I have had an opportunity of looking further into the matter, and as a result my submission is that his amendment enlarges the purpose as exposed or set out in the resolution preceding the bill, and for that reason, is not in order and should be dropped.


Mr. NEILL:: Although I have not the book in my hand, I have the observations in May clearly in my mind. When the bill was first introduced I was proposing to move that it was out of order on the ground that it did not comply with the resolution which had passed the house, and, further, that it did not comply with the terms set forth in that resolution. Upon looking into the matter I realized that the argument following the principle that the greater contains the lesser would be used against me. The argument would then have been that the bill was out of order because it did not spend as much money as the resolution provided for, and as the greater contained the lesser the resolution did take care of any lesser expenditure.
The very opposite is the argument I now propose to use and, I believe, legitimately. So long as the amendment I proposed does not exceed the terms of the original resolution, which contained consent of the crown to the expenditure of public money, my amendment is in order. And as the bill was so very much less, in its proposed expenditures, than the original resolution, there is an ample margin-far greater than that I now propose-to allow the expenditure still to come within the terms of the original resolution.
The principle is set forth at page 510 of May's Parliamentary Practice, Thirteenth edition, in these words:
. . . the constitutional principle which vests in the crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure, forbids an increase by the commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the crown for the service of the state.
That is all right, so far. Then:
This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms,-
And that is the way the resolution here in question wras framed.
-places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
That is exactly the case here. The resolution was framed in general terms, and placed no limitation upon the amount of expenditure authorized.
As I stated previously, the amendment I proposed will not, by a long way, come within the measure of the total expenditure authorized by the resolution, and therefore it is in order. My own argument might be considered poor and insufficient; but here we find May setting forth the principle that the statement that the crown must sanction the payment of public money is disregarded when the recommendation of the crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure. May then goes on to amplify the point.
I submit that the proposed expenditure in my amendment does not exceed the terms set forth in the original resolution, and that it is in order. May, which is founded on British procedure, bears me out, as the minister will see.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not propose to. argue the point at length, but I believe it must be clear to the committee that the amendment does enlarge the powers conferred by the resolution and, consequently, I submit it is out of order. When we were discussing the resolution on a former occasion the hon. member for Comox-Alberni argued that it covered his amendment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Would the minister read the resolution? That might help to solve the point of order.
Soldier Settlement Act


Alan Webster Neill: While the minister is looking up the resolution, perhaps I might be permitted to read further from May.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to finish. The resolution is in these words:
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act for the purpose of reducing from seven per centum to five per centum the interest rate charged on certain repayments to the board of taxes and insurance premiums paid by the board in respect to soldier settlement lands in case of default on the part of the settler, and to provide further-
And this is the important point-
-that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made, be further extended to the 31st day of March, 1941.
Quite clearly, and certainly in the opinion of the legal advisers who drafted the resolution, that limited the extension of the bonus to those who were in arrears on March 31 of this year.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member says no, but I shall have to accept the advice given by the law officers of parliament. I repeat that the application of the bonus privilege is limited under the bill to those who have not been able to take advantage of it up to March 31 of this year.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but not under the resolution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is in the resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is in the resolution, and the bill corresponds with the resolution in that respect. In his amendment the hon. member seeks to enlarge the scope, and to make the bonus privilege apply to an additional group. That is where I submit the amendment is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: Speaking on the last day the bill was before the house, the minister admitted the resolution was poorly drawn, and did not express his intention.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.	.


Alan Webster Neill: The resolution clearly states -he who runs may read-that it applies to every one of the settlers. I contended that at the time and it has not been combated successfully. Let me read from May to make it clear:
As the resolution sanctions, without any specific limitation, the application of money to be provided by parliament to certain purposes, when the clauses in a bill founded upon
IMr. Pelletier.]
such a resolution are before the committee, the freedom of action sanctioned by that resolution can be exercised. The committee is not bound by the terms of the provisions which the ministers of the crown have inserted in the bill; and any member may propose to increase the grants specified in these clauses or to extend the application of the provisions of the bill, whatever may be the cost resulting therefrom, so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
There is the item, and it could not be more clearly put if this particular case had been before May when he wrote that. There is no question that the scope of the resolution is not exceeded and, therefore, my amendment is in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that I think this amendment is in order. I wonder if the minister has looked at the terms of the resolution, which are:
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act for the purpose of reducing from seven per centum to five per centum the interest rate charged on certain repayments to the board of taxes and insurance premiums paid by the board in respect to soldier settlement lands in case of default on the part of the settler, and to provide further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made, be further extended to the 31st day of March, 1941.
The motion is to substitute "1941" for "1938."


Charles Avery Dunning: No; "at present subject to."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, because the law is always speaking. If you look at the section as it reads and substitute "1941" for "1938," that is all you need to do. The section reads:
Any settler or person indebted in respect of any contract or agreement made prior to the first day of January, 1933, under the provisions of this act, who after the thirty-first day of March, 1933, and up to and including the thirty-first day of March, 1938-
It would now be 1941.
-makes payment in respect of any arrears or of any instalment due and payable within the said period shall, subject to the provisions of this section, receive credit toward payment of arrears or on the balance of such instalment or on any other such instalment for a further sum equal to the payment made.
The amendment is after the word "arrears" in line one, page two, there be inserted the words "or of any instalment", and that the figures "1938" in line two, page two, be struck out and the figures "1941" substituted therefor. The trouble is that it is open to two constructions. We are submitting "1941" for "1938", and this would apply to anything that comes due in the interval.

Soldier Settlement Act


Charles Avery Dunning: No; "at present subject to."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is ambiguous.


Charles Avery Dunning: That might be admitted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question is as to the right of a private member to move an amendment involving the expenditure of public money. That right is subject to only one limitation, that the amendment must not be in terms in excess of the amount stated in the resolution. An amendment usually states, "not exceeding so many dollars." It is some time since I looked up the authorities, but I am quite clear as to that. No private member has a right to move a motion which would be a charge upon the public revenue, but here it is quite clear that the amendment proposed is in the terms of the resolution. If one reads the resolution in the terms of the section to which it refers, namely, section 73, it seems to me to be quite clear that all that is necessary to be done is to change "1938" to "1941."


Charles Avery Dunning: The other words are important to the hon. member for Comox-Albemi.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If you take the statute as it is and just amend it by substituting "1941" for "1938", you meet the situation. That is, in connection with anything that falls due between now and 1941 there would be a credit of two dollars given for every payment of a dollar made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is precisely the thing it does not provide for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the resolution provides for.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section reads:
Any settler or person indebted in respect of any contract or agreement made prior to the first day of January, 1933, under the provisions of this act, who after the thirty-first day of March, 1933, and up to and including the thirty-first day of March, 1938-
It would now be "1941."
-makes payment in respect of any arrears or of any instalment due and payable within the said period shall, subject to the provisions of this section, receive credit toward payment of arrears or on the balance of such instalment or on any other such instalment for a further sum equal to the payment made.
Look at the resolution, which reads in part: -and to provide further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges-*
That means everything.
-may be made, be further extended to the 31st day of March. 1941.
I do not want to make it more complex than necessary, because after all it is a simple question. The law is always speaking, and you are taking a section of the statute and striking out the figures "1938" and substituting the figures "1941" in their place. That is what the resolution says.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may be wrong but-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say you are wrong at all; I am simply saying it is open to this construction. You are providing further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges-that would be all ol them, everything-


Charles Avery Dunning: Everything at present
subject to bonus privileges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You substitute "1941" for "1938," and everything is subject to a dollar for dollar credit.


Alan Webster Neill: There cannot be any arrears until April 1, 1938.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section of the statute will be found on the opposite page of the bill. We are substituting "1941" for "1938," and if we do that the effect is to make it apply to everything.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 2-Time extended for credit on payments of arrears.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I rise with great deference to differ from the right hon. leader of the opposition. The position is this:	If no
amendment were brought in, the existing legislation would lapse on the 31st of this month and no bonus would be applicable after that date. I think that is clear. What the resolution proposed to do, and what it did, was to extend the bonus privilege on arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privilege ; that means to those who have not been able in the past five years, for one reason or another, to take advantage of this privilege. The amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi proposes that the privilege should be extended not only to those who have not been able to take advantage of it until the 31st of the month, but also to all
Soldier Settlement Act

those who have-been able to take advantage of it, and therefore I submit that unquestionably it enlarges the power conferred by the resolution and for that reason is out of order. I have to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to give your ruling on the amendment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: There is one point
which the minister has failed to consider. The resolution says, "And to provide further that the period during which payments on arrears or instalments," and so on. There are the words, "or instalments." The words used by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in his amendment are: "Any arrears or on any instalments." The words "or on any instalments" have been left out of the bill, and I submit that the bill is therefore not in accordance with the resolution. It is quite easy to see that the resolution refers to "arrears or instalments."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let my hon. friend read
the words immediately following, "at present subject to bonus privilege." They- are the governing words.


René-Antoine Pelletier: But these privileges are subject to the law expiring on the 31st of March, and that is simply a qualifying phrase. The purpose is to extend the time until 1941. The minister cannot deny that the word "instalments" appears in the. resolution, and certainly it does not appear in the bill. The instalment becomes due on the 31st March, 1938. After that it would become arrears if not paid, but the bill makes no provision for that. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment is entirely in order because the words appearing in the resolution do not appear in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does the word
"instalments" mean? It means something or nothing.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister please
dwell on that point about "instalments" appearing in the resolution and not in the bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the crux of this matter. The resolution says: We propose to leave things as they were; only we are going to change 1938 to 1941. It covers both cases. It was intended to cover instalments, but now instalments are left out. In a court of law- I do not want to say that a man should express too strong an opinion about anything -it would mean this, that if we substitute 1941 for 1938 the statute stands just as it was. Now we have taken out of the bill the word "instalments" although it occurs in the resolution, and it is to remedy that, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni makes his amendment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: How can the minister explain the word "instalments" being left out?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Because at the end of
March they would all be arrears, I assume. In any case the governing words are the arrears or instalments that are at present subject to bonus privilege. Now they are not subject to bonus privilege after the 31st of March because the legislation expires on the 31st of March.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are going to keep it from expiring by making it 1941. Then it will mean 1941.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We propose in the bill to make it apply only to the arrears and instalments that were due on the 31st of March, and not to instalments that come due after the 31st of March.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Then it is unfortunate that the minister did not word his resolution to convey that meaning, and if now an amendment is brought in which is strictly in line with the bill, I do not see how it can be ruled out of order.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So fax as the observation of the hon. member for Peace River is concerned, that point was explained at least three times when the legislation was before us on a previous occasion. It is possible that the resolution might have been more clearly drafted; but I repeat that in the opinion of the law officers of parliament whose business it is to prepare this legislation, the resolution was ample for the purpose with which the bill was intended to deal.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not want to influence your decision, Mr. Chairman, but I would call your attention to the fact that the only member advocating this thing on the government side is the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who is not a lawyer. There is a galaxy of lawyers behind him, and not one of them wishes to risk his legal reputation ;by supporting the minister; and not one of them has risen in his place to challenge the arguments put forward from this side. The minister has been left holding the bag.


John Frederick Johnston: If no other hon. member desires to speak to the point of order, I will give my ruling. We are considering Bill No. 33, section 2. An amendment has been moved to that section of the bill, not to the resolution, which was adopted by the house some days ago. The amendment proposes that after the word " arrears" on page two, line one, there be inserted the

Soldier Settlement Act
words "o.r of any instalments", and that the figures "1938" in line two, page two, be struck out and the figures "1941" be substituted therefor.
In my opinion the amendment exceeds the power conferred by the governor general's recommendation. The resolution passed in the house prior to the introduction of the bill proposed to extend to March 31, 1941, the period during which payment shall be made of arrears or instalments due and payable between March 31, 1933 and March 31, 1938. The amendment proposes to add three years beyond 1938 to the period during which these arrears and instalments have become payable. The amendment, therefore, imposes a new charge upon the treasury.
When the resolution is framed in general terms there is no limitation on the amount authorized by the crown's recommendation; but in this case the resolution limits the period during which arrears and instalments have become payable, namely, from April, 1933, to April, 1938. This limitation cannot be extended by this committee. The hon. member who moved the amendment quoted from May. If he will turn to May's Parliamentary Practice, page 510, he will find that the application of the provisions of a bill may be extended-

so long as the power conferred by the royal recommendation is not exceeded.
The amendment proposes to exceed this power, and, if it should carry, the liability of the government would be increased, which would mean a charge upon the people. For these reasons the amendment is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: I have the very highest
respect, Mr. Chairman, for your office and for yourself, and while I have no regrets so far as I am personally concerned, I do regret to see that all the authorities have been ignored. Bourinot, May, and even the leader of the opposition have turned your decision down. Owing to my respect for yourself and your office I shall not delay the committee by challenging your decision, but I am sorry to say that truth compels me to state that I think you are wrong. That point being disposed of, I shall now get back to the original principle of the bill with regard to which I wish to present some argument that may yet, I fondly hope, influence the minister to take a different attitude.
I wish to quote from a resolution passed by the Soldier Settlers' Union. There is a provincial executive in Saskatchewan, one in Alberta and a headquarters executive, and
this organization passed the following resolution dated March 6, 1938. It is not addressed to anyone in particular. It reads:
Dear Sir:
I have been instructed to protest vigorously by the executive of the Soldier Settlers' Union on behalf of its more than 2,000 members, the bill placed before the House of Commons by the Hon. T. A. Crerar to continue the dollar for dollar legislation based on the recommendations of the Legion dominion convention held recently at Fort William.
This convention was certainly not representative of the soldier settlers of the western provinces. The examination of the many resolutions passed by locals of the Legion in the west will prove that no consideration could have been given to the voice of the soldier settler of the west.
Further evidence of this is provided by the fact that at the 1936 dominion convention of the Legion held at Vancouver at which soldier settlers were able to send representation, the convention unanimously passed a far different resolution calling for:-Revaluation at present day values and the cancellation of interest charges retroactive to the commencement of the loan.
We contend that this complete about face was due to the fact that soldier settlers were able to be represented at the western convention but because of financial difficulties were unable to be represented at the recent convention of the Legion held in eastern Canada.
Furthermore, why should the recommendations of the Soldier Settlers' Union which was recognized as an organization officially by the government by our inclusion in the conference of 1933, be excluded and the recommendations of a convention which was not by any means representative of the majority of settlers be accepted and acted upon in such feverish haste. This action in the face of the minister's statement to our organization contained in his letter dated February 25, 1937, promising full consideration to the representations of soldier organizations is very difficult to understand.
We strongly urge that a conference be arranged to bring about a permanent solution to the settlement problem or that a referendum be taken among the settlers ami the public to decide this question.
That was an unsolieited letter which came to me. I have also a statement, unsolicited- I was in ignorance of it-drawn up by a man calling himself a zone representative, Mr. A. S. Cobum of Nanaimo, a man of standing and reputation in his town. He lives about one hundred miles from where the settlers I represent live-I am not referring to the settlers to whom the resolution I have just quoted refers. This gentleman went there of his own accord last November and on his return submitted a report to the soldiers' legion. I have a letter from a Mr. Payne acknowled-, ging receipt of it; therefore I assume he handed it to the head of the legion, and it
Soldier Settlement Act

did or should have formed a part of the representations he made to the minister. And we find the minister stating that he had a lengthy conversation with the president, satisfying himself that his present legislation was in accordance with the wishes of the convention. Let me read what this zone official says: It is rather a long communication; but it is very important to the people I represent, and if it is the last thing I do in this parliament I shall put it on the record:
On the 3rd November, I visited the Comox valley to investigate the various reports on the plight and hardships of the soldier settlers. It is my intent to present facts pertaining to these men and some of the reasons why their payments of principal, interest and taxes could not be met.
For some time past their position has been steadily growing worse, and the time has now arrived when some immediate and remedial action must be taken. The statements and figures following cannot be challenged. During the period 1919-1921, when returned men settled in this area, a number of them were advised to enter the poultry business. It may have been considered good advice, but events have proved otherwise.
In 1919, the winter price of eggs was over $1 per dozen, and in March, 1920, the low price was 50 cents per dozen. In May, 1932, the low price was 6 cents per dozen, and the average price for the spring and summer months was 7 cents. On November 28 of that year the high price was 22 cents and by November 5, it had dropped to 15 cents per dozen. Men carrying flocks from 1,500 to 2,000 birds, were either forced out of business or were obliged to reduce their flocks to 150 or 200 birds. Many feed bills have been owing from that time until the present. The names of these men can be supplied at any time.
I can personally endorse that because I was in the feed business in those years, and in the place where I lived I had to write off many a poultry bill.
The decline in egg prices was fairly steady from 1919 to 1932, but the cost of production was seldom under 18 cents per dozen, and for a considerable period well in excess of that figure.
During 1919-20 others were advised to enter the dairy business. At that time cows cost around $175 to $200 each. A condensery was started at Courtenay and it was pointed out that European countries would purchase an unlimited supply of this product. It was found, however, that condensed milk was produced to such an extent in foreign countries that there was a considerable surplus, with the result that the condensery closed down in 1920, and in 1921 the price of cows dropped to $35 and $40, thereby entailing a serious loss to those entering this business. Since 1930 a considerable number of sales have taken place in the Comox valley and a large number of dairy cows have sold as low as $10 and $15 each. Some have sold this fall as low as $15.
[Mr. Neill.j
In 1920 in the month of February the condensery paid 85 cents per pound for butter fat, and the lowest price for that year was 60 cents per pound. In 1932 the highest price was 28 cents and the lowest was 17 cents per pound. For 1937 it has ranged from 28 to 32 cents. Arguments have been put forward that the cost of production is lower. It may be quoted here that the price of bran in February, 1920, was $2.35 per hundred pounds, and in April, 1937, it was $2.25, a difference of only 10 cents, but a difference in butter fat of 53 cents per pound.
In 1920 pork was 23 cents per pound, live weight. In 1933 it dropped to 4 cents per pound. Six weeks old pigs were $10 each in December, 1920. In November 8, 1933, they were purchased for $2 each. In February, 1920, veal was worth 23 cents per pound, and in 1933 the best price obtainable was 9 cents.
I questioned one settler regarding the growing of potatoes. He stated that in the spring of 1920 he had purchased seed from a neighbour, paying for 900 pounds at the rate of $180 per ton. In 1920 he grew thirty-five acres at a cost of $3,500. A portion of the crop was sold at from $10 to $14 per ton below the cost of production, and over a hundred tons were dumped as it was impossible to market them at any price. The loss sustained was in the neighbourhood of $2,500.
Market gardening has been followed by some of the settlers, but the cost of production is in excess of the selling price, mainly owing to oriental competition and the scarcity of reliable help.
Fruit growing has not been carried on, mainly owing to soil and climatic conditions, and the lack of satisfactory markets, which are very limited.
The prices quoted above have been taken from settlers' accounts, and are not quoted from memory. They can be verified.
Summing up the situation in this district, it would appear that a number of problems face these men. It must be remembered that at the time of purchase, from the figures quoted they had reason to believe they had a fair chance to make payments, and undoubtedly would have done so but that conditions (which it must be admitted were world wide) were against them. Prices dropped in the ease of many farm products to one-fifth of the prices obtainable at the time of purchase.
Prices of land in 1919 and 1920 were considerably in excess of its productive value. It is conceded that certain reductions have been made by the government, but this is not enough. Some of the loans, through no fault of the settlers, are now up to where they were before the thirty per cent reduction was made. This is owing to the continual piling up of interest. The value of farm land is extremely low at the present time. Some of the best land in the Comox valley, namely, part of the old Lewis estate, sold recently for $50 per acre. This is rich cleared land, and preferably to any land in the valley. Compare this with land purchased for the settlers at $100 to $150 per acre. It might be mentioned here also that a large percentage of this land had been cropped out before the men bought it.
Local conditions militate against these men. The Comox valley is the centre of an extensive logging industry, and the minimum wage in

Soldier Settlement Act
these camps is $4.20 per day. All fit young men are working in the bush, and it is natural that they prefer that to working (at wages far below those quoted) on the farm.
Considerable difficulty has been experienced in marketing potatoes in Victoria. In spite of the fact that the quality of potatoes grown in the valley is equal to that of any part of the province, the wholesalers are not giving Comox an even break. This is probably due to the request made at the time of the Stevens price spreads commission to have these firms investigated. As an instance of this attitude, recently the agent of the control board ordered two cars from the valley at a price of $24 per ton f.o.b. Victoria. The local agent of the board canvassed the growers and arranged for the quantity ordered. One car was loaded and word was received from the agent at Victoria cancelling the other car and stating that the price of the first car had dropped to $21 . . . unfair treatment has been handed out to these men for a number of years and many instances cqn be quoted.
In the early days of settlement large quantities of pork were purchased by the orientals working in the Cumberland mines. Since that time the company has eliminated Chinamen a^id for some time it has been extremely hard to market this product.
Having set forth in the foregoing paragraphs some of the reasons for losses entailed and non-payment of the amounts due, and after having given very careful consideration to this matter, I feel that if these men are to stay on the land some action must be taken by the government immediately. It must be remembered that these men who fought for Canada in the dark days of 1914-18 are aging fast, trying to make a home, which they feel will never belong to them and which, when they pass on, their widow and childrent must evacuate to make room for aliens, who should certainly not be given preference to the dependents of returned men.
The dollar for dollar arrangement has not proved of much benefit to the original settler, as he has not had the money to take advantage with. It has benefited those in receipt of pensions, high wages, or private means. The men who are honestly trying to make a living from the land have been unable to take advantage of it. If the government had offered $5 instead of $1 it is doubtful if a cent more would have been paid.
The board has advised a number of these men to take their cases before the farmers' creditors arrangement board. It does not seem right that they should be treated as bankrupts. The board argues this is not the case, but the settlers do not agree with this argument. Their credit is gone when this action is taken.
It would appear to me that all interest must be cancelled on loans, and this should be retroactive to the date of the thirty per cent reduction. This is not asking the government to create a precedent, as they loaned the Canadian Pacific Railway many millions of dollars, free of interest. Surely the returned men are entitled to equal consideration.
Some of the settlers would like to dispose of a portion of their holdings, and I suggest the government take over such portions at a valuation agreeable to the settler, or arrived a>t by arbitration. This would materially reduce many of the loans.
It is important that action must be taken immediately. Many of these men have sacrificed themselves and their families enough. They have gone short of food and clothes trying to carry on. Their morale is low, and the worry is becoming too much for them.
It is distinctly understood that any remedial legislation should apply only to original settlers.
Now the man who makes that report is this Mr. A. S. Coburn, who does not live in the district, who has no personal or business interest there; his business is not one which would lead him to deal with these settlers in any way; he is an utterly unbiased man coming into the district because he felt it his duty as the zone representative of the Canadian legion. This is not my language, but his, although I can endorse every word from personal experience and knowledge. That is his plea, in order to allow me to ask that this amelioration which the minister proposes should be widened to the extent at least that we thought was intended in the resolution. I shall not go into that again; we shall accept the situation as the minister states it. But on the bare merits of the thing, can he not see his way to extend it as I indicated in the amendment which was turned down? The cost would not be a great deal, because, as the leader of the opposition pointed out the other day, you would probably get more money in if you grant this; for otherwise the men will be in despair; they will say, "Take your land; I cannot make anything of it; I would rather go out, and we might as well go now as five years hence." But if you made this reduction it would encourage them to go on, and would be a very different matter.
There was placed in our hands the other day the report of the soldier settlement board. I take some facts out of it. Only 7-1 per cent of the instalments due or in arrears on October 1 last in British Columbia were paid. At that rate, how many years will it take the settlers to catch up on the arrears, plus the amount falling due each year for instalments and compound interest? Take the total collections for the year, including the British families scheme; the cost of collection works out at fifty per cent of the total collected. In other words, the government is going to collect this money, if they can get it, and it is going to cost them fifty cents on the dollar to collect it. Why not let the settlers keep it and stay on the land? I think that is a very strong point. You are not going to get this money anyway; so why not make a gesture and let the settlers stay on the land? If you throw them off, you will resell the land at an enormous reduction and somebody else, possibly an alien, will reap the benefit.
Soldier Settlement Act

I recall a farm quite close to where I live. I have worked on it, and am quite familiar with it. Some years ago the board turned out the settler and offered the farm for sale. I suggested that they sell it to a man whom I would produce, for SI,200 or $1,300, but they said no; they wanted $3,000. I said, "Yes, possibly you will sell it for that, but you will not get the $3,000. You will only have the land back again in a year or two." They said they were going to sell it for $3,000, but 1 said, "If you will sell it for $1,300 you will get that amount in cash, and that will end it." What happened? They did get a man to buy it for $3,000 on time. He went broke, and they took the land away from him. They sold it to another man for something like $2,000, but he went broke and they took it back again. Now they are hawking it around at the price I suggested six or eight years ago. What has that system of management profited them? I am not pleading altogether for the settlers, though their situation is bad enough; I am speaking in the interests of economy and getting rid of this system of paying out fifty cents in expenses to get a dollar. We should make some settlement. It is not as though this were confined to the government alone; I am told that a large number of mortgage companies in the west are making the same offer to people indebted to them. They know it is better to get something than to get nothing, and that is the point I want to impress upon the minister.
I shall not delay the committee longer. I have put the case to the best of my poor ability, and I only wish I were more eloquent. If I could only get the minister out there so that he could see these things for himself, I am convinced that he would make a change in this legislation.


Mr. REID:: I rise to protest once more against these amendments passing, and I must say that I am disappointed at the lack of any proper excuse given by the government for the introduction of this measure I listened carefully to the remarks of the minister both at the time he introduced the bill and during this debate, and one statement which he made stands out in my memory. I am going to endeavour to correct it as far as British Columbia is concerned. I refer to his statement with regard to agricultural prices.
It would appear that there are two motives for these amendments. One must be an endeavour to have those pay up who so far have not done so. The second probably is to save the government money. With regard

to the first motive, when I look at the statement given me by the officials of the department I am at a loss to understand just how the settlers who have not paid possibly can make a rush now to make payment, in view of the fact that this legislation has been in existence for some three years, and many of them have been unable to make any payments at all. It is not that they are unwilling to make their payments. They would be only too willing to do so if they had the funds; but, as I pointed out, with eggs at seventeen cents a dozen, with potatoes they cannot sell, with hay they gave away and with the clearing of land as difficult as it is in the Fraser valley, it is impossible for these soldier settlers to make any payments whatever.
If the minister thinks that by this amendment he is going to save money, I should like to point out to him that out of a total of 1,668 settlers who should have made payments last year, only some 475 paid in full. There are thirteen districts in British Columbia, each with a supervisor. It will cost at least $50,000 to pay those supervisors, in addition to the cost of keeping up that office in which, as can be readily seen if anyone cares to visit it, many people are given employment. But if they collected only S100,294 in all last year, when the bonus for bonus system was in effect, with 475 settlers making full payment and 529 making partial payments, it would seem to me that under this plan the government are going to lose money. They are going to keep thirteen supervisors at work, together with the head office staff, with no returns whatever. So this cannot be defended on the score that they are going to save money. If the idea is to induce those who have not paid during the last few years to pay up, I say it will not make them do any such thing, because under the extremely difficult economic conditions prevailing in British Columbia they simply cannot do so.
I mentioned that before, but I took note that the minister made no reply. When he spoke of the increased agricultural prices he may have been referring to the prairie provinces, probably to Saskatchewan, but I am speaking particularly of the lower Fraser valley. I say to him that if he puts through this amendment there will be very little money taken in; yet it will cost almost $100,000 to maintain the office and the thirteen supervisors in British Columbia. I say it is impossible for the settlers to pay. Many of them, if not all, are excellent settlers, but they have not had a chance to make any payments. They have this grievance. While it is true that many reductions have been made by way of bonus, revaluation of land

Soldier Settlement Act
and so on, the fact still remains that to-day there are on the land civilian settlers who obtained that land under the soldier settlement board for a quarter of the valuation which is assessed against the soldier settlers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the present value?


Thomas Reid: Yes, the present value; not the previous value. I have a case in point, concerning two pieces of property near my own home. The soldier settler there is paying at the rate of S50 an acre to-day, after the revaluation and all the other reductions. Close to him there was another soldier settler who sold out some three years ago. That land was sold for $10 an acre, so that a civilian paying $10 an acre is living alongside an original soldier settler who is assessed $50 an acre. That soldier settler has been unable to take advantage of this plan, and in that he is only one of many hundreds throughout the Eraser valley.
A voice says, " Why didn't he come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?" That has been exploded time and again in this house. Only certain farmers, not all, can come under that act. But why should one department of government say, " Go to another department and get redress; we are not going to do anything for you." I say the principle is not sound, and it should not be tolerated. When the minister rises, I want him to tell us just what that office in British Columbia will cost to maintain. I have given the total collections of last year, and without knowing the exact figures I maintain that it will cost close to $100,000 to maintain the thirteen supervisors plus the staff in that office. If this amendment goes through, as I see the minister intends it to, it will mean that very little if any money will be collected. Let me repeat, that out of 1,668 settlers under the board only 475 paid up in full. I maintain that those figures speak for themselves and show a serious condition prevailing in the Fraser valley among the soldier settlers.
I make one last urgent plea to the minister to reconsider this question very carefully and seriously before these amendments are passed. They may be all right for Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba, but for British Columbia the result is going to be tragic indeed.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I wish to associate myself as strongly as I can with what has been said by the two hon. members who have preceded me. I believe there is one further point I might contribute to this debate; that is the question of discrimination. The minister must realize that when this act was passed 51952-98
conditions were very bad, and one of the reasons it was passed was to help soldier settlers at that time. Fortunately, in some parts of the country conditions have become a little bit better. The price of wheat has increased, and there are now some soldier settlers who could avail themselves of the opportunity offered under this legislation, if it were allowed to be extended until 1941, to operate in exactly the same way as it has been operating up to the present time.
Furthermore, I say discrimination has been shown because those who might have been able to avail themselves of this legislation in the past might have been living in the dried-out areas. Possibly they have not had any crops. If conditions should change, as the fond hope of the Minister of Agriculture as . expressed from time to time would lead us to believe, these people would be in a position to avail themselves of this legislation. Furthermore, it would be to the advantage of all concerned in Canada if the government were to set an example by effecting rearrangements along this line.
May I point out to the minister that a problem very similar to this one, respecting school lands, existed in certain provinces. School lands had been sold at a time when land was very high, and it was found during the years of the depression that due to the drop in the prices of farm products it was impossible for the purchaser to meet the payments due upon those lands. The matter was taken up by the various provincial governments. I know in one particular case a board was appointed to investigate the question, and as a result drastic reductions were made.
I believe the example the government is setting in this legislation is not a good one, and I suggest that the minister consider seriously before he presses passage of the bill. So far as I am concerned, I can only oppose it. I believe the minister has heard enough argument, not to make him change his mind but possibly to provide him with more information than he had when the legislation was first introduced. I believe he might very well reconsider the passage of the bill.


Mr. FAIR:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has read a letter from the Soldiers Settlers' Union with headquarters at Lloyd-minster. I have a copy of that letter and, living within thirty miles of that particular headquarters I feel I should be remiss in my duty were I not to uphold the request contained therein. I have known the conditions there for a number of years. Speaking some time ago to the committee, I gave

Soldier Settlement Act

figures showing that during the years 1931 to 1937 inclusive, soldier settlers reduced their indebtedness to the extent of $40 or at the rate of $6 a year.
May I point out that those settlers were not able to provide a living for their families such as is enjoyed by hon. members now sitting in this committee. If hon. members who have had the opportunity to stay at the large hotels at Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver believe that the soldier settlers enjoy the kind of living obtained at those hotels, I would ask them to go out among the farmer settlers, have a meal there and sleep a night or two in their homes. After doing that, those members might have a little more information about the conditions under which the settlers are living.
So far as saving money is concerned, I do not think the minister and the government have been fair to the settlers. The figures show that every year this oppression has continued; that the settlers are suffering more and more, and that the country is losing more and more money. I believe the government is in possession of all the facts and figures, and further debate would be a waste of time. I suggest, however, that the government would be well advised to take drastic steps to give the soldier settlers a chance to get possession of their homes, and that no more time should be wasted.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Mr. Chairman, I have
received numerous letters and communications from farmers in my district, with reference to this bill, requesting me to use my influence- if I have any-with the government to have the bonus privilege extended another three years, or until 1941. I have on my file one letter from a farmer who wrote expressing his appreciation of the bonus period having been extended. Apparently he took it for granted, from the Hansard report, that the bonus privilege was to be extended to 1941. A number of members have taken that meaning from the resolution, and a number of farmers throughout Canada took the same meaning from it. I have only one letter expressing appreciation of the action being taken by the government, but have numerous letters asking that we take that attitude. I do not know what the minister intends to do, but I should like to add my voice to those of the hon. members for New Westminster, Comox-Alberni and other constituencies who have spoken in favour of the amendment to the bill, and have asked that it be extended to everybody until 1941, the same as it has been since 1933.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to trespass upon the time of the committee, having urged as strongly as I can the desirability of continuing the present scheme for another two or three years. I indicated to the minister the reasons which had induced my government to take the position it did take. A number of those concerned were brought to Ottawa and conferences were held. As a result of careful consideration it was concluded that this method would be the best one to clear up the situation.
From time to time we have written off large sums of money. The mere writing of that off means that we have lost that much money without doing the settler any very great good, except to lessen the amount which he has to pay. And it is agreed that he cannot possibly be in a position, at any time within the vision of the ordinary mortal, to pay off the obligations as originally created. That being so, there were two methods only by which the matter could be dealt with: One was writing off the obligations, which we did, and the other was to create some condition which would be an incentive to the settler to want to get title to his property. And it was believed-I am bound to say the result justified the belief-that if we gave him credit for two dollars for every one dollar he paid he would be most anxious to pay up the balance due and secure title to his property.
We now have evidence from the hon. member for New Westminster that conditions have been so hard in that locality that payments have been very few. Then, we have heard evidence from the hon. member for Comox-Albemi as to what conditions have been out there. The hon. member for Kamloops has given his views, and hon. members from the prairies have spoken. Yesterday I received a telegram from central Alberta repeating the considered opinion of a large number of settlers that the effect of this inducement which is offered by statute to those who are on the lands, had been excellent, and hoping that the inducement would be continued.
I quite understand the position taken by the minister, but I cannot understand how he expects to get more money by pursuing the method suggested in the bill. If money is to be obtained, then in some way you will have to change the old saying: You cannot get blood from a stone. From no part of the house has a member risen and stated that there was ability to pay on the part of the settler; there is no suggestion anywhere that he has had the ability to pay but would

Soldier Settlement Act
not pay. There is no indication that in any manner whatsoever he has endeavoured to disregard his obligations. On the contrary, according to the evidence given by the minister a few evenings ago, four million dollars have come into the exchequer under the operations of this scheme. Putting it on the lowest possible level, that of the exchequer itself, I cannot think that we could receive as much money by any method different from that which we have adopted here, namely, to create such inducement on the part of the settler to want to pay that when he pays one dollar he gets credit for two. I do not suggest that that be continued forever, but we should try it for at least two or three more years.
Have conditions improved so greatly in this country? Why do I make that suggestion? We are just beginning to realize the true conditions. We are just beginning to realize that what we spoke of as a great movement forward was in fact no such thing. We are now beginning to feel the effects of the great recession that has taken place in the United States. According to the figures brought down the other day, our exports last month to the United States were not one-half of what they were a year ago. They are $17,000,000 as against $36,000,000. Under such conditions, is it fair to do what is proposed? Is it quite just? Is it quite in keeping with what we have done? Is it not an utter and entire disregard of the record of the past, of what we have done in writing down and providing inducements with regard to payments? How can people pay anything under the economic conditions that have been mentioned in the debate of to-day and a few evenings 'ago? These people are just keeping body and soul together.
I do not want to speak of my own personal experiences, but I have guaranteed the obligations of many of these men. I suppose there is no harm in my saying that the other day I sent a cheque for $4,000 to a bank in connection with a guarantee I had given for one of these soldier settlers. He was there with his little family and he could not get about very well as the children were quite young. What are we going to say in the face of this recession that is reflected so terribly in our exports? Are we going to say: Well, this is a good time to stop being friendly and kindly; the time, has now arrived when we want our dollar. I know the Minister of Mines and Resources is a kindly man, and I should like him to tell the committee what has induced the government to take this position. There has been no indication to this chamber
of what has happened. There is nothing a single hon. member can say in explanation of what has been done except that we want our money. It is a bad time to want it. I do not mind telling you that it is always a bad time to want money when you cannot get it. That is the position; we are not going to get it.
I do not want to prophesy, for the role of a prophet has never been one that conduces to longevity. If I remember rightly the teachings of holy writ, some prophets fell into rather evil days. I shall not endeavour to prophesy, but I venture to think that those hon. members who return next year and ask the minister how much money he has received under his new act will find themselves greatly disappointed. Why not let us be just, not generous? Why should we depart from tradition? I shall not put it as high as tradition; why should we depart from the past record, the record not of one government alone? Mark you, if this were political I would not be talking of it in this way; it is something more than that. Essentially it gets down to this:	Do we value keeping a man on the
land where he can try to work out a livelihood for himself and his wife and his children? Do we say that we do not? This bill says we are to say to him, "Pay or get out."
The hon. member for New Westminster says that it means the spending of thousands of dollars in British Columbia because we are going to maintain the machinery of large numbers of inspectors and others for the purpose of inspecting the inspectors and other work of that kind. I plead with the minister. I asked him to think it over the other evening, and that is all I could do. I am sure he has done that. Are we going to go back to our several peoples, get them together and say: "Well, boys the government has concluded that you are so well to do, so happy and contented, that you will want to pay up, plus interest at five per cent; they have changed the order of things and provided that this is to be dealt with in a new way, namely, one hundred cents on the dollar and credit for just one hundred cents when you pay it. Look at what we have done." I am to tell my friends that we have reduced the interest rate from seven to five per cent. I am to tell them that we have cancelled the arrangement whereby they received credit for two dollars for every one that was paid. I must tell them that we are now going to ask them to pay one hundred cents on their obligation.
It cannot be done and it will not be done. Why not let us take the matter courageously in hand and say that we shall continue with
Soldier Settlement Act

the old plan; that we shall give them another couple of years of it? If it works out, all right; if it does not work out, so much the worse, we shall have to do something more. That is all I suggest to the minister. I apologize for trespassing again upon the time of the committee. If it were not that I felt so strongly about this matter, I would not urge it with such pertinacity and persistence. But I feel strongly about it, and I believe beyond peradventure in the suggestions which we make. These are not political suggestions; they are suggestions that come from observation, from experience and from some little knowledge of under just what conditions these men are living and of the effort they are making to be honest, decent citizens with an earnest desire to meet their obligations. But this they cannot do under existing economic conditions.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Chairman, I disagree somewhat with the right hon. leader of the opposition. The only soldier settler who will not get any benefit under this legislation is the settler who has completed all his payments up to March 31 of this year and who has consequently taken full advantage of the bonus. Let that be clearly understood. I almost thought that the leader of the opposition was under a misapprehension. When this legislation was passed in 1933 establishing the principle of a dollar for dollar bonus, it was given a life of only three years. At that time the price of practically everything produced on a soldier settler farm was at the lowest point in the history of this country. If the situation is so desperate now when prices have doubled, according to the price index, why did the government of the day not make this applicable for five or ten years? They evidently contemplated at that time that there should be a limit, and in the law they passed they imposed a limit of three years. Later, in 1936, it was thought .advisable to extend the privilege for another period. As I have stated before, legislation was introduced in this house extending it for a period of three years, but in another place that period was reduced to two years.
The criticism I would make of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-and the same thing applies to the hon. member for New Westminster-is that they take a few cases, perhaps a number of cases, in British Columbia where conditions are bad, and then reason from that that this proposal should apply right across Canada. There are returned soldiers who have taken advantage of the dollar for dollar privilege, and who are in a position to complete their payments on their

land; yet in order to confer an advantage on a returned soldier settler in Comox-Alberni my hon. friend proposes to extend this privilege right across the board to people who would no doubt be very glad to take advantage of it, but who on a basis of equity really do not need it. I am sometimes surprised in this house at the easy way in which we deal with obligations owing to the government.
As I said before, I am not now going to criticize the inauguration of this scheme about twenty years ago; but I venture to say that before the country is through with the soldier settlement experiment, it will have cost the country anywhere from $75,000,000 to $100,000,000, and probably nearer the latter figure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put it at $80,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think my right hon. friend is low at that figure. It means that the taxpayers of this dominion have to shoulder that burden-make no mistake about that. There is no one in this chamber who is more desirous of dealing fairly with the returned soldiers than I am. I know the sacrifices these men made for their country. Some have, perhaps in a moment of misguided zeal, gone on farms, many of them not equipped with the necessary experience and knowledge to succeed in that vocation.
I repeat what I said before, that this legislation is, I think, fair. There is a way of dealing with the extreme cases to which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has referred, and I say this, that the soldier settlement board administration will facilitate in every way the cases of those who are in the plight referred to by him and by the hon. member for New Westminster before a tribunal where all the facts can be made known and an adjustment be arrived at. The soldier settlement board administration will not put anything in the way of that adjustment; we will facilitate it in every way.


Alan Webster Neill: And that tribunal may be
struck out of existence inside a fortnight.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; my hon. friend is, I
am afraid, again overstating the case.
What are the advantages of that method? The advantages it seems to me are these, that the individual soldier settler can go before what is in effect a court where he can be certain of the fairest kind of treatment, and the soldier settlement . board administration is not going to put any obstacle in his way. Individual cases can be dealt with in that fashion. The man who is not entitled to consideration will not get it from the board, but the man who is entitled to consideration

Soldier Settlement Act
will get it. It seems to me that this is a much more equitable and fair way of dealing with this problem than for us in a great burst of generosity in this house simply to say: We are going to extend this privilege right across Canada, from Halifax to Vancouver, to everyone whether he needs it or not.
There are many who have taken advantage of this privilege. One would almost imagine, listening to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that no one in British Columbia had been able to take advantage of this legislation. As a matter of fact, in the Vancouver district-and that includes, I think, all of British Columbia-there were still 1,312 soldier settlers on land at the 31st of December, 1937; of that number 1,165 had been able in some degree to take advantage of the dollar for dollar privilege which has been in effect for the past five years. I cannot at the moment give the precise extent to which they have been able to take advantage of it, but I submit that the picture is not nearly so black as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pictures it, or as bad even as my good Scotch friend from New Westminster pictures it, when 1,165 soldier settlers out of 1,312 in British Columbia have been able in some degree to take advantage of the bonus.
I repeat, there is the machinery to adjust individual cases. It is not necessary, in order to deal with a few hundred or perhaps even a larger number of cases in British Columbia, to pass legislation that will be effective right across Canada and give advantages to those who, so far as I am aware, are not asking for it and probably do not need it. I think at times we should give some consideration to the position of the taxpayers of this country. I believe the great majority of the returned soldiers do not want to be unfair or unreasonable. They do not wish to get at the expense of the taxpayer something to which they are not entitled.
I admit that this question is a difficult one to deal with. I know I shall probably be misrepresented from one end of the country to the other in bringing down this legislation, but nevertheless I submit it is fair and reasonable. If economic conditions change within the next year or two and the situation comes that the right hon. leader of the opposition came near prophesying, it will always be open to parliament to reconsider its decision. It is not a closed book, if conditions change to warrant reconsideration by parliament.


Robert Fair: There is no time like the present for reconsidering.
fMr. Crerar.]


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With my hon. friend
there is no time like the present for soaking the taxpayer in every possible way he can soak them, but so far as I am concerned I do not march in that column. I submit again to the committee that this is fair legislation, and I think the committee will make no mistake in accepting it. If within a year or two from now the economic situation has changed and prices come down, it is always open to parliament to reconsider the legislation. I think it is quite clear that when the legislation was first introduced and made effective for only three years, it was brought down to meet an extraordinary economic situation in this country. Notwithstanding the predictions of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, the situation to-day is vastly better than it was then, and I think we can well afford to accept this legislation, and if necessary review the situation a year or two years from now.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister has made it quite clear that in his opinion there are certain parts of Canada where the settlers are not or have not been in a position to take advantage of this legislation. The minister will realize as well as we do that the discussion this evening has unearthed a lot of information, and I believe it would obviate a great deal of discussion if he would be good enough to tell us what particular part of Canada he had in mind that could pay the dollar for dollar. I am interested to know that because it would clear up the situation immediately if we knew where the money was to come from.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let us take the province from which my hon. friend comes. In the Edmonton district there are 1,663 soldier settlers on the land, practically all of whom have taken advantage to some extent, in some form, or another, of the dollar for dollar bonus. In Calgary, the southern district, there are 1,362 soldier settlers on the land, and of these 1,156 to some degree have taken advantage of the bonus.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What is the total amount paid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In Calgary the amount of the bonus credited was $622,000 and in Edmonton, $875,000. Now we come to Saskatoon, the district that covers the whole of Saskatchewan. In Saskatoon there were 2,831 settlers at December 31, 1937, and of that number 2,178 to some extent have taken advantage of the bonus. The amount of the bonus credited was 'll 040,000 in Saskatchewan.
Soldier Settlement Act

; Mr. BENNETT: That means that one million dollars was paid.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; that is for the period during which the bonus has been operative.


Mr. COLD WELL:: How many took advantage of it last year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have not that information; I have simply the total.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is for the five years.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I submit that even under those conditions this is a creditable showing, and I think it means that the overwhelming majority of the soldier settlers now on the land want to meet their obligations. They do not wish to sponge on the taxpayers if they can fairly and honestly meet those obligations, and this will give all of them, an opportunity to catch up for the next three years on those payments they have been unable to make during the period in which the bonus was in effect. As I have said before, the legislation is reasonable. It was certainly not brought before the house until after it had been considered by the government and explored by those who have to do with the administration of the act.
' Mr. COLDWELL:	Speaking in round
figures, as the minister has been doing, one is apt to give an entirely exaggerated picture of what has happened. If the minister had told the committee as well what number of cancellations had been made and the number of quit claims that have been given over the same period, I think it would show that the soldier settlers have not been able to do very much. With regard to the Saskatoon district, in the five years there has been collected approximately $1,000,000; that is $200,000 a year; aqd I believe the minister said there were some 2,000 settlers. That means they have been able to take advantage to the extent of $100 apiece, which is not a great deal when we average it over the five years and take into consideration the number of parcels of land involved. I agree with what has been said in this discussion. The letter just read by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and referred to by the hon. member for Battle River has also reached me and I would draw the minister's attention to the last paragraph. I believe that much of the difficulty could foe cleared up if the minister would agree to the first part of the last paragraph of the letter from, the Soldier Settlers' Union. Let me quote it:
We strongly urge that a conference be arranged to bring about a permanent solution to the settlement problem.

I believe that one of the causes of dissatisfaction among the soldier settlers is the feeling that in recent years they have not been able to have a conference with the minister to discuss the matter. I shall not enter into the controversy that has been raised regarding the legion resolution. I believe the legion passed that resolution in good faith on information which it had. But it was pointed out that certain representatives of the settlers were not able to be present. If this matter were held in abeyance for a few weeks and the minister could confer with some of the soldier settlers, many of the misunderstandings could be removed and probably the minister could present a bill which would meet with the approval of more members of this house than approve it at the present time.


Mr. BARBER:: I am very sorry indeed that the government has not seen fit to extend the bonus. I was puzzled until a few minutes ago, when I heard the minister's statement, as to why they would not continue the bonus. It appears from the statement of the minister that his sole reason is the protection of the taxpayers of the country. He has referred to large sums that have been paid, though I am not sure whether he mentioned British Columbia. At any rate, large sums have been paid into the treasury. Has he any idea how much of that would not have been paid if we did not have the bonus? There would have been very little as far as British Columbia is concerned, and I believe the minister will find at the end of the year that cutting out the bonus will result in lower collections. His collections will drop considerably add in some parts of Canada they will drop out of sight. I do not suppose there is any use in continuing this debate and pointing out objections. I have received a number of letters of protest from British Columbia. I have al?o a telegram from the Canadian Legion from Haney, British Columbia, dated March 14, addressed to myself:
Strongly urge you support amendment bonus scheme. Failure secure this extension will dishearten many struggling to make good this district.
That is signed by the president of the Canadian Legion, branch 88. From the figures the minister has given, it appears that there were 147 in the province who did not take advantage of this legislation. Therefore, if this amendment goes through to-night, it means that the only men for whom provision will be made will be these 147.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong. It will apply to all those who have been able

Soldier Settlement Act
to take advantage of the legislation only in part; it will apply to them and extend the opportunity to them to take advantage of it fully.


Harry James Barber: I may be wrong, but I thought the minister said that there were 1,165 who had taken full advantage of it. At any rate there is a large number of those who have been unable to pay during the last few years, and they will certainly not be able to pay in the next three years. I know that a large number of those who have been paying will become discouraged and make no payments at all. It is all right to say that they can go to the farmers' creditors arrangement board, but these men are not bankrupt. An odd one may be, but a man who has been struggling along and making his payments in order to get that extra amount credited cannot go to that board the next year or the year following. He will not be bankrupt.
Back in 1933 when this legislation was first introduced, we know the condition. It was supposed to be temporary. At that time we thought that we should be back in prosperous times within three years. At any rate it was going to be easy to extend the term. It was extended; but according to the prices of farm products quoted here to-night, conditions are not very bright in many parts of this country to-day, and there is little opportunity for these returned soldiers on the land to make even fifty per cent of their payments. The minister infers that the soldier settlers in eastern Canada are in fairly good condition. I do not know about that, but I know how they are in British Columbia. In 1933, when this legislation was first introduced, we found some soldier settlers owing on their land perhaps $5,000. One in particular pointed out to me that he could go across the road and buy an identical piece, with the same acreage, for S3,000. I said, "For goodness sake buy it, and throw up your place." He said, "Well, there is this bonus; if I can keep on paying, with that bonus I shall be able to clear this place for a total payment of $2,500, with of course, interest added." Many of them viewed the matter in that light, that with the bonus it gave them a revaluation of their land, and they were encouraged to stay on and try to complete the payment.
Another suggestion was made the other evening by my leader in regard to the rate of interest, which I understood the minister was going to take into further consideration. They reduced the rate to five per cent; I thought it might be reduced to at least four per cent. Speaking of interest, I took up with the Minister of Finance the other day
a little question of interest. There is in British Columbia a firm of which a number of the employees are returned soldiers. They decided to enter into a scheme by which their savings might be set aside and saved for their old age or for some future date. The question arose how to invest those savings. They said to me that in the post office savings bank they could get only two per cent. I took the matter up with the Minister of Finance, and this is what he said:
I might say, however, that if the operations of the fund are such as to require that they should he available for withdrawal in cash form at any time, then in view of the current situation with respect to interest allowable on notice deposits or on short-term loans it would appear that two per cent is not an unreasonably low rate of return. I might mention, for example, that the dominion government is currently obtaining short-term funds for just over one-half of one per cent.
These returned men can obtain two per cent on their money; according to the Minister of Finance that is about the limit; but soldier settlers are called upon to pay five per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is scarcely fair in quoting the letter in the manner he does. I gave the best advice that I thought I could give under the circumstances with respect to money subject to withdrawal on demand. To compare that with interest rates on long term obligations is scarcely fair.


Harry James Barber: I am not comparing it;
we are talking about an interest rate. We know what it was some years ago and what it is to-day. The government is borrowing money at one-half of one per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Money payable in three months.


Harry James Barber: I say the minister should have taken seriously into consideration giving the soldier settlers the benefit of a reduction to four per cent at least.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was the minister a member of the government at the time these proposals were initiated?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I have not that sin on my head.
Mr. O'NEILL: What will happen to soldier settlers who have bought land and now owe probably as much as the land is worth on the open market? If this goes through and they are not able to take advantage of it, will they be permitted to stay on the land?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is difficult to answer a hypothetical question of that kind. In the first place, as I have already said several
Soldier Settlement Act

times, a soldier settler in the position my hon. friend refers to can go before a board of review under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and get a readjustment of his obligation. That is [DOT] being done constantly. I have not any doubt that the board will take into full consideration all the facts of each case. The settler will then have a period of three years in which the payments that are due up to the end of this month carry the dollar for dollar bonus privilege. I cannot think of any better way of putting him in a position where he can swim once more if he wants to swim.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: My observation was of a general nature. Not only this evening but when this -bill was before the committee recently the hon. member for Comox-Alberni certainly gave me the impression that the situation of the soldier settlers in British Columbia was desperate. My remark that I thought he had overdrawn the picture a little was prompted by the fact that of 1,312 soldier settlers in- British Columbia under the district of Vancouver, 1,165 to some degree had taken advantage of this opportunity in the past five years, to the extent of $650,000.


Alan Webster Neill: In British Columbia?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In British Columbia. That was the -bonus credited to them in five years. So I submit that the picture cannot be so gloomy as my hon. friend painted it.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not wish to quarrel about the matter; it is not worth while delaying the committee, but that is not the occasion- to which I alluded. The minister was definitely saying that- the settler could go to the farmers' creditors arrangement board, and I said that in less than a fortnight that court might not be in existence.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is an exaggeration.


Alan Webster Neill: The Minister of Mines and Resources then said that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni was overstating the case, and that is what I wish to have amplified. Was I overstating the case when I said that at any moment the court, to which he suggests the settlers can go, may be done away with? Was there any overstatement in that remark?


Charles Avery Dunning: As the minister responsible for the legislation to which the hon. gentleman refers, I can certainly say that he overstates the case when he says that in a fortnight that court may be out-of existence. In the first place the legislation concerning it can scarcely be put through parliament and assented to in a fortnight, and beyond that I shall give him the assurance that a most careful inquiry will be made as to the need, from the standpoint of the farmer, for continuing the act.


Alan Webster Neill: Is that inquiry provided for in the amending bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Power is given, and I stated very plainly-


Harry James Barber: I was wondering if the minister could tell us how many of these 1,165 settlers took full advantage of this opportunity.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I told the committee before, I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend those details for Vancouver. I imagine they can be made available, and I should be glad to supply them to my hon. friend. In any case those who have not been able to take full advantage of the legislation will have an opportunity to do so for the next three years.


Harry James Barber: I was just wondering how many would be in a position to come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because certainly they would have to be far behind to be bankrupt. Therefore we should know what percentage of those settlers have taken advantage of it, and what is the outstanding indebtedness of those 1,165 settlers at the present time.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the
section carry?


Alan Webster Neill: No. It has not been put to a vote yet.


Harry James Barber: Is the minister able to advise us as to the indebtedness of those 1,165 settlers in British Columbia, or of the total of 1,312 settlers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include
interest?	.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; that includes interest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much is principal
and how much is interest?


René-Antoine Pelletier: A moment ago the
minister mentioned certain figures referring to Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon. He said that in the Edmonton district the figure was $875,000; in the Calgary district, or the southern part of Alberta, it was $622,000, and in the Saskatoon district it was $1,040,000. Do those figures represent the actual amount of money collected or do they represent the
Soldier Settlement Act
bonus that was given? That is to say, Was there really $875,000 collected and something over a million and a half credited to the account of these settlers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Already this evening I
have answered that question twice. The figures I gave were the amount of bonus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amount paid as
well?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The amount of bonus
credited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And an equal sum was
paid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of course.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister was talking
about collections. I have in my hand the report of the soldier settlement board brought down this year, dated June 15, 1937. At page 329 I find the following collections: Vancouver, which I understand takes in the whole of British Columbia, instalments due in 1936; $273,364.96; total due, including arrears, $939,221.84; due payments, $66,871.35; percentage of current instalments paid, 24-5; percentage of total due, 7-1. So that in British Columbia, where we have been told they have paid so zealously, in 1936 they paid only 7-1 per cent of the total indebtedness. At that rate how many years will it take them to overcome that debt?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is seven per cent
of the total indebtedness in one year. I think that is pretty good.


Alan Webster Neill: If they owed $100 they have paid $7, which would be scarcely house rent. Does the minister suggest that 7-1 per cent is a good record of payment? It certainly does not look that way, as compared with the other provinces.
Section agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed, on division.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31, to establish a board of transport commissioners for Canada, with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft.
Transport Commission
[Stage Direction]
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to promote the stabilization of the transport industry in Canada, in the public interest as well as in the interests of all those engaged in transportation. The bill extends regulation of rates to inland shipping and to 1 commercial air transport.
No one questions the benefit of the government regulation as applied to the railways, least of all the railways themselves. The government believes that the extension of rate regulation to our inland waterways and to our commercial airways will carry with it similar benefits.,/ It should be made clear from the first that there is no intention to limit development on sound economic lines of any form of transportation in favour of any other form of transportation. It is inevitable that the development of newer forms of transport will be accompanied foy some loss of business from older forms of transport, and it is not the purpose of this bill to interfere with that process, so long as the same rules of competition apply to all. j
The purpose of the government is to bring about a situation where competition may make for the benefit of the public and health within the industry. We all recognize that Canada must have an adequate railway service, since without it and for climatic and geographic reasons it would be impossible to conduct the business of the nation. We also recognize that our great inland waterway must be served by transportation agencies conducted on a sound economic basis, so that these waterways may continue to provide those low-cost transportation facilities that make it possible for our western farmers to compete in the markets of the world.
Transportation by air is still in its infancy, and it is logical that the development of this industry should be conducted along sound lines, under government regulation. It is a matter of public interest that transportation rates be reasonably stable, and applied without discrimination. Experience has shown that publicity is essential to prevent discrimination. Therefore the publicity of rates is a fundamental requirement in this bill.
We also appreciate that our transportation rate structure may break down completely unless some relation is maintained between transportation charges and the abilities of various commodities to stand those charges. There is also the problem of conditions of employment in transportation industries. It will not be a question that it is the duty and' interest of all employers to endeavour to maintain reasonable standards of conditions
[Mr Howe.l
and rewards of employment. The absence of regulation and the resulting uneconomical competition must inevitably bear heavily on the workers, since labour costs comprise such a large proportion of operating expenses. The wide difference in working conditions, as between regulated transportation and unregulated transportation, must be apparent to all. Apart from the effect on labour, the interest of public safety is also involved.
Objections to this bill have taken the form, not that regulation is undesirable, but rather that the means provided by the bill may work hardship in certain specific instances. Many have objected on the ground that the bill will have the effect of increasing rates. I see nothing in the bill which can reasonably lead to that conclusion. The fact is that Canadian railway rates, as established under regulation, are among the lowest in the world, and this has been accomplished notwithstanding the fact that Canada is a sparsely populated country. Regulation should have the effect of lowering rather than raising rates, by tending to eliminate wasteful and destructive competition among the various forms of transportation.
It has been assumed that under this bill the transport commission will fix rates. That is not the purpose of the bill. It provides, rather, for policing the methods of. rate fixing used by the transportation companies themselves, in order to substitute order for chaos, and to ensure the elimination of unjust discrimination between one shipper or passenger and another shipper or passenger.
Richard Bedford Bennett: But the transport board will fix the rates, will it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They will approve rates.
They will pass on the rates submitted, and amend them as the evidence in the case indicates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Am I right in understanding that no rate, other than one approved by the board, will be valid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Mr. STIRLING:: That is what the railway commission does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the other hand, individual carriers who fear that rate regulation will result in the establishment of unreasonably low rates, as a result of the board of transport forcing carriers to adopt the lowest rate published by an improvident competitor, can be assured that the bill provides ample remedies against such a condition. There is

Transport Commission
nothing in this bill which can be used to force carriers to furnish services at rates that cannot be economically justified.
There was a time when transportation in Canada was largely a railway monopoly, without state regulation of rates. The need for regulation at that time was apparent to all. In 1888 the railway committee of the privy council was given certain powers of rate regulation. This seemed to satisfy the public until about 1898, when there was an insistent demand for adequate regulation. After extended government investigation, the Railway Act was amended, in 1903, to provide for the organization of a railway commission. The board was established in 1904 with very wide powers over railways constructed under federal authority, as well as over railways constructed by provincial authority, when such railways are declared by the parliament of Canada to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. The first membership of the board was restricted to three commissioners; but four years later, 1908, when our railway mileage was approximately 25,000 miles, three more commissioners were added, and the usefulness of the board increased by an arrangement permitting the board to be divided into two sections, each of which could sit independently, the decision of either section being, under the act, the decision of the board.
When the board of railway commissioners was first established, the railway exercised a virtual monopoly in the field of transport. The competition from inland waterways was negligible; the automobile was a novelty, and the aeroplane was a thing of the future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was always water competition on the great lakes, was there not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, but at that time it was not a serious competitor with the railways, because it was confined almost entirely to bulk cargoes. The railways no longer enjoy a monopoly in the field of transportation. The rapid development of the internal combustion engine and its application to trucks, buses and automobiles, and the constant demand for paved highways, have brought highway transportation very prominently into the transportation picture. It is unnecessary for me to remind hon. gentlemen of the effect of highway competition upon railway revenues.
The construction of the Welland ship canal has also had a marked effect upon transportation problems, in that it has created a surplus of boats of the type that formerly confined their operations between Port Col-borne and Montreal. These boats have now
extended their operations to the head of lake Superior, and to obtain cargoes have made serious inroads into the package freight business formerly carried by the railways. The fact that the railways are subject to regulation while the motor vehicles and water carriers are not, has placed a severe handicap on the ability of our railways to meet this new competition. On the other hand, lack of regulation has not brought prosperity to the unregulated carriers. Competition has been of the destructive type, not only to the railway earnings but to the earnings of its new competitors.
Both the railways and the public have no doubt that regulation has been beneficial to railway transportation. There is every reason to believe that the extension of regulation to other forms of transportation would have been demanded by the public before this, were it not for the fact that the railways themselves are now in effect the regulators for competing forms of transportation. Railway rates are published, and generally represent the maximum that competing agencies can demand, while unregulated transportation can underbid the railway to such an extent as may be necessary to divert business from the railway. The public have the railway to fall back on when other forms of transportation disappear, and so have not become alarmed at the destructive effect of the competition from transportation that is often of the "fly by night" variety. In short, the railway tariffs form a protective blanket over the rates of competitors to the railways. A reduction in railway rates to hold railway business can have no permanent effect, other than to drive some of its competitors to more profitable fields.
Canada is practically the last country to apply state regulation to transportation other than railways. The United States have extended the authority of the interstate commerce commission to all railway operations, pipe lines and motor vehicles operating across state boundaries. Its Motor Carrier Act of 1935 has done much to regulate commercial vehicles on the highways and to coordinate highway rates with railway rates. Similarly, United States coastwise ocean traffic is regulated, as well as coastal carriers operating between ports on the Atlantic and ports on the Pacific through the Panama canal. Regulation has not as yet been applied to inland waterways, such as the great lakes and the Mississippi river; but there has been introduced in the senate by the chairman of the senate committee on interstate commerce, a
Transport Commission

bill which will provide, through the interstate commerce commission, the same or even more extensive regulation of shipping on the great lakes than we propose under this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the same bill
j which was up last year?
i Mr. HOWE: Yes; it was not reached. In Great Britain, state regulation is exercised over the railway carrier, the highway carrier and the water carrier. The same situation exists in northern Ireland.
In the Union of South Africa, the state owns all railways and exercises complete control over highway vehicles for hire for passengers and goods. A scale of charges must be filed with the regulating body, and the reasonableness of those charges is decided by the board. In New Zealand and Australia, the regulating bodies have control over all forms of transportation, and a certificate of convenience and necessity is necessary before any new carrier can operate. It will thus be observed that Canada has been slow to accept a situation that most other countries have dealt with.
This bill applies regulation to shipping other than for bulk cargoes, such as wheat, iron ore and raw materials, that are handled in bulk without packaging. The reason for excluding bulk cargoes is that these are not competitive, being carried at rates so low as not to be attractive to rail carriers. In my opinion, both the public and the carriers would benefit by the extension of regulation to bulk carriers; but as a number of protests were received when this bill was considered previously, the government has decided to exclude bulk carriers from the bill. Regulation j of shipping applies only to rates, as safety i features are now regulated by the shipping act. ! Transportation by air is a comparatively new industry and, therefore, regulation can be applied without any serious dislocation. It is believed that regulation is generally acceptable, both to the operators and to the public. Regulation under this bill applies only to aircraft operating on regular schedules, over regular routes. It does not apply to carriers engaged in pioneer work or on casual services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or a private undertaking.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; this applies only to public carriers. Provision for agreed charges extends to the railways a privilege that is now enjoyed by highway carriers, water carriers and aircraft, that of contracting with a shipper to handle his shipments exclusively at a rate which may be lower than the tariff rate. Agreed charges are now a well established

feature of British transportation and have proved beneficial both to the carriers and to the shipper. The principle has also been generally adopted in France. In short, the principle of agreed charges permits a earner to give to a shipper who gives all his business to the carrier a lower rate than must be given to another shipper who prefers to pick and choose between various types of carriers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any such thing
on any other part of this continent?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has not been applied on this continent; but it has been applied in England for about three years, and I have been told it has proven to be quite beneficial.
The bill provides for full publicity of rates granted under agreed charges, and provides against discrimination as between shippers who wish to obtain the benefit of agreed charges. There can be no discrimination as between the large shipper and the small shipper. In fact, the principle of the agreed charges works to the benefit of the small shipper, who cannot always obtain as low a rate for highway transportation as can his larger competitor.
The fairness of a low rate for all year round shippers is obvious. In many sections of Canada, where the highways cannot be kept open the year round, everyone must use the railway for winter shipments. The agreed charge simply provides that in such cases, those shippers who agree to ship all year by railway will get an all year round rate, but those who elect to use the railway in winter and trucks in summer will not get the same treatment. It is a realistic treatment of a new development. There can be no harmful discrimination when it is provided that any shipper, big or small, who is willing to conform to the same terms, shall get the same treatment.
In my opinion the agreed charge presents a greater chance of preserving the low rate on long distance and bulk commodities, so essential to our national economy, and of putting a stop to the gradual withering of our rail service on many branch lines, the loss of which is an economic loss to the country, than any other measure of which I have knowledge. It is well worth a trial. It will tend to curb the uneconomic expansion of highway traffic and, by doing so, will afford an opportunity for the sound coordination of the two types of transportation, each within its own economic sphere.
Much is being said currently in favour of drastic measures to be applied for the purpose of reducing the operating expenses of

Transport Commission
our railways. The discussion extends to abandonment of five thousand miles of light traffic line, merging of locomotive and repair shops, consolidation of terminals and similar measures which would leave a trail of destruction across Canada that would, in my opinion, far outweigh any consequent real reduction in operating expenses. I regret to say that when this bill was last considered, those parliamentarians who are now most vocal in advocating such extreme methods, were strongest in opposition to the provisions of this bill. It must be apparent to all that the provisions of this bill will benefit our transportation industry, without in any way curtailing the extent or efficiency of transportation service in any part of Canada.
I sincerely hope that, in considering this bill, parliament will be disposed to place less dependence upon destructive and drastic solutions for our railroad problem, and will give serious and favourable consideration to this constructive step toward improving the economy of Canadian transportation. We all desire to avoid an increase in railway rates in Canada similar to that recently adopted in the United States. The public concern over the plight of the carriers in that country, where about forty per cent of railway mileage is in receivership, may be judged by newspaper comment on recent rate increases, amounting to five per cent on raw materials and ten per cent on finished products. Most newspapers commented that the increase should have been greater.
Transportation in Canada has done much toward the building of our national economy. Through this bill we can give it a measure of protection and assistance without imposing any burden on the Canadian people. When this bill is examined in committee, I trust that trivial objections and unjustified fears and alarms will not be permitted to cloud the real merit of the measures contained in the bill.
In order that the bill may have the fullest possible consideration, after the second reading I shall move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the second
reading of a measure involves the acceptance of its principle, and the principle of this measure is regimentation. How far my hon. friends opposite believe in regimentation is not a matter now to be discussed; how little they used to believe in it is a matter of
record. I have a very clear memory of the many occasions on which some of my genial friends opposite, in language at onice forceful and elegant, opposed anything like the semblance of regimentation. The frank smile on the face of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) does not in any way indicate that he was the only person to engage in those criticisms. But if we accept the principle of regimentation as a part of our everyday economic life, there would seem to be few fields in which it could be more usefully employed than in the field of transportation.
I cannot say that I wholly agree with the observations which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) has made touching the vocal characteristics of gentlemen in another place, because their vocal expressions were in no sense referring to this measure; they were dealing with an entirely different matter. When the minister suggests that in this measure we shall find a solution of our transportation difficulties, I think he does not mean by that, that we shall find a complete solution, but he believes it will offer some redress to the railway companies for the difficulties under which they now labour. I think that is quite true.
There are, however, in connection with regimentation, two or three matters that I think should be considered as matters of principle before the committee discusses this measure. Last year the measure proposed to deal with public highway transportation. I cannot but think that the minister is well advised in not endeavouring to deal with highway transportation, having regard to the difficulties he would encounter because of the fact that it might impinge at so many points upon provincial jurisdiction. However, that matter we now can Bay is entirely eliminated because it is not proposed in this measure to deal with highway transportation.	/
In respect to water transportation, some difficulties, of course, arise from the fact that in inland waters as well as on the sea coast we lie in close proximity to the United States, and obviously we cannot license their vessels. Perhaps it will be within the memory of the minister, as it must be of other members in this chamber, that we did on one occasion endeavour-I was not a member of the house at the time the effort was made-to regiment, if I might use that word, transportation on the great lakes by ships of all nations, including those of our neighbouring republic. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) finds it a little difficult not to smile, but he is doing his very best and I hope he succeeds. That effort at licensing or controlling transportation by
Transport Commission

United States ships on the great lakes is one of the amusing episodes in our long legislative history-I can not use any stronger term than that.
I foresee some little difficulty in dealing with the question of transportation on the great lakes between Canadian ports and United States ports, where rates may be set up that will of course have a great deal to do with governing rates between Canadian ports. That has always been so. That is, the rate from the head of the lakes to Buffalo has a distinct bearing on the rates from the head of the lakes to a Canadian port, whether Prescott or Port Colbome or wherever it may be.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I interrupt my right >hon. friend to say that there is very little package freight between Canadian and United States ports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practically none, and the bill as it is now brought down departs from what was originally intended. It no longer applies to bulk freight, so I think there is probably very little difficulty from that angle.
There is one little anomaly I saw in the bill as I was going through it. Liquids are described as bulk freight, but casks and barrels are not. It would seem somewhat difficult to have a ship carry liquids except it be a tanker.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many ships that are not tankers, just as there are many drinkers that are not tanks. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, the general principle of the bill is one which I think we should give our approval to, even though my hon. friends opposite have slowly come to accept the principle of regimentation.
There is only one real difficulty I see in the measure, and that is in part V, which does not come into -operation until proclaimed, with respect to agreed charges. I thank the minister for the very full and frank explanation he gave of part V, and I doubt not that when the committee has to consider the measure it will encounter some difficulties. I fancy that many members of the house have received communications from their constituents and from boards of trade dealing with the question of agreed charges. Many people are opposed to agreed charges which contemplate an arrangement being made between the shipper and the transportation agency, whether it be a railway company or a shipping company, by which all the traffic of the shipper, be he a small or large shipper, is to be handled by the facilities of the one transportation company. That is, 
if he agrees that the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific, as the case may be, shall do all his shipping for him in and out for one year, then he has an agreed charge at a rate which is much less than he would secure if he used one transportation company occasionally and another occasionally.
There are grave difficulties to be dealt with there. It is not just as simple in a country the size of Canada as it is in a country such as Great Britain. In France it has been in vogue for some years. It will be recalled that the French republic owns a large number of its railways just as we do here, but fortunately for them their government-owned railways are not competitive, in the main, with their privately owned lines. In other words, they occupy one territory, and the private lines occupy another territory. For instance, the lines running south in France, not all the lines, but in the main the large lines, are the property of private enterprise, and those that run to the northern seaboard are largely the property of the state.
Now we are going to enter upon an experiment in that regard so far as the American continent is concerned. I asked the minister a moment ago if he had a record of the experiment being tried in any other part of America and he said no. I could not find any instance in which it had been tried, although I had not access to the latest books on transportation. But it is an experiment. It contemplates a given transportation agency securing a monopoly on a shipper's traffic for a year-we will say for a period; that is the better way to put it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every agency in Canada
except the railways has that to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not for a moment
saying that the general principle is new; but it is new as applied to railways, and has given rise in other instances to much difficulty. In England where they applied it we find a different set of considerations. In England they consolidated their railways into what one might roughly describe as four systems: the L.M. & S., the Northeastern, and then two smaller systems, making four in all, that represent the consolidated railway systems of Great Britain. Then there was a private and state enterprise in France. We are going to secure a monopoly to a given transportation agency, with the sanction of the law, if the shipper will agree to give all his traffic for a given period to that particular transport agency. And for so doing he will receive a lower rate than if he only used it occasionally. I think that is a fair way of putting it.

Transport Commission


Clarence Decatur Howe: The provisions permit the
business to be divided between two types of the same carrier. It is not the intention to take the business from one railway carrier and give it exclusively to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It contemplates that
one carrier shall have a monopoly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: One type of carrier.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: It might be both railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It is to prevent
the possibility of competition between rail and water or highway or air becoming effective to the detriment of the carrier with whom the contract is made. That is the short way of stating it. Many of the boards of trade in the west are a little concerned about it, although it does not come into force until after proclamation. I think it would be well for the committee to give particular attention to part V, which covers these matters.
With respect to the substitution of the title "Transport Board" for the old "Board of Railway Commissioners," I suppose there is very little difficulty. In Great Britain, it will be remembered, it is not called the board of transport; it is the railway and canal commissioners that deal with matters there. I forget the name used in France. In the United States it is the interstate commerce commission, whose powers and jurisdiction have been extended during the years until they are practically all-embracing with respect to transportation. The difficulties we have in Canada in transportation matters it is not my purpose to deal with, except, to say that we have a low freight rate structure. Whether we admit it or not, the real truth is-


Thomas Reid: In some parts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have a low structure; I said, a low freight rate structure. There has always been a differentiation between the export and the local rate. If the hen. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has studied the history of the city of Spokane, he will know of its effort to secure transportation rates on a ratable basis of the through rate to Seattle and Portland and he will understand what I mean. For a long time transportation rates in the United States were based on the competition of water carriage to the Pacific coast, and it worked some very strange results, as indicated by judgments of the interstate commerce commission, which, as a matter of fact, were in some instances approved by the Supreme Court of the
United States. I happened to be in Spokane at the time they carried on successfully their last great struggle with the Union Pacific and other roads and secured a reduction of rates that gave them a great improvement in their general commercial position. But ours is a low freight rate structure so far as present rates on the American continent are concerned. I have, as every hon. member has at times, compared the rates for the same distances in the United States and in Canada, and while there is good reason for complaint about some of the rates in this country, it arises because of our small population and our vast distances as well as the great physical difficulties which we have to overcome in transport. These are facts that have to be considered in dealing with problems of this kind. But I do not think it would be possible under present economic conditions to increase freight rates in Canada.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They might have to
come down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. I agree with what the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) has said, It may be necessary, in view, of present conditions with respect to competition, from the standpoint of highways and otherwise, that for self-preservation the railways should make a reduction in rates.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: We might have to do that to meet continuing competition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite; that is what I say. We may have to do that. But so far as direction by the transport board or the board of railway commissioners is concerned, personally I believe it is unthinkable that any order would be made to increase freight rates in this country. That is my conviction, for what it may be worth.
In some respects we in Canada are a very fortunate people. We are the only country in the world in which there has been a railway commissioner who prepared the legislation. He prepared the legislation and has sat continuously for a period of thirty years on the board. Doctor McLean prepared the original act under instructions from the late Hon. A. G. Blair, and his report is a matter of record; it will be found in the library. When the statute was passed, or shortly after, he was appointed to the board and he has been there ever since, so that we have had a sort of continuity that has really been of very great value to Canada. At any rate, that is my judgment, and I am speaking only from my own observation; for I used to appear before the board frequently. I believe that the continuance of Doctor McLean there did much to establish with respect to our
Transport Commission

board of railway commissioners a certain type of jurisprudence which has been of great value to the Canadian people. Just how the change will affect us I cannot see; for there is no very great change in principle between the freight rate structure that is to be set up under this statute an'd the one set up under the board. In either case, as I read it, it is essential that approval be given, either by the transport board or by the board of railway commissioners, as it is now, before the rate can become effective.
I recall having once been engaged in interesting litigation in respect of the necessity for publication and for making available to every shipper the freight rates charged by the carrier. In a particular case they quoted a figure that was less than the statutory rate. It was indicated that we should bring action to recover the balance, because we were occupying a statutory position. I am bound to say that the court found the means to render it a little hard to recover, although not without some difficulty, because a freight rate was regarded as much in the nature of a customs impost. When a rate had been approved by the board it occupied a position somewhat analogous to that of an ordinary customs tariff rate, and I cannot make a compromise about a tariff rate with the Minister of National Revenue. If by mistake I pay too little, there is a limit of time within which he can take action and recover the rest from me, notwithstanding that in good faith I paid what the agent or customs officer at the point of entry demanded.
Now I am being led into many by-paths; I apologize. I desire only to say that the general principle of regimentation as applied to transport by sea and air and rail is one that I am sure will commend itself to the people and should commend itself to parliament if the result is anything like what the minister hopes for. We all trust that his expectations may be met and his hopes realized. I think it will require a major surgical operation rather than an anaesthetic to bring about this result. While this may be a suitable anaesthetic, I am afraid it will not serve as the major operation which is essential for the purpose of bringing about, shai I say, health to the subject of the operation. I think the minister is well advised to refer the matter to the committee, and I trust that the public may have an opportunity to make such representations as it may desire, and that it will be made widely known, through Hansard and through the press, that public bodies may have an opportunity to make such representations as they

desire with respect to the legislation. I think probably the only phase of the bill that will meet with much discussion is part V which deals with agreed charges on the one hand, and possibly-I say possibly-difficulties that may arise in connection with trade between Canadian and United States ports, either coastwise or other.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to congratulate the minister on his achievement. I have only a vague knowledge, but it is sufficient to appreciate the enormous work this bill has cost him and those associated with him.
I am sorry to have to take exception to one item. I suppose if it is legitimate to talk about what is in the bill, it is also legitimate to talk about what is not in the bill. I refer to part II, which deals with transport by water. Subsection 4 of section 10 provides that the minister may license ships and may state in the licence the ports between which they may carry goods and passengers, and the schedule of services which shall be maintained. I would have liked to see that amplified in regard to the schedule of services, because that is the only allusion in the whole bill to that feature, and it is a very important feature.
Then the bill goes on to deal with tolls, charges, special rates, etc., at considerable length. Then, having built up what we will hope will be a desirable condition, it somewhat reduces its usefulness by section 12, subsection 4:
The provisions of this part shall not apply in the case of the transport of goods in bulk:-'
That has been dealt with by both the minister and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). That will seriously detract from its usefulness, I think, but the part that I have more interest in is the next:
5. The provisions of this part shall not apply in the case of ships engaged in the transport of goods or passengers
(a) between ports or places in British Columbia.
As far as we in British Columbia are concerned, that of course entirely annihilates the whole purpose of the bill. And I gather that the next section does away with any application to the whole coastal trade on the Atlantic. So apparently this section is left applicable only to shipping on the great lakes. Perhaps one should not call it discrimination, or class legislation; but certainly it is special legislation, leaving out the two coasts, where, as far as British Columbia, at any rate, is concerned, we badly need it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is regional legislation.

Transport Commission


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; I suppose that is the word which should be used. It is badly needed in British Columbia, so much so that in 1935 I introduced a bill to amend the Railway Act, which followed substantially the same lines as the minister's bill, except that mine applied to the coastal waters of British Columbia, and dealt at a little further length with tolls and routes and ports of call. There is ample precedent for this, because ships which obtain a subsidy from the dominion government have to comply strictly with such regulations. Each contract with the Department of Trade and Commerce sets forth a schedule of the ports of call and frequency of service covered by such contract, as well as rates and tolls. So we find that the port of call, the itinerary and rates and tolls are fully under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he grants a subsidy, however small, to that particular line of ships.
Moreover, it is fully competent under the Railway Act, because section 358 of that act extends its provisions to traffic carried by water by a railway company. Curiously enough it is confined to traffic carried by a railway company and does not apply to traffic carried by a shipping company which is only a shipping company. But if the shipping company is owned by or subsidiary to a railway company, it applies. That provision has been in our law for some twenty-nine years. When my bill was introduced a howl went up, of course, from British Columbia. Always a howl goes up if you propose any remedial legislation of this kind. The same thing occurred when the railway board act was introduced, only much more so; the heavens were to fall; business was to be ruined. But the railway legislation went through and no one would think of repealing it to-day. I think the same thing would have happened if my bill had been allowed to go through. People who would have been controlled howled about it, and many who would not have been controlled lent their assistance merely out of friendship or were afraid of something happening that was not going to happen.
Exactly the same reasons exist now as existed then for regulation of coastwise shipping. Even in 1907, when section 358 of the Railway Act was passed, the need was at least partly admitted, because they said- and the terms are very wide-"We will fully regulate the terms of water traffic when the traffic is carried by the ships of a railway company." It seems to me that was unjust. Why discriminate against the railway company? Why put a railway company that owns a line of ships operating in British 51952-99
Columbia waters under a handicap in competition with another line of ships not owned by a railway company? All my bill proposed was to put them all on an even footing. And there was reason for it. I had bitter complaints of discrimination by some companies there. I do not mind going as far as to say that one company practically threatened me with what would happen if I went on with this legislation. There was more or less of a monopoly out there. Of course it was not called a monopoly; that would be illegal, but called a gentleman's agreement.


Mr. STEWART:: A friendly understanding.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes; I would rather use that term, because the other stinks in my nostrils in connection with orientals. But I shall not go into that; it is one thing which, when you try to put your finger on it you find it is not there. It is there nevertheless. This company keeps out of this particular place and the other company keeps out of that place. I am not so sure that even the Canadian National does not have a look in at some of these friendly understandings. Then these people who opposed my bill two years ago put a great many obstacles in its path. It was going to apply, they said, to tugboats and every little launch that went to tow a boom of logs. That was all nonsense. It was not intended to do any such thing. I had made a mistake in the bill I drew, however; apparently it would have applied to ships going from the Pacific side to the Atlantic side; so in introducing the bill I explained that point and said I would be willing to accept an amendment providing that it would be applicable only to coastwise shipping as regards the Atlantic and Pacific; that it would not affect the traffic going from one coast to the other.
I know of cases of discrimination, some of which I have under my hand and could read, but I shall not detain the house. I am sure the minister has a copy of one letter, in which the writer said:
We have been following with interest in the newspapers whatever comment they printed on the new ministry of transport, and note that certain interests in Vancouver are objecting to certain coastal routes coming under the jurisdiction of the new ministry. It seems to us here that it would be a very good thing for us .	.	. rates both for passengers and
freight on this route, where they have no competition, are outrageous. We pay 65 cents minimum for 100 pounds of freight-the rate to Rivers Inlet is only 55 cents. We are roughly 130 miles from Vancouver, and our passenger rate is $6.50-five cents a mile.
I may mention that Rivers Inlet is 280 miles from Vancouver, while the place from

Transport Commission

which this man writes is only 120 miles. That is why I contend that some supervision is really required. It would not hurt the steamship companies eventually, because where political or other pull was brought to bear to force them to call at places where they were not justified in calling, they could appeal to the board and get relief, as the railways do now when they propose to close up a railway station or branch line on the ground that it is not profitable or necessary, and of course the people concerned raise an objection.
There is in British Columbia a place known as Howe Sound, no doubt called after some famous ancestor of the minister. Surely he will do the right thing by a place that has been named after his family. I think it was called after one of the captains or admirals on Vancouver's ships when they came to the Pacific coast. It is no longer in the district I represent, but at one time I did represent it. It is a place where there is a number of seaside resorts. A shipping company owned one of those resorts, and if you travelled on that line it is wonderful how easy and convenient it was to get off at that particular resort and how much more difficult it was to get off at a resort which was not owned by that company. I have even known a situation where the captain of the boat had an interest in a seaside resort. Again it was wonderful how much easier it was to get off at the right time and so on, at that place in which he had the interest, as compared with any other places.
I do not know what the situation is now, because that was a number of years ago, but I contend that there is ample reason for some provision of the kind I suggest. If the bill is not needed, as these people allege, no harm will be done, but it seems to be a case of the wicked fleeing when no man pursueth. If the thing is all right and needs no adjustment, no one will be any the worse off; but I say there is need for it and I do not know why the minister left that provision out of this bill. I am fairly certain that it was in the bill which was introduced in another place last year. Possibly, because of the difficulty of getting it through under adverse conditions, the minister has abandoned it. I will not say he has sold us down the river, but he seems to have abandoned that phase of his bill. I hope he will consider that point, because without it the bill is worth nothing to us. It is badly needed. It will not do any harm, and if we have a clause, as we have to-day in section 358 of the Railway Act, which makes it apply on the Pacific coast to the Canadian Pacific railway because they own a railway, is it not fair that it shall apply to other

competing companies which do not happen to own railways? It seems to me the logic is unanswerable. I wish the minister would consider that point before the bill goes to committee, to see if he could not do something along the lines I have indicated.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, before this bill proceeds further, I should like to point out with all due deference to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that it would have been far better to repeal the Railway Act of 1919 and draw up a new act, because there is going to be a conflict between that act and this bill if it passes this house and the senate and receives the assent of His Excellency the Governor General.
The cardinal principle laid down in the Railway Act is that there shall be no discrimination. Under this act there may be discrimination, because the railway commission is empowered to permit shippers and those who transport goods either by rail or water to enter into agreements as to charges for a period of one year, or for a greater period. Therefore that rate may be different from the rates ordinarily laid down, and there would be an undue preference or discrimination which is not permitted under the Railway Act. That is the first objection I have to this bill. I believe there is going to be a conflict, because this legislation is to be administered by the railway commission, and is subject to the Railway Act. When you merge the two measures and the Railway Act is the one which controls, then any provisions of this measure which are in conflict with the Railway Act go by the board. That is quite clear.
One of the first provisions of this bill is that a licence shall be granted. Under the Railway Act there is no such thing as a licence. A transportation company has a right to transport goods. If it is an incorporated railway company it has a right to transport goods by rail. But the railway board fixes the rates, and if they are discriminatory or unfair or undue they go by the board. Under this bill, however, there is a licence granted by the transport commission. For instance, some of the things to be dealt with here are pulpwood, poles and logs, liquids, coal and coke, sandstone and gravel, ores and minerals, crude, screened, sized, refined or concentrated but not otherwise processed-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act does not apply to those.


Robert Emmett Finn: Which act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This one.

Transport Commission


Robert Emmett Finn: With all deference to the
right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I must say that I am reading now from the interpretation clause, which sets out first what a carrier is and what agreed charges are. Under the Railway Act of Canada, because there cannot be agreed charges they may be discriminatory. Under the Railway Act of 1919 they cannot be. The next thing is the definition of a "carrier" and a "shipper". Then there is the definition of "aircraft". Then follows a definition of "board", "carrier" and "goods in bulk". We find that "goods in bulk" is interpreted in this way:
"Goods in bulk" means the following goods laden or freighted in ships and not bundled or enclosed in bags, bales, boxes, cases, casks, crates or any other container:
Grain,
Ores and minerals (crude, screened, sized, refined or concentrated, but not otherwise processed),
Sand, stone and gravel,
Coal and coke,
Liquids,
Pulpwood, poles and logs.
And that is all. Those are the definitions of the articles to which this bill applies. When the minister says the bill does not deal with these matters, then why does the interpretation clause deal with them?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Goods in bulk are excluded
from the provisions of the bill. It does not apply to goods in bulk, which are the commodities in the list he has read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the definition.


Robert Emmett Finn: That may be so, but the
point I am attempting to make-I hope I will make it clear-is that under the Railway Act of 1919 there cannot be unjust discrimination in freight rates or tolls.
Under this measure the railway commission must accept agreements entered into by a shipper with a transportation company. Those agreements may be for a year or for two years or, as the song goes, "It may be forever." If that is so, and if it is in conflict with the provisions of the Railway Act; if it is discriminatory and unjust, and gives undue preference, then I ask, Which is to prevail-this measure or the Railway Act of 1919? Probably the Minister of Transport would clear that up, so that the premise on which I am basing my observations may be clear. If he does that I shall proceed to another section. First, however, I should like an explanation from the minister.


Walter Edward Foster: I would remind the hon. member that the house is not in committee. We are discussing the principle of a bill on 51952-99i
the motion for second reading, and he should limit his observations to a discussion of the principle.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, that is the first
time I have heard the ruling that on the second reading of a bill the widest possible scope is not given to discuss every phase of it. I am simply asking the minister a question, and his answer will be helpful in order to enable me more intelligently to deal with the bill. That answer I should like him to give, and I shall sit down while he gives it.-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I explain that, then I
must make a speech; if I make a speech, I close the debate.	.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then, all I would say, if that is the answer of the minister, is that this bill ought to be closed for good and ever. It should not be further continued unless the Minister of Transport is prepared to answer a fair question, or to have his deputies here, who may be more fully acquainted with the measure. He cannot possibly know very much about it, because he has so many departments he cannot be proficient in all of them.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member might ask his questions in committee of the whole. All he is saying could be said in committee.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to make my statements here, and under the rules of the house on second reading I have a perfect right to discuss a bill clause by clause, and to ask the minister who has presented the bill to give an explanation. If he is not prepared to do so, then I think he should move the adjournment of the debate on second reading.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You move it.


Robert Emmett Finn: On the advice of the right
hon. the Prime Minister, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the guarantee by the government of Canada of principal and interest of loans made by chartered banks and guaranteed by the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan,
[Stage Direction]
Electric Power-Water Diversion
respectively, for the purchase of seed grain and for providing other assistance to farmers in connection with seeding operations during the spring of 1938; the liability of the government of Canada in respect of such guarantees not to exceed in the aggregate the sum of $1,900,000 in respect of Alberta and $13,500,000 in respect of Saskatchewan.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance); Mr. Speaker, I have asked that this item be called in order that I may ask that it be discharged. There is an error in the resolution, and I desire therefore to have it discharged in order that I may bring in a notice in the proper form with a resolution properly drawn, and indicating the proper sums of money, preceded of course by another message.
Order discharged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On January 27, 1938, the Canadian government, through the agency of the Canadian minister to the United States, addressed a note to the United States government regarding the project of the Ontario government and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission to divert water from the Keno-gami river into lake Superior, this note being included in the white paper tabled on February 28, 1938. The reply of the United States government has now been received in the form of a note dated March 17, 1938, from their Secretary of State to the Canadian minister in Washington.
At the same time there has been received a memorandum also dated March 17, 1938, from the United States Department .of State, stating the views of the United States government on the importation of hydro-electric power from Canada, and allied questions. Both notes, and the memorandum, were delivered to the Canadian minister on March 18.
I beg leave to table copies of the communications from the United States government, as well as a copy of a letter of March 21 from the Prime Minister of Canada, to the premier of Ontario in this connection. The correspondence being tabled is being printed in a supplement to the white paper tabled in the House of Commons on February 28. It is expected that copies of this supplement to the white paper will be available for distribution to members of parliament by noon to-morrow. The correspondence is being translated at the

present time, and it is expected that the French text of the supplement will be available on Wednesday.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the house adjourned at 10.50 pm.
Tuesday, March 22, 1938