1938-03-11

[Stage Direction]
First report of the standing committee on radio broadcasting.-Mr. Beaubien.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Lake Centre) moved:: That the second report of the special committee of the house appointed on the first of February, 1937, to continue and complete an inquiry begun by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, pursuant to a resolution of the house on March second, 1936, into the causes underlying the high prices of

farm implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936, presented to this house on April 8, 1937, be concurred in.
He said: In rising to speak to the motion which is now before the house I think it might be well for me to review briefly the steps leading up to the presentation of this report on the eighth day of April last. Bearing in mind the contents of the resolution, the house will recall that in January, 1936, farm implement companies did increase their prices. The matter was brought to my attention shortly before I left home to come here to attend ' the first session of this parliament. One of the local agents representing one of these machine companies showed me a letter he had received from his firm instructing him to advance his price list, giving as their reason that material and labour costs had advanced to such a point that they were forced to increase their prices.
After coming to Ottawa I discussed the matter with some other hon. members who are directly concerned with agriculture. I gave it further consideration, because I was not unaware of the fact that inquiries such as this cost money, and I wanted to be sure that I would be justified in bringing the subject to the attention of parliament before going into it any further. I finally decided to bring it to the attention of the house, and I did this on the second day of March, 1936. The resolution which I submitted at that time was on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) amended, by referring the matter to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization rather than the body mentioned in the original motion. The committee on agriculture and colonization undertook the task, and during the session of 1936 did considerable spade work in connection with the inquiry. They heard evidence covering 476 pages, a number of witnesses, and received and filed thirty-nine exhibits. These, by order of the house of February 1 last were made part of the record of the committee now reporting.
Toward the end of the session of 1936 it was felt by the members of the committee on agriculture and colonization that a smaller committee could better deal with the matter. As hon. members know, the committee on agriculture and colonization consists of sixty members. Consequently, on February 1 last, again on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture, a special committee was set up consisting of twenty-five members. This committee did me the honour of making me chairman. The special committee last year held , forty sittings, examining twenty-nine witnesses, heard 1,209 pages of evidence, and received and filed one hundred exhibits.

Farm Implements Committee Report
When the Minister of Agriculture made his motion the house will recall that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) expressed doubt whether a committee of this house was the right body to handle this matter. The right hon. gentleman expressed the opinion that acrimonious discussions would arise in that committee. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will be glad to know that nothing of the kind occurred. The work of the committee was harmonious throughout, and thanks are due to the members of the committee for their cooperation. In that connection may I say that on the last day of our sittings the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who is a member of long standing in this house, stated to the committee that in all his experience he had not served upon a more efficient committee. I took that as a tribute to the members of the committee and particularly to the counsel and the auditor whom we were fortunate in procuring, Mr. Graham, solicitor, of Swift Current, and Mr. Macdonald, chartered accountant from Winnipeg. I think anyone who has studied the evidence and gone through the report will agree with me that these two men did a tremendous amount of work in the short time at their disposal.
Coming to the report itself, there are thirty-six conclusions and recommendations. I have time only to touch very briefly upon a few of them.
The first conclusion points out that the prosperity of the farm implement industry depends on the prosperity of agriculture. As we study the evidence that is made very plain, that when agriculture is depressed the farm implement manufacturers of this country are not prosperous. The committee had the benefit of evidence tendered to it by Doctor Booth. Doctor Booth is an agricultural economist connected with the dominion Department of Agriculture. He told the committee that the annual requirements of farm implements in this country amounted to $51,700,000, and that during the period 1926-35, on account of the depression and farmers not being able to purchase their annual requirements, there had grown up in this country a backlog of requirements amounting to some $200,000,000. If this estimate is anything like correct and I think it well within the mark, and if this backlog is to be taken up in the next few years, it will be understood that farm implement manufacturers have in prospect a period of large sales, probably equal to the days when western Canada was being settled. When we consider the financial statements of the implement companies during that period we find that they experienced very prosperous times. With the annual requirement of $51,-
700,000 plus the backlog of $200,000,000, hon. members will understand how vital this matter of price is to the farmers of this country.
As I stated at the outset, in January, 1936 farm implement companies increased their prices. They stated before the committee that this increase amounted to three per cent over their line of production. The auditor of the committee claims that the increase was 4-4 per cent. If we take the implement company's own figure what do we find? That on that annual need of $51,700,000 you have to add another $1,550,000 and on the $200,000,000 back log that has to be taken up if the agriculturists of this country are to put themselves in a position to produce cheaply, there is another $6,000,000 added to the cost of farm implements by this increase.
We thought that was bad enough, but on November 1 last, despite the conclusion of the committee that this increase of 1936 was not justified and that any further increases would not be justified, the implement companies put into effect further material increases in the prices of these implements. I have here a list of twelve of the more important implements. I have not time to give all the details-


Mr. BENNETT:: Is that part of the evidence before the committee?


John Frederick Johnston: No, this is not part of the evidence; this is the increase that was made last November. I hope the right hon. gentleman will not raise a point of order, because I think this has a very direct bearing on the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not raising it as a point of order at all. I mention it only in view of the statement I made the other day that no Canadian evidence was received with respect to cream separators.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is not
correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the evidence is there; it speaks for itself.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the right hon. gentleman was misinformed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have read the evidence.


John Frederick Johnston: All cream separator manufacturers in Canada had an opportunity to appear before the committee. They received a questionnaire from the committee; if they did not see their way to return the questionnaire or appear before the committee, they have little to complain of at this time.
However, in regard to this increase in prices of farm implements of November 1 last, applicable to purchases of this year, what do
1238	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
we find? This list consists of machinery in every-day use, which will be found upon every farm in the country:
The list:
8-	foot binder with carrier and tongue truck.
20 d.d. drill.
6-foot mower.
10-foot dump rake.
14-foot single disc harrow C'H.
4-section steel drag harrow.
8i-foot stiff tooth cultivator 6H.
14-inch general purpose gang.
W30 tractor.
12-foot combine.
9-	foot 12-24-inch one way disc.
500-pound cream separator.
The percentage of increase on these twelve implements was 7-8 per cent, one of the largest increases that has been made in the history of this country with regard to the prices of farm machinery. This has come since the report of the committee was tabled in this house on April 8 last year; and covers the full range of implements at varying percentages of increase.


Mr. McCANN:: Has the hon. member the individual rates of increase?


John Frederick Johnston: Yes, I
have.


James Joseph McCann: What is the rate of increase on the last item?


John Frederick Johnston: On the
five hundred pound cream separator the percentage increase is 10-I.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman if he has the record of the increased prices of steel?


John Frederick Johnston: No, I
have not, though I have looked into it. No doubt there was an increase in the price of steel and other raw material, and there was some little increase in labour cost. I will admit that since the committee reported ,V,st April, there were increases, but I am g/iing to try to indicate before I conclude that even with those increases in the prices of materials going into the construction of farm implements, the increased prices were not necessary or justified.
What does that mean? I have stated to the house that the annual requirement in farm implements in this country amounts to $51,700,000. This backlog that has grown up because the farmers have not been able to make their annual purchases amounts to $200,000,000. I have a table here which I think gives ample proof that the backlog does exist. We have the average increase on these twelve typical implements which, as I have said,

amounted to 7-8 per cent, but in order to be on the safe side we will say that on the whole line of machinery manufactured by these companies the increase of November 1 amounted to five per cent. Take that together with the three per cent increase in 1936 and you have eight per cent in all. Hon. members will see that on the annual requirement this means an extra amount of over $4,000,000 that must be paid by the farmers, while on the backlog it amounts to some $16,000,000. That is a very serious matter, when we consider the condition of agriculture at the present time.
What do we find with regard to the operation of these companies over the period of years? Number 4 in our conclusions reads:
That the companies engaged in the industry, over the period of their operations as a whole, have made substantial profits on the capital invested in each company.
The International Harvester Company, over the period 1926 to 1935, a low period of production and sale, was shown to have earned a minimum profit of 6-3 per cent on their business. That is not a bad return. With regard to the other great company doing business in this country, the Massey-Harris Company, a loss was shown during this period, but the evidence brought out before the committee would indicate that this loss was not altogether due to the depression, but that other considerations came into the picture.
Now I should like to say a word with regard to the finances of these companies and what they have done for themselves during the time they have been serving the Canadian farmer. Time will not permit me to go into all the companies, but what do we find when we turn to the Massey-Harris Company? First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are wrong when we look upon these companies as being purely Canadian. We find that the Massey-Harris Company does sixty per cent of its business outside of Canada. In 1891, when the Massey and Harris interests were merged, together with some other manufacturers, they had a capital of approximately '$3,500,000, of which only $300,000 was put up in cash, the remainder being given in exchange for the assets of the constituent firms that were merged. In that period, 1891 to 1912, the capital remained at $3,500,000, leaving out of consideration for the moment another $1,000,000 that was put in in 1911. What do we find happening during that period? On a capitalization of $3,500,000 this company was able to pay cash dividends amounting to $11,212,349 and stock dividends of $8,500,000, or total dividends of $19,712,349;

Farm Implements Committee Report
to create a rest account of $6,500,000; to set up a special contingency account of $1,680,000 and to retain unallocated in surplus account $1,061,000, or a total of $28,959,349. That is a very substantial return on a capital which amounted to $3,500,000 at the inception of the company and which remained at that figure until near the end of that period, when an additional $1,000,000 was put in. I am sure no one would say the prices this company charged its customers during that period were not sufficient to pay them a good rate of interest on the original investment, to give their stockholders sufficient in the way of dividends and still leave a very, very wide margin. Such is the situation with regard to that company, and broadly speaking it may be said to apply to many of the other companies, with perhaps a little less force.
Before our committee these companies indicated that they had suffered very severe losses in connection with time sales. That is so. I would desire that all purchasers of farm implements in this country should note the exact situation in regard to this matter. I have here a statement which was furnished to the committee by the auditors and which shows the approximate net sales in Canada of the four big companies, International Harvester, Massey-Harris, John Deere and Cock-shutt Plow-Frost and Wood. During the period under review, 1926 to 1935, the sales of these four companies amounted to $246,740,000. Their bad debt loss in connection with these sales amounted to $12,726,000, or 5-2 per cent. That is too much for these companies to lose, and I think they have done the right thing in increasing the cash payment. The result of that loss, as in all cases, has been that the man who does pay must make up for the fellow who does not pay, and the sooner the farmers of this country come to realize the fact that it will pay them to buy their machinery for cash, the better it will be.
In connection with the increased cost of producing these machines, No. 14 of our conclusions reads:
That the relative increase in the cost of labour has been one of the important elements in the increase of prices occurring between 1913 and 1936.
It was established before the committee that during that period labour costs had increased a full one hundred per cent. The farmer has no quarrel with the labour employed in those factories, but his contention is that if there were a greater number of men employed in the factories, performing more hours of labour, the farmer would be able to have his machinery at a lesser cost. There
is no fight between the farmer and the man employed in the factories. During this period the federal and provincial governments have spent tens of millions of dollars in an endeavour to keep farmers on the land, and to rehabilitate those who are on the land, particularly in the drought areas of western Canada. I suggest there is no group in the dominion which benefits more by those expenditures than do the farm implement companies. They benefit in a direct way.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that the agriculturists are not looking for too much when they ask the farm implement people to make a contribution. But what contribution do we get? Another increase in prices. Having lived in the drought area during the last few years I know of the difficulties experienced by the people there. They have to take the loss; they cannot pass it on, and cannot get away from it. It is their loss. On the other hand the farm implement companies, having, as they claim, made a loss during the drought period, are now passing it on. Not only must the farmer consider his annual requirements, but the one who has not been able to purchase his requirements during that period will be penalized an extra eight or ten per cent to catch up on the backlog.
I have before me a quotation from a speech delivered by Sir Edward Beatty, touching on this point, at a joint meeting of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Kiwanis Club of Toronto on February 5, 1936. I hope my farm implement friends will pay some heed to what Sir Edward had to say in the matter. Although his observations were not made directly to them, I believe they apply. He said:
The business leaders of this country must face facts. Men attracted from farms to cities by high wages offered them by business institutions, and then abandoned to unemployment through no fault of their own, have a legitimate criticism to make of the skill with which private business has conducted its affairs. To deny this is to be smug. For a business man living in comfort-
And these are the words to which I direct the attention of farm implement companies-
-even if his dividends and profits have shrunk to nothing, to tell men who do not know where to obtain their next meal, except from public or private charity, that this is all inevitable, is wrong.
I should like to point out to the farm implement companies that if they made no profits during the period of depression, neither did the farmer. He is not in a position in any degree to pass on his loss. On the other hand
1240	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
to-day the farm implement companies are not only increasing their prices on the farmer's annual requirements but are calling upon him to pay a penalty on the backlog he was not able to take up during the period of depression. In street parlance, I suggest to the house that it is not playing the game.
Conclusion No. 16 reads:
That it is the opinion of the committee that the cost of cream separators to the consumers should be reduced and with that end in view recommends that this item be placed on the free list.
I am not going to discuss this conclusion in detail, because I believe it will be dealt with by other hon. members representing dairying constituencies. It was proven, however, that with regard to one machine the mark-up over cost amounted to ninety per cent. The cream separator in my opinion may be looked upon as the hand maiden of thrift. Any farmer who has the ambition to augment his income by using one of these machines should have it at the lowest possible cost. For that reason the committee have recommended that cream separators again be placed on the free list, where they had been many years prior to 1930.
Conclusion No. 17 is:
That reduction in the tariff should and does in the long run tend to lower the price level to the farmer, depending on the extent of free price competition in the industry.
Let me give a case or two in point. In January, 1936, tractors valued over $1,400 were placed on the free list. The Caterpillar Tractor Company gave evidence before the committee. As a result of this tariff change on one model of tractor manufactured by this company there was a price reduction of $880, and every dollar of it was passed on to the purchaser. When it is said a reduction in tariff does not amount to anything I would suggest that we take notice of a reduction in price of this kind. There should be reductions such as I have indicated, unless there is within an organization, if not a monopoly, at least an understanding with respect to a way of getting together to defeat the action of parliament when tariffs are reduced.
We find further, that as a result of the tariff reductions in January, 1936, the International Harvester Company of Canada made reductions on 168 items, the Massey-Harris Company on 6 items and the John Deere Manufacturing Company on 103 items. The committee found that while there was competition with regard to sales, there was no competition with regard to prices.
I now direct the attention of the house to conclusions 19 to 22, which deal with the

provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Traiff, affecting the importation of farm implements. The statement is that these measures should be clarified. I shall not read the four conclusions to which I have referred. It is sufficient to say that the inquiry clearly indicated that there were inequalities existing in the application of these regulations, that they were unfair to the importer of farm implements, and that in addition they deprived the dominion treasury of very considerable sums of money.
Let me give an example to illustrate my point. Since 1924 tractors have not been classified as of a class or kind made in Canada. As a result the American parent companies, under regulation of the Department of National Revenue, could have invoiced the tractors to their Canadian companies at the same price as to the American subsidiaries. What was done? They were not so invoiced. The auditor of the committee made a conservative estimate of the amount of income tax that had been lost to the Canadian treasury. His estimate was that at least $400,000 would have been paid into the Canadian treasury by means of income tax had the Department of National Revenue drawn this to the attention of these companies. As I stated at the outset, I hesitated to bring this matter to the attention of the house because of the cost. Let me say that from this one item, many times the cost of the inquiry will be returned to the dominion treasury. In connection with these matters I want to say that I have every confidence that the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) is doing all that he can and will see to it that his department is a department for the collection of revenue rather than one to curtail the importation of goods into this country.
1 want to say something with regard to the matter of credit-I wanted to speak about a number of other things, but my time is slipping along. The cost of this credit ranged from 24-7 per cent to 50-2 per cent, depending on the time over which it extended and the class of implement purchased. It will need no argument on my part to indicate that no business could carry on under such a load and succeed. The implement companies stated that this was not to be looked upon as an interest charge, that it was put on to induce the farmer to pay cash. I have in my hand two tables, which the International Company worked out for the committee, giving the factory cost of an eight-foot binder. I desire to draw the attention of the farmers of this country to these tables. I believe that if they

Farm Implements Committee Report
realize what it costs to purchase farm machinery on time, they will make a greater effort to buy only for cash.
What do we find with regard to the increase in the cost of these machines? Back in 1913 the factory cost of an eight-foot binder was $75.83. In 1930 this cost had increased to $138.39. That was the year in which the right hon. leader of the opposition came into power, and in 1931 there was a further increase to $153.11. In 1935 the factory cost of this binder had dropped to $123.32, a decrease of approximately $30. I remember when this matter was before the house on another occasion the right hon. gentleman said that the companies had given him a letter to the effect that they would not increase prices provided a duty of twenty-five per cent were placed on these machines. He indicated at that time that they had kept faith with him, that they had not increased prices but rather had decreased them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there was to be no increase in the cost of raw materials.


John Frederick Johnston: They have kept faith; they did not increase the prices, they reduced them as the right hon. gentleman said. However, they did not reduce them far enough. It will be noticed that the factory cost of a binder in 1931 was $153.11. In 1935 this had dropped to $123.32, or just a few cents short of $30. In 1931 the cash price of a binder to the farmer at Regina was $278. In 1935 this had dropped to $263, or a decrease of $15. They came only half way in their reduction.
There _ is a matter of greater importance with which I should like to deal if time permits. I refer to the question of freight rates. Numbers 11, 12 and 13 of our recommendations deal with this matter. The people in the west know just how important this is. During the period 1926 to 1935 inclusive the International Harvester Company marketed 77-6 per cent of its total Canadian sales volume in western Canada, while the Massey-Harris Company marketed 66-69 per cent of its production in western Canada. The fathers of confederation realized that the matter of freight rates was of prime importance and they stated that the outlying portions of Canada would have to be given a cheap and efficient system of transportation. It has been stated in this house that the fathers of confederation went even further and said that this should be done even though it meant a tax upon the taxpayers generally.
Back in 1897 the government in office at that time made an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company known as the Crows-nest Pass agreement. Under that agreement 51952-79
the government paid the Canadian Pacific Railway Company a subsidy for the building of a line from Lethbridge through the Crows-nest pass into British Columbia. I believe this subsidy amounted to $3,400,000. The railway company agreed to maximum rates on certain commodities, such as wheat and wheat products eastbound and farm implements and other commodities westbound. Western Canada enjoyed the benefit of those rates from 1897 until 1919, or, more properly speaking, until 1902. In that year an agreement was entered into between the government of Manitoba and the Mackenzie and Mann interests, under which the rates were to be a little lower than under the Crowsnest Pass agreement. From 1902 until 1919 western producers had the benefit of the rates provided by the Manitoba agreement, but the Crowsnest Pass agreement was still intact.
In 1919 the railway companies made representations to the government of the day to the effect that they were not able to carry on under the existing rates. They said that something would have to be done and, rightly or wrongly, the government agreed to suspend the operation of that agreement for a three-year period. Those three years expired on July 6, 1922, the year in which a new government under the present Prime Minister came into office. If nothing had been done at that session, on July 6 of that year the rates under the old Crowsnest Pass agreement would have automatically come into effect. But again the railway companies made representations to the effect that they would not be able to carry on.
The new government appointed a special committee to inquire into the matter and I was privileged to be a member of that committee. To make a long story short, a resolution was presented to the committee and adopted which recommended to parliament that the rates on wheat and wheat products eastbound should be restored. That resolution was accepted by the house. The reason the rates westbound were not restored was due to the fact that the western members of that committee could not get sufficient support in the committee to get them through. It was not because we did not believe they were necessary, nor was it because we did not believe the western farmers were entitled to them.
The record of the Liberal party in connection with the Crowsnest Pass agreement is good. Following up what had happened and the opinion expressed by the fathers of confederation that the outlying sections of Canada should be given an efficient transportation system, the Liberal party, in its second year in office in 1897, made this agreement guaranteeing to the people who had

1242	COMMONS
Farm Implements Committee Report
settled on the western prairies these maximum rates. The railway companies could take only a certain toll for carrying a bushel of wheat, and that agreement continued, as I -have stated, until 1919.
Again, in 1922, the Liberal party restored those rates, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in 1898 and in 1922 the circumstances of the people living in that western country were not to ibe compared with conditions to-day.
I suggest that the government give very serious consideration to the question of restoring these rates at this time.
I had wanted, sir, to refer to the financial statements of the different implement companies for the present year, which all show a marked improvement in business over the previous year, but time will not permit. I want, however, to read and put on the record an excerpt from a letter that I received from the United Farmers of Manitoba. It comes from outside my own province, from the city of Winnipeg, and is addressed to myself:
During the past year the report of the special committee of the House of Commons dealing with prices of farm implements, of which you were chairman, has been receiving widespread attention in this province and particularly among the leaders of the organized farmers. General satisfaction has been expressed at the outspoken nature of the comment on certain conditions which have prevailed in regard to implement prices and widespread expectation has been stimulated looking toward concrete action in the direction of relieving some of the injustices which have been imposed and which continue to the present time. It is felt that the House of Commons having had its attention so specifically directed to these unfair exactions should not stop with merely recognizing their existence but should further bestir themselves to bring to bear whatever pressure may be necessary to secure readjustment and relief.
Our hope is that it will not be a matter of mere expression of opinion but that some concrete action will be devised by conference with the leaders of the implement manufacturing industry or otherwise to secure the relief which the report so fully recognizes as being overdue.
Signed on behalf of
The United Farmers of Manitoba, William R. Wood,
Secretary.
If Canada is to continue to produce wheat in large quantities, undoubtedly changes will have to be made. In my opinion we shall have to produce wheat at a lower cost; and how are we going to do that? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the steps which this house should take is to reduce, if possible, the cost of farm implements to the farmer, because, after all, farm implements and the soil are the farmer's raw materials, and he cannot carry on his industry without them.

I have a statement here which I should like to place on Hansard, with the permission of hon. members. It is an extract from a report submitted to the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission by Charles F. Wilson, statistician, agricultural branch, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, December 5, 1936.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether that should be placed upon the record. It is part of the proceedings of a commission which has not yet reported to this house, is not public property and is a document to which we have not access.


John Frederick Johnston: It came
into my hands, I might inform the house, in this way:	I telephoned the bureau of statistics and asked them if they could give me some information with regard to the world situation with regard to wheat. What I wanted particularly to get at was how much less wheat the importing countries of the world had been taking in the last few' years as compared with ten years ago, and Mr. Wilson sent me this information in reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a 1936 document
of the royal commission on grain, and obviously none of us has access to it as yet, but I am not objecting to its going on the record.


Mr. CRERAR:: It is public information,
available from the bureau of statistics.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Wilson's statement reads:
The foregoing statement with respect to the individual European importing countries has drawn attention to the various devices used to stimulate domestic wheat production and to curtail wheat imports. These devices have included increased tariff protection, exchange control, import and milling quotas, licensing of imports and import prohibitions, price support and price fixing for domestic production, and control of the grain handling and flour milling industries. In consequence of the employment of these devices in varying degree in the European importing countries, wheat production in Europe, apart from the lower Danube and Russia, increased-
Here is the important part:
-increased from an average of 936 million bushels in 1922/26 to an average of 1,265 million bushels in 1932/36. This means that during recent years the European importing countries have been producing around 330 million bushels more of their own annual requirements than they did ten to fifteen years ago. The wheat imports of these countries have correspondingly diminished by approximately 300 million bushels annually during the same period.
That is the condition to which I wanted to direct the attention of hon. members, that the countries to which Canada once sold

Soldier Settlement Act
millions of bushels of wheat have increased their own production during the last few years by approximately 300 million bushels annually. How does that affect Canada? It lessens available markets to that extent, and I suggest to the house in all seriousness that if Canada as a country is going to continue to produce wheat in large quantities we must in some way reduce our cost of producing wheat, or else we shall have to go out of the wheat picture.
I have a few suggestions to offer, Mr. Speaker, and then I am through. I suggest:
(1)	Serious consideration should be given to the matter of removing all duties on the general line of farm implements.
This suggestion does not come from the committee, but I am persuaded to make it because of the action of the machinery companies in November last.
(2)	Cream separators should be placed on the free list, as they were for many years.
(3)	No dumping duties to apply on farm implements or cream separators.
(4)	Raw materials going into the manufac-ture_ of farm implements should be made free.
(5)	Restore the Crowsnest Pass rate on farm implements and see to it that the full reduction in freight charges is passed on to the farmer.
(6)	Appoint an agricultural economist to check on material and labour costs going into the manufacture of farm implements, this official to furnish the Minister of Agriculture with an annual report.
I make that suggestion for this reason, that if such an official had been on the job during the period I referred to, from 1891 to 1912, I think the farmers might have looked for a material reduction in the price of farm implements.
(7)	Appoint a commission to inquire into the feasibility of manufacturing farm implements in the prairie sections of Canada, where seventy per cent of the farm implements sold in Canada are purchased.
We have cheap power out there, Mr. Speaker. The city of Winnipeg is noted for its cheap power. We have almost unlimited deposits of cheap coal in the province of Saskatchewan. I think this suggestion is worth while and should be investigated thoroughly.
In conclusion, sir, I suggest that the rehabilitation of the agriculturists in this country is a pressing national problem. To this end I suggest that immediate study be given to the matter of setting up a system of insurance on a contributory basis that would enable the farmer to supply his own seed and feed requirements in times of drought or
51952-79^
loss of crops from other causes. Had there been such a system in operation in the prairie sections of Canada during the period 1900 to 1930 the west could have taken care of her needs in this regard. Lastly I appeal to those of our people, who are more concerned with building for a united Canada than they are in making immediate profits for themselves, to assist in stabilizing this great basic industry. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture must be stabilized if we are to have in this country a well balanced national economy.
On motion of Mr. Bouchard the debate was adjourned.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue) 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 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, 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.
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. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaubien in the chair.
On section 1-Payment of rates, taxes, insurance, et cetera, by board in case of default on part of settler.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I wish to discuss the case of a returned soldier in Saskatchewan. Is
Soldier Settlement Act

this the right place to bring it up? I have already mentioned the position of Lieutenant Frank Murphy.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That could be discussed better under the soldier settlement estimates. I do not know whether the complaint relates to the subject matter of this bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It has to do with a settlement that has already been made or suggested between the soldier settlement board and this soldier farmer. Perhaps if I tell the minister exactly what it is he will say whether it can be discussed under this item.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The chairman is the one to tell you that.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr.Beaubien):: My information is that it is not relevant to the bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How does the chairman know that when he does not know what the case is? It is a matter of settlement between the soldier settlement board and this farmer. He is not satisfied and I should like to present nis reasons.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I rather think that touches upon the administration of the soldier settlement board and I suggest that it can be more properly discussed when the estimates are before us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to suggest
the other evening, had the debate not been protracted, the question whether or not it is desirable to make the rate of interest four per cent. As a matter of fact the minister knows better than I do the great difficulty there has. been about the payment of interest at all, and the inability of the settler to pay interest either on the purchase price or the balance remaining unpaid or on advances made by the crown for purposes of providing for payment of taxes or for insurance. It does seem to me that a rate of four per cent would be an ample charge so far as soldier settlers are concerned. If such a rate were charged there might a likelihood of part of it being paid. Five per cent is really a commercial rate. If we are borrowing money at less than four per cent the rate here might well be four per cent. I intended to bring the matter to the attention of the minister the other evening, but at the time he was pressed from other sources.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The purpose in reducing
the rate to five per cent-and parenthetically I may say that it has always been five per cent except for a brief period at the beginning-is to bring it more into line with the 
rate charged in connection with federal farm loans. I may be wrong but my impression at the moment is that the rate there is five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is so; that is the
minimum. That is the prevailing rate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes. I think that under all the circumstances five per cent is a fair rate when you take into account the concessions that have been made in the past to this particular class of returned soldiers.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I notice these words:
... it shall be lawful for the board to pay such rates, taxes or assessments or to insure such property as aforesaid and all moneys so expended by the board either before or after the enactment hereof, shall be repaid. . . .
Has it been the practice of the board to pay such assessments up to the present time, and if so -to what total sum? The soldier settlers are in many instances in quite a hopeless position, and what we should require is not the payment of taxes, and so on, which will increase their obligations to the board, but something more than this bill provides, something which will bring the debts down to a point where the settlers themselves can see some possibility of meeting their obligations.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not think I have the information which the hon. member has just asked for. The explanation of the purpose of the section was given the other day when the resolution was under discussion. It has been found that there were many returned soldiers, for instance, who either could not or neglected to keep up their fire insurance premiums on buildings, and the like. Then there were cases where taxes were not paid. The board was authorized under the legislation creating it to advance moneys to keep these properties in good standing, and it is with the rate of interest on those moneys that this section is concerned. There was one provision in the Soldier Settlement Act which gave warrant for charging seven per cent; there was another provision which could be stretched to the interpretation that five per cent should be charged. The purpose of this section is to make it clear beyond doubt that the five per cent rate obtains and that no question can be raised in the future concerning the charge of five per cent.
The amount that has been advanced in this way on the whole I should think would not be very great.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The payments to the municipalities for taxes are substantial.

Soldier Settlement Act


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Payments to municipalities for taxes probably are substantial, but, in relation to the whole obligation, relatively small.


Mr. QUELCH:: Do the provisions of this bill apply only to soldier settlers, or to all settlers under this act-that is, British settlers, immigrants and others?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The provisions of the bill will apply to soldier settlers, civilian settlers and others who have been beneficiaries of it in the past.


Victor Quelch: Then these are not special concessions to returned soldiers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I do not think they can be so described.


Victor Quelch: It has often been said that they are.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All classes coming under the Soldier Settlement Act administration, which includes soldier settlers, civilian settlers who purchased abandoned soldier settlement claims, those who came under the so-called 3,000 British families scheme, and I think there was also the New Brunswick 500 families scheme- these all share alike in the benefits which may be conferred by this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All lands under the administration of the soldier settlement board.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is right.


Mr. PELLETIER:: It concerns the payment of rates, taxes, insurance, et cetera, by the board in case of default on the part of the settler. Last year, if my memory is correct, the government brought in a measure by which through agreement with the government of Saskatchewan some $18,000,000 of taxes and various charges due by farmers on their lands was wiped out by the federal and provincial governments. Is the minister in a position to tell us exactly how much benefit was derived by the Soldier Settlement Act administration because of that measure? If there were old taxes accrued against these lands and they were wiped out, the board must have received some material advantage. I should like to know what advantage has been received.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The soldier settlers in
Saskatchewan and Alberta did not come under that arrangement. My hon. friend will recall that that was a voluntary arrangement entered into between loan companies, municipalities and the government of Saskatchewan. The government of Saskatchewan was a creditor for very considerable amounts, of farmers all over Saskatchewan, as well as the loan companies and the municipalities. That
arrangement was reached by an understanding come to voluntarily between these various interests. The soldier settlement board had no authority by the legislation under which it operates to come into that scheme. That has been recognized, and as I say, leniency has been shown to the greatest possible extent and the soldier settler was able to enjoy the advantages of that scheme in another fashion, by applying under the Farmers-' Creditors Arrangement Act for an adjustment of his obligations if he felt that he could not carry on.


Mr. BROOKS:: In some districts the school authorities have a lot of difficulty, with taxes sometimes two, three and four years in arrears. Is any period specified during which the taxes shall be in arrears on these farms before the board will pay, or is it left until the farms are put up for tax sale by the school district or the municipality?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the latter is correct. I cannot speak with definite knowledge, but the soldier settlement board will protect the lands where they are worth protecting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We went further than that. The minister will remember that during the last few years many municipalities and school districts found themselves in difficulty because they were without money, and we passed a statute-the exact year escapes my memory-by which we provided that the minister might take care of the situation. It is very important that it should be done promptly, for two reasons: one, to relieve the difficulty of the school districts and municipalities, and, second, because penalties accumulate and the amount payable becomes out of all proportion to what it would be if the taxes were paid promptly. I think the minister's deputies will be able to advise him that since the enactment of this legislation an effort has been made to pay within a reasonable time after it became apparent that the settler was unable to pay, and the crown became the collecting agency from the settler, not the municipality.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I know that applied to lands which had been abandoned by soldier settlers and have not yet been resold by the board. Coming back to the crown they were for a time in the position that taxes could not be collected from the crown in the right of the dominion. I was not so sure that it applied in the case of the settler still on his land who got in arrears with his taxes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is quite right. For reasons which will be well understood it was not put in those clear
Soldier Settlement Act

terms, because that would have been, a direct incentive not to pay the taxes, and would make the crown the collecting agency, which is a task of great difficulty. But in practice the endeavour was to deal through the people on the ground, so that the school districts and the municipalities would not be ruined through being unable to collect the money. The minister realizes how difficult it has been to deal with some, especially in the west.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has the minister considered the possibility of including under this section provision for the cancellation of interest payments in districts where there has been no crop? In the drought area mortgage and loan companies have cancelled interest; in some cases they have made very substantial reductions in principal as well, yet farmers under the soldier settlement scheme have not had the advantage of that. I have in mind now the case of a man in the Candiac district, under the soldier settlement plan, who also has a loan under the farm loan board. During the bad years he has been able to pay his taxes and make his living with a minimum amount of relief. As the result of these bad years, however, there has been an accumulation of interest, until now, having made his payments ever since the war, he actually owes more on the farm than he engaged to pay in the first place. It seems strange that men who are on farms under a government scheme should not at least be able to get the same type of reduction that other farmers are getting from private mortgage and loan companies. Last year, for instance, there was no crop, and the 1937 interest is being added to his debt, as well as the principal payment that was not made. If we are to pass legislation to guarantee the payment of taxes it might be worth while keeping in mind the possibility of cutting off the interest payments in the years when there is no crop. I wonder if the minister could give consideration to that point, either under this legislation or under some subsequent legislation that will be brought in.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Consideration has been given to the matter just referred to by the hon. member for Weyburn. The difficulty, of course, in a government scheme of this kind is to pick out particular districts or areas and confer upon them certain advantages or privileges, if you like, by way of interest remission. If we attempted that, for instance in the particular district represented by my hon. friend, I think I am safe in saying that immediately we would be faced with requests from other districts and other parts of Canada until it would come to the point where it would have to have general application. The dollar for dollar bonus-


Mr. NEILL:: Are we discussing that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, we are not, but I want to point it out as an illustration, in reply to the hon. member for Weyburn. The privilege given under the dollar for dollar bonus was one that applied right across Canada. Everything that has been done in the way of easing the situation of the soldier settlers has required general application, and I think if my hon. friend from AVeyburn will reflect for a moment he will see the reason for that. The soldier settlers in the dried out areas in Saskatchewan have suffered very severely, of course. They have not been able to take advantage of the provisions with respect to the dollar for dollar bonus privilege. This legislation will give them an opportunity to do that for the next three years at any rate.
There is one piece of machinery of general application that has been set up by the federal government. I refer to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. If a soldier settler in Saskatchewan wants to get an adjustment of his obligations or wants to have his situation eased he can apply under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and no objection will be raised by the soldier settler administration. Indeed I think I am safe in saying that the soldier settlers are encouraged, when their circumstances warrant it, to seek an adjustment under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because, as I have said, that is an act which is general in its application. The same thing will apply to the soldier settler in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia or any other part of the dominion. If we should depart from that principle and attempt to have legislation conferring benefits upon a part of Saskatchewan or a part of New Brunswick I am afraid we would be getting into a great deal of trouble. I can assure the committee that the whole object of the administration is to administer this legislation sympathetically. We believe there is still a very considerable asset here.
There is another fact that I might mention, if I could have the indulgence of the committee for a moment. Out of the total number of those who belonged to the expeditionary force only about two per cent come under the category of soldier settlers. We have many returned soldiers who are farming and who are not under this scheme at all. For one reason or another they did not care to come under this scheme but established themselves on farms. Again, we have a great many returned soldiers who have purchased homes for themselves or established themselves in small businesses, all without government aid. I do not think any effective criticism can be made of this or any previous

Soldier Settlement Act
government, from the time this soldier settlement scheme was inaugurated down to the present time, on the ground that the soldier settlers have been in any way harshly dealt with. I think the general consensus, not only in the public mind but also in the minds of a great many returned men themselves, is that the treatment they have received under this scheme since its inception on the whole has been quite fair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I quite appreciate the minister's point with reference to the desire not to discriminate as between one part of the dominion and another, but it is a fact that in the drought area you have a part of Canada that has been subjected to unusual recurring conditions, and there has been discrimination in favour of all the people in that area by private lending institutions. In view of that fact it would seem that the government would not be exceeding its prerogative in bringing its policy into line to some extent. It might be done by having the interest payment cancelled or in any case reduced in years when the average crop per acre did not come above a certain amount, or under some general principle that would apply in any part of Canada, so that a soldier settler who had not produced a crop that would enable him to meet his obligations would not have the interest piling up.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my hon.
friend who would be the judge as to whether he had produced a sufficient crop to meet his obligations?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is a matter of administration under the act. It would not be very difficult-


Mr CRERAR:: I think it would be very
difficult.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think it would be difficult to find out how much a man was selling through an elevator. At present the municipalities are checking up very closely, and it would not be very difficult for the government to keep in touch in order to find out what crop a man was actually selling. I do see the minister's point, however, with reference to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Although the minister may not have the exact figure, could he give approximately the amount of interest and principal that has been thrown off under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in favour of soldiers who have come to or applied for protection under the boards of review of the different provinces.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I believe I gave that information the other day when the bill was in committee. However, I shall look it up.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn, I would like to urge that particular consideration be given to the drought areas. I have in mind particularly the area in my own constituency. These people would appreciate it if some of the arrears in interest could be reduced. It is not a case of discrimination, as has been suggested. It is recognized throughout Canada that the people in the drought areas are up against a situation which never existed before.
I do not see why other parts of Canada should believe that there has been discrimination. It is a case of necessity. Already the dominion government has offered assistance, and this is one way in which it can assist, without a direct expenditure. The machinery is already set up, and it would be great encouragement for the returned soldiers in the dried-out areas -I am not so much concerned about the outside areas-if something were done. I am referring to the area already set aside by the dominion as one in which the people are not in a position to take care of themselves. It would -be in the interests of all concerned and to the advantage of Canada to take into consideration some sort of remission or reduction in arrears of interest.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have the information sought by the hon. member for Weybum. The advantage accruing up to date under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is about $1,400,000. This is practically all in the western provinces.


Major James William Coldwell: I asked the ministe the other day if, having taken advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the soldier would be debarred from obtaining any further remission from this parliament. The point I had in mind was this. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act provides for a bankruptcy proceeding. Once having gone into bankruptcy and having been declared insolvent and a computation and settlement made with the creditors, is it possible that a soldier or other settler would be entitled to take advantage of subsequent legislation by this parliament? That was the point in which I was interested the other day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not see why not. If a soldier settler applies under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act I should think he would come under the benefits of this legislation.
Soldier Settlement Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the absence of any restriction he would, certainly.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: And there is no restriction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Consequently he would still be a beneficiary under this legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As to the figure the minister gave with reference to the reduction in principal and interest under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, can the minister give a rough idea what percentage that amount would be of soldier farmers' debts?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What percentage would the reduction represent?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot give the hon.
member that information at the present time.


Mr. REID:: A few moments ago the minister said that only two per cent of the settlers were in the expeditionary force. In a return tabled last year it is shown that there are
10.668	soldier settlers, 6.783 civilian settlers, and 1,825 families under the British family scheme. Is the minister correct in the answer he gave?-because I take it that the segregation indicated in these figures shows that
10.668	were actual soldier settlers, and that is over fifty per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Thomas Reid: Well, the total figure is 18,276, and the soldier settlers number 10,668; that is certainly over fifty per cent. The minister's observation was that only two per cent of the settlers had belonged to the expeditionary force.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No-of the total number.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Of the total number of the enlisted force in Canada for the great war, only about two per cent are at present soldier settlers.


Thomas Reid: That is one way of putting it, but it would be fairer to say that there are still over 10,000 soldier settlers, or fifty per cent of the settlers under the act. It is not quite fair to segregate the number so as to show the percentage of those who enlisted. These soldier settlers are the ones who took advantage of the act at its inception.
I do not think hon. members are quite fair when they mention the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, because not long ago there was introduced in the house an amendment which will permit any province making application to come out from under the provisions of the act. A province such as Ontario, or in

fact any other province, may say, "We do not wish to be under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act," and without any thought whatsoever of soldier settlers. Personally I am against the principle of one part of the government saying, "We are not going to give you further relief, but if you go somewhere else you will get relief there." That is not a good principle. As has been well said, one has to show he is bankrupt before he can come under the act. Many ex-service men have made every effort to pay up so that they can obtain the dollar for dollar benefit; but since their creditors are paid up, how can they say they are bankrupt. We are actually penalizing thrift.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Even if the department, as the minister says, are administering the act as sympathetically as possible, it is still possible to overlook some kinds of relief of which they could avail themselves. I am referring to the old taxes which were wiped off, as the minister said, by mutual agreement between individuals and the government of Saskatchewan, to which those old taxes were due. The government of Saskatchewan had in turn borrowed this money from the federal government, which was finally called upon to pay out the sum of 818,000,000 to the government of Saskatchewan in order that these voluntary agreements might take place. The soldier settlement board could have made representations to the government of Saskatchewan on behalf of the soldiers, so that they might keep their land, with the old taxes cancelled. If that had been done it would not be necessary at this time to provide for payment of taxes. It might be possible to do that in the future. If the soldier settlement board had taken advantage of the provision which was made at that time on behalf of the individual farmers, they might also have obtained the relief which was given to all other farmers in Saskatchewan in connection with the reduction of debt. I bring this to the attention of the minister because I believe it should not have applied only to one class of individuals. Simply because some were soldier settlers they should not have been debarred from taking advantage of this debt reduction. I strongly urge the minister to recommend that the soldier settlement board get into touch with the government of Saskatchewan with a view to having these old taxes cancelled, in the same way that other citizens have had their taxes cancelled at other times.


Mr. FINN:: I followed the observations of the hon. member for Weyburn, in which he pointed out that, as regards the requirements

Soldier Settlement Act
of the west, particularly his own. constituency of Weyburn, he did not want it understood that he was in favour of discrimination as against the east or British Columbia. Before this government decides to grant millions of dollars to any particular part of Canada, it should be prepared, particularly the ministers from the east, to see that we get more than the lopped off branches which would be left after hon. gentlemen from the west get everything they desire for themselves. Our leaders from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should be prepared to take this stand. I am not objecting to the necessary expenditure of money to alleviate conditions in the west, but I think it is only fair that something should be done for the people of the east who are suffering great hardships through unemployment and other conditions, in many cases having little or nothing to eat. I say this in all seriousness. I was surprised this afternoon to hear a minister from my own province, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), move a resolution for the expenditure of $15,000,000 for seed in the western provinces.


Mr. ILSLEY:: That is a guarantee.


Robert Emmett Finn: I suppose if we could get $15,000,000 down in the maritimes we would have no trouble to get somebody to guarantee it. The point I am trying to make is that there seems to be no direct action taken by the ministers from the maritime provinces, and particularly the minister from Nova Scotia, to see that we get an equitable allotment. Nova Scotia is the oldest province in Canada. She was one of the first, together with New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, to enter confederation, against her will, but is now satisfied to remain with the confederacy. But, Mr. Chairman, she will not be content to remain there unless she is given a fair and equitable share of the moneys of Canada. We are not asking for the expenditure of one dollar that we cannot defend. I suggest to the Minister of Mines and Resources, who is leading the house this afternoon, that he suggest to the government that when vast sums of money are being expended for certain provinces at least some intimation should be given as to what is to be done for the eastern section of this country, namely, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. Until that is done I am afraid there will be a wide gulf between us and there will be longer consideration given to these measures in debate than some hon. gentlemen expect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to say just a word or two with reference to the cancellation of interest where there has been no
crop. The minister says that the chief objection to this is that it would be discrimination in favour of one district as against another. I should like to point out to him that the dollar for dollar scheme, with which I am in agreement, also provides local discrimination. It discriminates in favour of the man who has a crop.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That may be, but there is no discrimination under the law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If a man has a crop, for every dollar he can put in he gets another dollar, but the man who has not been able to raise a crop is not given this help. In view of the fact that you are helping the man who has a crop by giving him dollar for dollar, there should be no objection on the part of those people who would be benefiting by that piece of legislation if assistance were given to the man who has no crop. At least in those years when he has no crop he should not be called upon to make interest payments. If we are going to help the man who has a crop, we should be prepared to help the man who has none. I do not think that would be discrimination, any more than it would be favouring people who are a little more fortunate than others.
The minister also said in connection with the cancellation of interest that the farmer could benefit under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. If that be true, and it is true in certain provinces, what will happen if in the near future boards of review are not allorved by proclamation to take any more applications in certain provinces? If we are to judge from a bill now on the order paper, that is what will happen. The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will not be operative in certain provinces. Does this mean that the discrimination of which the minister speaks is to be in effect against soldier settlers who might come in under a voluntary scheme such as was arranged last year in Saskatchewan? If the board of review is not in operation in that province, a man might find his interest payments continuing whether or not he had a crop, and they would continue to pile up until in some cases the total amount due would be more than the amount he had originally agreed to pay. Perhaps the minister would give serious consideration in the near future to doing something along this line.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I have one case I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. I understood that these matters were to be discussed when the estimates were
Soldier Settlement Act

before us, but now that the discussion has taken a wide range and our western friends are urging that certain concessions should be made to the people in the drought area of Saskatchewan, perhaps what I have in mind can be brought forward.
A man who had served overseas returned and purchased a farm for $5,000. He continued to farm that land for a number of years and finally reduced his debt to something like $1,100. If he had been able to raise that amount he would have had his farm free of debt, but he became completely discouraged and turned the farm over to a brother, also a returned soldier. Four boys from the one family served in the war. The soldier settlement board stepped in this year and got an order of the court to eject the soldier. The brother has to step out and give up this farm upon which thousands of dollars have been spent. This seems to me to be rather a hard situation. They claim that they cannot raise the money because of the action of the farm loan board not being willing to loan money on the soldier settlement board farms and also the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. These two pieces of legislation make the borrowing of money most difficult and these men have not been able to obtain a loan. There is nothing for them to do but go out and leave this property after having spent $3,000 or $4,000 on it.
I just want to point out to my western friends that they are not the only ones who are suffering. We made a plea for this man on the ground that there had been almost a complete crop failure in that section of the country. For the first time in the history of the province they have had to bring in feed for stock and seed grain in order to tide over the people. I have just been speaking to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) about this matter. I join with some of my friends from eastern Canada in voicing a slight protest in this house. When a claim is presented by our friends from western Canada it is given immediate consideration, but the attitude toward this situation in Prince county is that it is not of sufficient magnitude for the federal government to step into the picture; that the local government should be able to handle it. The man I speak of is a returned man, and his is not the only case by any means. He had no crop last year, and nothing to put in the ground this year, and he failed to get much sympathetic assistance from the departments here but it was true he failed to meet his payments regularly. I understand that the local government is able to guarantee the loans at the

banks to enable those in this position to get seed and carry on their operations, but we would certainly appreciate a little assistance if this western grain is to be shipped all the way down by rail from western Canada at a reduced freight rate. The people of my province, and particularly of the section I have spoken of, would greatly appreciate some assistance.


Major James William Coldwell: Might I say in reply to the hon. member that we of western Canada realize that we are discussing a matter for all Canada, and we are speaking of the conditions we know best when we speak of western Canada. I noticed from the figures of abandonments that have been made from time to time under the British and civilian and soldier settlement schemes that there were 1,072 abandonments in the St. John district, as compared with 1,611 in Calgary, which would indicate that the whole matter needs to be considered in a much more realistic way than it has so far been considered. I have before me, for example, a statement showing that there have been 14,480 abandonments, quit-claims, and so forth, by soldier settlers, civilian settlers and British families from the inception to November 30, 1937. The original number of soldier settlers was 25,017, and the present number is 9,888, so we can see the tremendously high proportion of abandonments. I believe that this legislation, while necessary so far as it goes, does not meet the actual conditions, and the minister and the department and the government should consider this whole matter more realistically than it is being considered at the present time.
I am fully aware that conditions in Ontario are not good. I have a letter, for example, from the municipal chapter of the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire of Toronto, in which, having observed that I spoke on this matter the other day, they draw my attention to the deplorable condition of settlers under these schemes in northern Ontario. Then only a few moments ago we heard from Prince Edward Island. And so, while each of us speaks of conditions that we know in the province from which we come, it is quite obvious from the figures of the department itself that a much more realistic stand has to be taken in connection with this whole matter than is indicated by this legislation. As a matter of fact, forty per cent of the total settlement has been abandoned already, and many of the settlers who remain are remaining there because they do not know what to do if they get off the land.



II, 1938

[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement Act
Mr. FAIR:: Perhaps I am a little closer to the soldier settlement problem than some hon. members who have discussed it. I am living on a farm out there and have done so for the past twenty-four years. I do not speak as an arm chair farmer; I think those who farm from the arm chair or the office do not know the conditions that exist and the circumstances under which the soldier settler has to get along. I am not speaking simply for the soldier settlers of Alberta or Saskatchewan but for the soldier settlers all across the dominion.
From the inception of this scheme there were in all 25,017 settlers. A number of the men who took up farming were office men who went to work on the land without any previous experience in farming. When those who have had a life experience in farming are not able to make a living at it, we can appreciate how much harder it is for the man without experience.
In a number of cases soldier settler deals were made more for the benefit of somebody's friends than for the benefit of the soldier himself. I have in mind a half-section of land with some stock and implements, not very far from my own farm, which was sold for $8,000. That farm is subject to frost, and while the settler has done his best during all the time he has been on the land, at the present time he owes $13,000 on an original investment of $8,000, and he has paid out what he could since he bought the land in 1919.
The average original loan to soldier settlers was $4,155. As I said before, these loans were taken advantage of by somebody's friends rather than the soldier settler. We know that several poor farms were sold to settlers, and that balky or unsound horses, poor cows and poor second-hand machinery were turned over to settlers at prices that should have bought the best in each class.
At the end of December, 1937, gross advances on loans amounted to $110,945,926.08, and interest charges $30,643,796.76, or a total of $141,589,722.84.
Up to that time the soldier settlers had paid back in principal $37,161,859.12, and in interest $18,996,161.88, or a total of $56,158,021. In addition there were legislative reductions as follows: In principal and interest, $28,351,653.41; losses on resale of security principal, $17,612,419.28, making a total of $45,964,072.69. That does not include loss of interest on resale, the figures for which are not available; nor does it include interest on the 1922 amendment to the act, which is estimated at $10,269,108.87.
Having passed through this period of depression or oppression, whichever you like to call it, from 1929 down to the present time, we find that from January 1, 1931, to December 31, 1937, interest charges on soldier settler loans amounted to $11,606,721.53. Of this amount $3,701,399.79 was cancelled, leaving a total of $7,905,321.74. To this must be added the cast of administration for this period, amounting to $3,445,324.86, or a total of interest and administration costs for the seven years of $11,350,646.60.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask what the hon. member is reading from?


Robert Fair: From information supplied by the minister's department.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend, I regret, has still failed to make himself clear. Is he reading from a return brought down to the house?


Robert Fair: No, I got it direct from the
department. I am giving these figures because in my opinion the legislation under discussion is not adequate. The figures I have given are amounts charged up and we find that the payments during the period amount to: Principal, 85,501,726.83, and interest $4,350,389.93. or a total of $9,852,116.76, which is less than the amount of interest and administration charges during that period.
Coming to the year 1937, we find that the interest charged amounted to 81,280,956.06. The amount cancelled was $548,880.34. That left total interest charges of $732,075.72. Administration costs were 8558,390. The total was $1,290,465.72.
The total amount paid in the calendar year 1932 was: Principal, $779,743.04, and interest 8644,519.78, or a total of $1,424,262.82, which is very little more than the amount of interest and administration charges.
From the inception of the scheme to the end of March 1937, interest charges amounted to $30,643,796.76; administration costs for the same period, $23,765,179.70, or a total of 854,408,976.46. We find that the total amount of principal and interest paid since the inception of the scheme is S56,158,021, or approximately one and three-quarter millions more than the total amount of interest and administration charges.
The original amount of the loan was 84.155. At the end of March 1931, the average settler owed $2,311, or still fifty-five per cent of his original loan. At the end of December 1937, he still owed $2,271. That is to say, there was a reduction during the seven year period of S40, or a net decrease of about $6 per annum after the settler had
Soldier Settlement Act

supported his wife and family. At the end of December 1937, the settlers were in arrears, principal $5,475,608.29 and interest $5,394,202.12 or an average of $1,101, which is approximiately fifty per cent of the amount the average settler still owes on his land.
I do not know how long these settlers will have to continue working in order to clear their farms. When the recruiting officers were around the country in 1914 looking for soldiers they told the recruits that when they came back Canada would take care of them, but we find that the settlers are now taking care of some of our Canadian citizens and some citizens in other countries instead of Canada taking care of them. During the years following the inception of the scheme conditions were so bad that the government saw fit to reduce the debt in 1930 and I suggest that they should realize by this time that conditions since 1930 have become so much more serious that another drastic reduction is necessary.
About a year ago several members of this house had a communication from the Soldier Settlers' Union, with headquarters at Lloyd-minster, Saskatchewan, requesting that certain concessions be made so that if possible the soldiers might be enabled to get out of debt in the near future. Some of the recommendations were:
1.	That our total debt be as it stood after the 30 per cent reduction and henceforth be a nou-interest bearing debt. All payments made since that time to be applied to principal.
2.	In the event of the death of a settler, clear title be given to his widow or dependent next of kin.
3.	A complete revision of the present collection policy of the department.
4.	A plan devised whereby settlers will be enabled to pay off their loans and at the same time maintain a reasonable standard of living.
*
Legislation has been enacted to bring the officials of the soldier settlement department under the civil service, thus providing pensions and security for their old age. Brigadier General A. Ross, C.M.G., D.S.O., in presenting the case for these officials based his appeal on the grounds of their war service followed by their faithful service in the department after the war period. The soldier settler had war service also and were it not for the settlers there would be no department of soldier settlement, yet the settler has no security for his old age, but is instead faced with hopeless and increasing debt.
It would seem that the men for whom Brigadier-General Ross is speaking are enjoying a good living at the present time while the settlers are being treated in such a way as to suggest that to him that hath shall be given, and from him that hath not shall

be taken even that which he hath. The officials of the Soldier Settlers' Union believe that their requests are very moderate and I am inclined to believe that if the government will survey the whole case of soldier settlers they will realize the importance of taking drastic action at this session. Last session we expected that something would be done but, in view of the coronation on May 12, this subject was pigeonholed. I hope that the minister and the government will now do something worth while for the soldier settler.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Time extended for credit on
payments of arrears.
Alan Webster Neill: I propose to oppose the passing of this section with all the vigour that the rules and decency of debate will permit. Unfortunately the method of presentation of this bill has been such as to convey an impression which 1 know is quite foreign to the character and intention of the minister-the impression of concealment. I say that quite sincerely. I know the minister is not responsible, but the method by which the bill has been presented has given that impression. When something is brought down by way of resolution in this house and goes out to the public meaning such and so-because after all the English language is interpretable generally along one line-and then when the bill brought down means something entirely different, this promotes dissension. Had the measure brought down given the soldiers concerned more than the resolution indicated there would have been no trouble; but when the legislation provides much less than the resolution indicated, this makes trouble for everyone. I think a large proportion of hon. members and certainly a large number of people throughout the country' took from the resolution the meaning which I did, and which indeed its language conveys. This is how it reads:
.	.	. 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.
It does not say extended to the extent of twelve per cent; it says "be extended." To the ordinary man on the street that means extending it to tihe same extent as it was before. I think we are in a sense flouting the governor general's recommendation in this. He recommended certain legislation, but we are doing something else. If logic and argument do not prevail I might think it worth while to move a point of order, that

Soldier Settlement Act
this bill is out of order inasmuch as it does not conform to or is not based upon the resolution as introduced. But let that go for the moment. The minister appears to have trusted a good deal to some conversation he had with someone as to what the legion at their convention thought about the matter. I hold in my hand the February number of the Legionnaire, on page 11 of which is a list of the resolutions, "some of the most important resolutions dealt with," and among them is, "that the dollar for dollar bonus be continued to soldier settlers." That means that it be continued, it does not mean that eight or ten or twelve per cent of it be continued.
Then again we find the minister saying, as reported on page 998 of Hansard, that, after all, things were not so bad; that it is a nice world anyhow, and that the soldier could get relief under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. But we have just passed an act making it possible for any province, apparently at the suggestion of the province, to do away with that act. So that is rather a broken reed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not necessarily at the suggestion of the province.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, I do not know at whose suggestion; the suggestion of the dominion government, then.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in its application may be suspended or terminated in any particular province by proclamation, but that would only be after all the purposes of the act had been in effect fulfilled. Every person who had made application for adjustment of his obligations under that act would still have his application considered.


Alan Webster Neill: According to the language used in the debate, especially by hon. members from Ontario, the desire seemed to be to have that act cancelled at once. That certainly was not consulting the people who wanted to come under it; some hon. members seemed to be more concerned with those people who would be affected from the creditor's point of view. But we have passed an act making it possible for the dominion government at a moment's notice to cancel that act, and therefore the relief that the minister indicated the settlers might get in that way is extremely visionary.
There are two objections to this section, apart from the method of bringing it in, which could perhaps be remedied by taking the bill out and bringing in another resolution. But the two fundamental objections to this bill wherein it is unfair to the settler,
are these: The old dollar for dollar bonus was allowed to any settler, whether he was in arrears or not when he made a payment on account of his indebtedness, be that indebtedness back interest or back instalments, or current interest oi current instalments; he got 82 credit for every SI he paid. And that is what the soldiers and settlers thought they were going to get when they saw this resolution brought down. Now it appears that they are going to get not that, but something which may apply to approximately one-third of them. Then there is a further deduction which I shall deal with in a moment. But the first patent injustice, as it seems to me to be, is that the bill is going to apply not to all settlers, but only to a limited few, somewhere about one-third. A man who scraped and saved and took the money out of the children's bank or the money his wife had inherited to pay right up, with some idea of pride, thinking, "For once we will show the government that I have paid up"; the man who paid his obligations right up to date, is not going to get any more relief. But the man who said, "Oh, well, the government must carry me. I will go and buy a car, or a radio, and let some of it lie back," is going to get the benefit of the dollar for dollar system. That is a wrong state of affairs, because it puts a premium on the man who hangs back and does not do what he can, something which we have not hitherto done in these transactions.
Well, that was bad enough. However, for the moment we swallow that; we have to. But there is a further thing which I noticed only to-day-and I must compliment whoever drew the amendment upon the subtle way in which it is worded. You do not see the nigger in the wood-pile until you study not only the language of the section itself but the explanation on the opposite page of the bill. You will notice it says:
The total of bonusable indebtedness is not increased.
Why do they not say it is going to be very largely decreased? Why not be frank? Then they go on to say "as heretofore," which means, "as before", or "according to what has been done in the past."
As heretofore, only such amounts as were due and payable before April 1, 1938, may be repaid on the bonus basis.
It is true they say, "due and payable before April 1, 1938"; but they use the words "as heretofore."
Now a further detriment to these unfortunate people who come within this abbreviated and curtailed bonus system is this: A great many of us thought they would at least
Soldier Settlement Act

continue to get the same advantages as under the old system. Does the explanation not say, "as heretofore"? They were allowed to get dollar for dollar for eveiything they paid on arrears of interest or capital or instalments due. One would think the settlers who were going to get this advantage would get that advantage too. But this is not so. You find that they get the dollar for dollar bonus only on the payment past due April 1, 1938. On the payment due in April or October, 1938, although the payment for April may be in arrears, they get no rebate. So that the amount we are giving them is very small indeed.
I am going to test the feeling of the committee-more to put the matter in concrete form so that it will be seen what it is and what it should be-by moving the following amendment:
That after the word "arrears" in line 1 on page 2 the words "or of any instalment" be inserted, and in the second line the figures "1938" be struck out and the figures "1941" be inserted.
So that it would then read:
73 (1) 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, makes payment on or before the thirty-first day of March, 1941, in respect of any arrears or of any instalment due and payable before the first day of April, 1941, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, receive credit toward payment of such arrears for a further sum equal to the payment made.
I think that carries out the absolute spirit of the resolution as introduced, at least as we read it, and also the spirit of fairness as regards the past, as well as having regard to the possibilities of the settlers; for, as someone said just now, we are talking about whether the interest on taxes paid and insurance should be seven per cent or five per cent, but what does this matter, when you are not going to get it anyhow, or have to cut it down very seriously? This would keep alive the promises made by the minister two years ago when he introduced this. I raised the question then of extending it for five years, and he said no; two years was enough, and if the same conditions prevailed two years later he would again renew it. This has not been done, though to all intents and purposes the conditions are the same. I shall move that amendment, just to put the matter in concrete form in order to show the difference between what is in this bill and what, in my humble opinion at least, should be in the bill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The adequacy-or inadequacy, which my hon. friend thinks is the better term- of the resolution was pretty well discussed when the resolution was before the house.


Alan Webster Neill: It was discussed but it was not explained.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have gone further into the matter, and there is no doubt in the opinion of the law advisers who drafted the resolution that it is full enough and broad enough to cover the bill which was introduced subsequent to the adoption of the resolution by the house.


Alan Webster Neill: But the bill does not cover the resolution. That is the trouble.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is now rather reversing his position. At first he stated that he was criticizing the resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not, of course, wish to misrepresent my hon. friend, but I submit that the resolution is in conformity with the bill; or I shall put it the other way, that the bill is in conformity with the resolution. At the same time I admit that probably the resolution might have been a little more clearly drafted, but I would direct the attention of the committee to the wording of the resolution, which states:
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-
This is the important part:
-and to provide further that the period durir^ which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges-
That is, in connection with all those arrears of interest or instalments of principal which up to the 31st of this month are subject to bonus privileges, the bill proposes that the soldier settler who has not been able to take advantage of that provision may have an opportunity to do so within the next three years. I think that is quite clear. As I said a moment ago, it may be that the resolution could have been more clearly drafted, but I submit that it is sufficient for the purposes of the bill.
May I direct the attention of the committee to one other point. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni drew in contrast the picture of the returned man who had been frugal and saving, and who had made his payments.

Soldier Settlement Act
Well, he obtained the advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus privilege up to March 31, on all his payments and all his interest arrears. That fact cannot be disputed. It is equally true that, if this legislation passes, he does not have that privilege beyond March 31. Now take the case of the other man, at the other end of the stick, who perhaps may have been in a position to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus privilege but who bought a car or went on a trip or did something else instead. In connection with those portions of his payment in arrears, both principal and interest, up to March 31, he can still claim the dollar for dollar privilege, but he cannot get that bonus on the payments that fall due after March 31 of this year. So in that respect he is on precisely the same footing as the frugal soldier settler who sacrificed creature comforts, let us say, in order to take advantage of the bonus. This does not discriminate as between them; it simply extends, very largely because of the drought condition in western Canada, to those soldier settlers who, because of crop failure, sickness or some other reason, have not been able to take advantage of the bonus privilege up to the present time, the opportunity to do so for another three years. I submit to the committee that this is reasonable and fair legislation.
May I add one further word. It is comparatively easy to exhibit a generous attitude of mind as far as the returned men are concerned. I find no fault with that, but I think the consensus of opinion-I am taking reasonable opinion in Canada-not only among our civilian population but among the vast returned soldier population, is that the returned soldiers have not asked and are not asking any special favours, except in the occasional odd case that one may expect to find. What they want is reasonably fair treatment, and I again point out to the committee the fact that I mentioned a little earlier in the afternoon. The returned soldiers who settled on the land, who took advantage of the offer of the government during the period immediately following the war, in a sense have been in a preferred position as compared with other returned men.
I recall the purpose of the legislation passed at that time. The hon. member for Comox-Albemi was not in the house when1 this legislation was passed. I was in the house, and I recall the discussion that took place. There was a good deal of opposition to the establishment of this system of returned soldier land settlement. At that time it was pointed out by some hon. members that precisely the evils or the difficulties which have arisen in the course of administration would arise. It was
pointed out that there would be perhaps a vary small minority of returned men who would feel that the country ought to do everything possible for them. But for good or for ill the plan was adopted. The vast majority of those who joined the Canadian expeditionary force, according to my information almost ninety-eight per cent, have not benefited through this soldier settlement scheme. There were numerous instances-I think every hon. member knows of them- of returned men who established themselves without the advantage of any assistance. Perhaps they were more enterprising; perhaps they had more of the spirit of independence and self-reliance, which unfortunately I think is going into a decline in this country to-day, than those who took advantage of the settlement scheme. Is it to be opened up so that those men will get some advantages also? Take the man who established himself in a small business. He has not had assistance from the government. I think on the whole this legislation and its administration must be tested on the basis of whether or not the treatment of the returned men who went on the land has been fair. I believe the whole record, from 1920 down to the present date, supports the view that it has been fair.


Alan Webster Neill: Up to date, yes.
Mr. CRERAR- I think that is the view of the great majority of returned men. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni quoted from a journal as to the opinion of the legion respecting the extension of the privilege right across the board. I have not the resolution with me; but my information is-and I think it is correct-that the legion at its recent meeting at Fort William, passed a resolution which was practically on all fours with the principle embodied in the present legislation. For that reason I regret I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. GREEN:: As I understand the matter, the effect of the bill is that there will be no dollar for dollar bonus on any payments falling due after April 1, 1938.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: But there will be a privilege given to those who are in arrears with payments already due of making those payments on the dollar for dollar basis until April 1, 1941?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, they have three years in which to do so.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the dollar for dollar bonus was initiated in 1933. At that time it was intended to last for a period of three
Soldier Settlement Act

years. Then, in 1936 this parliament passed an amendment extending the time for a further two years. It seems to me the test as to whether or not that period should now be exended again is this: What are the conditions in agriculture in Canada at the present time? This afternoon we have heard about distress in the prairie provinces, in Prince Edward Island and in northern Ontario. I know there is great hardship among some of the soldier settlers in British Columbia. Suggestions have been made that the soldier settlers should take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which, after all, is not as satisfactory a procedure as getting consideration under the Soldier Settlement Act. We have also heard the suggestion made that interest should be waived, and that other concessions be made.
I put it to the minister earnestly that conditions in Canada are not yet ripe for cancelling the dollar for dollar bonus. We have not yet reached that stage. I suggest to him that although he may not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, he should himself bring in an amendment to the act which will extend for a reasonable period the time during which the soldier settlers may take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni stated what, in my opinion, is a definite and true fact. It was my intention to bring the attention of the committee to the wording of the bill. I am inclined to think the impression has gone abroad that people were going to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus. It would appear that the purpose of the bill is simply to give an opportunity to those people who have arrears due to take advantage of the measure. The individual whose instalments will be due later on will not enjoy the same privileges. I cannot understand why a man whose payments come due a year or two after the amendment comes into effect should not have the same privilege as one whose instalments are already due. As one hon. member has said, conditions in Canada do not warrant discrimination of this kind simply because of the dates upon which payments may fall due.
I support the view taken by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I believe that in this measure the government is not meeting the desire of the people, and is not meeting what the people were led to believe they could expect on the passing of the legislation. Therefore I strongly support the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Malcolm McLean: When the
measure was before the house on another occasion I protested against the way in which the resolution had been drafted, and the way in which it was being interpreted. However, the resolution was accepted, and the legislation is now before us. I still think the resolution was drawn either carelessly or craftily. I do not know which term to use.
I hold in my hand figures which will illustrate what I mean by saying that many men had paid up their instalments, with considerable difficulty to themselves, and that others who had not paid and who were living in the same district were now going to have the benefit, over a longer period of time. This means that they will be able to have the use of money, for their own purposes, over a long period of time, at the expense of the government.
In three subdistricts of northern Saskatchewan with which I am familiar, and which I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt were the subdistricts in the best condition of any part of that province last year, the total, including arrears, due last fall, amounted to $314,380.33. The actual payments made totalled $41,255.01, or about twelve and a half per cent of the amount due. The number of settlers with payments due stood at 546. Of that number I find that 138 paid in full and that 161 paid in part. It would appear, therefore, that almost one-quarter of the settlers with accounts due paid in full, and nearly one-third paid in part. But by that number, comprising almost two-thirds of the settlers with payments due, only about one-eighth of the amount of money due was paid back. So that those who did not pay anything owed the great bulk of the $314,380.33. This condition has been going on for some time, and these people have had the use of the money. They live in the same district with the 138 people who paid in full. That money has been in use for a long time, and for the next three years they will continue to enjoy it at a rate of two and a half per cent. I say that, because the interest having been cut to five per cent, and the bonus payments being due on a fifty-fifty basis, the use of the money will cost two and a half per cent for interest, and the principal payments due will be cut by fifty per cent.
What will be the effect on the 138 men who paid in full and the 161 who paid in part? I know they have no legal claim; but human nature being what it is, it would be too much to expect that some of these men would not say, either to themselves or openly, that they had made a mistake; that they should not have made those payments, and that those

Soldier Settlement Act
who did make them were not faring any better than those who did not. Those who had made no payments were faring no worse because they had not made them. They were not disturbed on their land.
The last day the subject was before the house, and again to-day the minister told us that the convention of the legion at Fort William had not asked for anything more than what is contained in the legislation. That is true. I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution adopted at the seventh dominion convention of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League at Fort William in January, 1938. Under the heading of soldier settlement, it states:
This convention realizing that among soldier settlers as a group there are a proportion who are in an exceedingly unhappy position in relation to their financial obligations to the board, urges the government to develop a policy which will enable them to continue to earn a livelihood on their farms notwithstanding the position of their accounts.
This convention further realizes that there are a number of soldier settlers to whom the dollar for dollar bonus has been of little assistance owing to adverse crop conditions and we would urge that this concessoin should be continued to this group or that some other means should be devised to afford them relief in lieu thereof.
' The minister was perfectly right in what he said, but I do not think that resolution passed at Fort William was fair to those who in that same district had made their payments regardless of crop failure or adverse crop conditions, the term used in the resolution. These men are going to be shut out from the benefits from now on. Another suggestion was made, as follows:
Information made available indicates that many soldier settlers have secured a large measure of relief as a result of taking advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and the convention suggests that all soldier settlers should carefully examine the provisions of this act and take full advantage thereof.
At the time that suggestion was made I do not think there was any knowledge of the fact that legislation was going to be introduced in this house providing for the termination of those benefits at some date to be set in the future. If this suggestion is followed, knowing human nature as we do, we know that some men will say to themselves, "They are not going to give us any assistance by way of a fifty-fifty bonus; we cannot come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act as we are not insolvent; we do not want to go through bankruptcy; the thing to do is to refrain from making any further payments; we will use our money for other purposes and then when we become
51952-SO	REVISED
eligible for the bankruptcy court we can follow the advice given here." I find that the suggestion to come under the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act did not come only from that convention held in Fort William. I hold in my hand, "The report of the Department of Immigration and Colonization including report of soldier settlement of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1935," and on page 99 I find the following:
Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934
This act passed at the 1934 session of parliament is intended to provide a simple means whereby the debt burdens of the farmer may be adjusted to a level more consistent with the revenue producing capacity of the farm. The act makes provisions for farmers as debtors and their creditors to get together and arrange mutually satisfactory compromises and settlements.
The provisions of this act are applicable to debtors of the crown and therefore all classes of settlers under the department holding contracts with the director of soldier settlement are eligible to apply for the benefits of this legislation. The administative machinery began to function only in November, 1934, consequently it is too early to make any reliable estimate of the number of settlers likely to apply for reduction of their debt to the department or adjustment of the terms of existing contracts. To date 77 soldier settlers, ten British families and 83 civilian settlers have made application for reduction of debt or revision of terms of their contracts.
The report then goes on to deal with departmental cooperation with farmers' creditors act administration. The suggestion was made three years ago by the department that advantage should be taken of legislation which required that a man be insolvent before he could come under its terms. There is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and the committee. I think it is to the credit of those who have spoken about the position of the soldier settler under the act, but we must not overlook the fact that to-day the majority of those concerned are not soldier settlers. I think if that fact were realized this matter would be looked upon differently. Even as early as three years ago only fifty per cent of the farms under the administrator were occupied by soldier settlers, and the percentage is less to-day. The report has this to say:
A total of 3,346 families came forward for settlement of which 183 withdrew from the scheme before receiving advances, and 1,335 withdrew after contracting loans, a total of 1,518 withdrawals. There are now 1,813 British families operating their farms under this scheme.	Fifteen settlers have repaid their
loans.
These lands either have been sold to civilian settlers or are still in the hands of the board.
EUmON
125S
Soldier Settlement Act

The net result is that a large percentage of the relief and benefits to be given under this legislation will go to civilian settlers who purchased land from the board prior to January 1, 1933. Those who purchased land in 1932 at the depth of the depression and did not pay anything upon it are now able to take advantage of this legislation and obtain a reduced interest rate of two and a half per cent and a reduction in payments of fifty per cent. I do not know what anyone can do about this now, but those are the facts. This scheme was initiated twenty years ago and to-day the number of soldier settlers is only a small percentage of the total, while the original soldier settlers represent even a smaller percentage. That being the case, I suggest to the minister that this should be treated as an ordinary collection matter. It really represents money which is outstanding to tiie government, some of it by civilian settlers who purchased these lands. These moneys have not been paid, and it is merely a matter of collecting them in the most efficient manner. We have a farm loan board which I believe is collecting all payments that it is possible to collect. It might be a good thing for the committee and the department and the minister to consider the advisability of placing the collection of these outstanding amounts under the farm loan board. I would not suggest this to the committee if the majority of these settlers were soldier settlers, but that is not the case to-day.


Mr. BETTS:: I deplore the suggestion that the dollar for dollar privilege be cut off at the present time. A few moments ago the minister said that the soldiers who had availed themselves of this settlement scheme were in a preferred position. In theory that may be so, but if the minister could see some of the farms in the district west of London upon which soldiers have been placed I do not think he would make that statement. I do not know why these farms were acquired by the board, but the fact is that they were. These lands will not produce and the soldiers who are still there are certainly not in any preferred position. They are fighting a little war of their own in order to keep body and soul together. My submission is that if this dollar for dollar bonus is cut off, we shall have more payments to make under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. In the end this will turn out to be poor economy. I urge the minister to continue this privilege until times are better.


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to refer to this question of the dollar for dollar bonus as there is a group of returned men in my constituency who are in desperate

need of real assistance. A moment ago the minister said that a soldier would not ask for anything that was unfair. I think that is correct, but I believe, if the minister were a little more familiar with the conditions under which some of these returned men live, he would be more lenient. I do not think the bill as it is now before us is as good as it was in its old form. Just at a time when these men need consideration, this dollar for dollar bonus is going to be cut off. It is a shame that such a step should be considered when these people need the bonus so badly. In order that the minister may have the exact words of some of these soldiers, I should like to read a resolution I received the other day. The following resolution was submitted to a meeting held on January 16, 1938, of soldier settlers on the Pope lease, and unanimously approved:
Whereas the dominion parliament at its session in 1933, by amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act, made provision for a bonus of a dollar for each dollar paid by or on account of each soldier settler; and
Whereas the said bonus terminates on March 1, 1938; and
Whereas owing to poor crops through hail damage and drought, together with low prices for agricultural products, the resident soldier settlers have been unable to take advantage of the bonus plan to any extent to date; and
Whereas we believe that it would be for the advantage of the dominion that soldier settler liabilities be liquidated at the soonest possible moment;
Therefore be it resolved that we the soldier settlers on the Pope lease ask the dominion government to seriously consider the advisability of continuing the bonus plan for a further period of five years;
That the maximum amount bonusable in any one year be the amount of the settler's indebtedness;
That interest, together with arrears of interest since 1929, be waived for a like period.
There is one point to which I particularly want to draw attention, and that is that this was a resolution from returned soldier settlers and was unanimously passed. I do not think they are asking for anything too much because they are in a very serious situation. They are in the drought area. I am not so much concerned about those who are in a position to pay because they were probably of a more speculative nature, have taken advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus, and have their land cleared of debt, but surely these other soldier settlers who offered their lives in the service of their country should receive a little consideration at this time. As I mentioned a few days ago when we were discussing this matter on the estimates, surely we should not deprive the soldier

Railway Act-Grain Rates
who may get a good crop next year and desires to clear off his indebtedness to the government, of the privilege of taking advantage of this dollar for dollar bonus, and getting his land clear as quickly as possible, but under the new bill he will not be permitted to take advantage of the bonus so far as new payments are concerned, because it applies only to arrears. While the extended period continues for only about two years-and of course that should be carried on-there is no good reason why it should not be continued even after the expiration of this bill. I think it would be in the interests of economy as suggested by the last speaker (Mr. Betts) that right now when people are so very hard up, especially these returned men, this dollar for dollar bonus should be continued and certainly not be cut off at this time.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: May I ask the minister
whether, in the payment, of this bonus, the arrears or the current instalment must be paid first? In 1939, for example, would the soldier settler pay his arrears first, or would he have to pay the current instalment first, and then the arrears, and get credit for what he had paid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If he has payments to make he can apply them on arrears of principal and interest and get the full advantage of the bonus. The worst that happens to him then is that he would be required to carry his 1939 payment, assuming that he could not meet it at five per cent interest.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If he has $100 to pay, he will pay that on the arrears, and get a credit bonus of $200?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, a bonus of $100.


Alan Webster Neill: Provided he has paid taxes and insurance up to date. They come first. Is that not so?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not necessarily.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the minister will find that that is how the scheme works out in practice, at all events. Before the man can get the dollar for dollar bonus he must have his taxes and insurance paid up to date.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I quite agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and others who have spoken on this bill, that conditions prevailing to-day are such that the government would be justified in continuing the same procedure we have had since 1933. The 1933 legislation was no doubt based on conditions at that time; its continuation was also based on the then prevailing conditions, and everyone who has sat in this house and 51592-80J
listened to statements made by the western members, particularly those who come from the drought areas, or heard the hon. member from Prince Edward Island describing conditions in his province, must realize the conditions that now prevail.
The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) has also mentioned that a number of soldier settlers in the St. John district had to give up their farms; and in New Brunswick, principally in the potato-producing area of the province, these men have not been able to receive satisfactory compensation for the potatoes they produced, selling them at twenty-five to thirty or forty cents a barrel, while the cost of production was twice as much. In justice to the returned soldiers and to others who have these farms, this bonus should be continued not merely as regards the arrears for the past few years but also to give these men an opportunity to pay off their indebtedness. I realize, as the minister has said, that this government has been generous, and past governments have been more than generous, to the returned soldiers in this matter; but these settlers are in a more or less hopeless condition, and the government may as well realize the situation now as later and give these men the benefit of the bonus so that they may be able to help themselves in the future.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
He said:	Without going into any lengthy
explanation of this bill, I may say that, in brief, it asks that the same railway rates which apply on all grain and grain products from the three prairie provinces eastward to Fort William and eastern centres shall apply to all grain and grain products from those three provinces westward to British Columbia. Inasmuch as I have brought this matter up in the housv every year since 1930, perhaps it will not be necessary for me to go into it as extensively in every detail on this occasion. However, as there are many hon. members now present who were not here when similar bills were before the house on previous occasions, it might be
Railway Act-Grain Rates
[Stage Direction]
advisable for me again to go over some of the main arguments in support of British Columbia's appeal for equal treatment with the middle and eastern provinces in the matter of railway rates on grain and grain products.
Briefly, the history of the matter is this. In 1897 legislation was enacted whereby the Canadian Pacific Railway agreed to construct a railway from Lethbridge, Alberta, to Nelson, British Columbia. For this they received a large subsidy in money and a grant of land. In return they were to reduce the then existing railway rates eastward by three cents per 100 pounds. These rates, from that time on, became known as the Crowsnest Pass rates. As my time is limited I cannot go into a detailed history, but I may point out that in general these rates placed upon the statute book in 1897 have been maintained ever since. In 1925, however, the matter was again brought before parliament, and new legislation was passed by the house in that year confirming the Crowsnest Pass rates as established in 1897, but extending them to apply on all Canadian National and Canadian Pacific lines. The Canadian Pacific Railway gained by this move as commodity rates were taken out of the freight list. The rates on grain and grain products were left as before but they applied only to points eastward, and British Columbia was again ignored. British Columbia has contended that the people of that province are entitled to the same treatment as the people in other parts of Canada, but that, on the contrary, she has been grossly and unjustly dealt with, as I shall show presently. The unjust treatment meted out to the people of that province constitutes a grievous burden. '
I am not going into a lengthy discussion of freight rates generally because I realize that this perhaps is not the place to do so; rather I shall confine my remarks to railway rates applying to grain and grain products eastward and westward. The House of Commons, having on previous occasions dealt with this very question, can and should, I submit, do so again. Before I discuss some of the injustices and anomalies of the situation, I wish to repeat what I have on previous occasions endeavoured to make clear, namely, that we have going into British Columbia the lowest grade of any railway line in any province. It appears that we from British Columbia have to repeat this statement over and over again because there are still some people who seem to think that, going through the coast range mountains to the Pacific, there are other grades to contend with. Not only have we the lowest grades but we have also the lowest upkeep expense on any portion of
'Mr. Reid.]
the trans-Canada railway-lower than in any other part of Canada. Construction costs were less and upkeep costs are lower than in other parts of Canada, as I shall show. In the sworn testimony given in 1925 before the board of railway commissioners information was given with reference to this matter. It was shown that the cost per mile of line between Kamloops and Hope, which is one of the heavy grades of railway going through British Columbia, was $133,563 per mile of 168 miles. From Montreal to Ottawa, a district all hon. members know fairly well, the distance is 111 miles and the cost was $178,614 per mile. Again, from Hope to Fraser Junction, a distance of seventy-seven miles, the cost was $51,544 per mile as against Joliette to Gamier Junction, a distance of 61-49 miles, which cost $62,394 per mile. As regards operating cost, I know that in the minds of many hon. members there is the idea that the grade through the mountains into British Columbia not only has cost more to construct but is also more costly to maintain. In the same testimony given at the time to which I have referred it was shown that the upkeep cost per mile in British Columbia was $3,825 per mile as against an upkeep cost in the prairies of $4,702 per mile.
One could take an entire evening giving data such as I have briefly touched upon, but I believe I have placed before the house enough to show that in the sworn testimony given before the board of railway commissioners it was made abundantly clear that in British Columbia construction costs were less, upkeep was less, and fewer double engines or, if I may so describe them, pusher engines are required than in certain parts of the prairies and of eastern Canada. There is no justification for a difference of between twenty and eighty per cent of increased railway rates in the west as compared with the east, and I am going to take time to quote a few of the different rates.
From Calgary to Vancouver the rate for export is twenty cents per 100 pounds over a distance of 642 miles, or 766 miles from Edmonton to Vancouver. Here I want the house to note the fact. While the Canadian Pacific railway is and has been taken as the yardstick by the board of railway commissioners, when it comes to computing the distance between the prairie province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia, they take the longer distance of the Canadian National, not the shorter distance of 642 miles, but 766 miles. They do not use the Canadian Pacific railway yardstick in that case. Of course it is to the advantage of the Canadian

Railway Act-Grain Rates
Pacific railway that the Canadian National mileage is quoted from Edmonton to Vancouver.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not the other way about? From Calgary to Vancouver is 642 miles.


Thomas Reid: Yes, that is correct. The export rate is twenty cents per 100 pounds. At the moment a temporary rate has been put in, with which I shall deal later on, which allows certain varieties or grades of feed grain to be hauled at a rate of some 31 i cents; but mill feed, the greater part of which is used in feeding poultry and dairy stock, is still charged 411 cents, from either Edmonton or Calgary.
That is the rate westward on grain. Let us now see what the rate is going east. From Calgary to Fort William the distance is 1,242 miles. The grain rate for that haul is twenty-six cents. Strange to say, it is only when grain is going west that the railway companies differentiate between domestic and export rates. Grain leaving Calgary and Edmonton for Fort William and other points east is simply grain; in most instances there are no two rates. From Calgary to Montreal, a distance of 2,221 miles, the export rate is fifty cents, as against forty-six cents for domestic. From Calgary to Quebec, 2,215 miles, the rates are the same, fifty cents for export and forty-six cents for domestic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not the other way about, the cheaper rate for export?


Thomas Reid: To some points in the east the domestic rate is lower than the export rate. From Fort William to Montreal, a distance of 995 miles, the rates quoted to me are twenty-four cents for export and only twenty cents for domestic. There were some exceptional rates put in there, and in some instances the domestic rate was really lower than the export rate, for reasons which I think will be explained by the minister. These figures were given to me by officials of the board of railway commissioners.
Now how does that work out? From Calgary to Vancouver the rate per ton per mile works out at -654 cents as against the rate from Calgary to Fort William of -418 cents. Or if you take the rate per 100 pounds per mile, from Calgary to Vancouver it is -0327 cents as against a rate from Calgary to Fort William of -0209 cents. The rate per ton per 100 miles-100 miles being the usual day's run of a train-is 65-4 cents from Calgary to Vancouver, and only 41-8 cents from Calgary to Fort William. The export rate to Vancouver as compared with that to Fort William is one-half cent more per mile. I mention that
because it is often said that the twenty cent rate, which is the export rate from Calgary and Edmonton to Vancouver, is equal to the rate from Calgary and Edmonton to Fort William. These figures which I have just given disprove that statement, showing that even on grain for export British Columbia does not enjoy the same rates as the east, let alone the domestic rate.
I now mention one or two other rates to show the difference between east and west. From Windsor, Ontario, to Saint John, New Brunswick, the distance is 1054-6 miles and the rate is 181 cents. If you were shipping the grain the same distance to Vancouver or New Westminster, the charge would be twenty-four cents. From Goderich, 962-6 miles, the rate is 181 cents, while westward the same distance, from a. place called Rusylvia, Alberta, 961-4 miles, the rate would be twenty-four cents.
One could take up considerable time placing before the house rates from various centres throughout Canada, but I think the few I have given amply demonstrate what I am endeavouring to bring out, that is that the rates westward are anything from twenty to eighty per cent higher than the rates eastward from Calgary and Edmonton. In passing may I point out that the railways seem to have a most idiotic rate structure, operating to the disadvantage of British Columbia. If one wants to ship butter or eggs from Vancouver or New Westminster to Calgary or Edmonton, a certain rate will be charged, but the farmer shipping similar goods from Edmonton or Calgary to New Westminster or Vancouver would have a cheaper rate. It is like charging a passenger so much for going in one direction, but charging him a different fare when he returned. I mention that to substantiate the argument I am making, that we in British Columbia are carrying an extremely heavy burden in the matter of freight rates. British Columbia is not asking for special treatment, and would any hon. member maintain that British Columbia should be forever discriminated against?
In arguing before the board of railway commissioners when counsel for both railway systems were present, I asked this question: Does the export rate on grain from the prairie provinces to British Columbia pay? No answer. Neither counsel would answer that question. I was hoping they would. If it does pay, why should they charge the people of British Columbia twice that rate for their domestic grain requirements? Again, if it does not pay, should the people of British Columbia be called upon to bear that load,
Railway Act-Grain Rates

while our competitors in countries like China, Japan and elsewhere receive good Canadian grain at half the freight cost at which we who live in British Columbia can get that same grain?
I now put to the house just what this means to the people of British Columbia. It is estimated by those who claim to know that five bushels of grain are consumed annually by the average individual, either in the form of flour-and including, of course, oatmeal too-or cereal. If we take the population of British Columbia at some 700,000 people, this means that they would consume 3,500,000 bushels of grain, equal to 160,000 tons, on which they are charged twice the rate paid on flour and grain going to New Westminster or Vancouver for export. This means that for many years past the people of our province have been paying 1415,000 more annually for their flour and grain requirements than the people in the eastern and central provinces have paid.
There is close to my own home one cooperative organization of which I have some knowledge. I should like to show just what it would mean to them if we could purchase our grain requirements as cheaply as people in China or Japan can. They have a membership of some six hundred persons, and they are out to buy for their members grain as cheaply as possible. Each year there is a dividend declared, so it cannot be said by the minister or anyone else that if freight rates were lowered the saving would not be passed on to the consumer, because in this cooperative organization they do pass on the profits to their members. Last year they purchased over five thousand tons of grain for their members. If the Vancouver basis had been in force on 5,0S3 tons at 204 cents per 100 pounds, they would have paid S20,840. Instead, on 3,646 tons they had to pay at the rate of thirty-one cents per 100 pounds, or a total of $22,969, and on 1,437 tons at the rate of 411 cents per 100 pounds, a total of $11,927, or a grand total of S34,896. Even with the rate of thirty-one cents per 100 pounds on feed grains, which is a temporary rate, the members of that organization saved a great deal of money last year, namely $14,056.
Let me go further; I should like to point out what this would mean to the poultry-men. The figures in regard to the dairymen are harder to compute, but I have the details in regard to the poultrymen. If the people of British Columbia could obtain their grain at the export rate, it would mean a saving of twenty-two cents on each laying hen they have on the premises. Let me point out in passing that British Columbia is the greatest

egg-laying province in Canada, and on the average flock of five hundred birds this would mean a saving of $110 per year. The peak year was 1928; each year since that time men have been going out of the poultry business, so that to-day I do not think there are more than thirty per cent of the poultry-men in business that there were some four or five years ago. Not long ago I had a letter from a man in Nakusp who ordered a ton and a half of feed grain from Vancouver. He sent me the bill he received from the railway company. The distance is 443 miles, and they charged him $31.77 in freight for some thirty-one sacks of feed grain. I ask those in eastern Canada who are complaining about high freight rates to take note of that, and to tell me if they have anything to kick about here in the east.
Then I have something interesting to say in regard to flour. Perhaps it does not pertain particularly to my argument, but people in British Columbia pay $1 per barrel more on the average than do the people in Ontario, due, I claim, principally to the freight rates. I have in my hand a report of the price spreads commission in regard to this matter, dealing with information and data that was laid before that body. The price quoted then in the province of British Columbia was $5.40; the price at the same date in the province of Ontario was $4.40. I am not going to digress from my argument to speak about the milling combine, but in passing I should like to say that when I happened to look up the data and figures in regard to Australia they indicated more clearly than ever the fact that we have a combine in the milling business in Canada. On May 20, 1935, the price in Australia for one ton of flour in forty-nine pound sacks was $29.81. The local price, worked out on a comparable basis, was $35 per ton. If you work this out, it means that the price in Australia was 1-75 cents per pound or eighty-six cents for a forty-nine pound sack, and bear in mind that the price of wheat to the farmer in Australia at that time was a little higher than the price to the farmer on the prairies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that the depreciated dollar or at the ordinary rate of exchange?


Thomas Reid: That is in Australian currency, in Canadian terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is only $4 to the pound.


Thomas Reid: I am comparing it with the Canadian price. It is not the old country pound or the old country price, that I have in mind. I am comparing it with the Canadian price in Canadian money. These figures

Railway Act-Grain Rates
are not my interpretation; they are the Canadian quotation in Australian money, so I think the comparison is quite fair. In Canadian funds a forty-nine pound sack of flour would cost eighty-six cents as of that date, while the price in Canada at the same time was $1.27 for a forty-nine pound sack. This is something well worth looking into. I know it does not directly touch the argument on freight rates, but I deem it worthy of mention as I proceed in developing my argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why don't you try the Combines Act on it?


Thomas Reid: That was suggested when the price spreads committee was sitting, but I do not think any action was taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All you need is six people to sign an application.


Thomas Reid: All we were asking in this bill, and all we have been asking for many years is that we should be given equal treatment on the same terms as the other provinces. When one sees what the other provinces are getting in the way of help in regard to freight rates, one is surprised that nothing has been done for the far away province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact I believe there are a good many people in this country who do not know that we even exist. I am not complaining about what the maritime people get, but according to a statement I have before me from 1927 to March 31, 1937, some $24,669,745 was paid under the Maritime Freight Rates Act.


Robert Emmett Finn: How much was that?


Thomas Reid: I am not surprised that you
are surprised.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am not surprised; it should
be more than that.


Thomas Reid: I can see where I shall have
one supporter for my freight rates bill. The figure is $24,669,745.


Robert Emmett Finn: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Reid: Yes, but my time is short.


Robert Emmett Finn: I shall not take long-


Thomas Reid: I hope not.


Robert Emmett Finn: -in asking the question. You
may take longer to answer it. So far as the Maritimes Freight Rates Act is concerned, the hon. member knows that for forty-three years we enjoyed differentials or arbitraries on the old Intercolonial, as fixed by the then traffic manager, the late D. A. Story, and approved by the general manager, the late David Pottinger, who died last year at the
ripe old age of ninety-three years. That road was later under the late Hon. A. G. Blair, Minister of Railways and Canals, and the late Hon. H. R. Emmerson who followed him as said minister, to St. Henry just out of Montreal, and then under the War Measures Acts 1917-18 those differentials were swept away, and we are not yet back to the normal rates we had under the old Intercolonial with any long haul not yet rectified under the Transcontinental Act.


Thomas Reid: And even then you are twenty-five per cent below the rates of British Columbia. That is the point I was going to make. If there were no assistance given to the maritime provinces, the rates in those provinces would still be twenty-five per cent below what they are in British Columbia-[DOT] and yet we get no help.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is not my fault if it is so.


Thomas Reid: I notice also that 264,195 tons of coal were moved last year, and that for the movement of that coal the country paid 82,450,050. It is very fine to hand out that $24,000,000 over a period of ten years, plus $2,450,050 yearly; yet when we in British Columbia come to Ottawa and ask that we be treated equally in freight rates, we are told that we are getting enough. I believe many hon. members are of the opinion that we are asking some special privilege. All we are asking is that we be treated like one of the family, instead of as an outcast, as has been the case for many long years.
I am giving my own views when I say that I do not think it is this parliament altogether which prevents us from getting our rights. There is such a pressure of eastern interests that every move made on behalf of the people of British Columbia meets with strong opposition, in case we in British Columbia develop too fast.
I was somewhat surprised when I read a statement in this evening's paper by the premier of Quebec. I do not know whether he is out to raise any sectional cry, but the statement appearing in the press certainly calls for some rebuttal. He says:
Quebec shippers pay higher freight rates sending merchandise to western Canada than western shippers are charged on freight coming back the same distances to Quebec points. Quebec and Ontario pay seventy-five per cent of the federal taxes.
And listen to this:
He is ready to do justice, but he does not want to be bled white.
Can you beat a statement like that from the premier of a province? I wonder if he has really given any study to the freight rates
Railway Act-Grain Rates

question. I wonder if he really knows that it is the province of British Columbia which is being bled white. I wonder how many members realize-and this applies to some voices we hear from Ontario-that British Columbia is one of the best customers Quebec and Ontario have. British Columbia has been importing from those two provinces an average of S50.000.000 worth of goods yearly, and in turn the two provinces have been buying back something less than $11,000,000 worth. Yet we have people from both provinces talking about being bled white! It is we, in British Columbia, who have every reason to cry out. However, I suppose the nearer one gets to Ottawa, the more attention is paid to that cry. I wish to take issue right now with the premier of Quebec when he tries to put it over-if I may use the term-that the people of that province are suffering in the matter of railway rates. I say to him: Give us in British Columbia the same freight rates as you have in Ontario and Quebec, and I do not think we will kick. When one looks over the rates and sees differences running all the way from twenty per cent to eighty per cent greater, on goods going into British Columbia than on goods going east, one wonders why such a statement would be made by the premier of Quebec.
I have looked through Ottawa and also when in Montreal for British Columbia goods and, with the exception of some good sockeye salmon, which, of course, they must have, I have failed to see any such goods. But it is a very different matter in British Columbia, because the people in the east can ship their canned goods cheaper and can pay their workers less than can the manufacturer in British Columbia, who must pay the minimum wage called for in that province. When the merchant or manufacturer in British Columbia wants to ship similar goods back to Ontario or Quebec, he finds that he is charged anywhere from twenty per cent to thirty per cent higher rates on canned goods than are the people in the eastern provinces who ship that stuff to us. "Stuff" is a good word, too.


Robert Emmett Finn: Sockeye is better.


Thomas Reid: If I have time I should like to deal with the arguments advanced by the minister, because on a former occasion he made some statements I did not have an opportunity to contradict. I should like now to take him up on this. I hope I am quoting him fairly when I say he said that Canada had the lowest freight rates in the world, and much lower rates than those of the United States. I do not believe it is a fair comparison to compare even the rates in the United States

with those in Canada, because the freight structure or freight traffic in that country is entirely different from the freight structure or traffic conditions in Canada. In the first place, they have not the great grain trade that we have. They have more commodity goods. Then, the division of their passenger and freight traffic is entirely different.
It might interest hon. members to know that in the United States fourteen per cent of the revenue is from passengers; in Great Britain, thirty-seven per cent; in Germany, twenty-eight per cent; in Japan, sixty per cent and in Canada, twenty-four per cent. In an endeavour to prove that so far as grain is concerned rates in Canada to the west are not cheaper than the rate from central or eastern to western portions of the United States, let me give the following examples.
Cut Bank, in Montana, is 732 miles from Seattle. They have no export or domestic rate, as such, but operate only on one rate, and carry all grain for thirty-eight cents. In British Columbia we are charged 414 cents for mill feeds over a distance of 642 miles. Bozeman, another point in Montana, is 764 miles from Seattle and the rate is 384 cents. Billings, Montana, is 1,012 miles from Seattle, and the rate is 404 cents.
I ask the minister and the house to compare that with a rate of 414 cents for 642 miles from Calgary to New Westminster or Vancouver. Even if the rates in the United States are a little higher, they are hardly comparable when one takes into consideration the wages paid to the railway men across the line. The wages paid to railway workers in the United States average eighteen per cent more than those paid to Canadian workmen, while on the average the freight rates are only some seven per cent higher. As I have pointed out, it is hardly fair to compare a country like the United States with Canada because their freight structure and general traffic conditions are entirely different.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house might be termed a hardy annual. It bobs up every year; but so far it has failed to blossom or bear fruit, and from the attitude taken by the government through the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe) during the last two sessions it is liable to remain dormant, at least as long as hon. gentlemen opposite are in power. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is carrying out a pledge to his constituents when he told them that he would introduce this measure every session. As he

Railway Act-Grain Rates
has said to-night, he has faithfully performed that duty. Whether this continued action on the part of the hon. member without results will satisfy his constituents remains to be seen.
At the last two sessions the minister, speaking for the government, expressed his opposition to the measure, and I assume that if it is not talked out at this session, he will express himself in the same manner. I think the hon. member will agree with me when I say that the fate of this measure will be the same as it has been in the last two sessions. There is one good thing about the introduction of such a bill; it gives those of us from British Columbia an opportunity to bring before the representatives from eastern Canada certain facts which may enlighten them in connection with the difficulties that we have to undergo through being such a long distance from the seat of government and the great centres of eastern Canada.
I do not intend to go into the question of grain and feed grains as I discussed that matter during the debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member has covered this matter quite fully to-night, but I should like to take this opportunity to refer to one or two discriminations against British Columbia. There is one in particular I should like to direct attention to, one which was brought to my attention a short time ago by the producers in my riding. In the lower mainland of British Columbia a considerable area is set aside to fruit growing, and it is necessary that a considerable quantity of fresh fruit be exported in order that the industry may have sufficient returns to place it on a healthy basis. I should like to give one instance of discrimination in connection with railways and their tariffs, and more particularly under the express tariff. I understand that an Ontario fruit grower shipping berries from Grimsby, Ontario, to Montreal, Quebec, a distance of about 495 miles, has to pay only ninety-five cents per 100 pounds express. But if a grower in British Columbia ships the same fruit over the same railway from, say, Vernon to Calgary, a distance of about 340 miles, the rate is $2 per 100 pounds express.
During the last few sessions when this subject has been up, the minister has been inclined to compare Canadian and United States rates. Here is one instance I should like to draw to his attention. The express rate from Fraser Valley points to Winnipeg is S2.40 per 100 pounds, in addition to which there are certain icing and stop-off charges. The rate from Oregon and Washington to Chicago is only SI .89 per 100 pounds. Those
were the rates in effect last year and I believe the same rates are in effect to-day. Our growers have applied to the express traffic board for a reduction from the S2.40 rate to a flat $2 rate for points in the three prairie provinces, but so far no encouragement has been received.
I could go on and give a number of other discriminations, but perhaps some of them would not be in order. This afternoon a chairman of a committee when presenting his report referred to the freight rates on agricultural implements going west. A short time ago I brought to the attention of the house the fact that the rate on trucks had been raised on Nevember 1 from $120 to 8181 for large sized trucks, and from S120 to $152 for the small size. These trucks are used by the farmers and producers in our district. All along the line other discriminations could be pointed out against British Columbia.
The hon. member has been quite in order to-night in drawing these matters to the attention of those residing in eastern Canada. There is no doubt that these discriminations have hindered the development of many of the resources of our province. As far as the grain rates are concerned, I do not think there is much chance of success through the method pursued by the hon. member for New Westminster. I should like to suggest once more to the minister that he follow the example of the Minister of Railways and Canals in the previous government, the Hon. Doctor Manion, call in the representatives of the railways and urge them to get in touch and consult with the representatives of the four western provinces in order to make some adjustment in the rate differential that exists at the present time.
When I suggested this to the minister the other day, he came back with this reply, "The railways might not think it worth while to make another agreement." I am sure the minister speaks for the government. He has at heart the best interests perhaps directly of the railways; but I would suggest that it is the first duty of any government to consider the best interests of the producer, and in this particular case the minister can serve both because making it easier for the producers in our province to continue and increase their production means also more business for the transportation companies. So I suggest to the minister that he proceed along that line. I know he is not favourable to the present measure because he has so expressed himself in the last two sessions, and no doubt will do so again this session when the occasion arises; but I should just like to leave with him the thought that in the interests
Immigration Act

of British Columbia he call in the heads of the transportation companies and see if some arrangement cannot be made for a further reduction in the rate on feed grains and mill feeds which are used so extensively in our province.
On motion of Mr. Perley the debate was adjourned.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, moving the adjournment of the debate without giving any reason, and when other hon. gentlemen are ready to speak, is not in conformity with the rules of the house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I put the motion and it was carried. The motion is not debatable.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 11, respecting Japanese immigration.
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask you to permit me to move the adjournment of the debate on this bill, not for the purpose of killing time, but because I have some remarks to make upon it, and I shall not have time in the five minutes remaining before nine o'clock. I therefore -move the adjournment of the debate, for the purpose of resuming it upon a later occasion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, to amend the Immigration Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


James Gray Turgeon: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate on this bill, which is closely allied to the bill respecting Japanese immigration.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. They are not allied.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we have written off by statute large sums of money in connection with the purchase of lands now occupied by soldier settlers. That was done by the late government, and also by the government which preceded it; but it was regarded as very unsound business that we should continue to write off, by appropriations made by the Minister of Finance, vast sums of money in this way, and it was believed that a more urgent effort should be made to collect.
It was therefore determined to create an incentive to payment. It was believed that it would be a powerful lever in securing money if we undertook to credit a soldier with S2 for every $1 payment that he made. The effect of that was to get away from the necessity of making appropriations every year by the Minister of Finance based upon just crude estimates. On the other hand, it afforded an opportunity for those who so desired to make payments on the basis of their contract being about fifty per cent of the amount that was due under it. I plead with the minister to consider carefully the situation before he finally makes up his mind with respect to that. We extended until 1936 the time within which a payment of $1 would secure a credit of $2, and in 1936, since this government came into office, the time was further extended until March 31, 1938. At that time it was suggested that a little longer period should be granted for this benefit to continue for the soldier, but that view did not commend itself to the government at that time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I just correct my
hon. friend on one point? The legislation as brought in provided for an extension of three years, but in another place that was reduced to two years, and the commons agreed to that amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, quite right. Someone in this chamber had suggested five years; but that was not acceptable to the government; as events proved, it was not acceptable to the senate, and the period was re-

Soldier Settlement Act
duced to two years. I suggest it would be well to extend the provisions of the section only for another period of three years; that is, from 1938 to 1941. I am not suggesting this with the idea that we are offering any great concessions so far as this country is concerned; but I firmly believe that if we do this we shall get some money, whereas if we do not do it, I am afraid we are going to be confronted with a situation that will compel us to make appropriations out of the consolidated revenue fund by writing down the value of the assets in connection with these lands that we have disposed of to soldier settlers. I am quite satisfied that if the minister will give the matter consideration from that angle, he will find on looking through the returns that if he does this and still offers credit of S2 for every SI paid until 1941, he will have given a reasonable opportunity for those who desire to pay to do so and will have created an incentive on the part of those who desire to retain their places and who feel that they can undertake a reasonable responsibility but will not undertake the responsibility of paying at the prices the contracts now bear.
1 can speak from personal discussion with many men who have had the benefit of this legislation, and I have been amazed at the zeal they have displayed securing money with which to make payment and thereby secure credit for twice the amount paid. I believe that we shall have done a good job for the Dominion of Canada and secured more money if we merely reenact the section as it appears, extending the period to 1941; or, if the minister feels that this is too long a period, I suggest that he might try it for, at any rate, a couple of years longer. I earnestly believe-and I say this entirely divested of any feeling in the matter except from my observations and inquiries-Ahat we shall haye secured more money at the end of 1940 if we make the period two years than we could possibly receive if we depended upon payments being made in the future on the basis of the present value of the contracts, except as the obligations may be reduced by reason of the provisions of the legislation now before the house with respect to past instalments. That is my conviction, and I should like the minister to consider the matter from that angle, because it was that consideration which induced the late government to initiate the legislation. If the minister will look at the records I think he will agree that the hope then entertained has not been wholly without tangible results. I know of nothing that makes one feel worse than to realize the amount of money we have lost in this transaction. It is attributable not so much to wrong judgment as to a feeling of optimism, with respect to productive values, which was not warranted by results. In the same way we lost vast sums of money in connection with another enterprise we entered into during and after the war. We lost in the aggregate, I think, some 380,000,000.
The losses we have sustained in connection with the soldier settlement lands can be attributed not so much to maldistribution, to recklessness or to carelessness, as to an estimate of productive value which subsequent events have not warranted. If, however, the result that I have indicated were found only in soldier settlement lands, it would be good cause for alleging negligence and lack of proper supervision and care. But every one of us, from western Canada in particular, knows that the hope of productive value, the belief in high prices for wheat and large production, was widespread. I can recall a minister telling us in western Canada that all we had to do was to go forward and produce half a billion bushels of wheat, because everybody believed that, as the result of the war, it would be a long time before the belligerent nations would be able to satisfy their own requirements, and we would always be able to supply their demands. We have always been able more than to supply their demands, and it was on that basis that this settlement took place, and that the high values I have mentioned were attached to lands. Of course, they could not be realized at the present time, and the result has been that very large sums have had to be wiped out as depreciation in values; and, finally, we have had recourse to the method which I have indicated.
If it is not going too far I would suggest to the minister that he might give this matter further study and consider whether or not it would be possible to make an extension for a further period of, say only two years. For I believe-once again I repeat it; I cannot stress it too strongly-speaking from observation and inquiry, that we shall receive more money at the end of two years by continuing this policy, giving credit of $2 for every SI paid, than if we adopt the method indicated by the bill, hoping to recover in full the balance of instalments in connection with the obligations incurred by settlers.


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Neill has 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.
Soldier Settlement Act


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was arranged that the post office estimates would be taken up to-night at nine o'clock, and I think that arrangement ought to be adhered to. In regard to the point made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I did give it very careful consideration. I refer to the possibility of securing larger payments by the continuation of the dollar for dollar bonus not only to those who have been unable to take advantage of it during the last five or six years or during the period in which it has been in effect, but also to those who have taken advantage of it. The difficulty is, of course, that there are probably some returned soldiers who are hoping and possibly expecting that they will not be required to pay any more on their land. There is a small organization in northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, to which reference was made this afternoon by an hon. member from that part of Canada, the object of which is to seek a complete wiping out of the whole obligation. In fairness to the Canadian people as a whole; in fairness to the returned soldiers who have completed their land payments- and there are quite a number of them-in fairness to those who have in good faith kept up their payments as far as they have been able to do so, I do not think this should be encouraged, and I fear that if we proceeded along the lines of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), which after all is simply a continuance of the existing arrangement for three years, this would give encouragement to a movement of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it would have the contrary effect.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I do not believe it
would. I should be glad to think it would, but I fear that it might have the opposite effect. We have to face that fact frankly. I am sure I am within the judgment of every hon. member when I say that the house desires to deal fairly and generously with the returned men, but I do not think there should be given to any section of the returned men encouragement which would induce them to trade upon the generosity of the house and of the people of Canada and expect to get off free from their present liabilities. However, as I have said, it was arranged that the post office estimates should go on to-night, and I am going to move that the committee rise and report progress. In the meantime consideration will be given to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister look at the figures and see what the result has
[Deputy Chairman.]
been since 1933 in reduction of liability on the basis of crediting $2 for every SI paid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Under the dollar for dollar bonus $1,409,000 has been collected.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices, $14,624,470.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give us a statement regarding any change in the number of post offices in Canada? I see by the annual report that there has been a decrease in Nova Scotia, and apparently there has been no increase in the Northwest Territories in spite of the developments going on there.


Mr. EULER:: I cannot give the increases or decreases. I can give the total number by provinces:
Ontario	 2,618
Quebec	  2,578
Nova Scotia	 1,546
New Brunswick	 1,020
Prince Edward Island	 114
Manitoba	 796
Saskatchewan	 1,498
Alberta	 1,253
British Columbia	 925
Yukon	 18
Northwest Territories	 20
12,386


Howard Charles Green: Why is there a decrease in the number of post offices in Nova Scotia?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure as to the
reason. It may be because there is rural mail delivery, or it may be diminution of business making it not worth while to keep the offices open.


Robert Emmett Finn: Loss of population. *


Mr. HEAPS:: The other night I referred to the method of sale of stamps in the larger post offices. I stated that the information I Lave is that the government itself does not undertake the sale of stamps in some of the large post offices. Is such the fact, and, if so, why are private people allowed to sell stamps in public buildings?


William Daum Euler: What my hon. friend states is the fact, the reason being that in many cases the system is cheaper; the commissions are less than the cost would be if some official of the Post Office Department sold the stamps. It has been the practice for many years. My

Supply-Post Office
hon. friend brought it to my attention the other day. I do not know that, as acting Postmaster General, I particularly like to announce any change of policy, but I would think it is a matter worthy of consideration. That is as far as I can go.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am very glad to have this admission from the acting Postmaster General, because it seems to me most absurd that we should establish large post offices and have wickets for the sale of everything except stamps, and that when it comes to the sale of stamps we hand it over to some private individual, who probably is a partisan worker who gets the concession and in his private capacity goes into a public building and there sells stamps. I know that in some cases the government have to go to the private party to buy stamps, buying, say $1,000 worth of stamps through this private party. It seems so absurd to have an arrangement of that kind that 1 hope it will not be long before the acting Postmaster General will take action to stop something which, in my opinion, should never have started.


Robert Emmett Finn: As far as Halifax is concerned -and I speak now of the Halifax post office separate and apart from other post offices in Nova Sco'tia-the post office was under a postmaster; they have now merged the duties of inspector and postmaster and the one man is both. From time immemorial the stamps have been sold in the post office in a cage provided by the government, both in the old post office and in the new one. The two ladies who are the stamp vendors there have been there for years. They have the confidence of everyone; they are not party workers; they are not ward heelers; they have never taken part in politics, and my hon. friend has gone far afield when he says that it is a political reward. I have been nearly twenty-five years in public life, and no person has been appointed, while I have been in provincial or federal polities, as a party worker or ward heeler to any such position. These two ladies have the confidence of everyone in Halifax. They get a commission on the stamps sold and they are well deserving of it. I shall see that they are kept there as long as we are in power, and I believe hon. gentlemen opposite would also see that they are kept there, because they take no part in politics and are perfectly honest.	.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How many new post offices are in course of erection at the present time?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend means buildings?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


William Daum Euler: That is a matter for the Public Works department.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are any recommendations made by the Post Office Department to the Public Works department for the erection of such buildings?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I am not sufficiently familiar with that to answer definitely; but I would judge that where it is proposed to erect a public building there must be some request from the Post Office Department, and perhaps also other departments, such as customs, which are going to use the building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In past years post offices have gone up without the consent of the Post Office Department. I say so advisedly because I happen to know of such a case. I am just wondering if there are any buildings which are now being constructed by the Public Works department for subsequent use as post offices and of which the Post Office Department may not be aware.


William Daum Euler: Not to my knowledge, and not to the knowledge of the officials who are here.


Abraham Albert Heaps: To come down to a concrete case, take the post office which is to be erected here in Ottawa. Are the post office officials consulted in the matter; do they have the final say on the size and capacity of the building, or is the matter entirely in the hands of the Department of Public Works?


William Daum Euler: The work is done on and with the advice of the Post Office Department.


Howard Charles Green: Are any steps being taken to increase the business of the post office savings bank. I notice by the annual report of the department that there has been a decrease of about $167,000 in the amount on deposit, and it does seem to me some steps should be taken to increase the business.


William Daum Euler: A good deal of advertising is done to attract deposits, but I am informed that this really is a matter for the Department of Finance.


Howard Charles Green: What rate of interest is paid?


William Daum Euler: Two per cent.


Howard Charles Green: In the details which are given at page 167 of the estimates, I notice an item covering commissions to postmasters on savings bank business. That item has been reduced from $8,000 to $5,000. What is the reason for that?
Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: It varies according to the amount of the deposits. There were fewer deposits; therefore the commission was smaller.


Mr. PERLEY:: Has the department under consideration the purchase of certain bank buildings in the western provinces to be used for postal purposes? I believe it has been the policy of the Post Office Department under all governments occasionally to buy a bank building, particularly in western Canada, that has been closed. In the west there are a number of towns where there were three or four banks, and of late years conditions have been such that there has not been sufficient business for them all. They have sort of sawed off with each other, one bank closing its branch in this town and another bank closing its branch in the next town, and as a result there are some pretty good buildings available for post office purposes. They could be easily adapted for use in that way, and I know of two or three buildings practically for sale in my constituency. I think some negotiations have been carried on, and I wondered if the minister could inform us whether he has advised the Department of Public Works to purchase those buildings.


William Daum Euler: Could the hon. gentleman tell me at what points these excellent buildings are located?


George Halsey Perley: Sintaluta is one.


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge with regard to that. I am told that this has been done; that buildings have been purchased, but again this is a matter for the Department of Public Works. As my hon. friend knows, the handling of real estate and buildings, the erection of buildings and all that sort of thing, is in the hands of the Department of Public Works.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that something more should be done in regard to the savings bank branch of the Post Office Department. I find in talking even with members of the house that some of them do not know that there is such a branch, carrying on business and paying interest at the rate of two per cent. I have also run across lawyers who did not know very much about this branch.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are not surprised at that, are you?


Joseph Needham: They are supposed to be our learned friends. This summer I was talking with one lawyer, and I told him that I considered the post office savings bank one of the most convenient methods of financing while travelling. I told him that if he had a

deposit with the post office in his home town, he could go into the post office savings bank in any town and draw out up to $50 in a day. I believe that amount has now been increased to $100, but he did not even know there was such a thing in existence. As I say, it is a most convenient way to finance travel anywhere in Canada. There is no exchange required, and of course, since you do not give a cheque but have your book marked, you do not require a three-cent stamp. I feel that something should be done in the way of advertising this branch, and I am amazed to see such a reduction in the deposits this year What were the deposits, say five years ago? Has there been a continual reduction?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid we have not that information.


Joseph Needham: If it is a matter for the finance department, I would urge upon the minister that the two departments get together and see if something cannot be done along that line.


William Daum Euler: I may say that the Postmaster General himself has under consideration the possibility of making it somewhat easier to withdraw deposits and perhaps in other respects to model the post office savings bank after the facilities that are offered in Great Britain. I must admit that I am not familiar with the branch, but I am informed that the Postmaster General has some improvements in mind.


Joseph Needham: Do the deposits go into the consolidated revenue fund?


William Daum Euler: Yes; they go right into the consolidated revenue fund.


Joseph Needham: It seems to me that if this branch were advertised fully and, if necessary, if the rate were increased to 2i per cent, this would be a wonderful means of assisting in the financing of the dominion. It would also give encouragement to the average fellow with five, ten or a hundred dollars to deposit. It seems to me it would give a wonderful stimulus to the circulation of dollars in the dominion.


Mr. GRAYDON:: I am surprised to hear the hon. member for The Battlefords rising to-night to ask that some encouragement be given the banking institutions of this country. However, I am very glad to hear that he has some views which may be of some assistance to the acting minister. Is there any limit as to the maximum amount that a depositor may deposit in the post office savings bank?


William Daum Euler: The limit is $5,000.

Supply-Post Office


Gordon Graydon: Has the acting minister any information as to the number who have reached that maximum in the post office savings branch?


William Daum Euler: No, I have not that information.


René-Antoine Pelletier: One of the few pleasures enjoyed by people in distant areas is that they can obtain books from various libraries in nearby cities. In the United States I believe there are cheap postal rates on books from public libraries. The Canadian department might very well take that point into consideration, and see if it is not possible to establish a special postal rate for books coming from public libraries, so that the people might be able to make greater use of such books. At the present time I believe the rate in the United States is three cents for the first pound, and one cent for each additional pound thereafter.
If these rates were made effective in Canada, I believe this would not in any way interfere with the revenues of the department. As a matter of fact those revenues undoubtedly would be increased because many people in the outlying areas would take advantage of lower postal rates. I am not prepared at this time to discuss the matter at length, but those are a few facts which come to my mind. I am sure, if the acting minister went into the matter carefully, he would find that a rate similar to that in the United States would be beneficial to everyone concerned. For the sake of the department and for the pleasure of many people, I would ask that he give serious consideration to the matter.


William Daum Euler: I suppose the hon. member knows there is already on the order paper a resolution dealing with the matter. I take it there will be a discussion on the point when the resolution is before the house, and as a result of that discussion some policy may be framed. Meantime the rate on books within a radius of twenty miles is five cents per pound, parcel post, a rate which does not seem excessive. However, it may be possible to make that rate lower. It is a matter of policy in the department.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The resolution is far down on the order paper, and there is a possibility it might not be discussed.


William Daum Euler: That is true.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I believe this is the proper time to bring the matter to the attention of the minister. Although the rate may be five cents per pound, I think we might very well adopt the rate of the United States, namely three cents for the first pound and
one cent for each additional pound. I am asking that the minister give the matter full consideration, particularly in view of the fact that it will bring in greater revenue, rather than decrease it. After all, the cheaper the rate is, the more people will be able to use it.


William Daum Euler: I am sure the hon. member would not guarantee that, but we shall be glad to give the matter consideration.


Charles Edward Johnston: How much does the Post Office Department receive from the chartered banks in Alberta for the distribution of their pamphlets containing the speeches of Mr. Vernon Knowles. Those pamphlets were distributed through the post offices, and I should like to know how much they received for that service.


William Daum Euler: The rate is one cent for two ounces.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not my question. I want to know how much the department received for that service.


William Daum Euler: I cannot tell the hon. member, because I have not the information here.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would not be done gratis, would it?


William Daum Euler: Certainly not.


Charles Edward Johnston: I wonder
if we can get the information at some other time.


William Daum Euler: I fail to see why any one
would assume that the post office is carrying mail gratis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said "distribution"
by the post office.


William Daum Euler: It is performing a service.
I understand it is not done free.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is his point.


William Daum Euler: The answer is no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any evidence of
that?


Mr EULER:: The evidence is-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or is it just a guess?


William Daum Euler: Just what the officials tell me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the post office
was paid for distributing those pamphlets- does the minister say that?


William Daum Euler: I do not even know the
pamphlets were distributed. I have no personal knowledge of it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have
evidence of the fact, because almost every office in Alberta distributed them. '
Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: I would have to have knowledge first whether such an act took place. I do not know. But if any service was rendered through the post office, it had to be paid for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason I was struck by the fact that the hon. member seems to be in error. I can take a thousand pamphlets to a post office, pay them a given sum and they distribute them. That has been done-it was at one time.


William Daum Euler: It is still so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe what the hon.
member has in mind is that same form of distribution. As I gathered it, he left the impression that pamphlets had been distributed through the post offices, and he wanted to know what was received as payment by the Post Office Department for that distribution. There used to be such a provision in our law; I never say anything "is" now, because the department changes so from time to time that one does not know what might happen over night. But there was a time when I could take a thousand pamphlets to a post office; they would have a list, and they would distribute them to all the people, even though the pamphlets may not be addressed. In some instances they are addressed with the words "To the householder." That is called householder distribution, for which I know I have paid. It is that which I believe the hon. member for Bow River had in mind.


William Daum Euler: I am told any service of that sort is paid for. But I think the hon. member will realize that he could hardly expect me at this time to say how much was paid for a certain service at a certain post office in western Canada, or anywhere else. At any rate, I have not that information.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not
pressing the question at this time, but I should like to know how much the Post Office Department received for that service. If the postmaster himself received it, would it be recorded in the books which were sent on to the department? There should be some record of it in the Post Office Department.


William Daum Euler: I am told there are about
30,000,000 pounds of that carried in a year. I am not sure that it would be worth while to have detailed information in the department on the point. At any rate, we have not the information, and I am inclined to think it is not worth while to keep a record of those services.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then, the charge is left to the decision of the local postmaster, is it?


William Daum Euler: No; the local postmaster is not asked to keep that record.


Mr. STIRLING:: There surely must be a standard charge for such service; it is very common.


William Daum Euler: For printed matter the rate is one cent for two ounces.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Does that include the cost of distribution as well?


William Daum Euler: That is the standard cost for distributing them.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The total cost to the party who mails them?


William Daum Euler: The total cost to the person who gets the service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no stamps put on them, and I believe the hon. member concludes that it is a free distribution by the postmaster, as an individual, whereas, as a matter of fact I remember that a charge was levelled once that this was an interference with the postal laws of the country. For instance, you pay a fee; they distribute the material, and that is all there is to it. That goes on continually. I first learned about it by actual experience, and I found out that that was the way it was done. The postmaster himself gets nothing for it, except possible commissions on the receipts of his office.


Harry James Barber: Could the minister give us the number of depositors in the post office savings bank in the last year?


William Daum Euler: There are 49,551 accounts. There were 6,233 new accounts opened during the year, and 4,854 accounts closed. The number of accounts open at the end of the year stood at 80,370, or an increase of 1,379. When I said the total number of accounts was 49.551, I should have said that that was the number of deposits.


Harry James Barber: What was the total amount?


William Daum Euler: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe it is more than that.


William Daum Euler: That is for the year. There is on deposit now a total of $21,879,593.13, a slight decrease.


Gordon Graydon: What main factors are taken into consideration by the department in deciding whether a postal delivery service shall be established in certain centres?

Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: The chief factors are the revenue of the office and the population of the town.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It used to be 10,000 people.


Gordon Graydon: What is the lowest population where a postal delivery service is in effect?


Richard Bedford Bennett: What place has pull
enough to make the arrangement without the necessary population?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I cannot give the name of the town with the lowest population or revenue. I would have to repeat that the population is supposed to be at least 10,000 and the revenue about 835,000, but that may vary. The population may be higher and the revenue may be a little lower, or the revenue may be unusually high and the population less. That is left to the discretion of the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the question of pull.


William Daum Euler: It may have been that way in the old days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was prior to 1930 and has been since.


William Daum Euler: I imagine there is not much use in the pot calling the kettle black. I dare say that under both administrations there was a little latitude in these matters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were so few left by 1930 that we had not a chance.


Gordon Graydon: I am interested in knowing to what extent the concentration of population and the lay-out of the community would influence the department in arriving at a conclusion as to inaugurating a postal delivery service.


William Daum Euler: It may have a bearing, but I have no information.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister give us the dismissals of postmasters in 1936 and 1937 in the different provinces, and the reasons?


William Daum Euler: I have them for the last two years and for certain other two years. The figures I shall give now are for the last twenty-eight months, the period of the present administration:
Prince Edward Island	 3
Nova Scotia	 12
New Brunswick	 17
Quebec	 133
Ontario	 6
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	 6
Alberta	 1
British Columbia	 1
51952-81
I may say that in the corresponding period the dismissals were as follows-


Mr. STEWART:: Who asked for that?


William Daum Euler: I am just giving it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will help to get your estimates through.


William Daum Euler: I am rather enjoying it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This will help you to get them through.


William Daum Euler: I was wondering whether the asking of that question was intended to help me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That used to be a commonplace question when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power.


William Daum Euler: I am not objecting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not; that is your job, but you should hardly volunteer information.


William Daum Euler: I do not require any advice from my right hon. friend on that point. I shall discharge my duty as well as I can. I am not particularly familiar with this department, and if my right hon. friend is hinting that he is going to make it more difficult, it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
Mr. BEN'NETT: The minister was asked a civil question to which he replied, and then he started to give information which was not asked for with respect to a previous administration. He thinks that is going to help him get his estimates through. If an hon. member asks a question, the minister should give an answer, but he should not volunteer information which may have a political bearing.


William Daum Euler: That is exactly the reason the question was asked..


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not.


Mr. McNEYIN:: I ask the minister to give us the information for the same period previously.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I asked the question simply for information.


Mr. McNTVEN:: I ask for the same information for the previous period.


William Daum Euler: I am sorry I began to give that information, and if my right hon. friend thinks it would promote the work of the committee; I am quite willing to omit giving it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was volunteered, but now it has been asked for.

Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: I shall not volunteer it now, I shall give it according to the request that is made for information during the previous administration. The figures are:
Prince Edward Island	 2
Nova Scotia	 68
New Brunswick	 26
Quebec	 35
Ontario	 7
Manitoba	 4
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 1
British Columbia


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that in every case an investigation was held by a properly authorized commissioner. I should like to know what the twenty-eight month period covers, from what date to what date?


William Daum Euler: I shall have to add to the information that I gave. The dismissals I gave were those made on the personal statement of a member of parliament or on a postmaster's admission. Then there are those that followed as a result of investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What dates are they?


William Daum Euler: Under the present administration the dismissals after investigation were as follows:
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	 7
New Brunswick	 11
Quebec	 107
Ontario	 3
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	 1
Alberta	 4
British Columbia	
That is the information for the last twenty-eight months under the present administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are on investigation, and then there would be the dismissals on the say-so of a member.


William Daum Euler: I gave those.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The two together would give the total number of dismissals.


William Daum Euler: It would be 179 plus 133.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did the minister say just three in Ontario?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to compliment the Liberal members from Ontario for not being hard-boiled Grits.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where a member protests against the postmaster having been partisan in an election, what proof must be submitted before action is taken?


William Daum Euler: You mean before an investigation is undertaken?


Abraham Albert Heaps: An investigation concerning the dismissal of a postmaster.


William Daum Euler: I think the Minister of Agriculture outlined the practice the other day. If a member states over his own signature that he has personal knowledge that a civil servant or a servant of the government has been partisan at an election, that is sufficient under an order in council to ensure his dismissal almost automatically. If anyone else makes a complaint, a commissioner is appointed, and if the minister regards his report as being sufficient to warrant a dismissal, the postmaster is dismissed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It was that very answer which the Minister of Agriculture made in this chamber the other day which prompted me to ask that question. Personally I am not satisfied that any member of this house should exercise the prerogative of having an individual dismissed from the public service merely on the word of the member that to his knowledge the individual has been guilty of partisanship. If any member of this house, or an elected representative before he takes his seat, has knowledge that a person has been guilty of partisanship during an election, I think an investigation should be held anyhow, even though it be a member who makes the complaint. I know the acting Postmaster General is himself in a general way opposed to patronage, and I submit to him that, in all fairness, the individual accused of partisanship should be given an opportunity to submit his case to some body designated to investigate charges of that kind. The hon. member for Vancouver North the other day said that all that appeared in a communication upon which a certain person was dismissed from the public service was the statement that he had been guilty of participating in an election, and merely on a bald statement like that the man was dismissed. I do not think any hon. member will claim that that is fair to the individual concerned or that it is a good thing for the government of the country. If a member, I do not care who he may be, makes a statement charging a person with an offence, I think the least we can do is to ensure that the individual will be given an opportunity of replying to the charge. If justification be found for the charge that there has been participation in an election, then there could be little objection to dismissal after investigation; but I know of many members of parliament who, in their zeal to obtain a little patronage, might perhaps be a little more partisan in their activities than even postmasters during an election.

Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I have any particular fault to find with that; but the practice has obtained, and I am quite sure that an order in council was passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the minister not think it is time the practice was changed?


William Daum Euler: Possibly so; but so long as that order in council is in force, I suppose the departments concerned will carry out its terms. Before I sit down I might add that in the Post Office Department, in every case where the revenue of the post office is $400 or more, whether or not the member states over his own signature that he has personal knowledge of the conduct of the official, an investigation is made.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Is that $400 a year or a month?


William Daum Euler: A year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the accused given an opportunity of staling his case?


William Daum Euler: In the Post Office Department, yes, if the revenue is over $400 a year.


Mr. CLEAVER:: How many were dismissed by the former administration for political partisanship?


William Daum Euler: In Prince Edward Island, 5; Nova Scotia, 45; New Brunswick, 48; Quebec, 246; Ontario, 3; Manitoba, 6; Saskatchewan, 10; Alberta, none; British Columbia, none; a total of 363.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does that cover a period of five years?


William Daum Euler: No; twenty-eight months.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Which twenty-eight
months, the first or the last?


René-Antoine Pelletier: The minister mentioned that during the last twenty months there had been only one dismissal in Alberta; but I have personal knowledge of three postmasters having been dismissed, and I can give the names of the places: Acme, Newcastle and Falher. They were all dismissed for alleged political partisanship, and yet the minister tells us there was only one dismissed. I cannot understand that.


William Daum Euler: During the period mentioned there was only one dismissed on the personal statement of the member, and four were dismissed after investigation.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Five altogether?


William Daum Euler: Five altogether.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to bring
to the attention of the minister a matter of special importance, and one that is a little out of the ordinary course of departmental details. I assume the minister knows that there is in course of construction in the county of Leeds an international bridge. It is called the Ivy Lea bridge. It is unique in its character and because it is I wish to take about five minutes of the time of this committee in explaining its character.
The total length of the crossing from the Canadian side to the United States side is between six and eight miles. By far the greater portion of this distance is roadway, highways constructed on large and small islands. There are, as a matter of fact, only two spans of any substantial length, one in the United States channel and one in the Canadian channel, the intervening distance being occupied with islands and narrow crossings over narrow channels. This bridge passes through the whole of the Thousand Islands, and I have before me a statement that I am sure will surprise the committee when I say that it is issued over the signature of the advisory engineer of the Thousand Islands bridge authority. He says:
Within one day's drive or three hundred miles radius, there is located one-tliird of the population of Canada, and one-fourth of the population of the United States.
Note that, Mr. Chairman: Within three hundred miles of the end of this bridge this large proportion of the two populations is located, including New York and all the eastern states, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and other larger centres of population.
This bridge is to be formally opened, I think, in the month of August next, and the idea I have in mind in bringing this matter to the attention of the acting Postmaster General is to suggest that he consider the issuing of a special stamp to commemorate the event. Similar action is being advocated at Washington, and I believe is being favourably considered.
In addition, the possibilities of the development of tourist traffic, in which we are all interested, and which brings in an enormous amount of revenue to this country, are practically unlimited with a unique feature such as this, and they are being carefully studied by those interested in the matter. It has been brought to the attention of the tourist bureau, the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Transport. That is the suggestion I wish to make.
It is said that on a clear day one can see for sixteen miles up or down the St. Lawrence river from the United States main span, and
Supply-Post Office

fourteen miles from the Canadian span, and that view is just studded with islands. I do not need to tell the members of this committee that the Thousand Islands in the St. Lawrence constitute one of the great scenic features of the world, and this bridge traversing about eight miles through the heart of these islands is really something unique. I think it is worthy of consideration by the minister, whether it would not be to the advantage of the department from the standpoint of revenue, as well as advertisement in connection with tourist traffic, that a special stamp be issued to commemorate the opening of this bridge. I do not know whether any very large amount of cost is involved; but there will be a tremendous sale of post cards and all that sort of thing, and I think it would help to stimulate and promote the tourist traffic and at the same time bring in some additional revenue to the department. All I shall do is to ask the minister to consider the suggestion, investigate to find out what is being done in the United States and, if possible, lend the assistance of his department to the advertising of this attraction, in the hope that tourist traffic will be stimulated and developed and that this can be done to the advantage of Canada and without any immediate loss of revenue in connection with the issue of this stamp.


William Daum Euler: The general practice, I believe, is not to issue stamps except to commemorate something of great national importance. I do not say that this is not of that type and I shall be glad to give it consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are considering it in the United States. It is suggested that the Prime Minister of Canada and President Roosevelt should shake hands on this international bridge. I should be glad myself to have the minister come; I would shake hands with him.


William Daum Euler: That is quite an inducement.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently there are about 12,000 post offices in Canada, but only about one-tenth of that number are empowered to transact post office savings bank business. Will the minister explain the basis on which that privilege is given to a post office? During the last two years many of the chartered banks have been closed in the smaller towns. Would it not be helpful to the citizens in such places if the right to deposit with the post office savings bank were made available to them?


William Daum Euler: I cannot say that there is any definite rule. Sometimes it is according to the

demand in the locality and the probabilities of there being substantial deposits to make it worth while. I cannot give any other answer. I believe that these branches are conducted in those post offices where money orders are issued.


Howard Charles Green: Is it a fact then, that only one-tenth of the post offices in Canada can issue money orders? Surely that is not right.


William Daum Euler: No, that is not the case, nor is the reverse the case.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: What was the total amount
of mail, in pounds or tons, carried last year?


William Daum Euler: First-class mail, 17,888.243 pounds; second-class, 121,575,000 pounds; third-class, 29,649.779 pounds; parcel post, 68.494,364 pounds. These checkups are taken only every few years. This is for last year. The plans are now being made for another enumeration this year.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Can the minister give the same information for the year before that?


William Daum Euler: No, I have not that.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Could that be looked up?


William Daum Euler: The enumeration is not made every year.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Could it be looked up for the committee before these estimates are completed?


William Daum Euler: I am informed that there is no information which can be given with regard to the poundage of the previous year. I am sorry, but we do not have it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to bring to the
attention of the acting minister something in connection with the appointment of a postmaster for the Beaverton post office. I shall not find fault with what the department has done, nor am I going to find fault with the civil service commission; for, having looked into both sides of the matter, I am satisfied that perhaps what was done was all that could have been done under the circumstances. These are the facts. Apparently according to custom, the vacancy in the post office was advertised, the postmaster having died, I believe. Six returned soldiers applied to take the examination, and, of course, the acting postmaster also made application. The acting postmaster having been there fifteen years, and apparently having been very well thought of in the village, he easily obtained better marks than the six returned soldiers, who had not the same experience. I looked into the particulars and found that they were different from what

Supply-Post Office
I had been told, and, as I have said, I now believe that what was done was probably all that could have been done. But I felt that in a similar case in the future, if the department knows, as it probably will know, that an acting postmaster has been filling a position for fifteen years in the post office and has a good reputation in the village, the department should not place returned soldiers in the position of being defeated, so to speak. They should not be put in a position where they will certainly not have a chance to obtain the post after taking the examination. If the department was satisfied that this acting postmaster was the one who should logically fill the job, he should have been given the job and these returned soldiers should not have been embarrassed in the way they W'ere and made to suffer defeat.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows that
appointments of that kind are entirely within the purview of the civil service commission.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I realize that and I
am not finding fault with either the civil service commission or the department. What I am urging upon the acting minister is that if a similar case should arise in the future, and it is believed that the acting postmaster should be given the job, he should be given it without humiliating returned men.


William Daum Euler: I am inclined to believe
that under the law they must conduct examinations. I doubt whether the civil service commission would have the power to appoint an acting postmaster.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He cannot be promoted
under the regulations as they now are; he has to take his chance with others.


William Daum Euler: In this case they are not
civil servants and therefore the principle of promotion is not involved.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it be possible in such a case for a person who had not been in the Post Office Department at all to come in and pass the examination with the result that the man who had been in the position for a number of years would not receive promotion?


William Daum Euler: It is possible, except for the fact, of course, that the returned soldier always gets the preference; otherwise it is within the power of the commission to appoint whom they please, and they would appoint according to the rank which the applicant took in his examination. It might work an injustice, of course.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What struck me is that it seems hardly reasonable to examine these returned soldiers in a contest with a man who had already been acting postmaster and with fifteen years' experience. I am not finding any fault, but I feel sorry for the returned soldiers being up against an examination like that. If, as the leader of the opposition has said, the matter is purely in the hands of the civil service commission, I suppose nothing else could have been done.


René-Antoine Pelletier: There is a point I should like to clear up concerning the protection of mail matter. I am sure the acting Postmaster General will hasten to assure me that once a letter is mailed with a three-cent stamp on it, the department is prepared to use all the force at its command to see that that letter is not tampered with and is properly delivered. In fact it is a serious matter to tamper with: the royal mail. Then there comes to my mind the question of distribution of pamphlets at a rate of two cents an ounce, which I believe was quoted. If the minister is sure that the department will do everything in its power to protect mail, I should like him to give me some assurance. He must be aware that at the present time there is in effect in the province of Quebec a law known as the padlock law. If I intend to mail what I consider communistic propaganda in Quebec, is the acting Postmaster General in a position to tell me that he will rigorously protect my mail anu complete the transaction by effecting delivery of the pamphlets no matter what may be said by any provincial law? I think the acting Postmaster General should make that clear. If I go to the trouble of paying the postage on this mail, does the minister intend to protect my property while it is in the hands of the government and to assure me that it will reach its destination in the province of Quebec, since that is a part of Canada as well as any other part of the country, notwithstanding any law passed by that legislature?


William Daum Euler: All mail on which postage has been properly paid has the protection of the law. Indeed, I am informed that the safeguarding and inspection of the mails cost the department a million dollars a year. All mail on which postage is properly paid will be protected by the department and delivered. If it is communistic literature such as my hon. friend refers to, I should think it would be subject to the laws of the country; if it is subversive of the law and advocates violence or anything of that sort, I think it might very properly be shut out of the mails. Otherwise I see no reason why it should not be carried.
Supply-Post Office


René-Antoine Pelletier: Of course that depends on what interpretation is placed upon the term " communism." It is commonly known that there is in Quebec at the present time this so-called padlock law, and that under various pretexts certain homes have been entered and books seized. But I want the acting Postmaster General to assure me whether, no matter what sort of literature it is, as long as it does not come into conflict with dominion law, the Post Office Department is prepared to fight to the last degree to assure me that my mail will be delivered in Quebec, no matter what interpretation the Quebec government may place upon it.


William Daum Euler: I can give my hon. friend that assurance very readily. If the mail matter does not violate a law of the Dominion of Canada, as far as I am concerned the mail will be carried. I am not supposed to have any particular knowledge of the laws of Quebec, and in any case I do not think the laws of Quebec override those of the Dominion of Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There has been a great deal of seizure of papers in the province of Quebec the moment they entered certain stations.


William Daum Euler: Not in the mails.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am wondering whether that literature seized went by the mails or by other means of transportation.


William Daum Euler: None was seized in the mails.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister is in error as to that. The other day in the course of the discussion I directed attention to the fact that mail bags had actually been seized, and photographs of the mail bags were published in the press. My objection was to any provincial authority, because of an alleged breach of a provincial law, seizing a mail bag from the custody of those who had it under their control. The question arose in the United States on one occasion, as the minister will recall, and I was greatly concerned about this matter. However, I do not think the minister should answer this; it is a matter which the Minister of Justice should deal with, and, frankly, I do not think it is fair to ask the acting Postmaster General to answer the question. But I should like to know whether or not the statement and the photographs published in the press correctly represent the incident. That, I think, comes under his department. The legal inferences and conclusions to be drawn from the seizure are matters that can be dealt with by those whose duty it is. The minister can only give me information as to whether or not any mail bag was actually seized and taken out of the custody

and control of those who had it because it was alleged to contain communistic literature, and whether or not- that mail bag was held by those who alleged that it contained these papers and letters which it was said were being carried in breach of a provincial statute.


William Daum Euler: I have some knowledge of the incident to which my right hon. friend refers. There were certain photographs published in which mail bags were shown. It is quite true that the department supplied to the publishers of that paper, as it does to other publishers, mail bags for their convenience. But the contents do not become mail until they reach the post office, and although no doubt there were papers in these bags which were photographed, it was really not mail because it had not yet been delivered to the post office. The mail bags have been recovered.


René-Antoine Pelletier: How did it get into the mail bags if it was not mail?


William Daum Euler: It is not mail until the postage has been paid on it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where were those particular bags sent from?


William Daum Euler: The bags were, I understand, delivered to the publishing house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Where?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think in Ontario, and the mail carried to Quebec. That is my difficulty.


William Daum Euler: I am not sure about that; but the point I want to make is that all these publishing houses, for the convenience of the publishers and, I suppose, of the Post Office Department, have empty mail bags delivered to them, and these are filled with the publication and taken to the post office, but it is not mail until it is actually in the post office. These were the bags that were seized and photographed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not want to press the point unduly because I do not think the minister is in a position to answer the legal question involved-


William Daum Euler: No, I would not attempt that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -but I think he has overlooked one fact. The information published in the press indicated that the mail bags furnished by the department for the carriage of the papers were furnished in Ontario, and the papers having been placed in the bags, the bags were placed in a railway mail car and

Supply-Post Office
transported to the province of Quebec. When they went into the mail car they went into his majesty's mail.


William Daum Euler: I would think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is clear. And they were delivered at a railway station in Montreal and, under the alleged authority of a provincial statute, were seized before they could be taken to the post office for distribution. That is the story, as I gather it from the press. The photograph of the mail bags was published in the press. Now the issue is a narrow one; it is whether or not there is any authority to interfere with his majesty's mails on the part of those who allege a breach of a provincial statute, when the bags are in the custody and under the control of the Post Office Department; for those bags being carried in the mail car I am informed were under the control of the Post Office Department. They have vans which carry them on to the post office. In the first instance it gets down to a question of essential fact. I can only say that I am not informed as to that, beyond what I saw in the newspaper. I did mention it to the Minister of Justice the other day, and I think the matter is so serious that we should have some clear understanding as to just what are the circumstances.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I have not all the information that perhaps I should have. Apparently I was mistaken when I said that these bags did not come from Toronto or Ontario. I understand now that they did. This representation is made to me, however, that those bags contained mail, technically mail, while they were in the baggage car or the mail car, whichever it was, which carried the mail into Quebec, but that they were then delivered into the custody of a publishing house in that province, which completed the work of the Post Office Department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; their transit was over.


William Daum Euler: After that they were no longer in the custody of the Post Office Department. As to the legal aspect of the matter I am not going to express an opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The point I made previously was that literature of that kind had been seized at the railway station.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what I saw in the press, that one seizure was made at the station, before the bags had been taken to the publishing house.


William Daum Euler: I have no information on that at all, nor have the officials.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not wish to place the minister in an embarrassing position by asking him to decide any legal question this evening. It was not my intention to do that;
I believe that was interjected by other hon. members who have taken part in the discussion. However, since the matter has been brought up, I might suggest to the acting Postmaster General that a royal mail car carries the insignia of His Majesty the King. In my opinion a royal mail car is the property of his majesty; therefore, while there is anything within that car, no person is permitted to enter the car unless he is authorized to do so.
However, I am not going to ask the minister to decide on any legal technicality. I want him to give me the assurance that if I place a three-cent stamp on a letter containing material which might be considered communistic propaganda in the province of Quebec but which does not constitute an infraction of Canadian laws, and mail that letter in a post office, he will undertake to deliver it anywhere in the province of Quebec.


William Daum Euler: I have given the answer already; my hon. friend asked exactly the same question previously, and I answered it. I do not suppose I need answer it again. I may say this to my hon. friend, however, that he is quite right when he says that once mail bags are placed in a car which carries his majesty's seal, no one can interfere with those bags; but I understand that was not done. That mail was delivered out of that car into the headquarters of this publication in the province of Quebec, and then the work of the Post Office Department was completed. In any event that is the information I have. If my hon. friend has any information that a mail car was entered, I can only say that I have no knowledge as to that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or that the bags were seized at the station, which is what the newspapers said.


William Daum Euler: Not according to the information I have.


René-Antoine Pelletier: If there is even a thought that possibly the mails of Canada are being interfered with, it might be serious enough for the department to take some action in this regard, and inquire into the matter as fully as possible. If, for example, anyone attempted to even get near a car with the idea of seizing mail or for any other purpose, I feel sure the department would do everything within its power to see that the Canadian mail, or his majesty's mail, was fully protected. I feel that in this instance the matter is sufficiently serious for the department to take
Supply-Post Office

cognizance of it and fully inquire into all the circumstances in order to ascertain the exact position of the bags when they were seized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister could easily say that he will give that assurance, because I think we are all interested in the matter, in order to ascertain what are the facts so that the minister may be able to state with authority just what has taken place in connection with the interference with these mail bags, whether they were then mail or not; whether they were in the custody of the crown, which is the Post Office Department, or whether the transit had ended. Certainly I feel that we should have those facts before us. I would, however, hardly expect the minister to have the details before him at the moment.
There is one other matter that I think the hon. member for Peace River should keep in mind. It is this: There is a right to interfere with his letter carrying the three-cent stamp if it contains lottery tickets, for instance, or matters of that sort. But that is not a provincial matter; that is power which is vested in the Post Office Department itself under the statute; for there is a certain amount of forbidden material in connection with which the department can exercise its jurisdiction.


René-Antoine Pelletier: But through the federal officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. There are certain matters in regard to patent medicines, lottery tickets and so on; but the right of a provincial official or constable to allege that a mail bag contains something he does not like, and to take that mail bag out of the custody of the crown and impound it is something that, I believe, has been contested and fought against with great tenacity, and I tlhink it should continue to be fought against. But, as the minister has said, everything depends upon the facts.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Quite so, and they should be ascertained.


William Daum Euler: I think there is with regard to this matter a report which I shall certainly examine, but I am assured that this mail matter was not legally in the possession of the Post Office Department at the time the seizure was made. However, I shall make further investigation, and if the opportunity offers I may be able to give more complete details.


Abraham Albert Heaps: As far as I know there was more than one seizure made of papers and so on. I do not know whether they went 
through the mail or by express; but now that the minister has been made aware of the situation, I trust he will make his inquiries as complete as possible in order to ascertain all the facts in the matter.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Could the minister explain the machinery for apprehending forbidden mail such as that mentioned by the right hon. leader of the opposition, lottery tickets and material of that type?


William Daum Euler: I am going to read my hon. friend the section of the act bearing on that point. I would not be too confident that I could describe to -ham in detail the machinery which is set in operation, because really I am not very familiar with if. But the act states:
The Postmaster General may, subject to the provisions of this act-
(d) make regulations declaring what shall and what shall not be deemed to be mailable matter for the purposes of this act, and for restricting within reasonable limits the weight and dimensions of letters and packets and other articles sent by post, and for prohibiting and preventing the sending of explosive, dangerous, contraband or improper articles, obscene or immoral publications, prints or photographs, or obscene or immoral postcards, or letters or postcards having printed, stamped or written on the outside thereof any words or devices which, in the opinion of the postmaster general, tend to injuriously affect the commercial or social standing of the persons to whom they are addressed

I am not in a position to state exactly the procedure followed by the Post Office Department.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The Postmaster General is given power to make regulations governing various matters. What are the regulations now in force along these lines?


William Daum Euler: The Postal Guide, I believe, has a great many of them. There are literally hundreds, and I suppose my hon. friend might obtain a copy of that publication and examine them for himself. I do not suppose I could give them all to-night, and in any case I do not have them here. Is there any particular regulation on any particular subject on which my hon. friend desires information?


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The particular point in which I am interested is to know where the duty is imposed? Do the regulations impose a duty on every postmaster and on every sub-postmaster, or whoever has charge?


William Daum Euler: The postmaster is instructed that when the appearance of anything in the mail leads him to believe that it contravenes the law, he must send it either to the dead letter office or to the inspector for the district who, in turn, sends it to Ottawa.

Supply-Post Office


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why was it necessary to hold two separate examinations at different times to fill the vacancy of postmaster at Grand Falls, New Brunswick? Did any returned soldiers apply for the position?


William Daum Euler: The file is not before me, and I cannot give the information.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would the minister undertake to give it to me at a later date?


William Daum Euler: I would be glad to get the information.


Howard Charles Green: In the particulars respecting this item there is a sum of $615,000 for temporary assistance, which represents an increase of 8100,000 over last year. What is the reason for that increase, and what is covered by the item?


William Daum Euler: An increase in temporary assistance on post office staffs to liquidate the time due for statutory holidays, overtime and extra time worked at Christmas. There is a ten per cent restriction now on permanent appointments. That restriction applies in varying degrees to all the departments. Then, of course there is the increased business, and the necessity to cover emergencies and additional statutory holidays occurring in the year 1938-39.


Howard Charles Green: Does that account for the increase of 8100,000?


William Daum Euler: Yes; so I am informed.


Howard Charles Green: I notice an increase of about $60,000 in the item for equipment and maintenance. AVhat is the reason for that increase?


William Daum Euler: The general reason is the increase in business, and the buying of rubber stamps, stamp pads, cancelling rubber stamp ink, miscellaneous materials, scales, weights and so on. This item reflects the increased business, as purchases in many lines keep pace with the growing revenue. Advancing prices also in some measure account for the increased appropriation requested.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: What is being done with the rural mail clerks? Many hon. members have received letters drawing attention to their difficulties.


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to put my hon. friend off, but perhaps his question might better be discussed under another item.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I notice at page 167 of the estimates an item for forty-seven postal helpers who were employed in 1937-38 at a cost of $60,300, but who are not employed in 1938-39. Were those men absorbed by the department and, if their work was necessary in 1937-38, how is it now carried on?


William Daum Euler: The class of postal helpers has been abolished. They are now classified as mail porters, letter carriers and postal clerks.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They were absorbed?


William Daum Euler: They are still employed, but go under a different designation.


Mr. TUSTIN:: How is the commissioner appointed when a charge is laid against and an investigation made in connection with a postmaster?


William Daum Euler: By order in council, upon recommendation of the Minister of Justice.


George James Tustin: Is he paid so much per case or per sitting?


William Daum Euler: The Minister of Justice
will have to answer that. I am informed that the commissioner sends in his bill, and that it is taxed by the Department of Justice.


George James Tustin: Has the commissioner the
right to call witnesses?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


George James Tustin: Are those witnesses entitled to remuneration?


William Daum Euler: I would think so, although
I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The commissioner usually goes to the community.


William Daum Euler: Yes. In court the witness
is entitled to his pay, but I do not know whether in these cases witnesses are paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I never have heard of
their being paid.


William Daum Euler: The Minister of Justice
would know.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the department always take the finding of the commissioner appointed, or does it review the finding? I know of several cases where reports of commissioners have created great injustices. I am sure if the department had investigated, as it should have, it would not have come to the same conclusions as those arrived at by the commissioners.


William Daum Euler: I am sure that in some
cases reports of commissioners are not accepted. Although this matter does not arise in my own department, I do know where a commissioner recommended a dismissal, making a finding of political partisanship, but the minister did not regard the evidence sufficient to justify a discharge. I dare say in the majority of cases, if a commissioner
Supply-Post Office

finds a man guilty and recommends dismissal, his advice is followed. However, I cannot say to what extent that is done.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am sure it would not
have been done if the action of the postmaster had been investigated by the department.


George James Tustin: Does a commissioner always make a report after investigation?


William Daum Euler: Yes.
M. TUSTIN: Is there any set time in which he must make his report?


William Daum Euler: I do not know that there
is any limit to the time within which he must report. I imagine that question does not arise.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Could the minister tell us as to the frequency with which this machinery is invoked? For instance, how many investigations were held under this procedure last
year?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend has his answer now. We were discussing that some time ago when he was outside the house.


Howard Charles Green: There are some 8,300 odd postal employees covered by this vote; are they all employed in the larger cities?


William Daum Euler: Only in the larger places.


Howard Charles Green: How many cities would be covered?


William Daum Euler: Eighty-five.


Howard Charles Green: What are the number of employees in each province?


William Daum Euler: We have the number by offices, not by provinces.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister give the number for the ten largest cities?


William Daum Euler: I shall pick some out of the eighty-five, as follows:-
Calgary	 244
Guelph	 41
Halifax	 146
Hamilton	 272
London	 163
Montreal	 1,564
Kitchener	 48
New Westminster	 70
. Ottawa	 396
Peterborough	 46
Quebec	 283
Regina	 224
St. Catharines	 44
Saint John	 99
Saskatoon	 112
Sherbrooke	 52
Toronto	 1,823

Vancouver	 535
Victoria		119
Windsor	 135
Winnipeg	 584


Howard Charles Green: Would rural mail carriers be included?


William Daum Euler: No; those are all civil
servants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire to delay the committee; but in considering this question erf saving banks I have formed a very strong opinion, and I made up my mind some time ago that I would express it. The truth is that we have had only 820,000,000 odd in the postal savings banks of the country for a number of years. In New Zealand the Post Office Department maintains the following services: First, the post office; second, the long distance telephone; third, telegraph services in any fairly large community, and, fourth, the savings banks. The manager of the New Zealand postal service, Mr. McNamara, deals with this whole service as a matter of business. No interest is allowed on money taken in during the broken part of the month; that is, the interest does not begin to run until the first day of the succeeding month. No interest is paid upon broken sums of money; that is, the interest is paid only on even amounts. This money is loaned to the treasury of the Dominion of New Zealand, which pays interest upon it. The result was that in one year a substantial amount of money was earned, and there were loaned to the government very substantial sums of money which proved quite useful.
In Canada the delay in getting money out of the savings 'banks is so great that they have, I am sorry to say, [DOT] served no useful purpose. I realize it is quite unfair to direct these observations to the acting Postmaster General-we all regret the illness of the Postmaster General-but I want to put on record the suggestion that we should do something to increase our postal savings facilities. The need for these facilities is growing greater, in western Canada especially, as the chartered banks can no longer maintain many of their offices in the small communities, especially since these distressing days have arisen. The post office would always be in a position to receive deposits as they do in New Zealand and permit them to be withdrawn easily and quickly up to a certain amount. They have done something in this direction up to $50, but in practice there are apparently undue delays and it occurs to me that possibly something might be done to provide additional banking facilities, if I might use that term, for the population that has been denied the services of the chartered banks.

Supply-Post Office
The present rate of interest is two per cent, and with all deference I suggest that if we want to do the right thing we should pay at least two and a half per cent to these depositors. That is the way in which it occurs to me. I believe if these facilities were increased, this would prove conducive to thrift in communities where thrift is desirable and where such facilities are no longer available. That is my conviction with respect to the matter, and I thought I would bring it to the attention of the department.
I was impressed when one day I stopped in a remote community in New Zealand to have lunch, went into the post office and found that the postmaster was a trained telegrapher. He also had long distance telephone facilities, the post office and the savings bank. All these conveniences were under the one roof. When I came back to Wellington I saw Mr. McNamara who operates the whole postal service as an enterprise under his immediate control. I found that the sums of money that he was able to lend to the dominion were very large. A useful purpose was being served in New Zealand, and I do not think we have extended these facilities in Canada to the extent we should. I think we could strengthen our position considerably, just as has been done in Great Britain, where the postal savings amount to substantial sums of money and where the savings certificates also bring in large sums.
Then in the United States, a very rich country, we find the treasury in Washington providing facilities throughout the country for the purchase of certificates paying rates of interest higher than two per cent and maturing at the end of five or ten years, as the case may be. These certificates are sold in multiples up to 810,000, but I do not think we could go as far as that. However, this might be a matter for consideration by the Minister of Finance.
I do not suggest that the acting minister is in a position to-night to deal with this matter of savings banks, nor do I expect him to, but he might consider the question from all angles. The first useful purpose to be served would be the providing of facilities to people who had no other facilities, and the next purpose would be the inducing of people, even in the little communities where small sums of money are saved, to acquire habits of thrift. What has been done in other countries could be done here.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I notice an item on page 167 of printing and stationery, 8167,500. That seems to be a large sum of money for this purpose and perhaps the minister could give us some details.


William Daum Euler: In former years a bulk amount for printing and stationery appeared in the estimates for civil government and the outside service respectively. This year the item appears under post office and five other votes. Under the law the department is required to secure all printing and stationery from the government printing bureau. Therefore, practically the whole proportion will be utilized to reimburse the government printing bureau for printing and stationery required by staff post offices and the headquarter units which administer those offices. These requirements include all kinds of printed forms used by post office and at headquarters, as well as the regular items of stationery. A small increase is due to the increased needs from expansion of business.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Is the printing done by contract, or how is it done?


William Daum Euler: At the government printing bureau.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection and investigation, 81,046,840.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: I see the position of supervising dead letter clerk. What trouble is taken to determine the destination of these dead letters after they come to the dead letter office? Are there specialists who work on them and try to find the proper destination, or do they simply remain in the dead letter office after reaching Ottawa?


William Daum Euler: The letters are opened; anything valuable is removed, and an effort is made to find out to whom the letter belongs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a dead letter office in each province.


William Daum Euler: They are scattered all over the country. I do not think they are limited to one in each province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; but there is at least one in each province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How long are the letters held before being destroyed when you cannot find the proper destination for them?


William Daum Euler: If there is no indication whatsoever of the address, no reasonable indication to whom the letter belongs, it is destroyed immediately, and if there is any money in the letter it is placed in the consolidated revenue fund. The government makes that much out of it.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: In the details on page 169 of the estimates I see there are three postal chauffeurs. Where are they employed and what are their duties?
Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: One each at Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Are they personal chauffeurs for the postmasters, or what are their duties?


William Daum Euler: They are attached to the district oifices and are used for inspection purposes by the officers.


Harry James Barber: What are the duties of the mail porters?


William Daum Euler: They handle the mail at the post office doors and at the station, transferring it from the vehicle to the trains and to the offices.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: There is a new position, on page 168, superintendent investigations division, salary $3,240. Would the minister tell us the duties of that officer, why he has suddenly been appointed, and how the department got along without him before?


William Daum Euler: The appointment of this officer is the result of the reorganization in Montreal. There will be a similar officer in Toronto.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why did the office boy receive such a tremendous cut in salary, from $1,320 in 1937-38 to $540 this year?


William Daum Euler: It is because of the substitution of a lower priced employee for a higher priced one.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The minister spoke of the reorganization of the Montreal post office. I notice another new officer, superintendent of services division. Would the minister tell us what his duties are, where he carries them out. and how the department got along without him before?


William Daum Euler: This man is in charge of the making of contracts in that district and has other duties as well.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: The superintendent of services division is in charge of making contracts?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: In what district?


William Daum Euler: There is one each in Toronto and Montreal.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I am afraid I do not understand that. The superintendent of services division is in charge of making contracts in Toronto and Montreal.


William Daum Euler: There is only one mentioned here for the district of Montreal; but a similar organization will obtain in Toronto, and the duties are as I have described them, the making of contracts and other duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Services would hardly seem to be contracts.


William Daum Euler: I admit that the designation hardly seems to agree with the work, but that is the explanation which is given to me.
Items stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, March 14, 1938