1939-04-24

APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL-REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF BILL NO. 9

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I desire to lay on the table of the house copy of order in council referring to the Supreme Court of Canada Bill No. 9, to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: I beg to move:
That, for the remainder of the session, all private bills from the senate, when received from that house, shall be deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for second reading, and that standing order 105 respecting the posting of bills be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved that the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented on Wednesday, April 19, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
71492-195J

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

Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What works were carried out at the Langley, British Columbia, landing field during 1938, and at what cost?
2.	What is the total cost to date of the Langley field?
3.	Has this field been used by Trans-Canada Airways planes?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Grading, seeding and rolling of field, lighting installation and removal of power and telephone lines to eliminate flying hazards. Total cost $15,883.98.
2.	$89,005.39.
3.	Langley is an intermediate field on the Trans-Canada airway, but is not a regular stop. It has not been used by any Trans-Canada air lines planes so far as an emergency landing place. This is the last intermediate field before reaching Vancouver.
appeals TO PRIVY COUNCIL-REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT OF BILL NO. 9


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the government lay on the table of the house the text of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Supreme Court Act, of Bill No. 9, "An Act to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act"?
2.	Will the provinces named in section 129 of the British North America Act be represented at the hearing?
3.	Will the hearing be at the regular sittings of the supreme court, or at a special sitting thereof?
4.	Will any judgments be submitted for the consideration of this parliament, and, if so, when?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: 1.	The order in council with regard to this matter was laid on the table to-day.
2.	There is no information. Of course the provinces will be duly notified.
3.	It is expected that the hearing will take place at the next regular sitting of the court.
4.	This will be considered at the proper time.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION, SASKATCHEWAN- ROY P. MACDONALD
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	Has Roy P. MacDonald been employed by the prairie farm rehabilitation board in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, since when, and in what capacity?
3.	What remuneration has been paid to him, including travelling expenses?
Questions


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	June 1, 1938 to December 15, 1938. Foreman in connection with community pasture work.	[DOT]
3.	8412.


CARBONDALE-EGREMONT, ALTA., RAILWAY SERVICE
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	Has the board of railway commissioners asked the government to discontinue all railway services on the line from Carbondale, through Bon Accord, to Egremont, Alberta?
2.	If so, does the government propose closing this line of railway?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	The section in question forms part of the Northern Alberta railways, operated under a joint arrangement between the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. A study is being made as to the possibility of discontinuing operation between Carbondale and Egremont, but no decision has been reached. Any such abandonment would require to be sanctioned by the board of transport commissioners, who would first hear all representations on behalf of interested parties.


ALBERTA AIRPORTS-EXPENDITURES IN 1938
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What was the total expenditure by the dominion government on, (a) Lethbridge, (b) Calgary, and (c) Edmonton airports in 1938?
2.	Where, and what sums were spent on other air landing places in Alberta during 1938?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) Lethbridge, $72,182.72; (b) Calghry, $100,507.45; (c) Edmonton, $77,13927.
2.	Cowley, $34,161.21; Macleod, $937.50; Medicine Hat, $13,380; Penhold, $44,48524.


BERTHIER-EN-BAS, QUE., WHARF
Mr. HEON:: 1.	Were repairs made to the wharf at Berthier-en-bas during the year 1938?
2.	If so, were such works done by day labour, and were they relief undertakings?
3.	Was the foreman of the works, Edmond Mereier, paid by the hour or day?
.	4. What was the total amount paid to said
Edmond Mereier in connection with such work during the year 1938?
5.	How much was paid to Alphonse Mereier for the use of his truck on the said work during the same year?
6.	Was it intended that heads of needy families be employed on this work?
7.	Were youths of sixteen years of age employed on this work?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Day labour; (b) Not a relief undertaking.
3.	$5 per working day.
4.	$328.75.
5.	Nothing.
6.	As far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy, consideration is given to the employment of those who are in need in the locality in which the work is performed.
7.	One youth of sixteen years of age was employed during one week mixing concrete by hand to replace his father who could not come to work.


TWEED, ONT., FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Is the federal building in Tweed, Ontario, to be proceeded with ?
2.	If so, is it to be erected on property centrally located in the business district?
3.	Is it the wish of the majority of the people of this town that this building be erected?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Building to be erected on the Quinn property at the corner of Victoria and Bridge streets.
3.	Yes, according to information received. *BBLL TELEPHONE COMPANY-TOLLS AND RATES


Mr. CHURCH:: In view of the details shown in an order of the house, number 273, tabled on Wednesday, April 19, last, with respect to the tolls and charges of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, will the government order an immediate inquiry, under the Railway Act or the Combines Investigation Act, into the tolls and rates of this company?


Mr. HOWE:: An application has been made to the board of transport commissioners in the matter, but no action by the government is usual or necessary.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B., DEEP WATER WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How many inspectors, foremen, timekeepers and checkers were engaged in connection with a fill at the Deep Water wharf, Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	What are their names, and what remuneration did each receive?
3.	What are the names of truck owners employed at this work, and (a) rate per hour; (b) total amount received by each?

Questions as Orders for Returns
4.	What amount was paid for gravel per ard, and what was the total amount received y the owners of the pits for said gravel?
5.	What amounts were paid for trespass or damages or both to owners of adjacent properties to these pits, and what are the names of such owners ?
6.	Has the work been discontinued for this season ?
7.	Have the accounts all been paid?
8.	What was the total cost of same to date?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Two foremen.
2.	Harry Comeau, foreman in charge of motor truck haulage, paid at the rate of $5 per day. Total amount received $390. Thomas N. Dickie, foreman in charge of horse and sled haulage, paid at the rate of $5 per day. Total amount received $270.
3.	(a)		(b)	
	Per	hour		
Archibald, Earl	. .$2	35 !	1661	52Boudreau, Arthur	.. 2	35	662	76Brawn, Victor..	.. 2	35	278	46Butlan, C. H. ..	.. 2	35	760	23Casey, Mike ..	.. 2	35	176	28Cormier. Leo..	.. 2	35	109	28Cronkite, Carroll	.. 2	35	75	20Cronkite, Guy..	.. 2	35	352	50Essiembe, Aime	.. 2	35	364	26Gagne, Omer ..	.. 2	35	47	00Garrett, George	* J2	35 for 4 yd. truck/	456	61U	85 for 3 yd. truck/	lrvmg, Lionel..	.. 2	35	329	00Kane, Henry ..	.. 2	35	380	70LeBlanc, August	.. 2	35	492	33Majeau, Leo..	.. 2	35	320	78McDavid. Auley	.. 2	35	183	30Murray, John.. .	.. 2	35	145	70Parker, J. H...	.. 2	35	74	03Parker, J. P. .. .	.. 2	35	212	67Poley, Harry..	.. 2	35	186	83Price, William	.. 2	35	331	35Quin and Quin	.. 2	35	281	99Raynor, Graydon.	.. 2	35	936	47Ross, Ivon	,. 2	35	291	40Sanson, H	,. 2	35	1	17Samson, Waldow	.. 2	35	316	07Savoie, Hector..	.. 2	35	340	74Savoie, Henry.. .	.. 2	35	368	96Sharp, Ralph.. ,	.. 2	35	263	19Smith, Hubert.. ,	.. 2	35	270	25Smith, Hughes ,	.. 1	30 for 1| yd. truck	52	65Underhill, Jack .	.. 2	35	300	804.	(a) Three cents per cubic yard, container measurement, paid to W. H. Miller Co. Ltd. Five cents per cubic yard, container measurement, paid to Aiken & MacLachlan, Ltd. (b) Total amount paid to W. H. Miller Co. Ltd., for gravel, $290.22; total amount paid
to Aiken & MacLachlan, Ltd. (lessees of pit from the Central Trust Co. of Canada), $535.25.
5.	Nil.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.
8.	$22,156.64.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	What number of prosecutions were conducted in each province by the weights and measures inspection service during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939: (a) of independent retail	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	forinfraction of section 63 and of section 64 of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under	each section separately;	(b) of localchain	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	forinfraction of section 63 and of section 64 of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under each section separately; (c) of national chain	grocery	stores	and	meat	markets	for
infraction of section 63 and of section 64, of the Weights and Measures Act, giving number under each section separately?
2.	What were the number of withdrawals and dismissals and the number of convictions secured in each of the above groups of cases?
3.	What were the numbers in each province of prepackaged goods inspected and the results of such inspections as to overweight, short-weight or correct weight, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, by the weights and measures inspection service in: (a) retail independent grocery stores and meat markets; (b) local chain grocery stores and meat markets; (c) national chain grocery stores and meat markets?
4.	What were the numbers in each province of loaves of bread inspected and the results of such inspections as to overweight, short-weight and correct weight during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, by the weights and measures inspection service?
5.	(a) What were the number of test purchases made by the weights and measures inspection service during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1939, in each province; (b) what were the number of items overweight, short-weight and correct weight in:	(1) groceries, (2) meats,
showing the results, separately, for purchases made in independent retail grocery stores and meat markets, local chain grocery stores and meat markets, and national chain grocery stores and meat markets?


Mr. EULER:: Return tabled.



SEED GRAIN, FODDER AND RELIEF ADVANCES TO PRAIRIE PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley);
What is the total balance outstanding, principal and interest, for seed grain, fodder and relief advances to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to date?
Motions jor Papers


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: For a return showing-
1.	The number of dug-outs the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act has assisted private individuals to make in the Kindersley constituency;
2.	The names of the men who have been employed on these private dug-outs;
3.	The time spent, and amount of money earned by each man.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, we will bring down all the information we can, but in my opinion we shall not be able to answer questions Nos. 2 and 3.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Otto Buchanan Elliott: For a return showing-
1.	How many community pastures have been established in Kindersley constituency;
2.	Whether tenders were called for the supplying of wire and posts for the pastures; and, if so, the details thereof;
3.	What price was paid for each;
4.	What kind of posts were supplied.



CIVIL SERVICE-NON-BILINGUAL APPOINTMENTS AND TRANSFERS IN QUEBEC

Mr. FERLAND:: For a copy of all letters or requests by the Minister of Transport to the civil service commission, since 1935, for appointments or transfers, in the province of Quebec, of permanent or temporary civil servants who are not bilingual.	.
Mr. FERLAND;
For a copy of all letters or requests by the Minister of Agriculture to the civil service commission, since 1935, for appointments or transfers, in the province of Quebec, of permanent or temporary civil servants who are not bilingual.



SALT FISH BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a board to be known as the salt fish board with powers to investigate the marketing of salt fish, to establish terms and conditions under which it may give assistance to producers of salt fish for export, to enter into agreements for the exporting of the same, and generally with powers to expend and administer any sums of money which may be,

for the purposes of the act, advanced as therein provided; and further to provide for the appointment of advisory committees and for their travelling and living expenses, and for the appointment of officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) drew attention to an order of the house which had been passed on March 22, with respect to certain correspondence and documents. Replying to the motion I intimated that should a reexamination of the file disclose material which could be tabled without contravening established practice, I would have it brought down.
Constitutional practice as followed by successive governments maintains that documents pertaining to clemency or the royal prerogative of mercy should be treated as confidential, and that it would not be proper or advisable to make them public. In this case I find that the record contains only papers relating to an application for clemency. I also find that there appears to be nothing in this instance which would warrant an exception to the practice to which I have referred.
I therefore can only reply to my hon. friend that in this case there are on record no papers which can be produced in keeping with the established practice recognized by parliament.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I announced at the close of the sitting on Friday evening that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) would take up the estimates of the Department of National Defence this afternoon. I regret to say that the minister has not escaped the prevalent influenza and to-day unfortunately he is indisposed and will not be able to proceed with his estimates this afternoon. The government will endeavour to see that such other measures as are taken

Royal Visit and Parliament
up will be in an order which we believe will best suit the convenience of the house. I should like also to say a word with respect to the proceedings of parliament in relation to the approaching royal visit. In order that there may be an opportunity when I do so for hon. members of the house generally to express their views, it would, I think, facilitate matters were I to move the house into committee of supply upon the understanding that His Honour the Speaker would not leave the chair. I could then make the statement I wish to make and hon. members could say what they may wish to say. If that is agreeable I will now move accordingly on the understanding that the motion will afterwards be withdrawn.



SUPPLY-ROYAL VISIT AND PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT IN RELATION THERETO

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
proceedings of parliament with relation to the ro.yal visit, obviously there are three courses, any one of which may be followed. The first would be that the house and parliament should continue in session during the period that their majesties may be in Canada provided that we have not concluded our business by that time. The second course would be that parliament should adjourn over the period of their majesties' visit if we have not then concluded our business, and the third course would be that parliament should be prorogued at the time his majesty may be in the city, assuming that parliament has by that time concluded its business.
With respect to the first course, namely that of having parliament continue in session while their majesties are in Canada, I have noticed there has been some comment and suggestion in a section of the press to the effect that hon. members would perhaps be best showing their real appreciation of the duties owing the sovereign were parliament to continue in session while their majesties are in Canada. There have been other views expressed. I wish to state quite frankly to the house my own views in regard to that particular suggestion.
In the first place I perhaps should point out that in 1935 at the time of the silver jubilee of the late King George V, this house was adjourned over the period of the jubilee to permit the Prime Minister of the day to attend the ceremonies in London. If I recollect aright my colleague the Right Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and myself rather
took exception to that adjournment. It might therefore be thought we were arguing against ourselves if we do not to-day support the idea of the house continuing in session during the period of their majesties' visit. I should like to point out that the parallel is not as close as it might appear to be, inasmuch as in 1935 the prime minister of the day, through illness, unfortunately had not been able to be in the house during the two preceding months and the business had been carried on throughout that period by an acting prime minister. Moreover, in attending the jubilee the prime minister alone was going to England; it did not involve what might be the wishes of his colleagues or of the members of the house generally. The situation at this time is, I think, quite different in that respect. Their majesties will be coming to Canada, and without a doubt all members of the house will wish to consider how best they may meet the wishes of their constituents and tender such measure of respect as they will wish to do to the sovereign and his royal consort when their majesties are in this country. I am inclined to think that the general feeling throughout the country will be that while their majesties are in Canada it would be fortunate for all concerned if we could have a truce to party strife both within the walls of parliament and pretty much throughout the country. I hope it will not be thought that in saying this I am trying in any way to save the government from criticism. I do not expect to be able to do that by anything which may be said at any time. But I do point out what I think will be the wishes of the country generally with respect to acute political discussions during the course of the royal visit.
I might mention another factor which I believe is important. It is that the public itself is entitled to be in a position to follow carefully from day to day the proceedings of parliament. I doubt very much, if parliament were in session during the time of the royal visit, with the amount of attention that will be given in the press to the proceedings of the royal visit and matters incidental thereto, whether the business of parliament would be either reported or followed as closely through the press as people generally in the country might wish it to be.
May I mention another matter which has also been referred to in the press, and that is the manner in which the Prime Minister might best discharge his duties while their majesties are here. It has been said in different quarters that my duty as Prime Minister is primarily here in the House of Commons. With that I wholly agree. It is
Royal Visit and Parliament
[Stage Direction]
said by some, however, that I should be carrying on here with parliament in session rather than acting as minister in attendance on the king in the course of his majesty's visit throughout Canada. That is a very natural comment. I wish, however, to put before hon. members the situation precisely as I see it.
There is to be considered the question of courtesy due the crown. That I think is an important matter at all times, perhaps not the all-important one but one of which at least full account should be taken. I recall that when the late King George V and Queen Mary visited Canada as Duke and Duchess of York prior to the time their majesties ascended the throne, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Lady Laurier accompanied the royal couple throughout their visit to the Pacific coast. They did so as an expression of national courtesy to members of the royal family-members of the royal family who it was expected might become in the course of time the king and queen of the United Kingdom and of the other nations of the commonwealth. At present, however, it is not merely members of the royal family who may in the course of time succeed to the throne, it is the actual holder of the crown, the king himself, and the queen, who will be in Canada for the first time. That of itself places a very great responsibility upon the government, and perhaps, I may be permitted to add, upon the Prime Minister in particular with respect to all that pertains to the position of the king while his majesty is in this country. As I say, the visit will be made by the actual holder of the crown, and because of that, this country and this government will have a great and grave responsibility with respect to the position of the sovereign, not only in relation to our own people but in relation also to the peoples of all the other nations of the commonwealth. His Majesty the King will not be accompanied by any member of the ministry of the United Kingdom or by any minister from any other part of the British commonwealth. I therefore feel that in the United Kingdom, as, indeed, in all parts of the empire, there will be naturally a feeling in the minds of those in responsible positions that a very special obligation rests upon the government of this country which his majesty will be visiting at the time to see that his majesty's position in every respect is respected and protected as much as it can possibly be.
I notice it has been said that there seemed to be no necessity why the Prime Minister's car should be attached to the royal train and the Prime Minister accompany the king throughout his tour of Canada. May I say in regard to that, and the kind of thought

which underlies it, that it is a constitutional custom which has been observed for not only years but centuries that the sovereign, when he travels in respect to matters of an official nature, matters of state, should be accompanied by at least one of his constitutional advisers and should not at any time be left without some minister of the crown with whom he may confer on questions which may require the advice of his ministers. It has been suggested, and I must say it is a suggestion which appeals very strongly in many ways to myself, that that service might be performed by different ministers attending, rather than the Prime Minister. I have not the least doubt that his majesty is looking forward to different ministers of the crown being with him as he passes through the different provinces of the dominion. That is, I think, a courtesy and a constitutional responsibility which ought to be observed. But I have had to ask myself the question whether, all circumstances considered, an arrangement of that kind would suffice, in the eyes of the people of Canada and peoples in other parts of the empire, to meet the obligation which will rest upon the government at the time of the royal visit. I rather believe the people of Canada will expect the Prime Minister, simply because he is prime minister, to be the one who will accompany the king in the course of his visit throughout Canada.
But there is another reason which I think I should mention, although it is perhaps unnecessary to stress it. These are very anxious and critical times in the affairs of the world, and his majesty will wish to be informed while in Canada upon matters affecting Canada's external relations as well as those, which affect our internal relations. In other words, his majesty will expect in relation to himself while in Canada fulfilment of exactly the same type of obligation on the part of his Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs that His Excellency the Governor General expects. It is part of my duty as Prime Minister and part of my duty as Secretary of State for External Affairs to discuss from time to time with his excellency matters of great concern to this country in common with other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. His excellency expects to be shown the important dispatches that come from day to day to the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and it is a part of my duty as Secretary of State for External Affairs to see that these dispatches are communicated to his excellency and that he has an opportunity to discuss with me questions that arise out of them.

Royal Visit and Parliament
In regard to the external affairs of the United Kingdom, foreign affairs as they pertain to the government of the United Kingdom, those, of course, will be carried on in Great Britain in the same manner, while his majesty is in Canada, as they would be carried on were his majesty in Great Britain, with the exception that counsellors of state instead of his majesty will be administering the affairs of the United Kingdom. The counsellors of state will be advised by his majesty's ministers of the crown with respect to foreign affairs of the United Kingdom. So far as Canada is concerned in relation to Canada's external affairs, it will be the duty of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to perform, as I have said, the same duties towards his majesty in Canada as would be performed by his majesty's ministers in the United Kingdom in relation to their affairs or as are being performed at the present time with his excellency in relation to our own affairs.
I need hardly say that it would greatly lessen my duties and responsibilities if some other arrangement could properly be made, but I must say that it would not be meeting either my duties or my responsibilities as I see them myself, and as I believe they would be viewed by the people of Canada generally, if I did not undertake the obligation and the duty, as well as enjoying the honour of accompanying his majesty throughout the whole of his Canadian tour. I wish to present one possibility which I pray may not arise but a possibility for which it is my responsibility to have regard. Having in mind situations as we have seen them arise, even since this parliament assembled-the situation that developed in Czechoslovakia, the situation that developed in Albania, and the state of affairs which we all know exists at the present time

I ask hon. members this question: What would the people of Canada say, were another crisis, either as great as those which I have mentioned, or greater, to arise when his majesty might be on the prairies or in British Columbia and the government had permitted the king to be there at such a time without having the opportunity of conferring with the Prime Minister of the part of his realm which he had come to visit, or with his Secretary of State who, so far as Canada is concerned, is responsible for advising on External Affairs.
These are matters which I have had to consider very carefully in my present position. I have been long enough in public life to know the kind of comment that is likely to arise out of any relations of a Prime Minister with matters that have to do with court etiquette or other questions of the kind, not
to be fully alive to what may be said in party political ways with respect to my not remaining here and being present with other members attending to the business of parliament, instead of being on a royal tour. It is for that reason that I have asked you, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon to permit me to say these words on a motion to go into committee of supply so that every hon. member will have the opportunity, if he so desires, to express himself frankly here and now with respect to what he conceives my duty and obligation to be in relation to his majesty in the course of his visit to Canada.
May I observe that all hon. members in this house are representing their constituencies here. If any hon. member believes that his constituents would think it more the duty of the Prime Minister to have parliament continue in session instead of adjourn its proceedings while their majesties are here and to remain here himself at his post, allowing the king to proceed from one end of Canada to the other during the period of his majesty's stay in Canada, unaccompanied by his Prime Minister or by his Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would ask that hon. member to rise and say so now, and let this house consider the matter as part of its responsibility to the citizens of Canada generally. I can only speak for one constituency, the one I represent, the constituency of Prince Albert.
I believe the people of that constituency would think I had failed in my duty not only to the king but also to the people of Canada were I to take any other course than the one I have suggested as the right and proper one to take in the circumstances I have mentioned.
I have given reasons why I think it would be inadvisable for parliament to continue in session during the short time their majesties are to be here. I now mention the other course, which would be that of an adjournment over the period. I believe I have already anticipated the arguments touching the wisdom of an adjournment. I should like to make it quite clear that if we are obliged to adjourn because the business of parliament is not completed when their majesties arrive in Canada we will adjourn from the Friday evening, preceding the date on which their majesties arrive at Quebec, which would be May 12-their majesties arrive on May 15- and the house will stand adjourned until June 19, which is the first Monday following the date on which their majesties will leave Canada on their return to the old country. I believe it is on Thursday, June 15 that their majesties leave Halifax. For that reason I mention now that it will be on June 19 that the house would resume.
Royal Visit and Parliament
[Stage Direction]
The third course is, of course, the possibility of prorogation by his majesty during his stay in this city. May I make perfectly clear the position of the government with respect to prorogation. I said at the beginning of this session that, desirous as we might be to be through with the business of parliament at the time of their majesties' arrival, the government would put no pressure on the house to expedite its business in any way on that account if expedition meant that the business could not be satisfactorily dealt with in the intervening time. May I make this point clear in the first instance. The government itself did not decide upon the date upon which the visit of their majesties was to take place. We were given the date that suited their majesties, because there are many obligations of which their majesties have to take account, and the time of their arrival in Canada was determined without any advice in the matter of fixing a particular date, except for seeking to have a time selected that would best meet the convenience of the king and queen. But we did call parliament in the second week of January in order that there might be, having regard to other sessions, what we believed would be sufficient time within which to enable the house to conclude its business.
I was very careful, when I spoke to His Excellency the Governor General about the possibility of parliament being prorogued by his majesty, to make it perfectly clear to his excellency that the last thing I would wish to do would be in any way to have it assumed that, through a desire on the part of hon. members to participate in a prorogation ceremony at which his majesty would be present,
I was seeking to put pressure upon parliament to have its business concluded in time for that particular purpose. I therefore said to his excellency that I hoped that in communicating with His Majesty the King he would ask, as something quite eexceptional but nevertheless something that seemed to me appropriate in the circumstances, whether his majesty would not agree to assent to any bills which might be in readiness for royal assent when he came to Canada, should the business of parliament not then permit of prorogation at the time. What I felt was that members of both houses of parliament would greatly welcome, welcome above all else, the opportunity of meeting with the king himself within the walls of these houses of parliament at the time when his majesty was performing a great act of state in which they also were participating, and it seemed to me that that object could be served either by the presence of his majesty for the purpose of giving the 
royal assent to bills or for the purpose of prorogation of parliament itself. In the United Kingdom the sovereign has not participated in a ceremonial in the nature of royal assent to bills for many years, indeed, not since 1854. As respects the assent to bills, the same procedure has been adopted there as here, namely that of having the royal assent to bills and also prorogation performed with less ceremonial, his majesty's presence being reserved for the opening of parliament. The king notwithstanding has graciously consented, so far as Canada is concerned, appreciating that no single act of state except the opening could mean more to his parliament here than his being present with the members at a ceremonial of the kind, to give, in connection with the royal visit, the royal assent to any bills which may have passed both houses at the time of his majesty's visit, or to prorogue parliament according as circumstances may permit.
I mention this to make perfectly clear in the first place that the last thing the government would wish would be that this parliament should in any way rush its business on account of the royal visit or give other than the fullest attention to public matters, and also to make clear that the government itself has carefully considered this feature.
A final word with regard to the possibility of prorogation. It is true that the time is short. As all hon. members know, more depends upon the disposition and the will of hon. members and upon organization as to what in a given time can be accomplished in this house than upon anything else. We were told at the beginning of the session that we were unduly delaying matters, and the complaint in some quarters was that parliament, because it wished to discuss some matters very fully, did not understand its own business, and that we ought to hurry things along. And ifow that we are making real progress the criticism is that we should not progress at the rate we are, that we ought to see to it that there is an adjournment and after the royal visit come back and take up matters in more leisurely fashion and in detail. I have long since ceased to try to please everyone, but I shall continue to try to bring about that reasonable course of procedure which I believe is likely to commend itself most generally to the members of both houses of parliament.
In conclusion I just wish to say that if we can, by arrangements that are satisfactory to all parties and groups in this house, conclude in time for prorogation by the Friday night preceding the date on which some of us will

Royal Visit and Parliament
have to leave for Quebec, we shall have prorogation when the king is in the capital; otherwise hon. members may look forward to the honour of attending in the senate at that time for the purpose of being present when the royal assent will be given bills by his majesty in person.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has covered a good deal of ground. I shall merely touch upon two or three points in connection with what he has said.
In the first place may I make it clear that the visit of their majesties to this country is to my mind far above anything in the way of political strategy or politics in any form. In this matter as in that of international relations I feel that there is a duty devolving upon me as leader of the opposition to avoid anything that might have the appearance of political criticism or anything of the sort. The Prime Minister referred to political criticism that he anticipated in regard to. whatever he might do: consequently let me say at once that I have not criticized and shall not in any way criticize any act that refers to the visit of their majesties in Canada. And I am sure that the party which I have the honour to lead will take exactly the same attitude. After all, the government takes the full responsibility of making all the arrangements. The government may be criticized by some sections or individuals in connection with those arrangements, but I do not feel that it is for me to use the visit of their majesties to Canada as an occasion to check or criticize the government or to act in other than a constructive manner, so far as it is possible for me to do so.
In regard to the question of the Prime Minister accompanying their majesties on this journey across Canada, the question is one which seems to me to be partly decided at any rate by the tradition in England. There I understand it is the custom that when his majesty or their majesties visit different parts of the British Isles he is always accompanied by a privy councillor. If the Prime Minister thinks that in Canada that privy councillor should be himself rather than some other minister, that is entirely for the decision of the Prime Minister, and I have no criticism whatever to offer.
May I say also that I am, and our party is, very anxious to facilitate the business of the house. At the same time we are ready to stay here as long as is necessary to do the business of the house. I might say-and this has nothing to do at all with the visit of their majesties-that the government, knowing that
this visit was to take place, might have brought down some of their important legislation a little earlier than they did. However, that is the business of the government and I do not want to appear critical in that regard.
The conduct of affairs here between now and the coming of their majesties, and the question whether or not we adjourn during the time of their visit, are matters that should be governed entirely by consideration for the business of the country. It is not a matter of our convenience or even the convenience of the government. It is the duty of the opposition and of the party to which I belong, which is part of the opposition, to offer intelligent and constructive criticism and to assist in the businesslike and expeditious transaction of the affairs of this country. At the same time, while helping to reach prorogation by the time of the royal visit if we can do so without interfering with the proper carrying out of the business, I believe that neither we nor the government nor any party in this house should hurry so much that any problems that can be dealt with by the government, such as unemployment or provision for youth, would be neglected; neither is it the duty of any of us to pretend that we alone have the care of unemployment or youth at heart. As I said the other day, I think that all hon. members of this house, of all parties, are anxious to see these problems cleared up. After all it must not be forgotten that parliament as parliament can only offer opinions. Parliament cannot do anything; it can suggest, criticize, constructively or even destructively, but it cannot actually do anything; it it the duty of the government to introduce and carry out policies. It is not within the power of any member of this house, other than a member of the government itself, to introduce anything in the way of policy involving the expenditure of money. Therefore we can only offer our suggestions to the best of our ability. So far as this party is able to do so, we shall facilitate the transaction of the business of the house in every way, at the same time not agreeing-as of course we are not asked to agree-in any way to neglect the problems with which the house has to deal.
Regarding the question of adjournment during the visit of their majesties, the Prime Minister was good enough a few days ago to speak to me in my seat in the house and discuss with me in a general way some of the problems which he was facing. At that time I told him that, so far as I was concerned at any rate, and I can speak for the party which I have the honour to lead, we would abstain

Royal Visit and Parliament
from anything in the way of political addresses and would stir up nothing in the way of political strife in any shape or form while their majesties are on the soil of Canada. I believe that is the appropriate and dignified course for us to pursue. When I was speaking to the Prime Minister I told him I thought it was even my duty to avoid taking part in political meetings, and I intend to live up to that duty. There may be local constituency meetings; I do not suppose it would be fair to ask that conventions or matters of local concern should be wholly dispensed with, but so far as national efforts on my part are concerned, as leader of the Conservative party I have no intention of carrying on anything of the kind during the visit of their majesties. I have no intention of making any political speeches across this country or attempting in any way to reach the people on political matters during that period; I believe it is my duty to remain politically silent.
That being so it seems to me it would be very difficult for the house to continue to sit while their majesties are here and while the Prime Minister is travelling across the country with them. After all, it would be practically impossible, during a continued sitting of the house, to avoid matters of dispute or criticism here. So it would appear almost inevitable that during the visit the house must be adjourned, if it is not prorogued, until the king and queen leave the country. That is my stand in the matter.
There was one other point upon which the Prime Minister did not touch, but which has been brought up in the house, and while I am on my .feet I am going to say a word about it. I refer to the question of the proper hospitality to be extended their majesties while they are in this country. Some criticism was offered in my hearing the other day with regard to too great expenditures being made under present conditions in Canada. It is perhaps true that with the present conditions of unemployment and a certain amount of distress in our country there are those who will find fault with the proper entertainment of the king and queen. I am not one of those who take any such attitude. This is the first visit to Canada of the King and Queen of Canada. He is our king; she is our queen. What we spend on any hospitality we may extend to their majesties while they are in this country will be a mere bagatelle compared to the total expenditures of this country. It would mean practically nothing in the relief of unemployment, distress and so on, and I believe our national dignity and our loyalty to their majesties

and to the empire must lead us to extend proper and dignified hospitality to them, in every sense of that word, while they are in this country.
I think I have touched, so far as I have been able to remember them, most of the points dealt with by the Prime Minister, and I hope I have made myself clear in regard to them. However, if something else should come up during the course of this discussion I hope I may be permitted to add a word or two, because I am speaking more or less at random. I am endeavouring to express not only my desire but that of the whole party which I represent, which is that we should facilitate everything that will tend to show our loyalty to their majesties and to the empire, at the same time upholding the dignity and honour of the Canadian people.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that our group is not very large, and that what we may think will not have any very great effect in determining the program. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has put this matter on the basis of what is convenient and desirable from the point of view of each constituency in Canada.
First of all may I say just a word to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), concerning his reference to a remark I made the other day to the effect that we should not make extravagant expenditures in connection with the royal visit. I still hold that opinion, and hold it very strongly. I do not believe it is necessary, in order to maintain our national dignity, that we go into extravagances; I do not think the amount we spend on this function should be considered in any sense a criterion of the loyalty of the Canadian people. On one occasion, I think on the address in reply, I said that while exhibiting dignity we should not yield to the temptation of extravagance; that we should remember the conditions which prevail in Canada, conditions which are very serious indeed. If by any stretch of the imagination I could put myself in .the place of their majesties I think I should feel well satisfied to have the people of Canada treat me freely and generously as their guest in such way as would befit the Canadian people and the circumstances in which they find themselves.
I quite understand that the Prime Minister is very anxious to prorogue. I think we all are, if that should be at all possible. I think perhaps he has put the matter in such a way as to make it very difficult for us to do anything but prorogue. The right hon. gentleman referred as a precedent to the fact that

Royal Visit and Parliament
Laurier travelled with the Duke of York; but I would point out what I think is the fact, that at that time parliament was not in session, so that the circumstances are somewhat different. Then there is another technical matter. If parliament adjourned from May 12 to June 19, which was one of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister, I presume it would be very difficult for his majesty to assent to any bills on the 17th or 18th.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, no. If parliament adjourns on the 12th it will be with the distinct understanding that it will adjourn only until the day fixed for his majesty to give the royal assent; after the royal assent has been given to bills by his majesty, a further adjournment will be taken until the end of the royal visit. I am glad my hon. friend raised that point. I unfortunately had omitted to make the exact position clear. The house will adjourn from Friday night, the 12th, until the following Friday, the 19th, I think it is, when his majesty will be present to give royal assent. Then there will be a further adjournment until after the conclusion of the royal visit. If I am not taking up too much of my hon. friend's time, may I say that I was very careful to endeavour to have the ceremony of royal assent take place, so that members of this parliament, failing its prorogation at the time, would have the honour and privilege of meeting with the king within the walls of these houses of parliament in a great state function. That opportunity will be accorded by means of a royal assent, as it will also be accorded by means of prorogation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My difficulty is that if we should adjourn from May 12 to June 19, presumably certain members would go elsewhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In that regard may I say to my hon. friend that I think every hon. member would wish to be present at the dinner which is being given as a parliamentary dinner in order to enable all hon. members to meet their majesties. That dinner will be held, I think, either the evening of the day on which royal assent is given or the preceding evening. It will be, in fact, on the preceding evening. All hon. members will, I am sure, wish to be in this city during the time their majesties are here.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad that point is made clear. Now with regard to the suggestion made, I think, both by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the opposition, that there should be no acrimonious party
strife during the visit of their majesties, I think I can quite heartily agree. But the suggestion that while the king is here there should be no political discussions is an altogether different matter. I presume that his majesty is quite familiar with political discussions in England, and I think we would be treating him much as he is treated in England if we carried on in much the same way during his visit to this country. I believe he would feel much more at home if that were done than if we were to go into some sort of funeral silence in our public life.
As far as the Prime Minister accompanying the king is concerned, I have no advice to proffer. He suggested, however, that if during the royal tour an emergency should arise, he should be with his majesty. I suggest that if an emergency arose, the place for the Prime Minister is here in parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will permit me, I did not put it in just that way. I said I thought that his majesty would wish to have with him his Secretary of State for External Affairs who could present to him the sort of information that would be presented to his representative here in the person of the governor general in a similar situation. I do not see how anyone else could fill that particular role.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not quite see how anyone else except the Prime Minister, who is also Secretary of State for External Affairs, could perform the duties that should be performed in an emergency. I have said also that should an emergency arise, it seems to me that the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, should not be with his majesty but should be here in the house. I think he would have to return and leave his majesty in the lurch.


Ernest Lapointe: The house will not be sitting.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With regard to our own position, our little group has no intention or desire to obstruct the business of the house in the slightest between now and the time their majesties arrive. We have been accused by some of wanting to carry on a filibuster or something of the kind, but no such intention has been in our minds. I have said to the Prime Minister that we believe that the business before this parliament should be concluded. We are particularly interested in the unemployment question, in the western grain matter, in the world situation and in national defence policies, and even the coming of their majesties should not interfere with the proper conduct of the business of this
Royal Visit and Parliament

house. I believe that our greatest contribution to the British empire, if you will, will be to carry on the business of this house for which we were elected. I have yet to be convinced by the Prime Minister or by the eloquent words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) that we should alter that stand.
The Prime Minister suggests as a second alternative that we should have an adjournment of between five and six weeks. I cannot see that that is necessary. I have not had a chance to consult my own colleagues with regard to this proposal, but it would seem to me that an adjournment of about ten days might suffice if we do not succeed in reaching prorogation. I do not see why we should adjourn for the full period of their majesties' visit. If necessary, this or that member could slip away for a day or so and then return to the house. I venture to suggest that in the meantime we should likely have in the house about as large a representation of members as we frequently have at ordinary times.
I cannot see that any argument so far advanced is sufficient to warrant us, first, in proroguing before full consideration has been given to all business, or, second, having a prolonged adjournment in case prorogation is not possible. It would seem to me to be much more in keeping if we carried on our business as usual, adjourned for say ten days, and then came back and finished our business with due decorum. I do not think their majesties would be slighted by our so doing.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this group I think I can safely say that we are willing, I might even say anxious, to do everything in our power to expedite the business of the house so as to be through by the time the king arrives. There are, of course, certain measures before us of a most contentious nature, those with regard to grain especially, which we will feel it our bounden duty to oppose unless they are changed from the form in which they appear on the order paper at the present time. If the business of the house cannot be completed by the time the king arrives, we do not think it is necessary to have such a long adjournment as that suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). As far as the Prime Minister personally is concerned, I feel that it would be proper that he should accompany the king during the royal tour of Canada. An adjournment of five or six days, or perhaps ten, would be long enough. It should not be necessary for more than a certain number of members to be absent at any one time. The

Trans-Canada Air Lines is now in operation and it is possible for hon. members to travel from one end of the dominion to the other in a very short time.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word, since on one or two occasions I have been reported in the press as being critical of the arrangements that have been made. May I say at the outset that I think every one of us desires that everything should be done in connection with the royal visit to convey to their majesties the impression that their visit is welcomed and that the Canadian people are prepared to do all that is possible to show their respect to the royal couple. But there is a tremendous amount of business yet to be done. This is the fourth session of the present parliament and there are rumours of a general election. Two years ago we prorogued in order that representatives of Canada might attend, and properly so, their majesties' coronation.
As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking I jotted down just a few of the matters which in my opinion, and in the opinion of my constituents, are worthy of the most careful consideration. The budget is to be introduced tomorrow. I do not know what it will contain, but if some things are not in the budget, I know my constituents will be disappointed. Then we have the problems of national defence and external affairs, which I believe are pressing upon the minds of practically all Canadian people at this time. My constituents being in a wheat producing area, are vitally interested in the wheat bills now before the house, and I am sure they desire that every opportunity shall be given to hon. members of this house to discuss them fully. They desire also that every consideration should be given by the government to the representations made by delegations which are coming to this parliament in connection with these matters. The same thing applies to other measures which have been introduced by the minister dealing with other phases of agricultural marketing.
Then there is the problem we have just been discussing, the grave problem of unemployment and the rehabilitation of youth. I do not intend to labour the matter at this time, because it received a thorough airing last week. We have been expecting and hoping that before this parliament should be dissolved, certain constitutional matters might be decided in order that we might be able to look forward to certain remedial legislation which is so long overdue. I have felt and still feel that we should conduct the business

Royal Visit and Parliament
of the house in the ordinary way, and that probably a short adjournment would meet the situation. As far as the Prime Minister accompanying their majesties is concerned, I think that should be done as far as possible. But after all, the governor general, who is the representative of his majesty in the dominion of Canada, does from time to time travel across the country, and it is not felt essential that he should be accompanied by the Prime Minister in order that he might be given advice regarding matters which may arise and in connection with which the Prime Minister normally advises the governor general. I have felt that members of the privy council might substitute for the Prime Minister in the house and on the tour, and that we might proceed with the business of parliament. Since I have made that criticism outside of the house and the Prime Minister has invited anyone to give his expression of opinion, I thought it my duty to express here what I have said outside. In addition to the legislation before the house there are important committees sitting, one dealing with amendments to the grain act, another with the civil service superannuation, and others with other important matters, and I feel strongly that it would be impossible so to expedite business that we might prorogue on their majesties' arrival. I am in favour personally of treating their majesties with every respect, but at the same time of conducting the business of his majesty properly in this parliament.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has asked for the individual opinions of members of parliament who feel themselves in a position to express the views of their constituents. I have been in Montreal more or less recently and have heard a great deal of discussion of the matters we are discussing here this afternoon, and the general opinion expressed was that it was for the Prime Minister himself to decide as to his duty and responsibility in accompanying his majesty throughout Canada on the royal visit. It was also remarked, as a mere incident, that certainly the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did not always regard it as his duty to accompany his majesty when visiting Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Moreover, the suggestion was made that if the Prime Minister felt it to be his duty to accompany their majesties, that was no reason why parliament should adjourn in the meantime, but rather that the business of parliament should go on. It might proceed, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, in his absence. I remember other occasions when the Prime Minister was not present for weeks, and when
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) as Acting Prime Minister, led the house with singular aptitude, suavity and success. There is a strong feeling in the city from which I come that in the present case one or more of the Prime Minister's colleagues might efficiently and effectively lead the house if the Prime Minister felt it his duty to be absent for six weeks. That would enable members to attend to the business of the country in the absence of the Prime Minister.
So far as I am concerned I do not think it possible for us, doing our best, to conclude the business of parliament in fourteen days of discussion, and fourteen days is about all that would be left for discussion if the course which the Prime Minister suggests were followed. It is useless to crowd the business of the house, and I think parliament should sit until it has completed its business. The strain of the work in the last three years of parliament has been as great as in any other year I have been in the house, and I remember years when repeatedly I left the house as daylight broke after an all-night session. But the mortality among members of this house, since the first session of this parliament, is so great as to indicate that we are here having many duties to perform and concerned with many anxieties.
I do not think the Prime Minister really suggested that it would be necessary for him as Secretary of State for External Affairs to be present with his majesty. Certainly I have no doubt that his majesty will be well advised by his ministers at Westminster from day to day, through his private secretaries and his staff, as to the progress of critical international affairs. It would be very interesting for him to have the opinion of the Prime Minister with respect to them, an opinion which is denied to us so frequently, but that could be arranged otherwise.
Let the Prime Minister attend or not attend during the whole of their majesties' tour, as he conscientiously believes it his duty to do, and no one can do otherwise than respect his judgment in that regard. But certainly the discussions which we have in this house, no matter how acrimonious they may be, would not alarm his majesty; for he doubtless keeps himself en rapport with the proceedings of parliament at Westminster. Here we would say nothing to shock his majesty, but we would, I trust, enter upon an intelligent discussion of the issues which are presented. Parliament is sitting for that purpose. I have no sympathy with the idea that appears in the press so frequently that parliament should prorogue after a session of three or four weeks. Those who make that
Royal Visit and Parliament

criticism have little knowledge of the daily work that is done by members of parliament, in the committees and in this house, during the session. It is for us to decide as to the conduct of business here. It is for the Prime Minister to decide as to the leadership of the house in his absence. Personally I trust that he will arrange for that leadership during such time as he may be absent during the royal visit.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has asked for views. He has heard from the leaders and statesmen of various parties. Perhaps he would be interested in hearing from one of the common rank and file. I speak only for myself. I have had no intimation or request or advice from home as regards my attitude in this matter, and therefore I have to use my own poor judgment. But it would be this, and I think I know the sentiments of the people I represent. They would be entirely agreeable; more than agreeable I think, to see the Prime Minister attend his majesty during his visit. I think we should be lacking in courtesy to the king if that were not done as well as lacking in our own self-respect.
But the Prime Minister did not explore to the extent I should have liked him to do the alternative suggested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I would hope it might be possible to adjourn for a week during the king's stay in Ottawa, and then continue with the business of the house. That would seem to me to meet the situation on all sides, and it would avoid any suggestion that we were rushing prorogation. On the other hand it would mean that we would not be sitting here in the heat of summer. Imagine what the health and tempers would be like of 245 men sitting here in the middle of July and later. I certainly think that if it could be done, the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George should be carried out-that the Prime Minister attend, as I would almost say it is his duty to attend, His Majesty the King while in Canada, but that following his majesty's visit to Ottawa the house go on with its business.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Occupying this seat as I do for want of a better, I do not wish it to be assumed by inference that I necessarily follow the views of those in front of me. To me, royalty is a very important part of our thinking as a people. Our king, to me, is a symbol of the soul of the people, and I believe that we best express our democracy when we regard him as such. He comes

to us on an auspicious occasion, and I feel that every sign of respect should be shown him, because he so clearly represents the highest and the best that are in ourselves.
I have agreed with practically all that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said. The more we do to show our duty and our respect, our loyalty and our sincerity to the symbol of the soul of ourselves, the better we shall be for it. As to the length of the adjournment, I have no particular view, but I hope that the man who gives out the weather reports will try to give us cool nights as long as we stay here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it is necessary for me to add more than a word to what I have already said, except as an expression of thanks to hon. members of all parties for their courtesy in extending their views in the manner in which they have. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has said, in the last analysis the decision has to be made by the Prime Minister himself as to what he himself is to do, and, to some extent, as to what is to be done with respect to parliament in the matter of its proceedings. In this connection, however, let me assure the house that I have followed, as I have sought to do ever since I have held my present office, the counsel and advice of those who sit around me in the cabinet. The decision reached commends itself to the members of the government generally. We have been at one in regard to the attitude that should be taken by myself with respect to accompanying the king, and it is out of that collective wisdom as well as from a sense of personal responsibility which, in the circumstances, I cannot escape, that I have felt it was the right decision to make.
The whole position is without precedent. That is what has made it so difficult; and, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has just said, there is bound to be a great deal of criticism of many of the things which may be done or left undone in the course of the royal visit. I hope hon. members and the people generally will be generous enough to realize that the fact that there has been no precedent of the kind in the history of this country has made it additionally difficult to satisfy all views with respect to what should be done in regard to many matters which are very important and material. I can assure hon. members, however, that no end of thought and care has been given to all these matters, and that every effort has been made to reach decisions in the light of what seemed to be the view which would most commend itself to the people of Canada.

Royal Visit and Parliament
In the matter of being attended by one of his ministers, probably all will agree that his majesty's own views and wishes should be taken into account. In that connection I may refer the house to the communication which appeared in the press a day or two ago, in which it was stated that his majesty had invited me to accompany him as minister in attendance during his visit to the United States. I may say that the invitation came to me in a communication written by his majesty himself. I believe it is the custom for the king, when going abroad, to decide first of all whether or not he will be accompanied by a minister, and his majesty reaches his own decision as to what may be most advisable in the circumstances. It need scarcely be said that I felt very greatly honoured when I received his majesty's letter, but I accept the honour as one which is intended by his majesty as a recognition of the position which Canada has attained as one of the nations of the British commonwealth equal in status in all aspects of her domestic and external affairs with the United Kingdom itself. I am sure that this has been the circumstance which has weighed most in the mind of his majesty in inviting the Prime Minister of Canada as Prime Minister to accompany him when he visits the United States. His majesty's views should, I submit, be considered with respect to his visit in Canada as well as to the country to the south. In all respects I shall seek to see that as far as possible they are wholly met.
Just this further word about the matter of an adjournment for a short time as against adjournment for a longer time. I believe I have made it clear that the consideration which to me is of most concern is the wish of hon. members themselves. I believe that members of parliament generally will wish to be in the parts of the country from which they come when their majesties are visiting those particular parts. But further, I believe the public will wish to have the opportunity to view the proceedings of parliament dispassionately and calmly, and I question very much if they will have that opportunity through the press reports as they will necessarily appear at the time of their majesties' visit. I do not mean by that that there will not be adequate reports, but I believe that I have some appreciation of where the centre of public interest will be during the period of their majesties' visit. I am pretty sure that a great deal of attention will be given to
all aspects of the royal visit, and that the proceedings of parliament will be much better reported and more closely followed at a time when their majesties are not in the country. It hardly covers the ground to say that in England parliament proceeds in a normal way, or that, for example, in Canada the governor general himself is not accompanied on all occasions by a minister of the crown. The parallel is not a true one. This is the first time that the king and queen have ever visited this country. It is an historic occasion; it is one without precedent in the history of the British empire; it is an event of world-wide interest and concern. These special circumstances have to be specially considered.
iMay I just add, what I think must be obvious, that having had the obligations and the duties which rest upon the leader of a political party for the length of time that I have had them, and the anxieties which, at least during the past few months, have accompanied them, I personally am not at all anxious to add to the strain of those anxieties and responsibilities the additional ones which necessarily will come in travelling through the country with members of the royal party rather than remaining here and sharing time and responsibility with hon. members in this house. I mention this only because I feel it is due to hon. members to know, having in mind the fact that I am to accompany their majesties throughout their tour, that if that duty is to be performed, I may have to ask the house to allow me, even Jjefore the time of adjournment or prorogation, at least a day or two in which to secure a much needed rest, and to reach some decisions and to make some arrangements which there has not thus far been an opportunity to make in connection with the royal tour.
Motion withdrawn.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the senate to Bill No. 75, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act (fish and shellfish).
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.
Chief Justice of Canada


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 91, respecting the Chief Justice of Canada.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Term of office.
Ernest Lapointe: As I suppose some explanation of this bill is in order, I may say that the present Chief Justice of Canada, as members of the committee know, is a great jurist, one of the finest legal minds in the British commonwealth, and the equal of any legal mind in the world. He has made a reputation not only in Canada but even when he sits as a member of his majesty's privy council. Apart from that, he is an eminent gentleman enjoying the confidence of Canadians throughout the land.
Under the law as it is, the chief justice would have to retire in January next, because he will then have reached the age of seventy-five. It was a relief to me, I must say, when I asked him on behalf of the government to give his services for a longer period, that he undertook to do so, and I am grateful to him. I am therefore expressing not only my thanks but those of the country to the chief justice, who has felt it his duty to accept an extension of his term. As a rule, the law that compels retirement at seventy-five is a good one, but he is an exceptional man, and we are in exceptional circumstances so far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned.
The chief justice has accepted from a high sense of duty. He could retire with his full salary, his full pension, and he serves without any benefit, financial or otherwise. He is simply undertaking to serve the Dominion of Canada.
This bill is also a measure of economy, because if the chief justice were retiring we should have to pay him his full salary as well as the salary of his successor. Under the circumstances I am sure I am expressing the views of members of the committee in asking that the bill be made law.


Robert James Manion: I should like to say a few words in regard to the proposal to extend for three years the term of the Chief Justice, Sir Lyman Duff. In this connection I wish to compliment the government. I rarely pay them compliments but this is one of the few occasions on which I can do so. I favour 
this bill enthusiastically. I agree entirely with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said, in so far as one who is not a lawyer can participate in a discussion of the qualifications of the chief justice.
I have had many contacts with Sir Lyman Duff and have heard his qualifications very widely discussed as a judge and as a lawyer, and I wish to endorse fully the idea of extending his term. After hearing Sir Lyman Duff discussed for many years, and having heard lawyers of eminence describe his qualifications, I have come to the conclusion that he is a great chief justice, a great lawyer and a great scholar. He has intellectual attainments of the highest order. Since the time he was appointed to the privy council in 1918, his judgments, I am informed, have been recognized and cited with approval not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the whole British commonwealth of nations.
I have heard Sir Lyman Duff described by one lawyer as having a broad and original grasp of legal principles, and he is considered by .the same lawyer as the greatest judge ever to have held a seat on the bench in any of the British dominions. That is very high praise indeed, and from all my knowledge it is apparently well deserved. The other day the Ottawa Journal, in an admirable editorial discussing the subject of this bill, Sir Lyman Duff, described him as balanced, penetrating, scholarly, one of the empire's great jurists, and compared him to the late Oliver Wendell Holmes, a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I was greatly interested in that, because I remember when Oliver Wendell Holmes died, high praise was heaped on his qualifications as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. There were many comments on the wonderful work he had done, with particular reference to his ability to outline in magnificent language his judgments in the various cases that had come before him. That brought back to my mind some of my early reading as a young doctor many years ago. Some of the most delightful passages in literature I found in the writings of the elder Oliver Wendell Holmes, the father of the late Mr. Justice Holmes, a doctor-a man of my own profession. He wrote The Autocrat of the Breakfast-table and the Professor at the Breakfast-table. I greatly enjoyed these charming and delightful examples of literature, and I presume Mr. Justice Holmes inherited that gift of writing from his father.
From all that I can gather, Sir Lyman is one of the truly great Canadians. I had a direct contact with him, apart from social

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
intercourse, when I appointed him as chairman of what was known as the Duff commission on railways. During the time he presided over that commission both he and the commission did splendid work, but he was the guiding force behind the decisions of the commission and it was his skill that very largely helped to make those decisions clear-cut and well-balanced. I think that commission did splendid work, work which has been all too quickly forgotten. When people are discussing the railway situation they would do well to go back to the report of the Duff commission and study the conclusions at which that commission arrived.
In supporting the Minister of Justice in the proposal embodied in this bill L feel that I am doing what I think should be done always, namely, to keep the bench above anything in the way of politics. The appointments made should always be of the highest order; in that connection there is reposed in the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice a most important trust, because the freedom and liberty of the subject are confided to the care of our courts. Canada's reputation, on this continent at any rate, as a law-abiding country, one in which the ordinary citizen has a deep respect for the law, is largely due to the high standing of its judiciary in its various branches.
I heartily endorse the action of the Minister of Justice in the extension of the term of office of Sir Lyman Duff. I sincerely hope that when the next three years have passed and it is again time for Sir Lyman's term to be extended, I as prime minister may suggest to my minister of justice an extension for another three years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS moved the third reading of Bill No. 96, to assist in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: The other day I rose to make a few remarks in committee and was called to order because of the insistence of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on strict adherence to the rules of procedure. I felt at the time that I was entirely within my rights, but naturally I
had to defer to the ruling of the chairman. At this time I do not intend to do what the minister did a few days ago. If I wanted to stand on my rights I could go on speaking for several hours, but such is not my intention. I think that if the rules of the house were applied more liberally we would perhaps make just as much headway as we do by seeking to apply them too rigidly.
I do not wish to speak at greater length than it is usual for me to speak in this chamber-forty minutes. The most that can be said for long speeches is the time they take up; long speeches usually are noted rather for length than for breadth. Consequently I shall keep to the usual time in the observations I intend to make and limit myself in that respect if I possibly can.
I said the other day that the one thing that impressed me during the discussion on the unemployment situation in this chamber last week was that the government really have nothing in the way of effective remedies to deal with the problem. For the past three and a half years the Minister of Labour has worked hard, and I think he is to-day a rather disappointed man by mason of the lack of success of his policies so far. It cannot be said that they have been effective in dealing with unemployment in Canada. I think it can be shown, and the minister will be the first to admit, that there are about as many people out of work at the present time as there were when the present government assumed office in 1935. So that if we have to take the number of unemployed as a criterion of the success or failure of the government, the least one can say is that the policies of the government up to now have not been successful.
The other thing that struck me forcibly was the hostility that some hon. members of the Liberal party showed towards the unemployed. I was sorry indeed to see some hon. members applaud the statements made in that regard. I do not intend to repeat them, but I feel that as a mere matter of judgment hon. members who in a moment of enthusiasm applauded the remarks of the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) probably felt sorry on further reflection.
This problem of unemployment has been with us from the beginning of 1930. During that year it became more and more acute. About this time nine years ago I moved a resolution in this house asking the government to take immediate steps to deal with the problem, because anyone at that time who had any understanding of the economics of the situation could not fail to realize that we were
3106	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
on the eve of a tremendously difficult situation, faced as we were by the collapse which subsequently occurred. The government of that day thought there was very little in the way of unemployment, and what there was could be taken care of by the local authorities; so that they did nothing. Then an election came round, and we had a complete change of government, no doubt due to a very large extent to the economic conditions which then prevailed.
In 1930 the new government assumed office. It is well to bear in mind some of the things that the government did even in 1930 to deal with this problem, because they assume a certain importance in view of what the government is attempting to do at the present time. Some hon. members to my immediate right will say: Well, let us forget what happened between 1930 and 1935. But I am not one who thinks we should forget those things. Not that I am unwilling to forgive them, but to forget is another thing, because from the experience of the past we should gain at least some understanding of the problems facing us now.
During the years 1930 to 1935, when the Liberal party were in opposition, they had opportunity of understanding the problem, and when they came into power in 1935 they should have been in a better position to deal with it than was the government of 1930. When that government took office in the fall of 1930 a special session of parliament was called to deal with unemployment and I think it is well that I should read a brief extract from the speech from the throne of September 8, 1930. The following was submitted through His Excellency the Governor General:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resultant unemployment has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary.
Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
What I want to point out is that in the fall of 1930 the government of the day thought that by a manipulation of the tariff and by amendments to the Customs Act, which meant heavy dumping duties, they could cure the unemployment situation. Subsequent events showed the fallacy of that contention. Even yet, however, I hear some of my hon. friends of the Conservative party insist that by increasing tariffs you can cure unemployment. If I thought the remedy was as simple as all that, I should hold up my hands every time for increasing the tariff.

In the speech from the throne the following year, submitted to parliament through His Excellency the Governor General on Thursday, March 12, 1931, I find the following language:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions, to provide further means by which our people may go forward to achieve a prosperity heretofore unattained and to furnish them with all possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces.
Then follow these words:
The problems which stand between us and ultimate prosperity are manifold and great. To be effectually met, they must first be understood. Confusion between cause and effect will but delay their solution. My government has explored the origins of our difficulties and is firmly of the belief that many of our problems do not arise out of world wide depression, but are antecedent to it; and that domestic factors have also largely determined the degree of economic distress from which this country is suffering.
It was this belief which impelled my ministers at the emergency session of parliament held in September last to remove one of the root weaknesses in our industrial system by effecting such then possible changes in the tariff as would, in their opinion, provide substantial security against harmful world conditions.
In other words, it was felt by the government then in power, at the beginning of 1931, that the adjustments in the tariff by themselves would be sufficient to meet economic conditions and bring a measure of prosperity to the people of Canada.
On February 4, 1932, however, we had another speech from the throne, after we had experimented with the tariff for eighteen months. In that speech we find these words:
World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people.
Evidently it was felt by the government of the day, after eighteen months in office, that tariff adjustments were not a solution of the economic difficulties from which we were suffering at the time. - In 1932 and 1933 we had about the worst depression this country has ever known. During that period I think the unemployed numbered in the neighbourhood of two-thirds of a million people. In 1934 and 1935, however, the number was very considerably decreased, until I believe in 1935 those out of work could be said to be about equal in number to those out of work at the present time. In other words a measure of increased production which took place in 1933, 1934 and 1935 absorbed fairly large numbers of those who were then out of work. I do not intend to go into the reasons for that now; I may deal with them later on.
In 1935 there was a change of government, but prior to that change we had what we

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
called the new deal legislation of the then government, legislation of which our group approved in the main and for which we voted. The question arises, why did the Conservative party bring in all that kind of legislation in 1934 and 1935? In my opinion it was brought in because it had been proven conclusively in the years that had passed that the tariff remedies which were being applied were no remedies at all under the circumstances, and perforce the government had to turn, to new methods of dealing with the situation.
Then we had the advent of the. Liberal party in 1935. When they came to power there was still a serious condition of unemployment. Certain pledges were made to the people by the Liberal party, and I do not think it would be out of place, in view of the fact that this may be the last session of parliament before another election, if at this time I should remind the Liberal party of some of the pledges it then made to the people.
Speaking in Vancouver on August 5, the present Prime Minister said he would appoint a national commission to deal with the problem of unemployment, and he chided the then prime minister with starting too late to deal with the problem of unemployment. This is what he said:
The national commission would require the cooperation of provincial governments and municipalities, and this it could readily obtain as all provincial governments but one are Liberal.
Is not the election of a Liberal government at Ottawa the sanest sort of approach to a national government? Mr. King asked. With provincial and federal governments all Liberal, friction would end. There would be thoroughgoing cooperation and constitutional difficulties would disappear with an ease which might astonish J. S. Woodsworth, the C.C.F. leader.
I wonder if those constitutional difficulties have disappeared. I wonder if to-day we have the cooperation between the federal and provincial governments that was foreshadowed by the Prime Minister at that time. Then the right hon. gentleman went on to say:
"In order to conceal the growing magnitude of the problem and at the same time its own growing incapacity to deal with it, the government either did not seek to obtain information which at all times should have been available to the people's representatives in parliament, or had deliberately withheld such information as it had from them." In 1930, the Liberal leader continued, Premier Bennett estimated there were 117,000 unemployed in Canada. The census of 1931 placed the number at 393,000. The most conservative estimate to-day-
That was in 1935.
-places it at 400,000. "It is at least well within the mark to say that the number of unemployed in Canada to-day is four times what it was when the Bennett government assumed office."
If at that time the present Prime Minister held it strongly against the then government that they were unfit to be returned for a further period because there were 400,000 people out of work, what shall I say as far as this government is concerned when we have more than that number unemployed at the present time?
Let me refer to some of the promises that were made. It is rather difficult for those of us who are in opposition to compete with the promises of a party that is looking to the attainment of power. During the last election I remember seeing everywhere I went in the city of Winnipeg cards bearing this inscription:
Vote for the Liberal party and work and wages.
What have the people of Canada to-day? They have neither work nor wages. Leaflets were distributed, probably by the hundreds of thousands, containing the following statement:
Tory policies cannot end unemployment. Vote Liberal.
The inference there was that the Tory policies could not end unemployment, but that if the people voted for the Liberals, the Liberal policies certainly would end unem-ploment. These leaflets were no doubt going out by the million, throughout the country. I quote another statement of the policy of the Liberal party:
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
As permanent measures the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade; and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
As yet we have had neither of these. Then they say further in this leaflet which was issued by the National Liberal Federation:
To prevent exploitation of the public through the sale of watered stocks and worthless securities, it believes an investment control board should be established, with supervision of issues of securities by companies incorporated under federal charters.
We have not that. Then I come to a promise which is much wider in its implication than any of those I have just mentioned. I quote:
The Liberal party believes that industrial reconstruction is the problem of the future. It will seek in industrial relations, as opportunity offers, to give to workers and consumers a larger share in the government of industry.
What has the government done, what has the government even attempted to do, to
3108	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
implement that promise made by the Prime Minister on the floor of this house on February 27, 1933? Nothing whatsoever. The minister has told us he is quite prepared to go to the country on the record of his government on this problem of unemployment. He does not have to tell this house a story of that kind. The government must go to the country on the record, because they have no other possible alternative. Then we find this further statement:
The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production, and believe that personality is more sacred than property. It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
What legislation has this government introduced during the last four sessions of parliament to implement any of the pledges made by the Liberal party during the last election or upon the floor of this house? I do not think we can find anything in any legislation that will bring about a more equitable distribution of our wealth than we had at the time the Liberal party came into power. It will be conceded by practically every hon. member of this house that unemployment and the economic conditions which prevail in this country present the most pressing problems that this parliament and the government have to face. Yet nothing of a concrete nature has been done to grapple with these questions. In connection with constitutional questions, a commission was appointed to investigate and report. No doubt it will bring in a report in which very few people, comparatively speaking, will be interested. If the government had shown the same energy in appointing some body to deal effectively with economic conditions, it is quite possible that such a body would have performed a much more useful function than will the commission appointed to deal with the constitutional questions of the day.
I represent a fairly large industrial constituency, and I can take hon. members to large areas in my constituency where people are practically living on relief. I do not want to see people living on relief week in and week out, month in and month out, and year in and year out. I want to see our people useful and producing citizens. They have not the opportunities to-day, and so far the present government has taken no effective action to give our people even some hope for the immediate future. Looking back over the record of the government for the past four years I cannot say that the members 
of the government have not worked hard. I do not think there is a harder working minister in the cabinet than the Minister of Labour. He has worked hard and conscientiously, but I think he will be the first to admit that up to now the policies which have been pursued have not been productive of good results; at least they have not coped effectively with the problem of unemployment.
Unemployment has been recognized by the government as being the most important problem facing the country. It has been so recognized in the speeches from the throne which have been delivered since 1936. In the speech from the throne of that year, the first after this government was elected, appears this statement:
Unemployment continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem. While there is an increase in the number of persons employed, the number of those on relief shows no abatement.
I am not going to blame the government for the conditions that prevailed at the beginning of 1936. I did not expect that there would be any change in the early part of that year, because the government had not had an opportunity to put into effect the policies which they thought were going to be effective. In 1937 the government, through His Excellency the Governor General, made this statement in the speech from the throne:
The year just closed has witnessed a Bteady improvement in conditions throughout Canada, and has borne testimony to the beneficial effects of the fiscal policies of the administration, and of other methods employed to achieve national recovery. A very definite restoration of confidence is in itself an augury of the continuance of recovery.
I wonder if the Minister of Labour will contend to-day that the fiscal policies of the government were responsible for the economic recovery which took place in 1936. Personally I cannot give any credit to the fiscal policies of this government for bringing about those changes. I will just mention in passing that the United States was spending billions and billions of dollars in an effort to improve the economic conditions of that country and we in Canada benefited to a fairly large extent from what was being done in the United States, because that country in many ways is a good customer of ours.
The speech from the throne delivered in 1938, which dealt with conditions in 1937, contained the following:
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded. There has been a general increase in employment and a marked decrease in the numbers receiving unemployment aid.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
According to the speech from the throne the fiscal policies, so-called, of the government were still having their effect and we were doing fairly well here in Canada.
In the speech from the throne delivered this year we find this statement:
Unemployment in Canada continues to receive the unremitting attention of local, provincial and federal authorities.
Then they deal with the British North America Act, and further on they say:
In Canada, the problem of unemployment has been aggravated in recent years by recurrent crop failures-
With that statement I am in complete accord.
-in the western provinces, and by the serious business recession experienced in the last year in other parts of the world.
In other words, the fiscal policies of the government had ceased to be effective, just as was the case under the Conservative government in the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, when their fiscal policies showed no sign of ameliorating conditions. The fiscal policies of this government in the years of expanding markets are all right; but in years of contracting markets, it is not their fiscal policies that are to blame, they now tell us, but world conditions.
Then they go on to deal with the problem of dominion-provincial relations, and say:
In accordance with the purpose for which the commission was instituted, its report will provide the basis for, and the material essential to the deliberations of a national conference, at which, among the important subjects to be dealt with, will be the problem of unemployment and social services generally. The government have not altered their view that a national unemployment insurance scheme is essential to a permanent policy of meeting the problem of unemployment.
With that I am wholly in disagreement. I do not think that unemployment insurance will meet the problems of unemployment. It will meet some of the problems arising out of unemployment by granting insurance benefits to those who happen to be insured and out of work, but in no sense will it solve the problem of unemployment.
Then we are to have another conference. I thought this government had got away from the idea of conferences but it appears they are still determined to have another conference when the Rowell commission reports, and what will come out of it I suppose will be what has come out of other conferences-talk, talk, talk, and no action.
Then further:
To this end it is proposed further to expand the government's long range program of public undertakings. In pursuance of the policy of
the active encouragement of employment, it is also proposed to undertake, with provincial cooperation, to provide assistance to municipalities which, as an alternative to the provision of direct relief, desire to expand their normal programs of civic improvements.
Further:
In order to avert economic disaster to a large part of our population, my ministers, under the terms of the Wheat Board Act, approved, for the current crop year, an initial payment for wheat as recommended by the board.
What is the condition of the country at the present time? While I do not blame the government entirely for present conditions, there is no one else who can assume the responsibility, and conditions to-day, I submit, are in some respects infinitely worse than they were in 1935. Only this past year we have been called upon to grant a bonus to the producers of grain in the west amounting to approximately fifty million dollars. That was not required in 1935. A similar bonus is being demanded by the western wheat growers for this year. We have deficits on our national railway, resulting from economic conditions, amounting to approximately fifty million dollars a year. We are asked to provide subsidies here and there, such as, for the fishing industry and for many other industries. People are asking for grants in aid of one thing and another. I wonder how any country can continue to grant subsidies and live on deficits. In other words we are trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, and it simply cannot be done.
I come to the question of international trade. I know that the Minister of Labour for a number of years has held international trade as one of his pet theories for improving the economic conditions which prevail in Canada. Every hon. member of this house wants to see international trade expand. We all want more trade; for the more trade there is in the world the better it should be for all concerned. But suppose other nations say to us in Canada: We do not want your surplus goods. What are we to do? Are we to sit in our seats here and do nothing because people of other nations say they do not want our surplus commodities? If our granaries are full to overflowing with wheat and our packing plants are filled with foodstuffs that other nations do not want to buy from us, is that any reason why our people should go without the necessities of life? Suppose the minister had his cupboards in his own home filled with all the foodstuffs and clothing he required, and had no money in his pocket to buy goods, would he wait until somebody came along and gave him a dole, or would he go to his own cupboards for the essentials of life that he required? The logical thing for

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
him to do would be to go to his own cupboards, of course, and take the things that he wanted for himself and his family. That is what I have advocated in this house for a great number of years. With our granaries full to overflowing and our packing plants and warehouses and factories filled with goods for which we can find no market abroad, there is no reason why the people at home should go without the essentials of life. In other words, as was well said by the Prime Minister in this house, and as I said a few moments ago, it is no longer a question of production, of putting more people to work to produce more wealth that we are not allowed to consume; it is a question of a fairer distribution of the wealth that is being produced.
But, so far the government has taken no steps to bring that about, and until such time as we in Canada try to bring about a fairer distribution of our wealth production, we shall never solve the problems which confront us. It is of no use to attribute our domestic problems to lack of international trade. Do not let us blame somebody else for our own shortcomings. If we are short of international trade, let us try to develop an internal economy which will satisfy to the best of our ability our own population, and I believe that we here in Canada can secure for our own people a fairly high standard of living if we will only give them the opportunity to work and consume the goods which they can produce.
The minister and those associated with him have told us on more than one occasion about the changes that have taken place in Europe. It is true that during recent years and even within the past few months great changes have been made in the physical map of Europe, but in addition to those physical changes there have also been great changes in the economic map of Europe. The old economic way of doing things has gone in the greater part of Europe. All the totalitarian states in Europe have thrown into the discard capitalism as we knew it in the early part of this century. They are exploring new economic paths. They are trying to become selfsufficient. They do not want our goods. We must recognize these facts. Far be it from me to say that I approve what the totalitarian states in Europe are doing. But we have to recognize the facts, and the one way to recognize them is by attempting here in Canada to solve our problems as best we can, remembering the vast amount of wealth which the dominion contains.

The old theory that low prices increase consumption of goods has pretty well gone into the discard. In western Canada our farmers are trying to sell their grain at prices representing not much more than one half the cost of production, yet they are unable to find a market. If a low price created a greater demand, our grain would have been consumed long since and we should have had no problem so far as a surplus is concerned.
Here is another point which the minister, who is an economist of repute, should bear in mind. We are living in an age when capitalism has practically ceased to expand; indeed the tendency is in the other direction as the markets of the world become fewer and more limited. We must recognize that condition when we are considering policies intended to solve unemployment by finding markets in other parts of the world. The former government attempted that same thing, although in doing so .they used stronger language than the present government has used: for example, Mr. Bennett, when prime minister, said they would blast their way into the markets of the world. But that policy of blasting was no more successful than the present government's policy has been.
In view of the wealth Canada has at her disposal, the large number of people who, though willing, are unable to work, the immense resources which are at our command, must we in this chamber confess that we are mentally bankrupt and incapable of meeting the conditions which confront us? I do not think so. I do not believe that Canadians are less competent than other people; in some respects we are better than they; and if the time and attention of the government were seriously directed towards methods of distribution of our surplus production it would do a much greater service to the people than to adopt the attitude of taking things for granted based on the old theory of laissez faire. To-day people are demanding action. The letters I receive from various parts of the country show that the public are tired of years of masterly inactivity on the part of the government. Why can it not take some definite action other than the time-worn methods which have been tried and found wanting? In such an endeavour the government might and probably would make mistakes, but it would be far better for them to make mistakes in trying to solve the problem than to sit still, idle, and do nothing at all. I wonder what future generations will think of us. I wonder what will be their verdict upon a parliament which, when the country has hundreds of millions of bushels

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of surplus grain, when our packing plants are full of foodstuffs, our warehouses and factories full of clothing, and yet there is so much suffering, want and distress-what will they say of a parliament which sits inactive and ineffective? I do not believe their opinion of this generation will be very high.
What the people are demanding from parliament is a measure of economic security. They are perfectly right in making that demand. It is useless for us to say that unemployment is a matter for municipalities or provincial governments; it is primarily a responsibility of the federal government, because it is through policies which we adopt that unemployment is either increased or diminished. That is not an achievement within the powers of either the municipalities or the provincial governments. The responsibility is therefore with the federal authority, and the government should assume it. In 1935 the present government pledged itself to provide economic security for the people. I do not believe anyone will contend that what the government has attempted has dealt effectively with the problem.
In many respects Canada is a fortunate country. As I have said, we have unlimited natural resources, an abundance of wealth such as few nations possess. We have also a vigorous and virile population which wants nothing but an opportunity of working those resources in order to satisfy its needs. The duty, then, rests with this government to give the people, first, the opportunity to work and develop those resources, and, second, the opportunity to so utilize them that we may have a happy and contented people.


Major James William Coldwell: Just before the motion is passed, I want again to underline the point of view that there is a growing dissatisfaction at the inactivity of parliament in connection with this particular matter and in general with the economic situation. This morning I happened to see a report of a speech by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), who had some hard things to say about parliament. For example he said this:
I have come to the conclusion that Guy Fawkes was the only fellow who ever went to a parliament in the right frame of mind.
That is what the hon. member said last Friday evening at St. Thomas. I venture to say that if one of our university professors said that he would immediately be called to
book. Yet this is symptomatic of what people will accept because of the grave conditions of unemployment and general economic circumstances which confront the country. He went on to criticize on the same grounds various people connected with our public affairs. For example he said this "facetiously" -and many a thing which is in one's mind is said in truth and in jest:
Facetiously, Mr. McGeer suggested that possibly Canada had had too many bachelors at the head of her administrations. Great as he was, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett lacked something and in the speaker's opinion that was a wife and family. Sir Edward Beatty was in the same class; as for Premier W. L. Mackenzie King-"Well, I believe there is quite a lot of Conservatives in Ontario who will agree there is something lacking in Mr. King," said the speaker, amid laughter.
Then he went on:
"These old bachelors have a different outlook on life," he submitted. "Instead of looking out on unbroken trails, writing memoirs is their forte."	*
Statements of this sort are being made and accepted because, I submit, we are not grappling with the problem of unemployment and with the other conditions with which we are faced. Regarding the government Mr. McGeer had this to say:
Closing with a tribute to Premier Hepburn and his genius for getting things done through dynamic leadership, Mr. McGeer said that . . . "if he had the privilege of selecting he would sentence the Prime Minister of Canada and all members of the Canadian government to at least three terms on Mitch Hepburn's onion farm."


Mr. HANSON:: That includes yourself.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what one of the Liberal members thinks should be done with the present government. What, I wonder, do the members on this side think?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 40, to amend the Agricultural Pests Control Act and change the title thereof.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]


Pension Act Amendment


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, April 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Power-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 10-Compassionate pension or allowance.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: When this hill was last being considered by the committee, I obtained the consent of the house to consolidate Bill No. 6 with Bill No. 74, and at the suggestion of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) I agreed to have the bill reprinted. The reprints have 'been distributed to members.


Major James William Coldwell: Not yet.


Charles Gavan Power: For the information of the committee I may say that all sections down to section 10 have been passed. Section 10 stood at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver South. If I remember rightly he suggested that there should be a right to appeal in connection for claims for compassionate hearing.


Mr. GREEN:: My idea was that the new appeal boards should have the power to grant compassionate pensions. The discussion was along that line.


Charles Gavan Power: I have a report from the chairman of the pension commission. I do not think I need read it all. In 1936 I had a suggestion which I might refer to now. Under the proposed bill at that time it was suggested to set up an appeal division of the commission and to abolish the appeal court, and one of the sections of that bill provided that the appeal division might on special application in that behalf grant a pension or an allowance in any case which it considered especially meritorious. I am informed that at that time both the Canadian Legion and my hon. friend were strongly opposed-


Howard Charles Green: Don't drag me into it.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. My hon. friend was one of those who did not think that the appeal division should be given the right to deal with claims under the compassionate clause.


Howard Charles Green: I do not think that is
right, but if so I may have been wrong then.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think it will be necessary to grant this power to the appeal board. The commission itself has made most of the awards. The appeal court made only three during the whole period of its existence. There is no reason why applications for compassionate hearing cannot be heard more than once as the condition of the applicant changes, and personally I see no reason why there should be another appeal. After all, it is a matter of the discretion of three men and the commission have used reasonable judgment up to the present. On further consideration my hon. friend will, I think, come to the conclusion that it is not absolutely necessary.


Mr. MacNEIL:: What is the position of those cases where the crown has appealed and where the appeal has been allowed by the pension appeal court?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think the crown has ever appealed, nor could it appeal on compassionate grounds.


Charles Grant MacNeil: And what about cases
where there are meritorious circumstances? I think the commission would find it difficult to award an allowance under section 21 if there were on record a decision of the pension appeal court against the appellant.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed that there has never been an appeal from the appeal court on a pension award on meritorious grounds, and that is what we are dealing with now. The crown under this legislation will have no right to appeal at all.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As I understand the policy of the commission, they will not grant an allowance under section 21 if it is clearly contrary to other provisions in the act or contrary to a decision previously rendered. With reference to those cases where the decision of the pension appeal court has been against the appellant, would it not be difficult for the commission to consider favourably an application under section 21 when there is already on the record a decision against the applicant? Would it not be advantageous to perpetuate in this act the provisions of the existing act which give the pension appeal court the right to consider applications under section 21?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not see the need for it. Section 21 is a matter entirely for the discretion of the commission. To keep on appealing in cases of discretion, going from one board to another, does not seem to me to be quite the thing to do. It did not do the soldier any good under the former legislation,

Pension Act Amendment
it is not likely to do him any good now, because it is to members of the same commission that he will appeal, although probably not the same men. I presume my hon. friend would like to have the applicant get two chances, but as I understand it he can get two chances. These requests on meritorious grounds need never be closed. If the circumstances change, and without any question of new evidence, they need never be closed. The meritorious factor is so wide that it can come up at any time. If we inserted a clause such as suggested it might give some people the idea that they should appeal, and probably cause worse heart-break, when the case is no better. Frankly, I do not think it would do any good and it might do some harm.


Howard Charles Green: Is it clear that if the new appeal boards think a meritorious pension should be awarded, all they have to do in order to have that pension awarded is to refer the case to the chairman of the pension commission, who, after all, has the decision on meritorious cases?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no reason why they should not suggest it; I think they should very properly make that suggestion.


Mr. LENNARD:: Suppose a man made
an appeal under this clause and it was refused, when could he make another appeal if circumstances changed?


Charles Gavan Power: On' meritorious grounds they can always appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 11A-Widow of pensioner.
Charles Gavan Power: That is Bill No. 74.


Howard Charles Green: Is it exactly the same as Bill No. 74?


Charles Gavan Power: Exactly the same as it was in Bill No. 74.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention under this amendment that the widow of a pensioner who died, say in 1930, should now be able to apply for a widow's pension?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, I know of several cases who have written to me since this amendment was introduced, and I was glad to be able to tell them they would benefit by it. But there will be no retroactive payments; payments will begin from the coming into force of the measure.


Howard Charles Green: It would be true also in the case of the widow of a pensioner who died in 1920?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: This bill does not come into force until July 1. Would it be possible to bring this particular section into force once the bill has been passed by the house and senate?


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think so.


Howard Charles Green: It will mean a delay of two or three months to widows who would otherwise be entitled.


Charles Gavan Power: Give us time to get ready; we shall have quite a number of applications, then they will all be on the same footing.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there a provision which applies to widowed mothers of pensioners?


Charles Gavan Power: This does not apply to mothers; they are looked after under an existing section. Widowed mothers are treated on an altogether different basis from widows. Generally speaking, widows who are granted pension get a pension of right, no matter what their financial condition may be, and they all get the same amount, namely $60 a month; whereas the widowed mother's case is in the discretion of the commission provided there was what is called prospective dependency, and provided also she is in need. There are certain restrictions with regard to earnings of unmarried members of the family. But that is treated in another section, No. 33.


Frank Exton Lennard: I wanted to find out if this would apply to the widowed mother if the pensioner died of something that was not attributable to his war disabilities.


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Do I understand this section is retroactive with respect to entitlement?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: But not with respect to payment?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister give
consideration to a provision to give the pension commission discretion to allow payments to be continued to the widow of a pensioner who, under the act at present would otherwise not be entitled to pension, for a period of, say a year, as is done under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Since this bill was up last time I have checked up on the proceedings O; the last Canadian Legion convention at Fort William, in January and February, 1938, and one of their resolutions was:
That this convention reaffirm that the Pension Act be amended permitting pension paid at the time of death to be continued to the widow for at least one year and where the amount is less than that allowed under the War Veterans' Allowance Act that it be increased to that amount.
Pension Act Amendment

The maximum under that act is, I believe, $40 a month. Time and again we run into eases of great hardship because widows are cut right off at the time of the husband's death. Would it not be possible to have an amendment that would meet the suggestion of the Canadian Legion?


Charles Gavan Power: I have given that a great deal of consideration for many years and I cannot agree with my hon. friend. If there is really a meritorious claim the pension commission has discretion to award pension.


Howard Charles Green: Could the pension commission award pension to a widow who would not qualify under the act?


Charles Gavan Power: Why not? Under section 21.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I brought this question up before, but I do not think I said anything particular about it at that time. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me if I ask my question again now.
It relates to the case of. a widow with several children, I believe five or six, of a returned soldier who was pensioned, who, while he was in Christie street hospital, had fainted and fallen, or at any rate had fallen on the floor as a result of his war disability and who also fell on the street on several occasions. About a year ago he obtained a position in a camp in northern Ontario. During the winter he was laid off or decided to go home to Toronto, and on his trip from the camp to the railway station he died. The coroner up countiy, who may have been thoroughly qualified, and probably was, made an investigation and reported on the death paper that the man died from pneumonia. That having been once written on the death paper, the widow apparently had no claim, on account of pneumonia not being a war disability. But on numerous occasions this man had fallen as a result of bis war disability, and it is alleged that on this occasion on the way from the station he fell and was frozen to death before he could get up. That widow apparently has no redress; the coroner's word overrides everything. The man was dead when he was found; the body had been frozen perhaps twenty-four hours; it would be a day or two before the coroner would get it, and doubtless the coroner did not know that this man had been subject to fainting spells as a result of his war disability. I have had the case up two or three times with the pension board, but so far the coroner's statement is taken above all other evidence of the hospital attendants and other persons who knew this man to be subject to fainting by reason of his war disability. I shall be glad if this poor widow will qualify under this section.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether or not she will qualify; that depends entirely on the pension commission. There are thousands of pensions that I might grant if I had the right to do so, but parliament will not give me that right. If my hon. friend will give me the right to grant pensions I shall have pleasure in granting his request any time he asks me to do so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would be inclined to take the minister's wish ahead of the statement of some coroner who may not have known anything about the man's previous condition.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend pleaded this case before the pension commission, and apparently the pension commission could not see its way clear to grant a pension, so I cannot do it. The law precludes me from granting a pension.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the statement of a coroner go ahead of the statement of the minister?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know anything about that, but my hon. friend said he had placed his case before the pension commission, which under the law has full power, authority and exclusive jurisdiction in such matters. If the pension commission say they cannot grant a pension I cannot do it; parliament cannot do it; the Prime Minister cannot do it, and even His Excellency the Governor General cannot do it. .


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would not this woman qualify under this clause?


Charles Gavan Power: She would always have a claim if her husband died as a result of his war service. In the second place, if he did not die as a result of war service and the case is specially meritorious the commission may grant a pension. Apparently they have not seen fit to do so, and there is nothing I can do about the matter. There is nothing my hon. friend can do and nothing parliament can do until they change the law and give the minister the right to grant pensions if he so desires.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to be clear on this point. A moment ago the minister told the hon. member for Vancouver South that the commission had power to grant an allowance in specially meritorious cases. I am anxious to be clear as to how that power may be exercised, because in making representations to the commission on behalf of pensioners I have always understood that it was not possible to exercise that discretion if it were contrary to the intention of the act; that is, if other sections prohibited the payment of a

Pension Act Amendment
pension, it would not be possible. I have in mind the case of a man who had meritorious service overseas. He was seconded to the imperial forces as an officer and established entitlement on account of chronic asthma and bronchitis. By order of the authorities he was admitted to the hospital and an operation was performed under a general anaesthetic. The evidence was that as a result of that anaesthetic he succumbed to a form of pneumonia. I have here a copy of the final decision of the pension appeal court. There are many meritorious circumstances surrounding this particular case, but I understand the obstacle to action under the meritorious clause would be this decision of the appeal court expressly ruling against the application for pension, that it would be contrary to the policy of the commission to grant a meritorious allowance in this case.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend knows that I cannot tell him just what was in the minds of either the members of the appeal court or the members of the commission in interpreting section 21. If he will cast his mind back to 1923 or 1924, when section 21 was inserted in the act, when, if I remember rightly my hon. friend acted as counsel for the Great War Veterans' Association, he will remember that at that time the committee wished to give the commission some discretion in awarding pensions where they were barred by the statute. I think I had something to do with drafting section 21, and I have always had in mind that the section was intended to cover cases in which the commission could not under the statute grant a pension. It was rather for that purpose than for the purpose for which it has been used in later years; that is, in cases where there was no evidence of fact. It was intended to cover cases which were barred by statute rather than cases which were barred by fact. That was always my understanding of the value of section 21, and I think my hon. friend will agree that this was in the mind of the committee which brought down that legislation. I am also under the impression that in most cases the commission at any rate have taken that view, that it would apply to a person who had meritorious service but who was otherwise barred by the statute. I do not think there is any doubt at all about that. There is no doubt in my mind as to what was intended, just as there is no doubt as to the interpretation placed upon this section, although that may not have been followed in all cases.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the best test would be how many pensions under the meritorious section were granted to widows during the last fiscal year.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not that information at hand, but more have been granted in the last two or three years than were ever granted before.


Howard Charles Green: Looking at the whole picture I do not think there can be much dispute about the fact that while a very few widows might get pensions under the meritorious section, the great majority of widows who could not qualify under the act as it now stands would be unable to get anything at all by way of pension or allowance.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not urging that this section be used for the purpose of giving pensions to widows who otherwise would not be entitled to them. A case would have to be very meritorious before that would be done. I am saying that the commission is not barred by anything in this act from granting a meritorious pension.


Howard Charles Green: What I was urging was that the commission be given power to grant an allowance for at least a year after the death of the husband.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not agree with my hon. friend about the time element; I disagree entirely.


Howard Charles Green: The minister does not accept the suggestion that an allowance be granted under such conditions.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not agree with the suggestion that we should grant a pension for a year.


Howard Charles Green: Of course it is called an allowance, under the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and would be of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: I think we were wrong when we did that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The point is that some assistance should be given the widow who is suddenly deprived of income, to enable her to adjust herself to a new mode of living.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite agree that some assistance should be given, but not under this act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should have pointed out that the soldier of whom I was speaking was a pensioner. Would that make any difference?


Charles Gavan Power: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: The next section that was allowed to stand was No. 15.


The CHAIRMAN:: My record shows section 15 carried.
Pension Act Amendment


Charles Gavan Power: Section 15 was carried, but I would direct attention to the fact that at that time I suggested there might be an amendment to the section, and I think I had the amendment moved or any rate gave copies of it to some hon. members, and the section has been reprinted.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 16-Request for hearing.


Charles Gavan Power: We had stopped at section 15, but I am informed that the amendment to section 15, which now appears in the reprinted bill, was carried. We are now going on to section 16.


Howard Charles Green: When the bill was last before us, I suggested that the words "or the court" should be added after the word "commission" in the fourth line of this section, to take care of any cases for the hearing of which application had been made to the court, as distinguished from the quorum.


Charles Gavan Power: That matter has been gone into carefully by the officers of the department, and they tell me that it is looked after by subsection 1 of section 24, which reads:
All appeals undisposed of by the court at the date of the coming into force of the amending act of 1939 shall be heard and determined by an appeal board of the commission to be designated by the chairman of the commission from time to time for this purpose, subject to the rules of procedure heretofore prescribed for a hearing before the court.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is satisfied that this will cover a case where an appeal has been made but where the hearing by the appeal court has not been held, I am satisfied.


Charles Gavan Power: The officers of the department have looked into the question from that point of view, and they inform me they are satisfied that this subsection will cover the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Sittings of appeal boards.
Howard Charles Green: Has the minister made the changes in this section which were suggested?


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection 5 was added at the suggestion of my hon. friend. This reads:
No member of an appeal board of the commission shall adjudicate upon any case coming before an appeal board pursuant to the provisions of subsection six of section fifty-two of this act, if such member has previously sat

as a member of the commission at either first or second hearing of such case; provided always that such member may adjudicate upon any case in which the applicant's consent thereto has first been obtained.
We are adding the provision that where the applicant gives his consent, the same man may sit.


Howard Charles Green: Will it be necessary to write to the applicant for his consent, or will a formal request for consent be sent out in each
case?


Charles Gavan Power: This subsection is added to obviate any delay. The man who prepares the case will find out, first, what commissioner sat, and then, second, whether the applicant is prepared to allow the case to proceed before that commissioner. When the case is called, it will be ready.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24-Undisposed appeals at date of coming into force of act of 1939.
Charles Gavan Power: This section stood at the request of my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: I understood section 19 also stood.


Frederick George Sanderson: Section 19 was carried.


Charles Gavan Power: Has my hon. friend anything special on section 19?


Howard Charles Green: We raised the question on that section as to the power to remit. I understood the minister allowed the section to stand in order to have that looked into.


Charles Gavan Power: The appeal court is obliged to remit to get further evidence, but in this instance the appeal board would be actually in the district and could obtain the evidence. The appeal board is there with the man in front of it, so there would be no reason for it to remit. It can adjourn if it so desires, but it cannot remit back to itself in order to get further evidence when the evidence can be obtained right away.


Howard Charles Green: There might be medical
evidence to be obtained in another district or something of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: They have full power to take further medical evidence if they so desire.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall section 24 carry?


Howard Charles Green: We were speaking on section 19. Has the change which was requested been made in section 24?

Dairying Industry-Cheese


Charles Gavan Power: Subsection 3 of that section reads:
No member of an appeal board of the commission designated by the chairman for the purposes of the last two preceding subsections shall adjudicate upon any case upon which he previously sat as a member of the commission either at first or second hearing, or as a member of a quorum of the commission.
That meets the point raised by my hon friend.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: Are the provisions contained in sections 68 and 69 of the act to be found in the new bill as amended?


Charles Gavan Power: I covered section 69 when I gave the information about the remission of cases. Section 68 is covered by section 18 of the bill, the subsections referring to medical examination and further evidence.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister satisfied that the appeal boards will have the power formerly given by section 68?


Charles Gavan Power: I asked the officers of the department to go into that matter carefully, and they assured me that all the powers which the appeal board had are now contained in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25A-Access to records.
Charles Gavan Power: This is purely a perfunctory amendment, changing appeal court to appeal board and changing quorum to appeal board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce an act to provide a new measure of supervision over stockyards and stockyard operations; and with respect to the grading, inspection and branding or marketing of live stock and live stock products; also to give legislative authority for the continued enforcement of the government program respecting the conditions under which live poultry may be produced and sold in Canada. The bill also makes provision for the appointment of officers necessary for the proper carrying out of the provisions thereof.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 104, respecting stockyards, live stock and live stock products and hatcheries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER moved the second reading of Bill No. 88, to encourage the improvement of cheese and cheese factories.
Mr. SENN:: Mr. Speaker, I understood that the minister was going to make an explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to promote the welfare of the cheese industry. As members of the house [DOT] are aware, there has been some difficulty in the dairy industry in Canada on account of the fact that there has been, during the past year particularly, an overproduction of butter in relation to its consumption in Canada. It has been found by long experience that it is difficult to export Canadian butter and sell it in competition, say with New Zealand butter, in the British market, partly because their costs of production are not as high as ours in Canada where we have different climatic conditions. There has, therefore, been an effort to keep our production within Canada related to our consumption. That effort was interfered with somewhat by an export of butter from Canada to the old country in the fall of 1937, which left a shortage of butter supply in this country amounting to about five or six million pounds in the early part of 1938. That shortage of supply in Canada resulted in an increase in price, which eventually brought more butter fat into the production of butter and less into the production of cheese in proportion to the amount supplied. An effort has been made this year to reverse that process and to encourage the putting of more butter fat into the production of cheese, and this bill is brought before the house for the purpose of promoting that end. In order to promote it we are doing three different things.
In the first place we are paying a premium upon high grade cheese. The bill as it was introduced in the house will require amendment. It was our intention that there should
Dairying Industry-Cheese

be a premium of one cent a pound paid on cheese that scores 93, and a premium of two cents a pound on cheese that scores 94. Approximately two per cent of our cheese scores 94, which is the highest score; and 33.75 per cent of our cheese scores 93; so that, in all, somewhere between 35 and 36 per cent of our cheese will this year score 93 or 94. The greater part of the remainder scores 92. I think about 8 per cent would be under 92, and the rest is in the 92 classification. Our objective is to try to raise that lower grade cheese to the 93 level by paying a premium of one cent a pound on cheese that scores 93 and two cents a pound on cheese that scores 94.
The greater part of the cheese produced in Canada and entering into export is produced in Ontario and Quebec. Considerable encouragement has been given in Ontario to the building of better curing rooms and to the improvement of plants. Considerable encouragement has been given in the province of Quebec also, but up to date there has probably been more done along that line in Ontario than in Quebec. Ontario is producing a larger proportion of cheese that scores 93 than in Quebec. So in this bill we are making provision to encourage those who are operating cheese factories to improve their equipment. We are offering an encouragement of 50 per cent of the cost of improving curing rooms and 50 per cent of the cost of putting in new equipment, particularly the type of equipment that has the hoop form, which makes cheese of a type and size suitable to the export trade. We are setting aside approximately one-quarter of a million dollars for the purpose of encouraging this improvement in equipment and in curing rooms, and for the purpose of encouraging the amalgamation of some of the smaller plants, where in a district there will be sometimes two or three, into one plant. We hope that by spending approximately one-quarter of a million dollars during the present year to make it possible for many of those who are to-day producing cheese that scores 92, to produce next year, if not in the latter part of this year, cheese that scores 93.
We are giving that encouragement at this time to the industry in those areas where the condition that I have outlined exists, and we hope that with these two methods of encouragement we shall be able to place a much larger percentage of our high grade cheese in the British market and also to keep the price of cheese at a point where there is an advantage in the production of cheese over the production of butter, and thus retain a greater percentage of butter fat in the

cheese industry rather than have it go into the production of butter. In that way we shall assist both the butter and the cheese industries.


Mark Cecil Senn: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: Are you sure he was convinced?
Mr. 8ENN: In another sentence the present Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
It may be said that this is only another million dollars after all, and apparently it does not amount to very much nowadays.
I understood the minister to say that at the present -it would amount to about a quarter of a million dollars.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just on the first part. It will be about three-quarters of a million on the whole thing.


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes, that is what I was going to refer to. I think it will amount to about half a million dollars if you put a one cent bonus on cheese which will grade 93 and a two cent bonus on cheese which will grade 94. So it seems to me the same argument might be advanced at the present time as was advanced then. I have also something here which was said by the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, (Mr. Fraser), who, I see, is not in his seat. He was speaking on this very question at that time and took exception to what the then government was doing. I do not know why these hon. members should be out of their seats to-night. Perhaps it is because they did not want to hear this matter discussed.


James Garfield Gardiner: They did not know it was coming up.


Mark Cecil Senn: Here is what the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario, said, as reported in Hansard of the same year, page 4180:
I notice the Minister of Railways and Canals-*
Who, by the way, is the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion).
-has just taken his seat. I always endeavour to learn from those who know more than I do and on several occasions I have heard the minister use the phrase, "rolling the pork barrel." If there was ever an instance of pork barrel rolling, it is this vote of ?1>000,000. This thing is wrong in principle and is simply an example of pork barrel rolling in an endeavour to get the dairy vote of this country.
These are the words of another supporter of the present administration; and if he were in his seat to-night, I should like to ask him if he has changed his mind and if he is going to support this particular motion at this time.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: It is a different principle.


Robert James Manion: A different government, the hon. member means.


John Gordon Ross: One was on all cheese and the other is on high grade cheese.

Dairying Industry-Cheese


Mark Cecil Senn: That is, I think, a distinction without a difference. The minister's avowed intention for doing this was to stimulate the production of cheese. I should now like to make reference to what the present Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) said at that time. It will be found at page 4185 of Hansard of the same year:
As was well said yesterday by an hon. member from Ontario on this side of the house-
I think he was referring to the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario.
-such action would mean that the Canadian taxpayer will have to pay part of the price of the cheese we sell on the British and other markets. I say that is a wrong policy. Not only is it wrong in practice, and would lack effectiveness, but it is wrong in its inspiration.
Then he goes on:
If hon. members would look through the supplementary estimates they would find many millions of dollars provided for no purpose other than that of putting into practice reforms suggested by this government, not for the sake of reform but for the sake of having a political program to offer the Canadian electorate.
I wonder what the present program is if it is not something of the same sort. The Minister of Agriculture has a program, quite an elaborate one. He has the aid at the present time of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who also has a program of bonusing and assistance which will amount to many millions. That same program has been carried on for the past two or three years in the marketing of wheat. I do not find fault particularly with it, but I do believe that the government should at least practise what they preach and should carry into effect what they argued for in days gone by.
I am not particularly opposed to this measure, but I am afraid that at present the chief object of bonusing cheese will be lost because of the increased use of vegetable oils in the past and in the days to come. It is a pity that the government did not continue the cheese bonusing plan if they intended to put it into practice again, because, after all, it had the very effect that was desired in 1935. In 1934 our production was 99,000,000 pounds; in 1935 it was 100,000,000 pounds, and the next year after the bonus was put on, it rose to
119.000.	000 pounds. In 1937, it was 128.000,000 pounds. I am speaking of factory cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: Production went to
119.000.	000 pounds the year the bonus was taken off.


Mark Cecil Senn: But for a good part of the year there was a bonus on cheese manufactured during that year, because the bonus did not go on until July, 1935.


James Garfield Gardiner: Production went up from
99,000,000 pounds to 100,000,000 pounds the year the bonus was put on, and the next year after it was taken off the production went to 119,000,000 pounds.


Mark Cecil Senn: But the 'bonus was on during a part of 1935. It was effective in July, 1935, and that was what caused the increase. Last year it went back to 121,000,000 pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: According to my figures the production of 100,000,000 pounds was in the fiscal year 1935-36.


Mark Cecil Senn: Oh, yes; but the bonus commenced in 1935. on the first of July, and, as I understand the situation, the money was not all taken up until July of the next year.


James Garfield Gardiner: The money was all taken up before the end of March, 1936.


Mark Cecil Senn: Of course, there is the other factor, that the cheese factories were already in operation on account of the bonus. They did not know until this government did away with the bonus that it would not be carried on for another year. After they began operations in 1936, it was impossible for them to change in the middle of the season. The point I am making is this. If the bonus had been continued, as the government now say it should have been, we would have had a great deal more production of cheese, and I fancy the production of butter would have been kept within domestic consumption.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Can th.e hon. member give us the prices of cheese in 1935-1936?


John Gordon Ross: The price rose in 1936 in consequence of the trade treaty.


Mark Cecil Senn: I am sorry, but I have not those prices. I know, however, that there was a small decrease in cheese prices in 1938, and the production was reduced by 8,000,000 pounds. .


Thomas Bruce McNevin: In that year the price of butter was substantially increased.


Mark Cecil Senn: In 1938 the price of butter went down again. I think the hon. member will agree with me that if the bonus had been continued up to the present time we would have had quite a different picture so far as butter is concerned, and there would have been a better market in Great Britain. I do not wish to discuss the matter at any further length at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Dairying Industry-Cheese
On section 3-Grants for material, equipment, et cetera, of cheese factories.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know anything about cheese making, but I do know something about the cost of mechanical refrigeration. What is the estimated cost of refrigeration in the average plant?


James Garfield Gardiner: The cost of improving the refrigeration and insulation in the curing rooms runs from $1,000 to $1,400 per factory.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is that steam or electricity?


James Garfield Gardiner: Electricity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It must be a pretty small plant.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they are small plants.


Mr. BROOKS:: I did not have the bill before me when section 2 was carried. I notice that "subsidized cheese factory" means a cheese factory the owner of which has been awarded a grant or subsidy "under this act." Will cheese factories operating under provincial acts come under this bill? I believe that in the different provinces there are acts governing cheese factories.


James Garfield Gardiner: Any registered cheese factory would come under this bill. It would not make any difference if they were registered in the province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What does "under this act" mean particularly?


James Garfield Gardiner: Any payments made in connection with insulation are made under this measure.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With regard to refrigeration by electricity, the minister must have some record of the number of plants throughout the country that are to be equipped with mechanical refrigeration. Can he tell us whether the power line is in proximity to these plants? If not, what distance will the line have to be carried? It seems to me that $1,400 is a very small sum to instal electrical refrigeration in these plants.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that where there is no hydro-electric line now, they use a gasoline plant for the power and run it right off the gas engine. A small gas engine does the job just as well as a motor run from the power line.
The number of cheese factories is as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 8
New Brunswick	 8
Quebec	 338
Ontario	 635
Manitoba	 16
Saskatchewan	 9
Alberta	   9
British Columbia	 2
1,025
I understand that only some thirty-one of those in Ontario have this equipment now.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So with only $250,000 for everything, changing the size of the plant, putting in electric refrigeration and insulation, it will not cover very many.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only some of them will be prepared to spend half the cost of putting in this equipment in any particular year. Some will come in this year, and more and more will come in as the years go along.


John Ritchie MacNicol: About how much is
figured for the cost of insulation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The cost of insulation is about half the total cost in connection with refrigeration, and the cost of the rooms is about half, so it would be divided about equally between putting in the storage room and putting refrigeration in the storage room.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the minister infer
that he can insulate a plant and put in gas or electric refrigeration for $1,200?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; they are comparatively small rooms. You do not insulate the plant, you insulate simply the storage room, probably not more than twenty feet square.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But the proposal is to put two of them together, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is where you now have two small factories in a community making cheese, where they are, say only two miles apart and all the milk could be hauled to the one factory. Only in such instances would there be amalgamation. I nese rooms we are now speaking about may exist in connection with existing factories. There is no amalgamation involved in that; it is simply giving assistance to the factory where it now is.


Mr. PERLEY:: At what points are the
cheese factories in Saskatchewan?


Mr. FAIR:: Would the minister give the locations in Alberta also?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not that information here. I think in Saskatchewan one is at Saskatoon, one at Rosthern, one at Prince Albert, one at Ernfold and one at Morse. The others I cannot enumerate at the moment.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Has there been any
appreciable increase in the production of cheese in the western provinces during the last few years? Also how does it compare with the standard cheese of the other parts of Canada?
3122
Dairying Industry-Cheese


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mark Cecil Senn: How much?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact
figures here.


Mark Cecil Senn: A million pounds or so.


James Garfield Gardiner: The record I have
before me gives the exports of butter and cheese from Canada to the United States. For the year ending March 31, 1935, exports of cheese amounted to 693,400 pounds. For the year ending March 31, 1936-and it will be remembered that the duty was lowered on January 1 of that year-our exports to the United States amounted to 3,120,800 pounds, or an increase from roughly 700,000 pounds to about 3,100,000 pounds. For 1937 the figure was 10,571,900 pounds, so there was a great increase during those two years. In 1938 the figure dropped back to 3,461,100 pounds, about where it stood in 1936. That is the last figure I have.
I was just stating that there had been a very considerable increase in 1936. Then in 1937 production went up to 128,444,337 pounds, and along with that there was an increase in
rMr. Cold well.]
price of about three cents a pound on the average. With that increase in price and increased production considerably greater returns accrued to the farmers for their cheese.


Mark Cecil Senn: As far as I can gather from
his remarks the minister has been attempting to prove that the bonus of 1J cents on cheese instituted in 1935 did not have the effect of increasing production, and he points to the 1935 figures which, he says, showed an increase of only a million pounds. But the minister knows, as everyone does, that cheese production is commenced in the spring; the cheese factories open in the spring and carry on during the summer months. The bonus that year did not become effective until July, when it was impossible for butter makers to change their production to cheese. The next spring, however, since there was a small surplus left in this bonus account and some prospect of getting the government to continue the grant, there was an increase in the number of cheese factories, with the result that cheese production increased in that year by 19,000,000 pounds.
The minister states that there has been a great increase in our exports of cheese to the United States. That was due more or less to a temporary condition. I do not think he or anyone else would seriously argue that we can continue to export cheese to the United States against a five cent duty, which, I understand, is in force at the present time. Our natural market for cheese is in Great Britain, where it always has been; and I agree with the minister that everything possible should be done to preserve that market.
While I am on my feet I want to make just one suggestion in regard to this grant of 50 per cent of certain expenditures to cheese factories which may unite. I do not understand why a grant should be made to two small factories that may unite in order to improve existing buildings or construct new ones, while a much larger factory that may produce more than the two smaller ones together is not given any grant at all. It seems to me that if this grant is being made to enable factories to insulate and fix up their storerooms in order that cheese may be stored under better conditions, the grant should be made to larger factories as well if they wish to improve their refrigeration. One of the most important factors in connection with the production of cheese is the storage for the first two or three weeks after production. If the cheese is kept too warm it deteriorates rapidly, so that refrigeration is very necessary indeed not only for the first two or three weeks but for an even longer time. Therefore

Dairying Industry-Cheese
I think it would be a good thing if we could make some provision whereby we could age our cheese for three or six months, or perhaps even a year; I think it would be one of the best things we could do in order to improve the price obtained for our cheese in the old country. I should like the minister to explain why this grant is made available to two small factories that may unite, while it is not made available to much larger factories.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is available to all. So far as the equipment is concerned, it can be placed in any of the factories already in existence. Two different things are provided in this bill. In the first place provision is made for the payment of SO per cent of the cost of equipment, such as a storing room and the insulation and refrigeration necessary in connection therewith. That can be installed in a factory already in existence or in any new factory that may be built; or it may be installed in the factory that may result from an amalgamation. Then there is another grant, entirely separate and distinct, for the purpose of bringing about the amalaga-mation of two or more small factories into one larger factory.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is under section 3?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, and the other provision is in section 4.


Mr. BARBER:: Would the minister give us some information as to the percentage of grades? How do the western provinces compare with the east in regard to grades 93 and 94?


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister give those figures for all the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand it, the question is as to the quantity of 93 cheese in each province ?


Harry James Barber: Yes, 93 and 94.


James Garfield Gardiner: In Prince Edward Island there were 2,454 boxes all 92; none of that was 93 or 94. In Nova Scotia there is no cheese graded. In New Brunswick no cheese is graded by the federal graders, although they do make cheese in that province. In Quebec sixty-two boxes scored 94; 41,484 boxes scored 93; 217,622 boxes scored 92, and 38,215 boxes were below 92, making a total of 297,383 boxes. In Ontario there were 23,301 boxes that scored 94; 363,973 that scored 93; 441,207 that scored 92; 50,357 below 92, making a total of 878,838 boxes graded. In Manitoba there were no boxes that graded 94; there were 6,894 that graded 93; 20,502 that graded 92; 2,085 that graded below 92, making a total of 29,481 boxes. In Saskatchewan there were 176 boxes
that graded 93; 1,833 that graded 92; 598 that were below first grade, making a total of 2,607 boxes. In Alberta there were 1,952 boxes that graded 93; 8,472 that graded 92; 7,594 below first grade, making a total of 18,018 boxes.


Harry James Barber: What about British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Apparently there were none graded.


Mark Cecil Senn: What grades are allowed to go into Great Britain; is anything below 92 allowed to go across?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that at the present time all grades are allowed to go to Great Britain.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is no discrimination?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no restriction.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words, not as an authority on the production of cheese but as a connoisseur in regard to the eating of cheese. This bill is to encourage the production of cheese in Canada. It has always struck me that we are a little lax in encouraging the home consumption of cheese. I have not the figures under my hand, but I have seen them many times where they show that the per capita consumption in this country is lower than the per capita consumption of almost every other cheese consuming country. If we compare the figures for Canada with those for Great Britain or France or other countries which are large cheese consumers, we find them very low.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are the lowest of all the sixteen countries for which records are kept.


Robert James Manion: I did not recall the exact figures, but I have seen them many times in the press and elsewhere. In view of the fact that we produce the very best cheese in the world, it seems to me that more should be done by way of encouraging our people to consume our cheese. At the present time we have fish weeks, apple weeks and many other advertising devices to encourage the consumption of certain foods. There is no more nourishing food than cheese. Not only is it nourishing, but being a milk product, it contains vitamins of the highest order. In a northern country like Canada we need strong foods, and we should be consuming more cheese than we do. This is doubly true in view of the fact that we produce such splendid cheese. To my mind, there is no cheese in the world any better than old Canadian cheddar. When I say "old" I do not mean
Dairying Industry-Cheese

six months, as mentioned by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn); I mean cheese that is two years old or older. This is particularly so when it is wine cured. I hope I am not shocking some of the prohibitionists in the country when I say that. This very evening I had a piece of two year old Canadian cheese that had been wine cured. In my opinion that cheese could take its place beside any cheese in the world. I make no exception, except in the case of Roquefort or some of the other strong types, although I contend that our cheese is strong enough to make it satisfactory to the palate of any connoisseur.
Considering the excellence of our cheese, I think we should do more to encourage its consumption. When you go over to any European country you hardly ever eat lunch without being served a piece of cheese. To be served a piece of cheese at a luncheon here is almost as rare as the proverbial hen's teeth. I think our home consumption could be increased by an educational program. We have many good cheeses. I have mentioned the Canadian cheddar, but there is an excellent cheese produced down here in the province of Quebec, the Oka cheese produced by the monks. There is another particularly fine cheese produced in Quebec which does not get any further west than Ottawa. I understand this cheese is produced by only one family and it is known as Quebec cream cheese. It is a most delicious cheese. I am not here to advertise the product of any particular company because there are many companies which make a specialty of aging cheese. The cheese I had to-night happens to be prepared by the Chateau Cheese Company which is one of the companies having facilities for the aging of cheese.
I am told that this is rather an expensive process. It requires a good deal of care because the cheese must have its position changed frequently, I believe every day for the first few months although perhaps not so frequently later on. The original cost of the cheese is tied up during the aging process. In my opinion very little cheese of the fresh variety should be sold, although that is a matter of taste. Occasionally I meet someone who prefers fresh cheese, but I believe the majority of those who like good cheese prefer it to be aged at least one year and, if possible, two years. I simply want to pass on itihe suggestion that more than has been done should be done by the government to educate our people to use more cheese. I was taking down the figures as the minister gave us the production details, and I find that
I Mr. Manion.]
when one subtracts the export figures from the production figures, it leaves a consumption of about three pounds a head.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 3-36 pounds.


Robert James Manion: My arithmetic is very
good.


Charles Gavan Power: Your mathematics are
wonderful.


Robert James Manion: Probably better than my knowledge of cheese. I am sorry the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) is not in his seat at present. He is always talking for the consumer. In this instance I am a consumer because I eat more than my share of cheese. A per capita consumption of just over three pounds is not large enough in a cold country like Canada where strong foods are needed. What is the consumption in England.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 9-5 pounds.


Robert James Manion: Three times as much; and in France?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is 10-4 pounds; and in Switzerland, 16-5 pounds.


Charles Gavan Power: There are holes in Swiss
cheese; the people eat the air.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend forgets
that the holes do not increase the weight.


Ernest Lapointe: His
mathematics are not so good.


Robert James Manion: They could stand improvement. I do not want to get into any scientific discussion of cheese production; all I want to say is that more should be done to educate the people to eat more cheese. If we increase our home consumption, then We shall have that much less worry about overproduction.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I concur in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said. The quality of our cheese should be kept at the highest standard, and something should be done to advertise this product to Canadians. The housewife is the one who generally decides what product shall be purchased, so I think all our agricultural departments should endeavour to teach the housewife how to prepare the necessary foods for her table.
I understand that most of the cheeses made in western Canada in October and November lack quality; they get soft at the ends. Is any provision being made here to improve the quality by having the boxes made smaller?

Dairying Industry-Cheese


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that cheese made in October and November anywhere in Canada is, as a rule, poorer in quality, partly because the cows are off grass and partly because of cold weather.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister said that all grades of cheese were exported. Is any supervision exercised over the export, because the lower grades of cheese might interfere with the reputation which our better cheese enjoys; or are the lower grades of cheese exported for processing over in Great Britain? Like the leader of the opposition, I think I consume much more than my share of cheese.


James Garfield Gardiner: All exported cheese is marked as to grade, so that the purchaser in Britain knows what the grade is. But there is very little low grade cheese made in Canada, as indicated by the figures I have read. As a matter of fact, all cheese that scores 92, 93 or 94 is grade No. 1; these are three different groups of the No. 1 grade. So our cheese is fairly high grade all the way through.


William Hayhurst: A purchaser of our cheese in Great Britain can tell it is Canadian cheese by the container. I was wondering whether the government was thinking of marking the cheese so that purchasers would know from the cheese itself that it was distinctly Canadian upon its arrival in Great Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. As was indicated last year, that question was under investigation then, and we are now certain that the cheese can be marked with a Canadian mark which will let everyone know the cheese has come from Canada.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: In reference to section three of the bill, will cheese factories insulating their ripening room be entitled to make application for 50 per cent of the cost of material and workmanship used in making such improvement? I would also ask whether all cheese factories individually or cooperatively owned which put in pressing equipment to improve the cheese will be entitled to 50 per cent of their expenditures on such equipment?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill provides that all cheese factories which have not already got equipment and which are approved by the officials of the department are entitled to obtain this particular grant both for insulation and putting in better rooms and for the equipment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood the minister to say that cheese production in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick was about half a
million, in round figures, in each province, and that cheese in New Brunswick was not graded. As I understand this bill, New Brunswick cheese will have to be graded to benefit by these provisions. I would ask the minister why cheese is not graded in New Brunswick. Is it because we have no federal inspector? If a federal inspector is not appointed, will cheese producers in New Brunswick receive any benefit under the legislation as it stands at present? In my own county of Kings we produce practically all the cheese that is produced in the province. Years ago we had thirty factories, but the number is now down to eight, indicating how the industry has declined.


James Garfield Gardiner: With regard to New
Brunswick cheese I can only say this, that any cheese which is graded in New Brunswick is graded by the New Brunswick authorities, the reason being that all New Brunswick cheese is consumed in the province; it is not exported. We come into the grading of any farm products only when they are exported, the only exception being that when our graders are grading products for export, either abroad or to another province, the authorities within the province sometimes request the federal government to check not only the exported product but also the product that is used within the province. They appoint our officials to do that job for them in order to keep within the constitution. In New Brunswick the authorities have not requested us to do that because they are not exporting their cheese. If they desire to have this premium paid to producers in New Brunswick producing cheese that scores 93, all they would have to do is to ask our graders to score that cheese, and then they would come in under these provisions.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They do not necessarily
have to export in order to have the government grader grade the cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Mr. PATTERSON:: Do these provisions for assistance apply to the erection of new cheese factories in an area?


James Garfield Gardiner: Only to the extent that assistance would be given in connection with the curing rooms and the insulation and refrigeration equipment. The same assistance will be given in connection with that, but hon. members will understand that it would be difficult for the government to encourage, by
Dairying Industry-Cheese

paying half the cost of construction, the building of a new factory that was going to be put up in competition with one already built by someone else.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Premium for highest quality cheese.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment to this section, which I will ask my colleague to move.


Charles Gavan Power: I move, Mr. Chairman, that this section be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
8. The governor in council may grant to cheese factories, out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose, the sum of one cent per pound on all cheese which scores ninety-three points on grading or scoring by a dairy produce grader, and the sum of two cents per pound on all cheese which scores ninety-four or more points on grading or scoring by a dairy produce grader.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Mr. Chairman, I think the daily industry will thoroughly appreciate the assistance that is being offered by the government in giving a premium- I should not like to call it a bonus-to encourage the manufacture of cheese in Canada. I think if we go back over the history of Canadian cheese production to find what has probably decided the government to come to the conclusion to offer this premium, we shall probably feel entitled to ask that the premium be paid not only on cheese that scores 94 and 93 but also on cheese that scores 92.
We cannot consider the problem solely in terms of cheese, because the idea of giving a bonus on cheese is to dispose of the milk which now creates a surplus of butter on the home market. When there is a surplus of butter, it gluts our local market, and consequently the domestic price falls all the time to lower and lower levels. In 1936, which was about an average year, the production of creamery butter was 250,000,000 pounds, and of dairy butter, 114,000,000 pounds, or a total of about 365,000000 pounds. In Canada we consume about 1,000,000 pounds of butter daily, and have done so for the past few years. We cannot easily export a surplus of butter because there is too much humidity and probably not quite enough salt in it; in other words, it is not quite hard enough, and there is no real demand for it. When we do export some, it is not of a quality which compares favourably with the product of other exporting countries. Therefore we are not in a position readily to face the competition of butter exporters elsewhere. We can, however,

face competition in cheese, and I can easily understand the reason why the minister is offering a premium on the manufacture of cheese. While manufacturing the necessary amount of butter for domestic consumption, we should have no surplus, but the excess of milk should be diverted into the manufacture of cheese, for which we have a practically unlimited market.
In 1937 we manufactured 246,000,000 pounds of creamery butter and 113,000,000 pounds of dairy butter, or, in all, 360,000,000 pounds. That year we were short to the extent of
5.000.	000 pounds. Consequently the price of butter in Canada was high, or if not high, at least satisfactory to the producer. The shortage caused the importation of about
5.000.	000 pounds of butter in January, February and part of March, 1938.


Mark Cecil Senn: That was a mistake too.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Well, it may have been a mistake; the hon. member for Haldimand seems to think so; but if he wants to follow the ordinary course of trade he will find that, with only 360,000,000 pounds of butter manufactured in Canada and a possible consumption of 365,000,000 pounds it was to the advantage of the consumer as well as of the trade to import some butter in order to supply distributors who were short. At any rate, 5,000,000 pounds were imported early in 1938, and in March of that year the wholesale price went up to thirty-five cents. What did that do? It encouraged dairymen to go into the manufacture of butter to a far larger extent than should have been the case, with the result that in 1938 we manufactured 267,000,000 pounds of creamery butter and also- the figures are not available from the bureau of statistics, but I have secured the information from rather good authority-about 120,000,000 pounds of dairy butter. As a result we were left with a surplus of over 25,000,000 pounds at the end of the year. It was very difficult to dispose of that butter in outside markets, and the price this year has fallen to new lows. To make my remarks more brief. I may point out that at the present time butter fat is worth about 20 to 21J cents a pound, or the equivalent of 21 to 22 cents a pound of butter. About the same situation existed in the years 1932 and 1933. What it means is that during the coming year butter prices will again be down to 16 and 17 cents a pound, which is below the cost of production, and the farmers, particularly those in the dairy industry, will be in a very difficult situation.
If the premium the Minister of Agriculture is offering at the present time were extended

Dairying Industry-Cheese
to include 92 cheese, I am sure that the problem would solve itself. Instead of sending their milk to be turned into butter, people would convert it into cheese, but it must be made worth their while. At the present time cheese is worth 10i or lOf cents a pound, and I should like to explain, for the information of those who are not familiar with the matter, what that means. On an average production for the whole year, 100 pounds of milk will produce 9J pounds of cheese. In 1932 cheese sold at an average of 9-74 cents; in 1933 the average was 10-11 cents. Let us accept a figure of 10 cents, because there are many indications that conditions will be much the same as they were in 1932 and 1933. Nine and a quarter pounds of cheese sold at 10 cents will give the producer a return of 92| cents. Deduct the cost of fabrication, which is two cents a pound, or 9i pounds at two cents, that is 18A cents, and you have 74 cents net per 100 pounds of milk. There is not a farmer in Canada who can produce 100 pounds of milk for 74 cents.
Last year an investigation, conducted on 780 farms throughout the dominion, was made by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture. I will not give the figures which were arrived at with reference to the various operations, because we are talking in terms of cheese; I shall simply take the cost of production of milk in a cheese zone, selecting for that purpose the zone of Ottawa. It was shown that the cost of producing 100 pounds of milk for the manufacture of cheese was $1.24. In 1933, when conditions were similar to those prevailing this year, a milk investigation was carried on by a committee of this house. After a thorough and careful inquiry it was ascertained that milk for the same purpose was costing the producer $1.28 per 100 pounds. So that surely it will be very difficult to interest the producer of milk in the fabrication of cheese when he knows that the cost of his milk is from SI .24 to $1.28, and that his return is going to be somewhere about 74 cents per 100 pounds. There is a deficit of 50 cents per hundred.
It may be said that the situation is probably just as bad in connection with the production of butter, but that is not quite the case. If the producer is paid about the same price for butter fat he still has the skim milk which he can use to feed small animals and chickens, and for other purposes. Skim milk has been shown to be worth fifteen cents more than the by-product known as whey in the manufacturing of cheese. It is fifteen cents per 100 pounds more to the farmer who produces butter, of about five cents per pound
of butter fat. Consequently, if you wish to place those who are producing cheese on the same footing as those who are producing butter, selling their milk at the same price per pound of butter fat, they must have a better price per pound of butter fat in the manufacture of cheese than in the production of butter because they will always be inclined to go back to butter for the reason I have just given, that at least they have the skim milk which they can feed to young animals such as pigs and calves, and to chickens. They get some revenue from that skim milk and they make a profit from it. Therefore, if the legislation now before us is intended to divert the surplus of milk that is glutting the market with butter, destroying the domestic price, the premium must be of necessity not only on cheese grading 93 and 94, but on cheese grading 92, 93 and 94. These are of good quality and no one will criticize the quality of this cheese. I say, therefore, that if you want to interest those engaged in the dairy industiy and to induce them to send their milk for the production of cheese, provided they produce No. 1, they should be given greater encouragement.
I do not know what words I could use that would be strong enough to convey my views with regard to this amendment to section 8 of this bill. After all, the one cent on 93 cheese is only one cent on 33-7 per cent of the production of cheese. If you tell me that you are anxious to interest people in greater production of an article and that you are going to give them a premium on only 33-7 per cent of production of first quality, I suggest that you will not convince anyone that there is much encouragement there. And the two cents, mind you, is offered on only T9 per cent of the production of cheese; consequently two cents a pound on less than 2 per cent of the production of a commodity is on such a small proportion of the whole production that it will be positively unattractive to those engaged in the industry.
If the one cent were paid on 92 cheese, which is 53-3 per cent of production, or
672.000	pounds of what was produced last year, and two cents on the other grades, rep-' resenting 400,000 pounds, it would take $S00,-000 for the two cent premium on 93 and 94, and the one cent premium on 92, representing
672.000	pounds, would be $1,472,000. In my humble judgment this would constitute a serious attempt to induce the farmers to divert into the manufacture of cheese the surplus of milk now going into butter, and this cheese could easily be sold in the markets which we now enjoy and are pretty sure to enjoy in the future. Undoubtedly it would
Dairying Industry-Cheese

help the situation if those engaged in the dairy industry took steps to see that no district should produce more than a given quantity of butter, because if they do, they will destroy their own market. They should endeavour to produce a little more cheese since the government is paying a premium; then we could safeguard for the butter producer the domestic market and price, and we could assure the exporter of a fairer return in milk manufactured into cheese.
If this is not done, the present unsatisfactory condition will continue. From 1930 to 1939 the farmers have passed through some serious times, and we have witnessed some of the gravest crises the world has seen. I am not blaming any political party; the subject is too important for playing politics. Really, the only good year the industry has had since 1930 was 1937. That year the industry did well, but from 1930 to 1934 inclusive the farmers went backwards all the time. We had to pass legislation to help them in every way, by means of a moratorium, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and in other ways. The young people could not be interested to stay on the farms. Matters rather improved in 1937. In 1938 the price was fair, but in 1939 the people are not in a position to cope with the odds against them. They cannot face many more years of the distress and the difficulties that they have had to put up with. There will occur many more bankruptcies in the dairy industry in the year to come than have taken place in several years past, because the farmers are not sufficiently strong financially to face the music much longer. They are just holding on. If in the coming year they are to receive 74 cents per 100 pounds of milk while it costs them SI.20 to produce it, it can readily be seen that they cannot continue in the industry. This is one of the most urgent matters for the government to deal with.
I am not going to refer for the moment to the fact that there were urgent problems in other parts of the country and that they were dealt with in order to try to save agriculture there, any more than simply to say we claim that the dairy industry in the east is facing one of the most urgent problems that it has ever faced in all its history, and that the government will be well advised to spend $1,500,000 during this year in order to try to help that industry. I repeat that I hope it will have the effect of bringing the output of butter again within the consumption of the domestic market only as well as giving a better return for the, cheese. Legislation relating to cooperation is being introduced TMr. E. O. Bertrand.]
into this house; it has not yet been studied, and each and every industry should look into this and study its own proposition. But before farmers are well enough organized cooperatively to be able to defend themselves, I say the government of Canada must give the lead, and there is no doubt that this is the time to do it. The principle is acknowledged by the Minister of Agriculture, and I fail to see why the government at the present time is satisfied to give the one cent on 93 cheese and two cents on 94 and not give one cent on 92, because that does not serve the cause that is intended, and I am afraid that the bonus will be more a cause, of dissatisfaction than a success. Again I try to convince the minister that this amendment should ibe changed to carry out the suggestion I have made of a premium of one cent on 92 and two cents on 93 and 94.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I am in accord with most of the provisions of this bill. The amendment now under discussion is to give two cents a pound bonus on 94 and one cent on 93, and we have had the suggestion by the hon. member who has just spoken to extend that and pay one cent on cheese scoring 92. To my mind there is a distinct difference between a premium paid for quality and a bonus. If we apply that one cent to 92 grade cheese we pass the stage of a premium and enter upon the principle of a bonus. In fairness to the butter producers I am not sure that I could support that principle, because we would then be paying a direct bonus upon at least 90 to 93 per cent of the entire cheese production of Ontario; it certainly would be a bonus, not a premium.
By paying a premium for quality and so improving the quality of the cheese and increasing the amount exported and the price received for it, you may recompense the country for the amount taken from the treasury to pay that premium. To my mind that justifies the principle of paying a premium for quality cheese. We must remember that we have a large quantity of milk entering the production of milk powder in Canada. This matter that we are discussing does not of course affect to a very great extent milk entering the powder plants, but I believe we have in Canada to-day a large surplus of milk powder, and we shall have a reduction in the quantity of milk entering into the production of this commodity this year. There is a strong possibility that the payment of this premium will divert a quantity of milk from the creameries to the cheese factories, and that should be of assistance to

Dairying Industry-Cheese
the butter producer by reducing the production of butter. But representing a constituency where there is one cheese factory and very many creameries, I think we must bear in mind that the butter producer is operating under extreme difficulties. It has been mentioned that skim milk is worth fifteen cents per 100 pounds more than whey, but we should bear in mind that there is less work on the farm in preparing milk to be sent to the cheese factory than in preparing cream to send it to a creamery, because for that you must have a separator, must wash the separator, so a certain amount of that fifteen cents must be credited to the additional work which is necessary in order to produce that skim milk.
I see no reason why I could not support the principle of paying the premium of two cents for cheese scoring 94 and one cent for cheese scoring 93, but I would hesitate to endorse the principle of turning right back to a direct bonus and departing from the principle of a premium for a quality product.


Mr. TUSTIN:: I take it the chief object of this bill is to improve the quality of cheese. These grants are to be made to the cheese factories, and I should like to be assured that this premium is going to be passed on to the farmer. I take it that is the intention of the government, but the bill does not provide that this money is to be passed back to the farmer, it is to be granted to the cheese factories. If the money is all to go back to the farmer, and if it is the purpose of the bill to improve the quality of our cheese, does the minister not think that something should be done to encourage the maker of cheese to improve the quality of the output of his factory?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that the method followed in Ontario and Quebec and in most instances where cheese is made is the paying of a commission to the factory for making the cheese, then the cheese is sold and the amount received for it is distributed to the producers. Of course this amount will be paid to the cheese factory, will become a part of the price for which the cheese is disposed of and will be distributed to the producer by that method, so that all the premium paid will go to the producer of the cheese.
With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Prescott and very well answered in part by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, I should like to say that the intention of this legislation is to pay a premium in order to improve the quality. We believe that an improvement in quality will have the result of increasing the sale and
bringing about a better price for the commodity over a period of years. With that idea in mind our desire, of course, is to satisfy our best market for cheese, namely the United Kingdom. My understanding is that about 60 per cent of all the cheese which now goes to the United Kingdom market is held for maturing, and because that is so, that is what really gives our cheese its reputation in Great Britain. Our desire, of course, is to raise that percentage much higher than 60 per cent. One reason why it is important that this should be done is the fact that most of our cheese which goes to the United Kingdom is exported during a period when it is not yet suited to that market, and in most instances that cheese will be kept in store in the old country for from nine to ten months and, in many instances, from fifteen to eighteen months. So only the top score cheese will remain in storage for that length of time and be reasonably certain still to measure up to the tests it passed when it was put in store for curing.
So if we are to retain that market and keep our cheese at the high standard that we hope to attain, we must send over there the best quality that we can obtain. Therefore we believe it is worth while to pay a premium to those who produce that cheese, in order to place it upon that market in that condition.
Not only is it important that we should have good cheese on the British market; it is also most important that we should have good cheese for our own market. Earlier in the discussion the leader of the opposition raised this question, and I have just received a note from the leader of the Social Credit group asking for similar information. The suggestion was that we might do something to encourage the greater consumption of our cheese in Canada. We did a little along that line last year and more particularly the year before, and partly through the shipment of cheese to western Canada in 1937 we increased our per capita consumption of cheese to 3-65 pounds instead of 3-6 pounds, which was the figure I gave a few minutes ago. That was the highest average consumption of cheese in the history of our records, so we did accomplish something along that line. Since that time, however, the figure has dropped slightly, and our record is not as good as it was when we were shipping cheese to the west. But may I point out that while the record referred to by the leader of the opposition was absolutely correct, according to a list of ten countries which I have before me the consumption of cheese in Canada was lower than in any other country listed. In the year for which these figures are given our per
Dairying Industry-Cheese

capita consumption was 3'36 pounds. The consumption in other countries was as follows:
Pounds
United States	 4-5
New Zealand	   5-6
Great Britain	 9-5
Prance	   10-4
Germany	 10-6
Italy	 12-1
Denmark	 13-0
The Netherlands	 14-3
Switzerland	 16-5


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Would the minister give the figures in regard to the consumption of meat?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was just coming to that. When you look at the consumption of proteins, however, other commodities such as eggs and meats of one kind and another, New Zealand heads the list, although that country is third lowest in the consumption of cheese. By the way, New Zealand is our chief competitor in regard to cheese in the British market. In recent years that country has supplied more than twice as much cheese to the British market as we have, yet only in the United States and Canada is the consumption of cheese lower. The per capita consumption of other proteins is as follows:
Pounds
New Zealand	 46-89
Canada	 25-93
United States	 23-33
United Kingdom	 23-26
Germany	 19-25
Denmark	 18-95
Prance	 17-91
Switzerland	 17-26
The Netherlands	 12-81
Italy	 12-57
That, I think, explains as clearly as it can be explained why our consumption of cheese is low, comparatively speaking. Our consumption of proteins is very high, partly on account of the fact that we live far north and partly on account of the fact that many of our people are still on the land and find it easier to produce eggs and meats than to produce cheese,


Thomas Bruce McNevin: Has the minister the
figures with respect to butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I have the figures here.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I may be mistaken, but it runs in my mind that our consumption of butter is high.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is correct; we consumed 32-71 pounds per capita.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: That is probably one of
the highest figures on record, is it not?
I Mr. Gardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: New Zealand and Australia figures are higher. For New Zealand it is about 40 pounds per capita, and for Australia, about 37 pounds.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: We have been told to-night that there is an unlimited market for cheese in the old country. For that reason I do not think it would be wise to proclaim a cheese week. If we have an unlimited market I think we should take advantage of it and reserve our home market for other products which we cannot export. After all, the capacity of man to consume is limited. We cannot expect a great deal of suecess if we have a fish week, a butter week, a cheese week and so on; we cannot get the people to consume more than they should. So if we can export all the cheese we produce I would say we should not attempt to encourage unduly the consumption of cheese in our own country. Let us rather encourage the consumption of other products, such as butter, that we cannot export. The hon. member for Prescott said there was no outside market for our butter. Then let us encourage the consumption of butter; let us have a butter week; let us have a fish week, because we cannot sell our fish in other markets. Let us reserve our domestic market for the commodities we cannot export, and let us not unduly encourage the consumption of those commodities for which there is a ready market elsewhere. On the contrary let us discourage the home consumption of such commodities in order that we may have more room for the consumption of something else that we cannot sell outside.


George James Tustin: I quite understand that the makers of cheese are paid so much a pound, as the minister has said. The point I was trying to make a few moments ago was that it is necessary to have the full cooperation of the maker in order to get the best quality of cheese. We all know that cheese is scored on texture, colour, finish and so on, and I believe the most important point is the finish. This all takes work. In my opinion, if the minister could give some consideration to the maker it would have a great tendency to improve the quality of our cheese. Some factories are run on a cooperative basis, while others are private organizations producing cheese at so much a pound, and they are not always ready to do this little extra work which makes for a better grade. Some encouragement is needed,	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand the practice is to give encouragement to the maker who makes good cheese by giving him a little

Dairying Industry-Cheese
better return when he gets oyer a certain percentage. As everyone knows, the -basis of good cheese is good milk. An official came to me the day after this legislation was introduced and told me that he had been to call on a cheese factory not very far from here. He was asked by the board what it would be necessary to do in order to get their cheese up to a 93 score. He advised them that they should first get in touch with all the milk producers and tell them that from then on they were going to accept only the highest quality of milk. He told me that this board immediately notified all producers that low grade milk would be returned. They were starting off on the only basis upon which one can be absolutely certain one is going to have a 93 score. When everything is done by the maker to produce a 93 score which will bring a premium, I have no doubt that those who are handling these particular factories and the producers who are associated with them will see to it that he has his proper share of any advantages which may be gained.


Harry James Barber: By good milk, does the
minister mean a higher butter fat content?


James Garfield Gardiner: The sanitary condition
under which it is produced and the general quality, as well as the butter fat content.


George James Tustin: What system of grading
will there be in the future? For instance, will cheese from Ontario be graded at Montreal, as it has been in the past, or will it be graded locally?


James Garfield Gardiner: It will be graded where-ever it is tendered for grading. Some of it will be graded at Montreal and some at other points.


Arza Clair Casselman: Just what will be
the function of the dominion department in connection with increasing the quality of
cheese?


James Garfield Gardiner: The only way in which the federal government comes into the field is through grading for interprovincial trade and export trade, and also through control over conditions under which cheese is transported. About 90 per cent of the cheese made in Canada is graded by federal graders. It is largely a matter of grading to standard.


Arza Clair Casselman: If I interpret the
minister's remarks correctly, he is stating that the federal government does nothing in the way of giving instructions for the making of cheese. After the cheese is made, after it enters interprovincial or export trade, then the federal government grades it 94, 93, 92,
or whatever it may be. The only responsibility to be placed under this legislation is placed upon the provincial inspectors. All this government has to do with the matter is to say that where the grade is such, the cheese can qualify for a bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: The province is responsible for the quality of the product, but the very fact that there is a premium for quality will in itself have an effect upon the individuals, apart altogether from the officials of the provincial government that may be concerned, who are producing milk or making the cheese in the factory.


Mark Cecil Senn: I have listened with a great
deal of interest to the debate on this particular section which deals with the manner in which the bonus is to be applied, but I notice that the minister has somewhat shifted his ground since he made his explanation at the beginning of the discussion on this bill. At that time he assigned the reason for the bonus to the fact that it was considered desirable to stimulate the production of cheese. In the later part of the debate he emphasized the need of granting a premium so that better cheese will be produced. I believe that both objects are commendable, but I endorse most heartily the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) that there should be a bonus or grant given on 92 cheese. After all, one of the main objects is to stimulate the production of cheese. If you are going to bonus only 34 or 35 per cent of the total production, I fear greatly that this object is not going to be accomplished. It seems to me very necessary that something further should be done.
I should not like to suggest in just what way this should be paid on the lower grade. However, if the lower grade is to be bonused, I think it should be graded from 1 to 2 or 3 cents, or from 1 to 1J and 2 cents. If we are going to keep our butter production within the range of domestic consumption, we shall have to stimulate the price of cheese in some way or another. An hon. member to my right had something to say about the production of concentrated milk products. On looking up the records I find that less than two per cent of all milk produced in Canada goes into the production of concentrated milk products, ice cream and so forth. Nearly 49 per cent of our milk production last year went into the production of butter, while only 8-3 per cent went into the production of cheese. Forty per cent of our milk production went into fluid consumption, either on our farms or in our towns and cities. When we are shipping
Dairying Industry-Cheese

out of the country only about 8 per cent of our milk production, it seems to me that the only way to do it is in the form of cheese and the limited amount we do send out in the form of concentrated milk.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. Up to a year or so ago our cheese always commanded a premium in the British market ranging from one cent to as high as four cents a pound. I should like to know if that condition still prevails. Can the minister give us the figures, based on last year's production or the 1937 production, to show what amount of this bonus ^s it is presently contemplated will go to Quebec and what amonut will go to Ontario?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the percentages earlier in the discussion, and, after all, that is all I can base it on. If the same amount is produced next year it would be in those proportions, based on one cent a pound. Take the figures I gave. For Quebec, cheese scoring 93 amounted to 41,484 boxes, and for Ontario, 363,973 boxes. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, it is altogether possible that a much larger percentage of the amount to take care of improvement of plant may go to those areas where the score is not yet up to 93, and that will help to bring the 92 up to the 93 score.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does our cheese still enjoy a premium in the British market?


James Garfield Gardiner: The premium in the British market for our cheese over New Zealand cheese was, in 1936, 1-53 cents a pound; in 1937, 1-60 cents a pound; in 1938, 1-40 cents a pound.


Mr. WARREN:: Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a commendable attempt on the part of the Minister of Agriculture to correct what is really a distressing situation in Canada to-day, but I do wish to endorse the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott. We must recognize that this legislation is not going to correct the present situation within six months or a year; it is more of a long term policy because you are not going to get the farmers to turn very easily from sending their milk from a butter factory to a cheese factory.
There are two objects in view in this legislation. One is to improve the quality of our cheese, for which we have, as has been said by the hon. member for Prescott, an unlimited export market. The second is to attract to our cheese factories some of the milk that is now going into butter. It does seem to me that for one year at least the minister would be justified in accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott.

It might not be necessary to continue the ' premium on cheese that scores 92 for longer than one year. But in order to get results this year I do think the minister might very well consider accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Prescott and allow a premium for this year on cheese scoring 92.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I had the impression from one remark the minister made that probably the farmers were not going to get any of this bonus. If all the factories do as the factory which the minister mentioned, namely, turn back to the farmer all the milk that is not of the highest grade and then go on paying the farmer just what they have been paying before when he delivers the highest grade of milk, I cannot see how the farmer is going to derive any benefit from this legislation. Is anything being done to ensure that the farmers will get a share of this bonus? If the farmer turns in the highest grade of milk consistently for a month or two, is there any stipulation that as a result he will receive any share of this bonus? I should like an answer to my question because it is a vital matter. There is just one cheese factory but there are a great many farmers in my constituency. I want to see the cheese factory thrive, but I am concerned about the farmers too. I do not want the farmer to pay all the shot.	[DOT]


James Garfield Gardiner: The farmer will get all the premium unless he decides to give some of it to the maker.


Arza Clair Casselman: Would the minister say what are the grading stations where grading was done in the last fiscal year? I ask because I understand that there is a limited number of stations; that it is almost impossible to have a grader come to a district to grade cheese, and that the grading must be done almost at a point of export, with very few exceptions, in the province of Ontario.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are about seventeen or eighteen places where cheese is scored or graded.


Arza Clair Casselman: Throughout the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Ontario and Quebec.


Arza Clair Casselman: Which would be
aproximately all the grading stations there are in the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them.


Mr. MacRAE:: I endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prescott. I believe that if we are to divert more milk into the manufacture of cheese it will require

Dairying Industry-Cheese
a premium of two cents a pound on all the scoring grades. I know the conditions in the county of Glengarry, and I know that two cents a pound would be very acceptable to the farmers in that district.


George James Tustin: Where are the grading
stations in Ontario located?


James Garfield Gardiner: I will look that up.


John Horne Blackmore: What price have
Canadians been able to get in the British market in 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 for cheese scoring 93?


James Garfield Gardiner: I might give the average prices over three years. In Montreal the average price in 1936 was 12-76 cents; 1937, 14 cents; 1938, 14-18 cents; at London the average price in 1936 was 14-96 cents; 1937, 16-27 cents; 1938, 16-66 cents; that is for the calendar year.


John Horne Blackmore: Was the price much higher for cheese scoring 94?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the quotations. It is only two per cent of the production.


John Horne Blackmore: Cheese scoring 94 is the ideal apparently, and I was wondering what price it brought.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a premium paid on it in the British market, but I have not the information here.


Mark Cecil Senn: Would the minister give us the present prices in Montreal and London corresponding with the figures for 1936, 1937 and 1938 asked for by the hon. member for Lethbridge?


James Garfield Gardiner: For the last few months?


Mark Cecil Senn: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the prices for the first three months of 1939. The price in Montreal in January was 12-06 cents; February, 12-05 cents; March, 11-36 cents. The price in London in January was 15-39 cents; February, 15-35 cents; March, 15-91 cents. Of course, prices of cheese vary a little differently from prices of butter. The price of cheese is high during June, July, August and September, as a rule, throughout all the years. That is, the best production years are the years of the best prices; and in the spring of the year, late in the fall, and through the winter the price is usually down somewhat.


Mark Cecil Senn: That is exactly in line with what I was going to say. I have in my hand a statement received by me from the patron of a certain cheese factory not too far from the city of Ottawa. This statement shows
that the average selling price for the month of March was 10J cents. I suppose that is the price realized at the factory. During March he produced 5,604 pounds of milk, which averaged 3-2 per cent of butter fat. The price realized for that amount of milk net was $32.15, which makes an average of 56 cents per 100 pounds of milk. In view of such a statement as that, it is necessary that everything possible should be done to stimulate cheese production, otherwise farmers will be discouraged and certainly will not continue to send their milk to the cheese factory; and if that should occur or continue, it seems to me that next year we shall have a larger surplus of butter than ever.
Once more I wish to impress upon the minister what I think is vital, that this bonus should not all be placed on 93 and 94 cheese. It will not, I am afraid, have the effect of stimulating cheese production. While it might have some effect in grading up our cheese, I believe the most important thing to be done is to stimulate cheese production in every possible way. I would impress upon the minister the need of such a move, and I might even suggest to him that he take time to consider it and let this clause stand until he gets a chance to consider further and fully the suggestion which has been made by so many of his own supporters. I am only sorry that those supporters of his did not undertake to make the suggestion at an earlier date, because I feel sure that if that grant had been continued from 1935 to the present time our dairy industry would have been in a far better position. It seems too bad that the government decided when they did to do away with the cheese bonus. Once more I would ask the minister to take into serious consideration letting this clause stand for the present with a view of making a decision to change the system of granting this bonus.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that if one just takes the prices I quoted a moment ago along with the figures which were quoted earlier -in the evening, he will realize that there has not been up to the last few months a reason for doing what we are now proposing to do. That is, the price of cheese, as was indicated, was 11-04 cents -in 1935; in 1936 it was 12-76 cents; in 1937 it was 14 cents; in 1938 it was 14-18 cents; in other words, it has been moving gradually upwards. The price which was quoted a moment ago is, I presume, the price at the factory. I think the price quoted by the hon. member for Prescott is also the price at the factory, which would be relatively lower during all those years than the prices I have quoted, which were the prices at Montreal this week. At this time of year, as a rule,
Dairying Industry-Cheese

the prices are low, and while the March price this year is low compared with March during the years we have just come through, it was low during those years as well, as a rule. It is not an indication of what the price is going to be when we get further into the season.
I might add that there is, of course, the possibility of overdoing even the matter of paying a premium. We have at the moment a market which is fairly well developed for a certain commodity, and particularly for certain amounts and certain grades of the commodity, but we have not an unlimited market. It should be remembered that back in 1907 we were exporting to the old land, if I remember the figures well over
200,000,000 pounds, and at that time New Zealand was exporting about 27,000,000 pounds. In very recent years we have been exporting in the neighbourhood of 53,000,000 pounds when New Zealand was exporting to Great Britain 190,000,000 pounds. In other words, we have allowed New Zealand over a period of years from 1900 down to the last two or three years to take possession of the British market with a lower grade cheese which was selling under ours to the extent of li to 3 cents a pound. But they are in that market, and when we try now to reenter it, of course we have to an extent to take away the market from others who have occupied it during the years we did not occupy it. I think we have done fairly well in getting back three years ago to the extent of 19 per cent, and raising that in the succeeding year to 27 or 28 per cent over previous years. This last year we have dropped a little; but if you follow the history of either the reductions or the increases in our sales of cheese in the old country you will find that periodically we rise for a short time, then we may drop down, and then we come back again. We went down in exactly the same way. We would go down over a period of years, then we would rise again for a year or two, and then we would go back again. At the present time we are on the up-grade, and I want to do something which is fairly sound in the matter of cheese production, and keep possession of the markets available. If we overdo it we shall injure our business rather than help it. We feel that we are giving the inducement which is necessary this year in order to keep the production in step with the market which is available, and we hope that through promotion we shall be able to raise our market even higher in succeeding years.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I do not wish to be in disaccord with the remarks which have just been made by the minister, but if I compared the present situation with 
that of 1932 and 1933 it was because prices now are similar to those at that time. I note the minister has said that at this time of the year cheese is invariably marketed at lower prices, but if you look at April, 1938, you will find that the average price was 15-33 cents; for 1937, 13-37 cents; for 1936, 10-54 cents; for 1935, 11-50 cents. I am taking only the month of March. If you refer to other months, January, February, March and April, you will find that conditions prevailing this year are similar to those which prevailed in 1932 and 1933. That is why I said the indications are that we shall have a very low price during the coming year, both for butter and for cheese. The quotation of 10 to 10$ cents is from Montreal; last week it varied from 10| to lOf cents. That is the basis on which I estimate the probable value of cheese for the coming year.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member state what score that is?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: That is for No. 1, 92 and 93. There is no difference on the market.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment carry?


George James Tustin: No. I have not the information for which I asked the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: The points are: Montreal, Cornwall, Vankleek Hill, Casselman, Iroquois, Oxford station, Aultsville, Kingston, Picton, Belleville, Campbellford, Peterboro, Toronto, Stratford, London, Ingersoll, and Brantford.
Amendment (Mr. Power) agreed to.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister object to holding up this last clause? This is Monday; it is not a good day for some of the members.
Section as amended agreed to. .
Progress reported.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 84, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Advisory committee.
Mark Cecil Senn: The minister stated the other night that this advisory board had been asked for by certain organizations. Who are they?

Dairy Industry Act-Advisory Committee


James Garfield Gardiner: The national dairy
council.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the members of the board be paid for their services out of the federal treasury?


James Garfield Gardiner: No salary is provided, but we will pay the travelling expenses when we call them to meetings.


Mark Cecil Senn: Generally, what are their
duties?


James Garfield Gardiner: We had a considerable discussion last fall when it was anticipated we would have a greater amount of butter in storage than we could take care of in the local market this year, and different suggestions were made as to ways and means of dealing with that over-supply. Some people thought we should set up a board to take possession and try to dispose of it. We did not see any practical way of carrying that out, and after a good deal of discussion we agreed that it would be a good thing to have an advisory committee that would keep in close contact with the officials of the department who gather statistics and information from time to time as regards dairy production. This committee would act in an advisory capacity as between the producers and the trade and the government, and also as between the department and the trade itself, taking the matter into consideration earlier in the season than we did last year, thereby trying to avoid overproduction of either commodity, and also assisting in every way possible in getting transfers of milk or butter fat from one to the other at an earlier stage in the season.


Mark Cecil Senn: We have such an advisory committee on seeds. They have certain duties such as setting up standards and grades from year to year. This committee will not have anything of that kind to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: No; their duties will consist in what I have outlined. They will try to keep in closer contact with the department and those who are producing, and with the trade, with a view to keeping people instructed as to necessities.


Mark Cecil Senn: I gather from what the minister says about the duties of the committee that they are to act in an advisory capacity with regard to surpluses of butter that may be on the market. Perhaps the minister will take this opportunity to inform the committee what is being done about the surplus butter which the government intends to buy for distribution throughout the country in order to take the surplus off the market.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government is not doing what I have seen suggested in the newspapers. The government is not buying butter directly, taking it out of storage and shipping it here and there throughout the country. We have approached the Red Cross and have made almost complete arrangements with them to take charge of any distribution which is made. We are issuing vouchers which are good for No. 1 butter, and they will be distributed under direction of the Red Cross to relief and charitable organizations where persons are not now obtaining as much butter as they might use. These vouchers will be presented to any merchant who is selling butter and are good for so many pounds of No. 1 butter. It is thought, of course, that, if that practice is followed, the customer will take only No. 1 butter, and while some of that butter will come out of storage, a considerable part of the butter in storage last year is not No. 1, so that much of this butter may be used as it is produced and sold into the trade. Some of it may come out of storage, but the butter will be purchased from the merchant by the individual in the ordinary manner. As vouchers are presented to the merchant they will accumulate; at the end of the month they will be presented to the bank; the bank will redeem them, and they will come back to the government through that source. The government will have paid the price of the butter at that particular time.


Mark Cecil Senn: I thank the minister for his explanation. I thought the distribution would be made pretty much in that way. Butter is being already distributed, however, to needy people through these organizations, and I do not think the minister would suggest that the people now on relief have not been getting their full quota. If that were the situation, it would be rather a reflection on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and on the activities of the different bodies to which his estimates go. I do not, however, intend to discuss the matter further to-night. May I ask how many members will be on this board and who will appoint them? Will the national dairy council and the other organizations or the producers have an opportunity of appointing some of the members, or will they all be nominated by the governor in council?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under the bill they are to be appointed by the minister, but in actual practice we will consult with the organization recommended and with other organizations concerned.


Mark Cecil Senn: How many?
3136	COMMONS
Dairy Industry Act-Advisory Committee


James Garfield Gardiner: There will probably be five or seven. I do not know whether it will be necessary to have one from each province

probably not. We will divide Canada into different sections and get one from each of the different sections where production is heavy. As regards relief consumption of butter, I would only say this. I do not know whether my hon. friend has had the experience of living in a home where they have difficulty in securing the necessary foodstuffs. If he has, he will probably find that the first thing the mother gets along without is butter. When she is not able to get butter she often gets a cheap jam or something of that kind, and when she cannot get that she just does without. There are many homes in which the mother and father are perhaps too proud to go on what we generally call relief, and they get along for months, sometimes years, without any butter at all. The only organizations that get in touch with homes like that are the Salvation Army and the charitable organizations of the churches, welfare organizations, and organizations like the Red Cross. These organizations come in contact with these people often in spite of the people themselves, and find that the children are going without butter. If butter is supplied to them these homes can use it to good advantage to the extent of about six pounds in two weeks for a family of five. That would be about the normal consumption. On the other hand, while it would not be proper to say that relief organizations are not giving the absolutely necessary requirements of butter, they are, generally speaking, giving only about half the above amount, and one could double the consumption of butter in those homes without any more being consumed than in the average home where people buy all the butter they want. So there is considerable room for extending the consumption of butter, first in homes where none is being used now by people who are not necessarily on relief but are getting a little assistance from charitable organizations, and second, in the families on relief lists. By encouraging greater consumption of butter in those homes we hope to dispose of three or four million pounds.


Mark Cecil Senn: How much money is intended to be spent under this scheme, and how long is the scheme going to be in operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount provided
is $1,000,000 and we estimate that it will take probably two months.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Pensions branch-Services to veterans and dependents.
2.(2. Grant to last post fund, $85,000.
William Hayhurst: What is the cause of
the increase this year?


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry to say there
are more dead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch

Services to veterans and dependents.
240. Employers' liability compensation, $40,000.
Howard Charles Green: How much of last year's
vote was expended?


Charles Gavan Power: All of it. I had to ask for a supplementary; there is a supplementary in the 1938-39 estimates of something like $38,000. At the last moment some very heavy claims came in, I think mostly from Alberta.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch-Services to veterans and dependents.
238. Veterans' bureau, $178,390.
Howard Charles Green: I notice under this vote
there is apparently an increase in staff of twenty-one. Why is that?


Charles Gavan Power: By reclassification a certain number were changed from temporary to permanents.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been any actual increase in the number of employees?


Charles Gavan Power: No, there is a total decrease
of seven.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What work is done by this bureau?


Charles Gavan Power: This is a bureau provided at government expense to prepare and plead cases of applicants for pension. The soldier is not obliged to retain a solicitor; when he thinks he has a claim for pension he goes to the veterans' bureau which prepares his case fully and pleads it before the pension bodies.


Howard Charles Green: Is the proportion of soldiers who take advantage of the services of the bureau increasing or decreasing?


Charles Gavan Power: The proportion is well over 90 per cent. There are very few cases now in which the applicants engage the services of outside solicitors; and when they do, almost invariably the veterans' bureau assists the

Suppy-Pensions
solicitor. I know of very few within the last year. I think the veterans' bureau has been doing good work, satisfactory to the soldiers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch-Services to veterans and dependents.
2S9. Sheltered employment, $72,590.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain
this item?


Charles Gavan Power: This provides for the accommodation, equipment and other expenses in providing sheltered employment for returned soldiers in vetcraft shops, and cost of transportation for blinded or totally disabled pensioners requiring the service of an escort. That was granted as a result of recommendations of the parliamentary committee some years ago. Also payments to Canadian National Institute for the Blind for training of and services rendered to blinded soldiers; also payments to the Red Cross for 75 per cent of the operating loss on the factory in Victoria and salaries of trade instructors in vetcraft shops and wages of operatives.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How many men are employed in the vetcraft shops; how many shops are there, and where are they located?


Charles Gavan Power: The number employed as of December 31, 1938 was: in Toronto factory, 55; in Montreal factory, 45, and at the Red Cross workshop in Victoria, 25; a total of 125.
Wages paid in departmental workshops from April 1 to December 31, 1938, $60,649.07. Wages paid from commencement of operations to December 31, 1938, $1,655,480.75.


Howard Charles Green: Are all the wages paid out of this vote, or are part of the funds raised from other sources?


Charles Gavan Power: They are all paid out of this vote. A considerable amount of money comes into the vetcraft shops under this item. All the poppies and wreath emblems sold to the Canadian Legion for distribution are made under this, and the money is returned to the consolidated revenue fund, so that really while we do not quite make a profit we pretty well break even.


Howard Charles Green: Then is the situation really that this $72,000 odd is required to balance the account?


Charles Gavan Power: We have a turn-over account of $250,000 in a year, and the factories could not operate without this capital. Some time in January, as a rule, when the reports are all in from the poppy fund sales on Armistice day we get a cheque for $50,000 or $60,000 from the Canadian Legion, depending on sales,
and then, of course, there are the sales of the other products of the vetcraft shops, such as tables, chairs and so on.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the output confined to
poppies?


Charles Gavan Power: No; they make tables, chairs, bookcases and quite a line of articles that are usually sold through the department stores.


Major James William Coldwell: I was going to ask the value of this output last year, for instance?


Charles Gavan Power: About $250,000 tum-over.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any advertising of the products?


Charles Gavan Power: We have salesmen travelling throughout Ontario and Quebec. At present I think the sales are largely confined to the larger department stores; I know Eatons and Simpsons take quite a proportion of our production. At one time we had a traveller going round northern Ontario and the outlying districts; in fact, he still has his customers there.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to make room for more veterans in the shops if some advertising were done?


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid not. That matter has been discussed a number of times; we run into the question of competition with ordinary industrial firms and the business is not profitable. It costs us about $30 a month per man, really, because the men are disabled to some extent and do not do as good work perhaps as the labourer in a factory. We have already closed six shops during the course of the last eight years.


Major James William Coldwell: Was that because there was no demand for these products?


Charles Gavan Power: It was simply because we were keeping the men in these shops; they were disabled and they had a steady job and were costing the country something like $25 or $30 a month. They would not graduate from the shops. The original idea was that there should be some labour tum-over, but now, particularly in Toronto and Montreal, we seem to be in the business and it is not very easy to get out of it. We have a number of men whom we cannot very well turn out on the street, so we are in it and I suppose we will stay in it for some little time to come.


Howard Charles Green: What provision was made for the men in the shops that were closed?


Charles Gavan Power: The number of men in
those shops had shrunk very much. The shop in Hamilton had only about twelve men. and the shop in Halifax eight or nine, so
Suppy-Pensions

really it was not worth while keeping them on. We simply closed up the shops, after giving the men ample notice.


Howard Charles Green: Were these men simply turned out on the street?


Charles Gavan Power: They were all pensioners.


Major James William Coldwell: It struck me that this was a commendable way of looking after some of these disabled men.


Charles Gavan Power: We have gone into workshops also in Montreal, as my hon. friend knows, with the object of getting some kind of a labour turn-over. We have established workshops which are not quite the same thing as these vetcraft shops. There is no overlapping, but they are carrying on somewhat similar work in the hope of training or, I should say, reconditioning the men so that they may obtain ordinary positions in the industrial field. We were extremely successful for a while, although perhaps we are not so successful at the moment.


Major James William Coldwell: The average age would be going up now.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes; the average age would be going up, and it is not a very easy thing to take a man fifty years of age and at the and of three months certify that he is fit to go into a factory or be a carpenter or undertake ironworking and things of that kind.


Howard Charles Green: Why could we not use these shops for training younger men, that is, men in their early forties?


Charles Gavan Power: We cannot get the old employees into other shops; that is the best reason. If my hon. friend could get these men placed elsewhere, I should be glad to try some others, but they like to work for the government.


Howard Charles Green: Could you not expand your plants in order to provide room for some of the younger men? You see, there are other votes here that are supposed to help provide work for these unemployed veterans.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not imagine that we could compete with ordinary industrial concerns. The results would not be commensurate with the expenditure involved in establishing large government factories to do the kind of work that we are doing at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions branch.
228. Pensions branch administration, $880,693.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: There is no objection to the item carrying if it is understood that on one of the other items we can discuss any veteran matter.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection at all to making that arrangement. Perhaps on some other occasion we may come in for a few moments and want to rush through. If hon. members would agree we might hold item 234, dealing with unemployment assistance, under which I think most hon. members who are interested in this matter will be able to discuss such questions as economic allowances and other matters which concern them. I would suggest that perhaps we could discuss the whole department on that item; not that I am going to ask the committee to pass all the others to-night, but if we arranged that we could have a general discussion on item 234 perhaps we could make better progress some other time. If that is understood we will say item 234 will be held for a general discussion.


Howard Charles Green: I think the minister might explain why there is an apparent increase in the employees under this particular item.


Charles Gavan Power: This is largely a change
of employees from temporary to permanent, and some new temporaries required as a result of the War Veterans Allowance Act. Actually the total staff has been reduced. It is more or less a matter of the arrangement of these estimates. As the committee knows, last year was the first time these estimates were so broken down, and we endeavoured to anticipate the vote as it should be. But we found that certain members of our staff could properly be transferred to this vote rather than some other item. That accounts for the change; there has been no real increase.


Howard Charles Green: Why is there an increase in the vote?


Charles Gavan Power: The main reason was the cost of investigation by the soldier settlement board, which investigates our departmental and unemployment assistance cases. Formerly the board did that without charge; now they ask us to pay them $18,000 for that service.


Howard Charles Green: They are getting tough.


Charles Gavan Power: They are getting tough; they will not do it for nothing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Barter in Trade
Tuesday, April 25, 1939