1939-02-03

BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to notice given I move:
That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Motion agreed to.

Bren Gun-Point oj Order
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday, having given earlier in the week the notice required under the rules of the house, I endeavoured to move a motion which was read to the house, and on your order it was allowed to stand. I submit that on this occasion my motion has priority to that which has been introduced now by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) inasmuch as the first part of my motion deals with a reference to the public accounts committee of the public accounts and the report of the auditor general.


Mr. DUNNING:: On the point of order, I also gave notice several days ago of my intention to move this motion. From my point of' view it is a formal motion, one which it is my duty to move.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: It has to be done.


Charles Avery Dunning: It must be done, I think. I am not interfering at all with my hon. friend.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I have permission to move my motion?


Mr. FINN:: I think that-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas):
That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, together with a copy of the agreement between the government and the John Inglis Company of Toronto for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, the report of the royal commission dealing with said agreement and all related documents, evidence, vouchers and exhibits, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
I have already declared my views with regard to this situation. I do not intend to weary the house at this stage with any needless repetition. I merely point to the fact that on page 35 of the report the Hon. Mr. Justice Davis says very definitely:
It will be for those charged with the responsibility of dealing with the facts, i.e., the government and parliament, to examine and study them and to take such action ... as they may see fit.
I submit that this house cannot evade its responsibility in respect of the specific issues referred to parliament by the commission, namely, one, as to whether or not the possibilities of public manufacture or manufacture in publicly controlled factories were fully explored by the government instead of resorting to-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. Are there any
other hon. members who wish to speak to
the point of order? The hon. member has given me a motion to be presented, but F have not yet put it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that there is no point of order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The second specific reference is contained on page 35 of the report wherein parliament is asked to judge whether the conduct of the individuals concerned was above question. I wish to make it clear that the question of personal corruption and graft is not a matter of reference to the committee, but there is a necessity for inquiring as to whether or not accurate statements were made.	.


Walter Edward Foster: I would direct the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the motion he has handed me for presentation to the house is in one respect similar to a motion already moved by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Standing order 47, paragraph 384 reads:
It is a rule in both houses, which is essential to the due performance of their duties that no question or bill shall be offered that is substantially the same as one on which their judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
A motion was presented by the Minister of Finance and adopted by the house, and as I read the motion which the hon. gentleman now proposes to submit, it is substantially the same.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: On the point
raised, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that, as I see it, the essential feature of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is to get a certain agreement referred to the public accounts committee. When that agreement is before the committee he wishes also to be sure that the public accounts of the year and the report of the auditor general have been submitted. The Minister of Finance, following the customary procedure in this house, immediately after the committees of supply and ways and means had been set up, tabled the public accounts and the auditor general's report and requested that they be referred to the public accounts committee, which committee was constituted some days ago. That part of the motion of my hon. friend has now been complied with, but what he is mainly after is the reference to the public accounts committee of the contract with the John Inglis Company Limited, also the report of the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract. That is the part of his motion which my hon. friend is concerned about, although it refers also to the other two reports. As regards the other
Bren Gun-Point of Order

two, I submit it is raising a question on a mere technicality and the house should not pay attention to that aspect of it, but should allow the hon. gentleman to proceed with his motion.


Mr. MANION:: Before you give your
ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I entirely agree with the Prime Minister. The motion of the Minister of Finance is a pro forma motion and while there is some overlapping, it is not intentional.


Walter Edward Foster: It would be better if the hon. member deleted the words having to do with the reference of the public accounts and the auditor general's report to the public accounts committee.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was under the impression that I was following the prescribed formula necessary to secure reference of the matter to the public accounts committee. I thought that in order to attain this end it was necessary for me to introduce my motion with the preface which it carries. I understand the Prime Minister agrees that there is no overlapping.
If I may proceed, the third issue which should be referred to the public accounts committee, and on which parliament was asked to judge, was whether adequate reasons existed for the failure of the interdepartmental committee to report back to the government when the system of supervision of contracts broke down. Reference to this will be found on page 41 of the commissioner's report.
The fourth point is whether the procedure followed in negotiating the contract protected the public interest. That reference is on page 49.
The fifth and final specific reference is whether proper steps were taken to ensure proper discharge of the responsibility assumed in the selection of a favoured contractor. That reference will be found on page 50.
I wish to add, before I take my seat, that in my opinion it is the responsibility of this committee to examine the system of awarding contracts of this kind to ensure that the operation of political patronage does not in any way prejudice the public interest. I submit that the proper method of inquiry is through a standing committee of this house. It may not be necessary to review all the evidence that was heard before the commissioner, but certain facts have been cited, and starting at the point where the commission left off parliament should deal with the matter in a very searching and adequate way. I submit that this matter should be referred Without delay to the standing committee on
/Mr. Mackenzie King.]
public accounts with instructions to go into it thoroughly and report back to the house thereon, and I so move.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise not in any way to oppose the motion of my hon. friend, but rather to remind him that the government indicated some days ago that they were quite prepared to support his motion and to allow it to carry. In fact, when my hon. friend sought yesterday to have the motion carried without debate, the government acquiesced at once, and only because of an objection raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has the motion not already carried and the reference been made to the public accounts committee. An objection having been raised to having the motion carry without debate, I feel I should say a word or two regarding the circumstances which governed the actions of the administration in having the matter referred to in the motion already inquired into.
As the house is aware, the occasion of the inquiry was the publication in Maclean's magazine, on September 1, of a sensational article entitled Canada's Armament Mysteiy. This article attracted a great deal of attention in the public press. It did not contain any charges, but it had allegations of a sort which were calculated to create suspicion with respect to the manner in which government contracts in connection with armaments and munitions were being awarded or carried out. When this article appeared inquiries were made immediately of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), of myself and others as to what we thought about it. As I recollect, the Minister of National Defence was on his way back from British Columbia to Ottawa when he was interviewed by a reporter of one of the newspapers and asked what he thought about the allegations that were made in the article. The minister replied that he thought that, as soon as parliament met, the article itself and all matters to which it referred should be made a subject of reference to the public accounts committee and the fullest possible inquiry made by the committee into the particular contract to which the article referred, namely, the contract respecting the manufacture of Bren machine guns which had been awarded to the John Inglis Company Limited. That was the minister's position the moment he saw the article.
As I have said, the article was published on September 1, and the minister reached Ottawa a few days after. When he arrived in Ottawa there was a meeting of the cabinet which he attended. He brought the matter up for the consideration of the government, and

Bren Gun-Point of Order
he felt, and other members of the government felt, that if this article with the allegations it contained were to go without investigation until parliament reassembled, which would be some time in the new year, there would immediately be created in the public mind considerable concern over these allegations and it would be assumed that the government was seeking to avoid inquiry into the matter. The government took the alternative course of not delaying for one moment the matter of instituting an inquiry, and adopted the course which would afford the most effective means for the fullest and most searching kind of inquiry, namely, an inquiry under royal commission by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I ask hon. members if it is not a fact that had there been no judicial inquiry into this matter up to this time, the government would long ere this have been charged with having waited until this parliament met before having any inquiry made into the allegations. That is undoubtedly the indictment which we would have met as soon as we assembled here, that serious charges had been made against the Department of National Defence on a matter connected with that department at a time when conditions in the world were very critical, and that we had allowed months to pass without having any inquiry made. The government felt that the matter was allimportant, in the sense that it was desirable that any ground even for suspicion concerning the conduct of the minister or any member of his staff or anything that had been done or left undone by any official of the government should be immediately known or removed and not permitted to remain a matter of conjecture. The government therefore decided to have a royal commission appointed at once.
In connection with the appointment of the royal commission I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the government selected as the commissioner one holding such a high judicial position and so well known by the citizens of Canada generally that there could be no doubt in the mind of anyone as to the appropriateness of the appointment for an inquiry of the kind. The government made its selection from the personnel of the Supreme Court of Canada. May I also draw to the attention of the house the fact that the judge of the Supreme Court selected was not a member of the judiciary who had been appointed under a Liberal administration but one who owed his appointment to a Conservative administration, an administration of which my hon. friend the present leader of the opposition was a member. I think I am right when I say that throughout Canada generally it was felt that if the government had searched the country over, no single person, unless it were the chief justice himself, could possibly have been chosen who would have been regarded as so completely disinterested and so well qualified to perform the function of commissioner in an investigation of this kind as was Mr. Justice Davis.
The article as I say appeared on September 1. It was on September 7 that the commission was issued to Mr. Justice Davis. The commission opened its proceedings on September 19; the proceedings continued until November 24; on December 29 the report of the commissioner was presented. It was immediately translated into French, printed in both French and English, and was tabled the day after this house began its session. I ask if more expedition to have all the facts brought out in the inquiry made available to this House of Commons when parliament met, was possible.
I have mentioned the eminent suitability of Mr. Justice Davis as commissioner, and the expedition with which the whole inquiry was conducted. I should like to emphasize as well the thoroughness with which the investigation was carried on. Perhaps before indicating what Mr. Justice Davis himself felt about the thoroughness of the inquiry, I might give to the house the text of the order in council pursuant to which the commission was appointed. The order will indicate more clearly than anything else the scope of the authority which the commissioner had in conducting the inquiry. The order is dated the 7th September, 1938, and is as follows:



P.C. 2251.

[Stage Direction]
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated September 7, 1938, from the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, representing that a certain Canadian periodical publication, dated September 1, 1938, contained a general article under the caption "Canada's Armament Mystery," purporting to have been prepared by Lieut.-Col. George A. Drew.
The Prime Minister observes that the author criticized some of the provisions of a certain contract executed on the 31st day of March, 1938, and tabled in parliament on the 29th day of June, 1938, made between His Majesty the King represented by the Honourable the Minister of National Defence for Canada and John Inglis Co., Limited, whereby the company undertook to furnish to His Majesty a certain supply of Bren machine guns for the use of the defence forces of Canada; numerous allegations relating to the negotiation, the terms of the contract and transactions thereunder, were made by the author as a result of which considerable public interest has since been evinced.
The Prime Minister is of opinion that a full and complete inquiry should be set on foot
Bren Gun-Point oj Order
[Stage Direction]
with the least possible delay in order that the public may be fully informed of the circumstances surrounding the making of this contract and the terms thereof.
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that the Honourable Mr. Justice Henry Hague Davis, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, be appointed a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire fully into the preliminary discussions and negotiations leading up to and the completion of the said contract, and into the shareholdings and the transactions, if any, in the shares or securities of the said company, and the connection or activities, if any, of any member of the House of Commons in the discussions and negotiations leading up to the said contract or in the affairs of the said company or in the sale of shares or securities of the said company, and generally to inquire fully into all matters relating to the said contract and to the affairs of the said company and to the steps taken to protect the public interest; and to report upon the game.
The Prime Minister further recommends that the commissioner be authorized to engage the services of such technical advisers or other experts, clerks, reporters and assistants as he may deem necessary or advisable.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
(Signed) H. W. Lothrop,
Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council.
Mr. CAHAN:: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did the commission which was issued follow in exact terms the last half of that order in council? Without discussion, I would just say that the commissioner's attention would not be directed to the order in council but rather to the terms of the commission issued to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not the commission before me, but I should think it would have followed the terms of the order in council. If it did not, I shall read to my hon. friend in a moment a letter which I personally sent to the commissioner at the time I transmitted to him a copy of the order in council appointing him a commissioner. The letter made clear to Mr. Justice Davis that if in the course of the inquiry any more latitude were required for investigation of any phase of the matter, the government would see that it was accorded to him, and if necessary to this end, his commission would be amended accordingly.
When the order in council was passed, the matter being one of great public interest, I released to the press from the office of the Prime Minister a statement making perfectly clear the desire of the government that the inquiry should be as complete, comprehensive and thorough as it was possible to make it. The statement I think appeared in all the

papers of the country, but I shall read it to hon. members in order to refresh their memories:
On Thursday last the Honourable Mr. Mackenzie, Minister of National Defence, on behalf of the government, announced that a royal commission would be appointed to undertake as soon as possible an inquiry into the allegations made by Colonel George Drew in Maclean's Magazine of September 1st, regarding the contract made by the National Defence department with the John Inglis Company of Toronto for the manufacture of Bren guns.
At the request of the Prime Minister, Mr. Justice Davis of the Supreme Court of Canada, has agreed to undertake the inquiry. Mr. Justice Davis has done so on the understanding that he receive only his out-of-pocket expenses.
The Honourable J. I,. Ralston has been retained as counsel for the government to assist the commission.
The reference to the commission, while it does not specifically mention the article in Maclean's magazine, has been made broad enough to cover all of Colonel Drew's allegations, as set forth therein. This being its purpose, should it appear to the commissioner in the course of his inquiry that the terms or wording of the reference are to this end inadequate in any particular, the reference will be enlarged as, in the opinion of the commissioner, will serve adequately to meet its intended purpose.
The government hopes Colonel Drew will appear before the commission and give all the assistance he can in substantiation of his allegations. Further, the government would be prepared to pay the reasonable expenses and remuneration of counsel for Colonel Drew, should he wish to engage counsel to assist him.
As soon as the preliminary work of organization of the commission is completed, the inquiry will commence. This, it is expected, will be not later than the 19th instant.
In the troubled world of to-day, the Canadian people reluctantly have shouldered what is, for them, a very considerable burden, for the purpose of national defence. The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, and the government as a whole, desire that in all the defence measures that may be taken by the government, not only shall there be no wrongdoing, but no suspicion of wrongdoing. The Canadian people are entitled to this. The article published by Colonel Drew cannot but create suspicion on these matters in the minds of the Canadian people. For this reason the government desires that the inquiry be conducted as expeditiously and as thoroughly as possible.


Robert James Manion: I did not quite catch what my right hon. friend said at first. Is that a letter to Mr. Justice Davis or a statement to the press?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a statement which was given out to the press from the office of the Prime Minister on September 7; but when I communicated with Mr. Justice Davis in regard to his commission and the order in council which was passed in reference thereto, I enclosed a copy of that statement so that Mr. Justice Davis would see

Bren Gun-Point oj Order
clearly what was in the mind of the government with respect to the scope of the inquiry, the thoroughness with which we expected the investigation to be made and the readiness of the administration to enlarge the commission in any way, at any time should he deem that course necessaiy in order to give him all the scope possible.


Robert James Manion: If I might ask one further question, was a copy of that statement also sent to Mr. Ralston, the government counsel?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Ralston
would, I presume, have seen the statement in the press; there was no special copy sent to him as far as I recall. Since my hon. friend has mentioned Mr. Ralston I might inform the house that Mr. Justice Davis was prepared to accept the work of the commission only on the condition that he should receive no remuneration for his services but merely that his out-of-pocket expenses should be met. Colonel Ralston was appointed by the government to assist the commission. Colonel Ralston also regarded the matter as one of public duty at a time of great concern in the country, and he also agreed to act as counsel to assist the commission, but only on the condition that he would not be given any honorarium or remuneration for his professional services but allowed simply such expenses or disbursements as might be incurred in the course of the inquiry.
The letter I wrote Mr. Justice Davis was as follows:
Office of the Prime Minister Canada
Ottawa, September 8, 1938. The Honourable Mr. Justice Davis,
361 Mariposa Road,
Roekcliffe,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Mr. Justice Davis:
I have pleasure in enclosing a copy of order in council P.C. 2251, covering your appointment as a commissioner to inquire fully into the circumstances of the contract with the John Inglis Company for the supply of Bren machine guns for the use of the defence forces of Canada. I enclose, as well, a copy of the statement given to the press following the meeting of the cabinet yesterday.
I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to express the deep appreciation of my colleagues and myself of your willingness to undertake this public duty. I need scarcely add that you will have the full support and cooperation of the government w'hich, above all else, desires that the inquiry be carried out in a manner which will meet with the entire approval of the Canadian people.
With kindest personal regards,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.
The reply by Mr. Justice Davis to this communication was as follows:
Judges' Chambers Supreme Court,
Ottawa
September 10th, 1938. The Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Mr. Prime Minister,
Your letter of the 8th instant, enclosing a copy of order in council P.C. 2251 covering my appointment as a commissioner to inquire fully into the Bren machine guns contract, as well as a copy of the statement given to the press, have been duly received.
I particularly note your assurance of the full support and cooperation of the government in the work of the commission and please accept my assurance that I do value the expression of the appreciation of yourself and your colleagues in my undertaking the work.
I was made fully aware by Mr. Crerar on your behalf of the government's attitude in the whole matter before accepting the commission and it was such that it became, with the full concurrence of the chief justice of the court, my plain duty to accede to your request under the special circumstances.
Yours very truly,
H. H. Davis.
The reference to my colleague the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) in that letter arises from the fact that my colleague was acting Prime Minister during part of the time I unfortunately was indisposed, when this matter first came up. At my request he went to confer with Mr. Justice Davis and with the chief justice with respect to securing, if possible, the services of Mr. Justice Davis for the work of the commission.
Just here I should like to say how much the government appreciated Mr. Justice Davis undertaking this task as a public duty, and also the kindness of the chief justice, the Right Hon. Sir Lyman Duff, in allowing one of the members of his court, at a time when the court was pressed in its work, to give the necessary time to conduct this all-important inquiry. Both the chief justice and Mr. Justice Davis were actuated, I know, by the highest motives of public service, and I think I should express to each of them the appreciation not only of the government but of this house in not having hesitated to inconvenience themselves to the extent they did in being prepared to have the work of the commission taken on by a member of the court as well as for the valuable public service which was thereby performed.
What I have read indicates, I believe, as clearly as anything possibly could that it would have been impossible to have given any commissioner more complete authority to inquire into every phase and aspect of a situation than was given to Mr. Justice Davis.
Bren Gun-Point oj Order

I think there is no question but that the commissioner so understood his powers, and that he conducted the inquiry in a manner which would enable him to say to the government that the whole task had been performed very thoroughly. I should like to read what Mr. Justice Davis himself has said with respect to the thorough manner in which the [DOT] inquiry was conducted. The house has before it the report of the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract, and at page 4 bon. members will find the following statement by Mr. Justice Davis:
The commission opened on September 19, 1938, and concluded on Thursday, November 24, 1938. The taking of testimony and the argument of counsel occupied thirty-six days. With the exception of Major General Caldwell (then master general of the ordnance) of the Department of National Defence, whose illness prevented his being examined at any time during the sittings of the commission, every one who it was thought might be able to throw light on the subject of the inquiry gave testimony voluntarily.
It was not necessary to issue a single subpoena to enforce the attendance of any witness. Your commissioner is satisfied that all available documents in any way relevant and material to the subject matter of the inquiry were presented to the commission.
And later, at page 52, in the concluding portions of the report Mr. Justice Davis emphasizes again the complete nature of the inquiry, in the following words:
All the sittings of the commission were public and your commissioner was pleased to hear counsel characterize the inquiry at its close, as "a most searching and thorough inquiry."
Just in passing I should like to direct attention to the words of the commissioner wherein lie states that all the sittings of the commission were public. In so doing I must refer to the somewhat hasty remarks made yesterday by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) when he said that in having the matter referred to the public accounts committee it was being referred to some " packed committee " which would hold its proceedings behind closed doors. I was pleased to notice my hon. friend felt he had used an exaggerated and unwarranted phrase at the time, and withdrew it. The point I wish to make clear at this time is that the public accounts committee does not operate behind closed doors. The inquiry by the committee will be as much in the open as was the inquiry before Mr. Justice Davis.
Further, I would point out with respect to the composition of the committee that, so far as representation from the different sides of the house is concerned, it will be precisely the same proportions and follow the same rules as have been followed in setting up all committees in previous sessions and in all parliaments.

There is only one other matter to which I should like to refer-because I do not think this is the occasion on which to debate any phases of the report. My opinion is that matters therein referred to come up more properly at other times. The motion now before us has regard to the reference of the John Inglis Company contract, and one or two other matters, to the committee on public accounts. Inasmuch, however, as the leader of the opposition has indicated that it is desirable to have a debate on the motion in its present form, nothwithstanding the acceptance by the government of the motion in its entirety, and the fact, as has been already pointed out, that part of what is requested in the motion has already been met through the tabling of certain reports and their reference to the public accounts committee, I believe I should at once read to the house what the commissioner has to say with respect to the conduct of the Minister of National Defence, the conduct of officials in the minister's department and of others of the public service whose action in some particular would seem to have been called in question by the allegations in the article which occasioned the appointment of the commission.
I direct the attention of the house to what is said at page 51 of the report. Before reading may I repeat that the commissioner indicated nothing had been left undone which he thought could have been done, that the inquiry was as searching as it possibly could be, and that everything which was considered relevant was fully inquired into. The commissioner says:
There is no evidence that any member of the Senate or of the House of Commons of Canada was admitted to any share or part of the contract, or to any benefits to arise therefrom, or had been promised or given any suggestion that he was to have any share or part of the contract or was to be admitted to any share or part of the contract, or to any benefit to arise from the contract.
Then a little farther on he says:
There is no evidence that any senator or member had any connection with or took any part in the affairs of the company or in the sale of shares or securities of the company.
I think it right to say that there is no evidence (nor is there in the evidence any ground for suspicion) that the minister or the deputy minister or any officer or official of the Department of National Defence was guilty of any act of corruption or anything in the nature of corruption.
I have felt it desirable to place this quotation from the report before hon. members, particularly because of the intimation made by the leader of the opposition that despite

Bren Gun-Point of Order
its acceptance by the government we are to have a debate on the motion at the present time.
May I conclude my observations by drawing the attention of hon. members to the rules of the house with respect to committees appointed to inquire into particular matters. I raise the point I do because I believe it suggests something that possibly the leader of the opposition as well as many other hon. members may have overlooked. It is a point which I believe is important to bring to their attention before the debate proceeds further. Subsection 2 of standing order 63 with respect to select special committees of the house, as it appears in Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, is as follows:
It shall always be understood that no member who declares or decides against the principle of a bill, resolution, or matter to be committed, can be nominated of such committee.
Citation No. 625, which is explanatory of the rule, is as follows:
The term "select" committee, is usually applied to designate a committee appointed to consider a particular subject, on the occurrence of the occasion for its appointment, as where a committee is appointed to consider a petition or memorial, or to make inquiries into a particular subject. Select committees are sometimes turned into standing committees by subsequent references to them relating to the same subject.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the committee on public accounts is not a select special committee, but that it is one of the standing committees of the house. As I have just indicated, however, a select special committee may become a standing committee. I submit, however, that the principle is precisely the same with respect to what should govern the action of hon. members in discussing a matter which is being referred to any committee, for purposes of investigation and adjudication.
The public accounts committee will have in its membership several hon. members of the house and, when this motion carries, the committee will have referred to it the contract in question and matters relevant thereto. Each hon. member of the committee will be expected, on his honour, to investigate fully the matter which has been referred to the committee of which he is a member. He will be expected, as one who is privileged to sit on the committee, to form his judgment with respect to what should be reported to the house. The house in turn will be expected to consider, with the regard that is due a report coming from the public accounts committee, what is sent to it by members of that committee as a result of the special opportunity they have had to inquire into all aspects of the matter referred to them.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I ask a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not sure I understand the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. gentleman say that any hon. member who might now, during this stage of the debate on the resolution, take a position opposing the reference to the public accounts committee, would be prohibited from sitting on that committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no. I am glad the hon. member has raised a question with respect to the possibility of any hon. member opposing the reference to the public accounts committee. I think it is quite possible that after the very thorough inquiry made under royal commission by Mr. Justice Davis it might have been expected by some that the government, particularly when parliament is sitting and has many important duties to perform, would have opposed a second investigation which was likely to occupy a great deal of time and involve a heavy expense, and one which would go over the same ground. Some hon. members may have thought that for these reasons the government would oppose a motion to refer the matter to a committee.
Had the government taken that stand, of course we would have expected hon. members to debate at great length the question whether or not we were justified in refusing to have the matter investigated a second time by a committee of the house. But the government is not taking that stand. On the contrary it is agreeing to the matter going for further inquiry to the public accounts committee, and the matter is going to a committee which will have the fullest rights of inquiry. The government will expect the committee to perform the duty which falls upon all committees, namely to report back to the house the results of its inquiry. When the committee's report is received in this house there will be an opportunity afforded to debate the whole question at any length that hon. members may wish. We are not seeking to shut off debate on this question. Least of anyone do I wish to shut it off, but I do wish to point out to the house that the inquiry before the public accounts committee will of necessity run over very much the same ground as has already been gone over. It will involve a great deal of the time of hon. members of this house and particularly of the minister, as well as of members of the public service when there are many serious matters for us to discuss here, and to be attended to elsewhere. The time for general debate it seems to me is when the committee has reported.

Bren Gun-Point of Order

The point I am raising for consideration at the moment is whether hon. members have considered their position in entering into a debate at the present time on a matter that is to be referred to the public accounts committee and possibly determining by the remarks that they may make what their attitude will be in that committee, thereby prejudging the whole matter. I have no desire in any way to preclude debate. The hon. member for Vancouver North has moved that a certain matter should be referred to the public accounts committee. His motion was in proper form, and so far as I was able to hear what he had to say in supporting his motion, he gave no expression of view which could prejudice his position if he were on the public accounts committee. What I am concerned about is that some other hon. members in the course of debate at this stage may without realizing the significance of their actions commit themselves by their expressions to such an extent that every man, woman and child in this country will know that they have arrived at a particular attitude which they intend to maintain in the committee, and that the committee therefore would lose in the public mind if not also in fact the judicial aspect which it ought to have.
I think that the matter is sufficiently clear. As I say, if it were a special committee of the house being appointed for this purpose and to which this reference was being made, no hon. member who had expressed views in this house which prejudged the situation would be entitled to sit on that committee. I submit that in this particular case, seeing that the reference is specific, the public accounts committee is, as regards the position of those who may serve on it, very much in the same position as if the reference had been to a special committee. The underlying principle is the same. I regard the matter as being sufficiently serious to warrant a step which will enable hon. members to consider their attitudes carefully before they begin to speak in the course of the debate. In order to give them that opportunity I propose to move the adjournment of the debate with a view to having it continued on Monday next instead of proceeded with this afternoon, and I move accordingly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On a point of order, before the *
motion is put, because that motion to adjourn is not debatable.


Walter Edward Foster: The motion for the adjournment is not debatable.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The reference the Prime
Minister made cannot be applied to hon. 
members who are members of a standing committee of the house. The paragraph of standing order 65 which he read makes it very clear that it refers to a special committee and does not refer to a standing committee of the house. Paragraph 2 of standing order 65 reads:
It shall always be understood that no member who declares or decides against the principle of a bill, resolution, or matter to be committed, can be nominated of such committee.
That refers to the appointment of a special committee to consider a special bill, resolution or matter. After the discussion regarding the appointment of a special committee,, it is clear from this that no person who has declared against the principle of a bill, resolution or matter can be appointed as a member of that special committee. But that does not refer to a standing committee of the house because such a committee is already appointed. It is open to discuss before that committee any matter that is properly before it by order of the house. In this case the fact that this matter is being referred to a standing committee instead of a special committee shows that the members of that standing committee are not now precluded from expressing opinions with regard to the subject matter. I suggest that the statement just made by the Prime Minister is by way of intimidation rather than enlightenment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend were not such an old member of this house and usually such a gentleman I would ask him to withdraw his remark that I am trying to intimidate the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Withdraw it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not suggested that. Perhaps the word " intimidate " may be too-strong and I shall withdraw it. But he was trying to influence members of the committee who might speak on this motion and so preclude them from exercising their ordinaiy rights and privileges in discussing the motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will take the trouble to read in Hansard what I have said he will see why out of respect for his years I did not interrupt him while he was speaking. He has repeated exactly what I said and made very clear.
I stated in the plainest possible language that there was a difference between a standing committee and a select committee; that the members of a standing committee were free, despite what they might say, to be on that committee, but that if they were members of a special committee to which a particular matter had been referred they would not be allowed to sit on the committee if they in any

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
way had prejudged the matter during the course of a debate. I was pointing out that to all intents and purposes the principle was the same-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is where in the application of the rule I differ entirely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -in regard to a matter which is being referred specially to a committee. My hon. friend may take a different view of it when he comes to speak, but I say to him that if in the course of his remarks he, because of the latitude which is permitted him in debate, prejudges the issue which is being referred to the committee, the public itself will form its own opinion as to how unbiased he is likely to be as a member of the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am quite willing to submit my reputation to the public.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. members wish to divide and enough of them will rise, to indicate that such is their wish, the house will have a division.


Mr. HEAPS:: I would just point out to the Prime Minister that the only objection taken is to the fact that the Speaker has not called for the ayes and nays.


Walter Edward Foster: Those in favour of the motion will please say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Walter Edward Foster: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Walter Edward Foster: In my opinion the ayes have it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to on division, and debate adjourned.



LOAN OF $750,000,000 TO MEET LOANS OR OBLIGATIONS, TO PURCHASE UNMATURED SECURITIES, AND FOR GENERAL PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and also for purchasing
and withdrawing from circulation unmatured securities of Canada, and for public works and general purposes.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I draw attention to a matter which I think his honour the Speaker may have overlooked. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) had risen on motions to discuss a matter which he wished to discuss yesterday but was then too late in bringing up. I think the hon. member is entitled to speak on motions before we proceed to government notices of motion, under orders of the day.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, I desire first to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I rise for the purpose of asking your leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). The matter I desire to place before the house, in order to establish my right to go on with it under my motion is the distress amongst the lobster fishermen, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, from Cole Harbour in Halifax county to "Hubbard's" and from there down through Lunenburg-Queens, Shelburne-Yarmouth and that part of Digby county which is part of Shelburne-Yarmouth county.
The severe losses which were sustained by the lobster fishermen from a terrific gale on December 6, which was a major disaster, deprived these fishermen of their pots, equipment, and gear, and to-day they have no means whatever of replenishing or renewing that equipment in order that they may earn a livelihood. Along the shores of my own constituency-and I believe the same situation exists in other constituencies along the coast -utter privation, want and distress prevail. In my own constituency the lack of nourishment of those who live along a part of that rockbound coast is such that tuberculosis has cast its gloom. Sisters of Charity, two

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
graduate nurses and a dietitian were sent into those districts. Two hundred quarts of milk and cream are being sent to the homes where this dread disease is taking toll.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. gentleman has not yet had leave to move the adjournment of the house. I have not received a statement as to the urgency for adjournment.


Robert Emmett Finn: I believe the rule says that a motion to adjourn the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance shall always be in order, and that no second motion to the same effect shall be made. It goes on to say later that in the motion you must give your preliminary grounds in order to show the reason, the cause, and the necessity of moving the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing it.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should state the matter that he wants to put before the house, and he is then supposed to hand the motion to the Speaker with a statement as to the urgency of the matter. He has not done so yet.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well then, after these few preliminary remarks of mine as to the matter of urgency, I will hand to your honour the Speaker my reasons as set out in the motion, seconded by my hon. and genial desk-mate-not classmate-the hon. member for Kamouraska.


Walter Edward Foster: I have received the statement and have considered the remarks of the hon. member. I do not think the matter is of such urgent public importance that it is necessary to adjourn the house on that account. It may be a matter of urgent local importance, but that is not sufficient to sustain the motion.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch what your ruling is. It is pretty hard for us in this chamber to hear.


Walter Edward Foster: I said that I did not consider the matter one of urgent public importance and therefore, according to the rules, I was not bound to read the statement.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I say, Mr. Speaker, is that I consider it is of sufficiently urgent importance, although of a local character-


Walter Edward Foster: I have given my decision.


Robert Emmett Finn: -in one province.


Walter Edward Foster: I have rendered my decision.
TMr. Finn.]


Robert Emmett Finn: I appeal, Mr. Speaker, from your ruling. It is the first time I have ever done so, but I must do it.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not know whether your honour has given a decision, but I would support the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) in the submission that he is making, that it is a matter of urgent public importance. It has affected a large section of an important industry in eastern Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, according to page 72 of the rules, if an hon. member asks for leave of the house, and it is granted, I believe he has the right to proceed. I understand that the hon. member has the leave of the house to proceed, and with all deference I suggest that he be allowed to go on.


Walter Edward Foster: If twenty hon. members will rise to support the motion it will be considered.
And leave having been granted:


Robert James Manion: On a point of order, while I entirely agree with the decision of the house, and recognize that some of my hon. friends opposite were trying to help the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) to proceed, I should like to draw attention to the fact that when once a ruling is made by Mr. Speaker it is not, I imagine, in order for three or four hon. members to rise in their places for various reasons and again debate the matter.


Robert Emmett Finn: The rules provide for that.


Robert James Manion: The rules do not provide that after Mr. Speaker has decided a question, that question can be again discussed. I am not objecting to the matter being proceeded with; I am very glad to have the hon. member go on, but I thought I should bring the point to the attention of the house.


Robert Emmett Finn: 
Mr. ROGERS:: I know my hon. friend wishes to have the record accurate. The statement was not that only $20,000 was left in the contingency fund, but from what remained of the contingency fund it was found advisable at that time to allow only the additional sum of $20,000 for the purpose indicated.


Robert Emmett Finn: I accept the correction, but I do not think the difference is one over which I need lose any time or cause any further debate. I am only pointing out that this $20,000 distributed among Halifax, Lunenburg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth and a part of Digby fishermen would not provide two days work for the fishermen who live on the rock-ribbed coast of Nova Scotia, and I say further that it is in the form of direct relief, when it should be a grant to reestablish the fishermen in their calling.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Will the hon. member permit a correction? It is part of a much larger sum which is being expended by the government of Nova Scotia in those sections.


Robert Emmett Finn: The minister is correct. I do not wish to befog the issue or to misconstrue the intention of the premier of Nova Scotia. Fifty per cent is also put up, which makes $40,000 in all. But even taking that, it would not give a week's work to the fishermen, and then they would have to use that money to live. They desire to go lobster-fishing, on the first day of March, four miles off the coast, and they have not the traps, nor the anchors or the floats. They must go into the woods and cut trees; laths, nails, corks, and so on, must be bought. They must paint their traps and get things ready so that when the weather becomes milder they can take up their vocation again. When I tell you that in that storm over 100,000 lobster traps were absolutely destroyed, 44,000 in Yarmouth and Digby alone, and in Lunenburg and Queens and in the western part of Halifax, 100,000 traps, 200,000 buoys and 100,000 floats; when you consider the dire want of these people, their worry in face of these conditions, and so on, you will appreciate the appeal that I make.

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
Some people have said to me in defence of a policy in which I do not concur, "Well, the fishermen have not said very much about it." No, they go their weary way; and with this great gale many of them went down in their boats, there to remain until the final judgment day when they shall arise from the bottom of the deep to appear before their God. This is not a matter that should be treated lightly, and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries desires to do his part. The same can be said of the Prime Minister, because there is no hon. gentleman sitting in this house who has a more human heart than the Prime Minister. In making this appeal I ask that serious and immediate consideration be given by direct contribution, not by putting money in the hands of the fishermen, but through the materials necessary to enable them to make their pots, gear and other equipment, so that between now and the first of March they can get that equipment into shape to begin their work.
I wish to thank the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) for the manner in which he expressed himself this afternoon in this house, for his sympathy with the plight of the fishermen. I wish also to thank the Minister of Labour for his contribution, but it is not idequate. The money I believe is available in the fisheries department to-day to put up seventy-five per cent in cash under present legislation, as a gift, not by way of loan; the remaining twenty-five per cent to come from the province of Nova Scotia. There are only two roads open in reference to this matter. One road leads to success, bringing happiness to the homes of the fishermen through conditions of life that are bearable, and eliminating in some degree suffering and want. The other road leads to political oblivion for those who stand in the way. One of these two courses must be pursued.
I do not mention this with any reference to the present government of which I am an enthusiastic supporter. When this urgent condition exists, as it does, and for some reason unknown there is an attitude which is not in harmony with the finer qualities of the human heart, then I say that if necessary we should interpret section 91 of the British North America Act which defines the federal powers and recognize the "fisheries" as a matter that comes under the federal jurisdiction. We should not draw fine distinctions between fisheries and fishermen. There is no difference between fisheries and fishermen when a fisherman is found with undersized lobsters in his possession; that is. not regarded as a matter to be prosecuted by the provincial authority, but is dealt with by the federal

authority on the report of their inspector, and by the magistrates in Nova Scotia. If a fisherman is liable to penalties for breach of regulations made by federal authority under the Fisheries Act, then I say it is too fine a distinction, a distinction without a difference, to say that fishermen are not part of fisheries and therefore it is not possible for the federal Department of Fisheries to deal with this matter solely but only in cooperation with the Nova Scotia government.
In conclusion, I thank you, sir, and thank hon. members of the house on all sides, because I do believe, have believed all my life, that when the human heart is touched there is an immediate and automatic response. The conditions in my constituency are as I have described them. I shall not undertake to speak in more than a general way, because this motion is not debatable. But last evening the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) said that this matter could not be dealt with except by direct aid through proper channels, and he intimated through the municipal councils. I agree with that. It showed a sympathetic interest on his part, and sympathetic interest was shown by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of National Revenue who came to my aid. And when I have the Minister of National Defence behind me it is not a Bren gun, but a man in the real sense of the word, and when the Bren gun is fired the report will sound from one end of Canada to the other and will result in only one thing. I hope I am not going to be on that committee because I might be biased, but the opposition will find that our powder was dry and that the Bren gun will be fired if the occasion arises. I hope the occasion will not arise.
I ask the support of all hon. members on behalf of this motion.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: I am sure I voice the sentiments of
hon. members when I say that the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) is to be commended for having brought this matter to the attention of the house. At the risk of repeating what he has already said perhaps I may relate briefly the facts, and give a resume of the situation as presented to the Department of Fisheries and as it is known to-day by that department.
In the early part of December a storm of unusual severity struck the Atlantic coast, not only of Nova Scotia but of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick; and on the western coast of Nova Scotia it was particularly severe. The result was that the fishing

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
gear of the lobster fishermen, who had their traps in the water just a few days, suffered extensive destruction. As soon as the storm subsided, instructions were given the officers of the department to make a survey of the situation and report the extent of the damage and the extent to which the fishermen were affected. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, after several daj's of survey and checking and re-checking, the total damage was estimated at somewhere between $100,000 and $125,000 representing destruction of boats and gear, but the major part being in the destruction of lobster traps.
The obligation concerning fishermen, their persons and property, has always been understood and interpreted, by those who preceded me in the department ever since it came into existence, to be primarily a provincial obligation. Since this parliament, for the last three years at least, has deemed it advisable by supplementary appropriations to grant sums of money to help reestablish needy fishermen in their occupations, these moneys have always been distributed under agreements entered into with the provinces concerned. The provinces recognized their primary liability and accepted the money voted by parliament simply as a contribution to help them discharge this obligation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does that refer to fisheries? Is the minister now dealing with fisheries as fisheries?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: With individuals, whether they are considered as fishermen or as citizens. But in the present instance a suggestion was made to the authorities in Nova Scotia, as well as in other provinces where fishermen had been affected, that in view of the magnitude and extent of the damage and the need of the fishermen at the present time, . part of the money appropriated by this parliament might be used to help repair the damage, to the extent that they should deem advisable. The suggestion was made that the contracts or agreements could be extended, modified or amended to meet the situation. The province of Nova Scotia asked us for time to consider the situation, and a few days later, towards the end of December, we were informed that they did not think it advisable in view of local circumstances to give individuals grants either of money or of material with which to repair their fishing gear, but that they had decided that the best course to follow was to enable these people to work in order to earn sufficient money during the winter months to buy the necessary material to rebuild their traps.
Well, Mr. Speaker, always respectful of provincial autonomy, we did not like to disagree with the provincial authorities, upon whom we considered, rested the primary obligation of dealing with the situation, but we told them that if they decided to take advantage of the money voted by this parliament to assist fishermen we were ready to contribute even to the extent of seventy-five per cent of whatever disbursements they might have to make in the circumstances.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Would the minister tell us what extra work the government proposed to give these people to enable them to earn this money?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As stated by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), and as recited in the order in council which is being tabled, according to the information given me by the minister of health of Nova Scotia, who also heads whatever provincial administration there may be with regard to fisheries, I understand that the work is in the nature of road-building or preparing the foundations for road-building in the counties where the fishermen were affected by the storm. I do not know the exact nature of the work, but it is understood and admitted to be in the nature of road work.


Robert Emmett Finn: And ditching and cutting
trees.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The premier of Nova
Scotia asked the Department of Fisheries if the money voted by parliament could be applied to the work he intended to make available in order to give these people a chance to earn money with which to repair their fishing gear. After looking into the matter we found that parliament voted the money for certain purposes and that it would be difficult to apply to the construction of roads in Nova Scotia money voted for the reestablishment of fishermen. The premier of that province came to Ottawa to interview the government, however, and came to an agreement with the Department of Labour under which some of the money voted by parliament for the relief of unemployment in Canada should be made available to the province of Nova Scotia in order to enable them to carry on the work they had in mind. An appropriation for this purpose had been made earlier in the year, so there was already in existence between the dominion and the province an agreement in that regard. The government of Nova Scotia suggested that if a certain additional amount could be made available it would be sufficient to meet the situation, having in mind that a contribution of at least fifty per cent would have to be made by the province before it would be entitled to receive this money from the dominion

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
So we have this situation at the present time. The government of Nova Scotia has admitted its responsibility and has stated that it desires to discharge this responsibility in a certain way. The Department of Fisheries has money which may be made available for certain purposes but which we find cannot be expended in the manner desired by the province. However, negotiations are not at an end, and various suggestions have been advanced to the provincial authorities by means of which in our opinion they could take advantage of the money which this parliament was kind enough to appropriate for the purpose of reestablishing fishermen in their calling. Negotiations are continuing, in the hope of convincing them that as long as they can comply with the terms under which this money was voted by parliament, the money is at their disposal. I am sure this house will agree that is the most that can be done by the government or this house unless the terms of the appropriation are changed and we are allowed to expend the money for purposes other than those for which it was voted. Unless that is done the hands of the Department of Fisheries are tied; we cannot touch that money which is in the treasury. However, the treasury of the dominion has been tapped; in other words money has been offered to the province of Nova Scotia with which they claim they can meet the situation and remedy the conditions complained of, in the manner they have selected.
So far the Department of Fisheries has never dealt directly with individuals as long as the provincial authorities recognized their responsibility and were willing to cooperate with us in disbursing the moneys voted by parliament. Of course we always made it a condition that they should supplement with money of their own the amounts appropriated by parliament, because theirs was the responsibility and we did not want them to run away with the idea that the responsibility was ours. We have not taken the legal, technical attitude; we have never tried to take refuge behind the terms of the British North America Act. Whenever a disaster has occurred of national importance, or of such magnitude that the provinces could not either borrow the necessary money or obtain credit in order to meet the situation, as the house well knows, the dominion government has always helped the provinces. The province of Nova Scotia stands in no different position. Our attitude toward that province is no different from what it has been toward other provinces. If we are told that the province is not in a position to help those people, it will be our duty to consider whether or not

we should step over their heads and deal directly with the individuals.
That is the situation, placed before the house as briefly as I could put it. I hope negotiations will continue, that the situation of those people who have suffered and who are greatly handicapped will be corrected, and that they will be placed in a position where, when the next fishing season opens, they can earn their livelihood as they have done in the past.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, the subject is one
which is veiy interesting to me because I believe I am personally familiar with every port and village along that coast. This is not the first time that violent tempests have swept the coast and caused grave destruction of, shall I say, the plant necessary to carry on lobster and other types of fishing. But I believe the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) has shown, by the confused manner in which he has discussed the subject, that he is labouring under very great difficulties in explaining the government's neglect in this particular instance. The hon. member is one for whom I have very high esteem. He is a graduate of my own university, and he certainly could not have passed the examination so well as he did in that university without knowing that the sea coast and inland fisheries are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
This parliament has made many innovations and many irruptions into provincial rights by voting large sums of money which I have thought were beyond the power of parliament to vote, for the purpose of carrying on services which are peculiarly and necessarily-I might . say exclusively-provincial. Section 91 of the British North America Act makes the situation clear. I shall not quote the whole section but only the part pertinent to the matter before us:
... It is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say-
And going down to item No. 12:
12. Sea coast and inland fisheries.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does that include relief to the Nova Scotia fishermen?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That certainly includes the relief of the industry. Certainly the fact that this parliament has exclusive legislative jurisdiction with respect to sea coast and inland fisheries, notwithstanding any other provision of the British North America Act implies-

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps


Mr. POTTIER:: Did the hon. member-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend can keep his seat for the moment. Notwithstanding any other provision of the British North America Act, it is certainly clearly enunciated in section 91 that sea coast fisheries are within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. Certainly parliament may properly vote any sums of money which are necessary or deemed expedient with regard to a service over which it has absolute control. That, I suggest, cannot be controverted.
Now, why all this worry about negotiations with the provincial government? Here is a great calamity which has overtaken one of the sea coast fisheries of Nova Scotia, resulting, as the minister has said, in the destruction, to the extent of $150,000 in value, of the implements necessary to the fisherman in carrying on his vocation. It is admitted clearly by the minister that the fishermen themselves have not the means to replace the necessary plant and equipment which have been destroyed. If it had been a calamity which had overtaken some other country, such as one which occurred recently in Chile, we could, as we have in times past, under an assumption of authority, and for the sake of overcoming the results of a. great disaster, vote sums of money to relieve a foreign people engaged in a foreign industry over which we have no legislative control.


Robert Emmett Finn: The explosion at Halifax.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But here is a case in respect of which clearly and plainly parliament has legislative jurisdiction. It has within its power the right to vote moneys to sustain this industry in any way parliament may deem advisable. Therefore, why labour the discussion by bringing in votes which have been made on the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to assist in road building in Nova Scotia, a project over which we have no control and with which, according to our legislative jurisdiction, we have nothing to do? Why bring in confusing discussions about road grants when parliament, and particularly the government, which is the executive committee of parliament, is face to face with the results of a great disaster which has overtaken the people engaged in fishing on that southern coast of Nova Scotia?
It is true that parliament may not have voted moneys in the past because it was not anticipating a calamity of that extent. It may be true that last session no appropriation was made which could properly be devoted to the purposes suggested. But that vote of last session is not the only remedy. This calamity occurred long before this parliament
met. The facts were known by the minister at least two months ago, if my memory is correct. He had investigations made and he knew the facts then. Grants could have been made by a special order of the governor in council to relieve the distress in a temporary and preliminary manner until such time as parliament could meet to deal adequately with the matter. Parliament has now met, and I suggest there is no reason in the world why, being cognizant of the facts, there should be any excuse for delay in parliament giving the necessary relief by appropriating by a vote, outright, the moneys necessary to reestablish these fishermen, if such procedure is deemed advisable. The minister has very frankly stated his views as to the extent of the disaster. Parliament certainly should provide, by some measure, adequate advances to these men to enable them to reestablish themselves before the next fishing season.
I have not consulted the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) about this, but I believe hon. members on this side would be willing to support a vote sufficient to relieve the fishermen who suffered such destructive damage. We all know the extent of the storm' which swept along the Atlantic coast from Florida to Nova Scotia and did so much damage.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Mr. Speaker, I referred to this matter yesterday and I had intended that my remarks at that time should cover my feelings with regard to the catastrophe at present under discussion. I know, however, that the people of my constituency would want the picture shown as it really is, and that benefits be given to all who have been anxious to cooperate and assist in this particular matter.
I have in mind certain of the remarks just made by the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn), and I should like to refer to them. They constituted a more or less indirect attack upon the premier of Nova Scotia.


Robert Emmett Finn: Not an attack, an assertion.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I feel that I should speak in connection with this matter because the people in my constituency have suffered greater loss than the people in any other constituency in Nova Scotia. I took down the remarks of my hon. friend rather hurriedly. The first remark that impressed itself upon my mind was his statement that the premier of Nova Scotia had thrown a monkey-wrench into the machinery of relief.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I did not interrupt the hon. member for Halifax. Apparently he did not

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
need my help when he was talking and I assure him that I do not need his when I am talking. He said also that there was a wrong attitude of heart and mind on the part of the premier of Nova Scotia, one not in keeping with the situation. I followed this matter from the beginning. I viewed the storm when it occurred on the coast and I have been in frequent telephonic communication with the premier of the province. I have had several interviews with him at Halifax and as a matter of fact I received a telegram from him to-day which was delivered to me just as I came into the house this afternoon. I shall refer to this telegram later on. It is my feeling that attacks upon public men who are doing their duty as they see it are not in keeping with the proper action of an hon. member when representing a situation, regardless of whether it refers to his own or some other constituency.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is the hon. member's
viewpoint. It was not an attack; it was a sincere criticism.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I may say quite frankly .that I do not approve the methods being adopted in Nova Scotia in providing assistance by way of road work. I feel that material should be provided, and I said so yesterday. I still think that would be the best method, but that does not say that the premier of Nova Scotia is wrong because he adopts some other methods. That does not say that he is throwing a monkey-wrench into the machinery or that he is lacking in the proper attitude of heart and mind. We in Nova Scotia feel that in the person of the premier we have one who has a warm heart and who has always been willing to cooperate and assist in relieving the effects of any disaster that might occur. He has shown evidence in that regard.


Robert Emmett Finn: He has not shown it in this instance.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: When the senior hon.
member for Halifax says that the premier apparently lacks the proper attitude of heart, I want to remind my hon. friend that in the last two and a half years a total of $580,000 has been spent by Nova Scotia by way of loans and bonuses to -these fishermen. Never before has a provincial government spent one dollar to assist the fishing industry in the manner I have just mentioned.


Robert Emmett Finn: Oh, yes, the Murray government did.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: That indicates the feeling of the premier toward this industry. The senior hon. member for Halifax says that

material should be provided. That is what I think, but the premier of Nova Scotia says that road work should be provided in an amount equal to the losses sustained. There is one advantage in that method. More money will be given to the fishermen than would be given in the furnishing of materials.


Robert Emmett Finn: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Go ahead.


Robert Emmett Finn: As a member representing a fishing county which had a loss of $44,000, I should like to ask my hon. friend whether he thinks the spending of $40,000 on the doing of preliminary work for semi-permanent highways is helping the fishermen? If that is what he wants to convey to the fishermen in his constituency, I do not want to do it.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: If the hon. member wants to make another speech he will be given an opportunity.


Robert Emmett Finn: I do not want to make a speech, but I do want fairness.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: All I say to the senior hon. member for Halifax is that there is no intention of spending only $40,000. Apparently he does not understand the situation. I have in my hand a telegram which I received from the premier of Nova Scotia just this afternoon, from which I quote as follows:
We will spend in storm swept areas amounts of money on highway work at least equal to amount of loss.
Whether that is $40,000, whether it is $150,000 or whether it is $200,000, that is what they are going to do. There is some advantage in providing work equal to the amount of the loss. If we provided materials, that would mean we would provide only the value of the material and the work would have to be done by the fishermen. A trap is worth about $2, whereas the material in the trap is worth a little over $1.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What was the loss along the Yarmouth-Shelburne coast in the constituency which my hon. friend represents?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: There were 44,000 traps
destroyed. If new traps are to be provided they will cost between $70,000 and $80,000, but the material alone will cost between $40,000 and $50,000.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is in the hon. member's own constituency?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: In my own constituency.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I suppose that is not a
quarter of the entire loss?

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: That is at least twothirds. I am subject to correction, but I understand the damage from the storm to be as follows: Twelve thousand dollars in the county of Halifax; $6,000 in Lunenburg.


Robert Emmett Finn: How much in Halifax?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Twelve thousand dollars.
Apparently the hon. member does not know the loss even in his own county.


Robert Emmett Finn: My hon. friend thinks he
knows it all, but I wonder.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Six thousand dollars in
the county of Lunenburg; $12,000 in Queens; $43,000 in Shelburne; $40,600 in Yarmouth; and $9,737, I think, in the county of Digby. That is the loss. The major damage in the county of Digby happens to be in the district of Clare which I have the honour to represent at the present time. So, if you provide just the material, these men are going to have half of what they get if they do road work. I do not know whether I am making myself plain. I do not think, therefore, it is justifiable to say that any person who is willing to help the fishermen to the extent that they are going to get nearly twice the value of material that goes in the trap is throwing a monkey-wrench, or is lacking in heart and mind.


Robert Emmett Finn: Oh, forget the monkeywrench.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: As regards the remarks
of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), I respect his knowledge and experience in this house, and I would with great temerity refer to the interpretations he has made of the British North America Act. He may be right. I remember, however, in 1933, when there was a Conservative government, the municipal council of the town of Yarmouth had several meetings, which I attended, arising from the losses and distress of the fishermen, and they- wrote to the Department of Fisheries at that time. But, as I remember it, word came back that it was directly a matter of.local and private concern, they were sorry, but the federal government could do nothing about it.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Property and civil rights.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Yes, property and civil rights, and the federal government could do nothing about the matter. It is too bad that at that time they did not bring the matter to the attention of the hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George, because in those days we were in as much need as we are at the present time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What was the nature of the
disaster?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: We had storms, and prices were bad.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not dealing with prices, but what was the storm?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: We had meetings of the board of trade. The fishermen were in a sorry plight on account of weather conditions.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That may be. That is another question.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I remember particularly the reference there. At that time it was on property and civil rights; there were no references at all to other sections of the British North America Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because the issue presented was entirely different.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I do not think it was, and I am suggesting that that was the attitude of the then government. It is easy when you are out of power to say " do so and so " when you have not done it when you were in power.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding about the loss, let me say that about one-third of the traps were lost. A number of lobster fishermen, it is true, lost very few traps, but I called up the supervisor the night before last in order to be sure I was getting the right picture.


Robert Emmett Finn: The hon. member got busy late.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I object to the remarks of the senior hon. member for Halifax. Apparently I began looking into the matter sooner than he did, and he did not even know the loss in his own county.


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes, I did. I was here last December looking after the matter and conferring with the Minister of Fisheries when the hon. member was in Yarmouth.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare has the floor.


Robert Emmett Finn: And I did it out of my own pocket.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I was here twice last fall on this matter. In order to be fair to myself I think I should say that I was here and interviewed the. minister in regard to it, and he can substantiate my statement. I have
' ' ' & '	' ' " n

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
also had several telephone conversations and telegrams and have written a number of letters in regard to the matter.


Robert Emmett Finn: I was here three times.


Mr.   POTHER@: On the question of damage, in some of the districts the fishermen have lost about one-third of their traps-which is serious. It means this, that in each village, some being worse off than others, there are fishermen who will not be able to earn sufficient to carry on if some help is not given. That is the situation as I understand it, and I know whereof I speak.
The lobster fishing season starts on December 1 and goes on to June, 1, but the practice has been to fish through the month of December, at least in the majority of cases, until the storms come; then they are held up during January and February. They start again March 1 depending on the depth of water and on how rough the seacoast is, but generally speaking March 1 is about the time when lobster fishing starts in the open. This is the situation: If the lobster fishermen are placed now in a position to fish by March 1 the situation will be looked after. The difference between the premier of Nova Scotia and myself is that we do not agree on the method. I think the senior hon. member for Halifax and I say that we should provide material to the men and that they should do the work to put up the traps. On the other hand, the premier of Nova Scotia says we should give them money for work on the road in the value of the traps, which is perhaps more than we are asking for the fishermen.


Robert Emmett Finn: How does the hon. member figure that out?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Because the premier would be paying them for the labour that goes in the traps.


Robert Emmett Finn: By working on the roads.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I know that my people would want to be fair to the premier, and let me say in justice to his qualities that we consider him the best premier in Canada and one of the greatest premiers we in Nova Scotia have had since Joseph Howe.


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a few words on this important question, although not because I know very much about it. I admit frankly

that I am not as familiar with it as were hon. gentlemen who spoke from the other side and as is my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) who spoke on this side. I am particularly glad however to be able to say a word on this matter in support of my hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn). I have known him for many years. Long years ago he and I were members of this house. We come from the same race, and we have the same sweet, charitable, kindly disposition.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And never interrupt.


Robert James Manion: At any rate I have a strong and friendly feeling for the hon. member, and I am glad to be able to support his proposal. My knowledge of Nova Scotia comes from various visits to that province where, as in the other provinces of the maritimes, the beautiful countryside and the kindly, charming and hospitable people have won my heart on many occasions. I believe I have visited the maritimes ten or a dozen times, and always I have come back thinking highly of those provinces and realizing fully why they have given so much to the cultural, the educational, and, in general, the highest life of this great dominion.
To get to the subject in a rather general way, when I was in the maritimes on the last occasion, I believe in September or October, although I do not recall the exact period, the question of the condition of the fishermen in the maritimes and particularly in Nova Scotia was prominent in the press and on the lips of the people. Indeed there was quite a row going on down there, in which, I am sorry to say, I took no part. It was a row between those who said the conditions of the fishermen were very bad and those who, apparently, contended they were not so bad. Being, as I have said, of the same extraction as the senior member for Halifax, I naturally favour the under-dog anyway, and I found myself entirely in accord and sympathy with the writers-some from Ontario, some from Halifax and other parts of Nova Scotia-who took the side of the fishermen in dire want, so it was said, in the various ports of that province.
The other day I had a letter from a friend with whom I have corresponded a good deal, an outstanding man in Nova Scotia who has been taking a strong attitude with respect to the needs of the fishermen. He is one of those who do not agree that there is too much maudlin sympathy extended to these fishermen, and I must confess that in large measure my sympathy for them has been the results of the educational effect he has had

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
upon me. He wrote to me before this incident occurred; at any rate his letter had no reference to the question which is now under discussion in this house. He informed me that some of the fishermen of Nova Scotia earned only S50 per annum after paying cost of gas and bait. In other districts they received from $100 to $150, while in the better localities their earnings amounted to about $400. I know nothing about the facts, but I do know a great deal about my correspondent, and I can assure the house that he 'keeps himself well posted upon all subjects that relate to the welfare of those delightful provinces by the sea. I am sure he is correct in the information he has given me. My hon. friend nods his head. I listened to him carefully and I must admit that I knew more about the subject after hearing the senior member for Halifax. There seemed to be some controversy, but I could follow the senior member for Halifax rather better. I have no doubt, however, that both hon. gentlemen representing that constituency are equally sympathetic to the fishermen there.
On this question there seems to be more unanimity in all parts of the house than is usual on matters of this sort. As the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George pointed out, we are prone continually to take a deep interest in the condition of people in remote parts of the world. We readily throw up our hands in horror at some catastrophe in some far away land, and very often I have seen us collect money for floods in China, for example, as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) points out, have money voted by parliament. Since, therefore, everyone seems agreed on this question, I should like to see the minister give the assistance asked for. He would certainly get the support of this entire party if he decided to give at the earliest possible moment this much-needed aid to people who are our fel-Iow-Canadians. Sometimes I am ashamed to think of the riches we possess when I reflect upon the extreme want that exists in some parts of the country, and though my hon. friends to my left take, in my opinion, a radical view of some matters I confess that I sometimes find myself sympathizing with them. In this rich country of ours with our immense resources, a huge area with a small population, it does seem strange that there should be so many people in want. Anything that is done by this government, anything that is done by the minister on this occasion, will receive the support of the party with which I am associated.
When I was in Nova Scotia I heard a great deal about the work done by the cooperatives,
the university of St. Francois Xavier-I do not know whether I am pronouncing the word correctly.


Ernest Lapointe: You pronounce it as I do.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: In Ireland they say St. [DOT] Francis.


Robert James Manion: They all refer to the same saint. The saints do not quarrel over nationality as much as we do. While there, I heard a great deal about the splendid work done by the cooperatives and recently I had a visitor whom I have no doubt many hon. gentlemen have seen-Doctor MacDonald, head of the extension department of that university, which is doing so much to foster a better feeling of constructive cooperation among those people instead of allowing them to descend to the extreme radicalism which is inevitable where people are in great want and believe that they are not receiving what is justly due them. And there are so many people in the country to-day who are in that condition. I was therefore delighted both to read and to hear of the magnificent work that is being done by the extension department of that great university, small in size but highly important from the standpoint of what it is achieving.
If the government, in the estimates that we shall have before us shortly, would increase the amount which I believe is granted the university for extension work among the various people in the three maritime provinces,
I am sure it would meet with general approval.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It has already been done.


Robert James Manion: I am delighted to hear it.


Mr. REID:: That gentleman is now among the fishermen of British Columbia.


Robert James Manion: I am indeed pleased to hear that the amount has been increased, because one thing that appeals to me in the admirable work which is being done by the university is the fact that while the institution is Catholic basically, the work of the extension department is being carried on indiscriminately among people of all nationalities and creeds, and it is helping to promote a greater understanding among Canadians of all classes than can be found in some sections of the country.
In conclusion, may I say that I simply rose to add my voice sincerely to what has been said. I appreciate the remarks of the senior member for Halifax, and I assure the minister that he can count upon support from us in any efforts which he makes to relieve the distress that exists. I frankly admit that I have a great deal more sympathy for the sufferers

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
from this catastrophe than I have for people in other countries. We have the needy close at home and they should be nearer to our hearts than those in distant lands.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The discussion has taken a somewhat wider range than I expected it would when I said that in my opinion the matter was one of urgent public importance. The reason that I supported the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) in moving the adjournment of the house was that I knew, as other members from Nova Scotia know, of the storm that took place a few months ago and the damage that was done. The extent of the damage has not been definitely ascertained, but it is supposed to be in the neighbourhood of 8125,000. It has been intimated to me that it does not exceed $100,000, though it may be more than that. While it is not definitely, it is approximately ascertainable.
The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) has told of the distribution of the damage. Unfortunately for his constituency the greater part of it is in Shelburne and Yarmouth with some in Clare and Digby. His constituency is by 'far the greatest sufferer. The house is disposed to be sympathetic; the government is disposed to be sympathetic; and all members of this parliament as well as members of the legislatures of the maritime provinces realize that the	income	received by	fishermen	on theAtlantic coast of Nova Scotia is very low. Conditions among these people have been a matter of concern to the Minister of Fisheries and	to the	government	from the	time it
assumed office.
I do not think the immediate question is primarily a constitutional one, nor is it a question whether we are sympathetic with the fishermen, because we are. The immediate question is a practical one. As the hon. member	for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare	pointedout, these fishermen at the present time are not	engaged	in fishing;	they will	not be
engaged in fishing until March 1. They find that in some districts one-third, in other districts one-quarter, of their traps were destroyed by this storm. The question is how to help them reestablish themselves. Two views are expressed as to the method we should adopt: One view is that we should resort to direct relief; the other is that indirect relief is the better method. It seems to me that the issue is just as simple as that. Is this an occasion for the administration of indirect relief or direct relief? The province will do everything it can, I am satisfied, and this

government will do everything it can, I can assure the house. The question is as to the method to be followed.
Whatever the constitutional position is- and I must say I never before heard the view expressed that was enunciated by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) to-day; this particular kind of situation has always been regarded as one to be dealt with by the provincial authorities- but whatever the constitutional position, we must work in cooperation with the provincial government in a case of this kind. This government did so in the case of New Brunswick; it did so in the case of Prince Edward Island, and it must do so in the case of Nova Scotia. Even if it were a government of which we disapproved we would do so; if we were dealing with a premier whom we did not like we would do so; but where we are working with friends in whom we have confidence there is certainly no reason why we should work at cross-purposes with the government of Nova Scotia. Therefore we must examine with respect and with care the proposals of the government of Nova Scotia. That government has its men on the ground; it has its local members to consult, who know conditions there, and they have come to the conclusion that the best way to deal with this situation is by indirect instead of by direct relief. The premier of Nova Scotia proposes to spend a substantial sum of money on work in these very districts, so that these very men who have lost their gear will have an income from which they can make good their losses. Perhaps the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare did not say it, but I can say that men are at work at the present time. The premier of Nova Scotia tells me that 750 men will be at work next week and that this number will probably be increased as the necessities of the case require.
I am like the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare in that I find it difficult to sit silent when I hear hostile criticism of the premier of Nova Scotia. His qualities of heart and mind are well known not only in Nova Scotia but all through Canada. I know of the attention he has given to this matter, the study he has given it, and I know of his deep human sympathy in this situation. When, after his study, he says that the best way of dealing with it, having in mind his and our responsibilities and the future, is by instituting a works program through these districts so that these men will be able to earn money with which to replenish their gear, I do not think we should break the rule that has been followed since confederation and step in and-

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
work at cross-purposes with him. For that reason I am in accord with what the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) has said.
I am not criticizing the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) for bringing this matter up or expressing his views; I am not criticizing the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare for holding certain views in the matter, but the situation is being dealt with carefully, sympathetically and sincerely, and, I think, in a practical manner. It may be that further developments will cause some change to be made in the present arrangements, or some addition to be made to the expenditure. It may be that we shall find some way to use part of the fisheries vote which the minister says he has been advised is not available for assistance in road work. Money has been paid to the government of Nova Scotia to assist, not only the $20,000 mentioned, but $50,000 before that; it was before the storm but nevertheless $50,000 of a special grant of assistance was paid to Nova Scotia, and I can assure the house on behalf of the government that we shall do our best to work out ways and means of meeting the situation, in cooperation with our friends in the province in whom we have confidence.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to say only a very few words on this matter. First, I would commend the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) for bringing it to the attention of the house. I im sure that many hon. members know more now about this catastrophe-it is nothing short of that-which happened on the Nova Scotia coast than they knew before this discussion was brought on. We know approximately the extent of the damage. What is more to the point, and more satisfactory so far as the group to which I belong are concerned, is that the government has taken cognizance of the situation and is desirous of helping. It is not my intention to enter upon any discussion as to how that help should be given; it would be presumptuous on my part to do so, because I do not know the facts. But I think we shall all give our hearty approval to anything that the government may do, and, as the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) has already said, we think that anything done should undoubtedly be done in cooperation with the provincial government.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I am deeply interested in this problem. I am also deeply interested in the way it is proposed to spend this money. I am inclined to sympathize with the proposal of the hon. .member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) that there should be a direct issue 71492-39
to the men concerned of half of the cost of the traps. At the same time I have of course no desire to interfere with the administration of Nova Scotia by the premier of that province. But two or three things come to my mind as a result of experience I have had with similar situations. We in the west have been sufferers for a long time and have learned something about relief, direct and indirect. I gather from the remarks of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) that it will be necessary to put into the hands of these sufferers at least $63,000 to enable them to procure the $125,000 worth of traps which they have lost. I understand from the remarks of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare that half the cost of the traps is for material and the rest represents labour which the fisherman himself can contribute. I gather then that there must be $63,000 issued to the sufferers.
The first thing I wonder about is this: Will each of these men who suffered a loss find himself able to obtain work on these road projects? If there is any considerable number who for any reason whatever will find the work not available to them, then the effort to give them relief is not going to effect its purpose; there still will be a good many sufferers. I have seen this, in similar cases, work out many times in my own constituency and my own province. It is going to be an exceedingly difficult matter to devise and design a road project of such a kind and in such a geographical location that it will make available to each of the sufferers along that long seacoast sufficient work to enable him to earn enough, net, to buy his traps. That is the first serious difficulty in the way of the indirect relief proposal.
There is another matter which has been forced upon my mind through experience. We may design a works project; we may say, "Now, we are going to spend so much on this road," and we assume that a certain part of that money will go into the hands of the labourers. It not infrequently works out that after the road is planned we put on a number of high class machines which eat up a great deal of the money in gasoline and repairs of various kinds, and which also displace a large number of the very men whom the project was designed to assist. We have learned in my province in three or four years a great deal regarding this matter. I might just give an illustration. When we set out to build roads we hired men, teams and scrapers and let them build the roads. Then we found that the roads which were built, compared with the roads constructed with modem, high class machinery, were very expensive, and the



Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
result was that the government came in for much criticism. I fancy the same consideration in large measure will affect the men in charge of building these projected Nova Scotia roads. The result will be that if the men in charge do not use machines in constructing the roads they will be in difficulty, and if they do the men will not get the work.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My information is that
there will be practically no machines.


John Horne Blackmore: That helps considerably.


Robert Emmett Finn: How can they dig ditches in rock without machines?


John Horne Blackmore: There may be some who fancy I have had no experience in these matters, but I have had a little. I know there are all kinds of machines. Last night I saw pictures of a wonderful machine which I thought could never work. I never knew they had a machine that could go through a forest and prepare the way for back-fires, until I saw the picture of such a machine last night. In these days they have machines that will do nearly everything, but the men do not get the work. That is a serious matter, which I would draw to the attention of hon. members, because it might result in the expenditure of this money not achieving ihe desired object.
Then there is another matter. If these men live at a considerable distance from the proposed roads it is of vital importance that we know whether or not their transportation expenses to the project and back home again are to be borne by the men employing them or by themselves. If those expenses are to be borne by the sufferers, then those who live fifty or sixty miles away from the proposed projects will use up all their earnings in transportation costs and will not have sufficient left to enable them to accomplish the object we had in mind in designing the work.
There is another thing that frequently eats up the money. Sometimes when the road project is planned we allow the cost of material, machinery, and all that kind of thing, to be taken out. Then, from the standpoint of the men, there is another fact. When the men get to the work, are they to be provided with board and lodging? I have known some of the most glaring injustices to result from a situation such as this: A man would be told that he would receive so much an hour. After he had reached the scene of the activity, after paying his transportation cost, he would be told that he had to pay so much a day for his board, so much a day for his lodging, and sometimes so much a day for his blankets, the result being that what the

man had left over would hardly keep him in chewing-gum.
All these matters have to be considered, I believe, in connection with this project. While I am speaking I wish to express, through the members who represent the sufferers, my group's deepest sympathy with them in their sore trial, and I should be pleased if the hon. members would convey that expression to these people. We westerners have had plenty of suffering; we know what it is. We appreciate the courage the people in the east have always shown. We realize there are no finer people in the Dominion of Canada than they. Now that their turn has come to suffer, we hasten to lend our support to whatever measures and whatever expenditures this parliament may find necessary in order to supply them with adequate means of fitting themselves to gain a livelihood. I personally will support any proposal the minister may see fit to introduce, as will my group, and we can speak for the whole of the people of Alberta, whose sympathy will be right with those who are stricken. But I should like to feel sure that the money is going to get into the hands of the people who need it, and not into the hands of a number of people who will try to get jobs, such as contractors, sub-contractors, sub-sub-contractors, timekeepers and the like, all of whom, as we know from bitter experience, somehow do manage to figure in altogether too many propositions of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on this question we seem to find a spirit of harmony and accord in reference to the desirability and the need of doing something effective for those who suffered in this disaster. I think we might go one step further and say it is generally recognized that a disaster has occurred which is out of the ordinary, and that it is not a matter of day-to-day routine in connection with this most unfortunate question of relief.
Looking at it, therefore, from that angle, I ask myself the question: What is the best thing to do under the circumstances? As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who has just taken his seat has asked: What is the most effective way in which we can render help? I have a good deal of respect for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), particularly for his native fairness in expressing himself. At the moment, however, I find myself in direct opposition to his view when he says that this is peculiarly a provincial matter. The fact that it happens to be on the coast of Nova Scotia geographically makes it provincial. But from the point of view of administration I am inclined to agree

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
with the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that it comes within the direct purview of the dominion authorities. In other words, it is of a nature where we as a parliament may deal directly with it.
I agree with the Minister of National Revenue that so far as possible in all such matters we should act in harmony with the provincial governments. I have no desire or disposition to criticize the provincial government, nor must anything I shall say be interpreted as any reflection upon the premier of Nova Scotia or the government of that province. But before making a suggestion I should like to review briefly the two suggested methods of assistance, roads or traps. If we adopt the method of helping these men and their families by road work, it seems to me that a danger arises. The men must live while they are working on the roads. Any work on the roads given by way of relief, of which I have known in Canada, has resulted in very little more being given to the individual than merely enough to live through the period of time during which he has actually been engaged on the work. In other words, I do not think we should assume for a moment that a man will save enough out of the small wages he may get on road work to reequip him in his industry, and supply him with the instruments to carry on his work. I think there is^ a very grave danger in following that course in this instance.
I shall not repeat the arguments or the suggestion of the hon. member who has just spoken, but so far as helping the lobster fishermen who have suffered from the disaster by giving them road work is concerned, I must say I think it would be a mistake. Let us see what they require. Hon. members opposite will correct me if I am wrong. Usually these lobster traps are set out-I believe that is the term. In this disastrous storm many were swept away. In other words, the instruments used by the fishermen for their daily toil have been destroyed. They are lost-gone. The main object we should have in mind is to replace the instrument which has been lost, or, in other words, to reinstate them in their normal positions as lobster fishermen. That, I believe, is what we are aiming at. I suggest, therefore, that if we could supply the lobster fisherman with the equipment peculiar to his vocation as a fisherman we would be doing him more good than by giving him a job on the road. *
Here is another thought: We will assume the road work is to be done by hand work, and that no machinery will be used. Every man would have to have a wheelbarrow, a shovel 'and a pick. I venture to say that the wheel-71492- 39J
barrow, shovel and pick would make up a substantial portion of the cost of restoring his fishing equipment. I say it would be far better to spend our money on equipment he could use in gaining his livelihood, rather than on equipment for road work. I am going to suggest, without any intention of expressing an opinion different from that of the province, that we should allow the province to give whatever relief it wishes, by way of road work or in any other manner it may choose, and that in this instance the federal government should go directly, as it has the power to do,-in fact I think it should do it as a duty-to the assistance of the fishermen, by supplying them with new equipment to replace that which has been lost and, if necessary, in addition to that give them such further relief as may be required.
The suggestion has been made that the assistance. will not be required until March. I look at the calendar and I see that to-day is February 3. It will be only a very short time until March. By the time the money is granted, distributed and in their hands the first of March will be upon us.
Another point to be remembered when speaking of fisheries is this. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth - Clare (Mr. Pottier) said it was the custom to fish in November and December; then in January and February to lay off because of prevailing stormy weather, and then to begin again on March I. Knowing something about the habits of fishermen, I know it is essential that the moment fine weather comes they be in a position to take advantage of it, so that there is no time to be lost in rendering this assistance as early as possible.
I make the suggestion that as a parliament we should give the assistance direct. I would suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is now in his seat, should bring down a supplementary estimate in the current year 1938-39, which does not expire until March 31, *-he could bring it down tomorrow, if he wished-wherein he would make a definite and direct grant to be expended for the assistance of these fishermen.
There is no doubt that the livelihood of these and other fishermen, along the Atlantic coast in particular, has been so precarious for so many years that very few of them have any margin of safety. In fact I believe it could be stated that the great majority of them are living below the line of reasonable subsistence. That in my view is a fair statement of the case. Therefore they cannot absorb the results of a disaster; they are not in a position to do so, financially or otherwise. There should be no delay; parliament

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
should act. There has been a disaster. We all recognize it, and we fully sympathize with the victims. Let us act, and act quickly, effectively and directly in the matter, as under the constitution of Canada we have the power to do.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I understand the hon. member suggests furnishing material for the traps. Is that his suggested remedy?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would hesitate to be dogmatic on the point, because I am not altogether familiar with the details in connection with the equipment which would be required. I do not know exactly the manner of the setting of the traps. I do know something about the crab traps on the Pacific coast, which are movable and can be set out. But if these lobster traps are like salmon traps I realize it would be a different matter.
May I make myself quite clear in this: I would not discriminate between the material and the work. I would say that we should place the fishermen in such a position with their traps that they may be able to carry on their fishing operations on March 1.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that all hon. members seem to be in favour of taking immediate action to do something for the fishermen who are suffering as a result of a terrible storm. Various proposals have been offered, as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has said, such as the building of roads and the reestablishment of these people in their vocation by supplying them with the necessary equipment. It should be apparent to all hon. members that a road building project at this time of the year is not at all feasible. How are you going to build roads with these poor, ragged fishermen who have had no experience in road building?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Do not be ridiculous.


John Charles Landeryou: They have had no experience in the building of roads as they are being built to-day. In the building of roads to-day more machinery than hand labour is used. What a picture there would be with these fishermen in their rags and tatters building a road with shovels and wheelbarrows with weather conditions such as they are at this time of year. They would be paid perhaps forty or fifty cents an hour, and from these earnings they would have to supply themselves with sufficient money to
tMr. Stevens.]
get back into the fishing industry in the spring. It would be just a waste of time and hon. members know it.
I am delighted to know that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is beginning to see the light. He now recognizes that one of the most valuable things we could do at the moment is to give a little money to the fishermen. The problem is how to put this money into their hands. What has been offered would be only a palliative to meet the urgency of the situation. I have been talking to some of the farmers of Ontario. One in particular told me he was living on a farm that his grandfather had carved out of the wilderness. I asked him if he was eating all the fish he would like to eat, and he told me he could not buy the fish he would like to provide for his family because his overhead was too large and his income too small. That precluded any possibility of his buying the fish caught by the fishermen of Nova Scotia. I find the same thing true about the fishermen. They cannot buy the dairy products produced by the Ontario farmers. The Halifax Herald has been carrying numerous articles describing the suffering, misery and want that exists in Nova Scotia among the fishermen and miners.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: Has the hon. member ever been in Nova Scotia?


John Charles Landeryou: I have never been
in Nova Scotia, and I have never suggested that I have. I am simply referring to editorials which appeared in the Halifax Herald and other periodicals published in that province.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I suggest that the hon.
member visit the maritimes and see the fishermen and miners there.
Mr. LANDERY'OU:	I think the senior
member for Halifax has stated the case very fairly. If my hon. friend (Mr. Pottier) is suggesting that these people are not suffering, I should like to have more evidence than the mere question whether or not I have been in Nova Scotia. That has nothing to do with the matter. Neither the fishermen nor the farmers have sufficient purchasing power. The fishermen are without fruit, butter and eggs because they have no money. The farmers are without fish for the same reason. These men are living in hovels. I saw some pictures of the homes in which these fishermen live, and they are nothing but hovels.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has recognized that there is a housing problem in this country, and he has had legislation passed to deal with it. Our lumbermen

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps
are without fish while the fishermen are unable to buy the products of the forest. I suggest to the government that they take steps to increase the purchasing power of the consumer so that our fishermen, our farmers, our lumbermen and the people in other sections of the country may be able to buy what they need. They may not be suffering from the catastrophe of a storm, but they are suffering from a catastrophe brought on by this rotten financial system. I am glad to know that there are many hon. members who are beginning to take cognizance of that fact. Even the leader of the opposition has suggested that may be we are not so far wrong in urging that the greatest problem facing Canada to-day is the need of increased purchasing power for the consumer.


Robert James Manion: I said that long before the
hon. member ever said it.


John Charles Landeryou: I am glad to hear
that the hon. member recognizes this need. If he studies the matter a little further and begins to realize the value of money, then I may find myself more in agreement with him than I am at the present time. I urge the minister to do whatever he can for these people who are apparently suffering more than the people of any other section of Canada. Do not start building roads with hand labour at this particular time of the year. I have had experience in that type of work. I have worked on some government projects put under way to ease the problems of the unemployed. I have in mind a particular project carried out in Calgary promoted by the previous government under the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Barracks were built in Calgary at a cost of $1,250,000. The unemployed were given an opportunity to work with picks and shovels, and right beside them was an idle ditch digging machine. Was that used? No. How long did these men have an opportunity of working? After two or three weeks it was all over. Fifty per cent of the money they received was turned over to the city to pay arrears of taxes on the homes they owned. They were no better off when it was all over than they were when it started. As the hon. member for Kootenay East said, they receive only enough to keep them going for the duration of the job. When the job is finished they are all through. That is the situation that will come about in Nova Scotia. After the road building is over these men will have no money with which to buy traps. I suggest that the minister should provide them with traps, provide them with money with which to buy equipment, and
then give them a little additional purchasing power so that they can buy some of the commodities produced elsewhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the debate had concluded I was going to make a suggestion to the house which I believe would have met with the general approval of hon. members. The order paper is pretty well loaded up with questions and notices of motions for production of papers. I had thought that with the consent of the house we might, notwithstanding we were near the time of the six o'clock adjournment, proceed to those orders immediately and that when they were discharged I would move the adjournment of the house for the remainder of the day. That would ensure hon. members having information which they may wish to have in their possession before the week is out. This procedure would I believe meet with general approval.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to and respect for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I desire to raise a question of privilege. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) has misrepresented the statement I made today with reference to the premier of Nova Scotia. The same thing has been done inferentially by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). When it was said by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare that they had spent over $200,000 and did not that show human interest, let me say I was not referring to any previous action of the premier of Nova Scotia or of his general administration of the affairs of that province. But if my hon. friend knew that I had several interviews with the premier, and that I felt that, when the Department of Fisheries was ready to hand over seventy-five per cent of the cost of reestablishing the fishermen-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Robert Emmett Finn: -then I was-


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member. He has stated his point sufficiently, but he cannot make a speech.


Robert Emmett Finn: All I desire to say is that the statement of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and, inferentially, of the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) that the premier of Nova Scotia had thrown a monkey-wrench into the machinery in this particular case-

Fishing Industry-Lobster Traps


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must
correct my hon. friend. I never referred to the premier of Nova Scotia.


Robert Emmett Finn: I meant the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley), not the Minister of National Defence, who is too Scotch to do anything of that kind.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes. In order that the business of the house may be proceeded with under the rules, I have pleasure in withdrawing my motion.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Before the hon. member withdraws his motion-


An hon. MEMBER:: It was withdrawn.


John James Kinley: I was on my feet before he withdrew his motion.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is six o'clock.


John James Kinley: Well, if it is six o'clock, all right, but this is rather an important matter. I am interested in it, and so is my constituency, but I am not going to delay the house with any extended remarks. I think we must cooperate with the government of Nova Scotia. While fisheries is a matter of federal concern and federal jurisdiction, the care of the fisherman and his family is a matter of civil and property rights, and for that reason the provincial government has a degree of responsibility. This government have from the outset laid down the policy that in matters of relief they must cooperate with the provincial governments. They have done so, and the provincial governments have paid to the fund one-half of the amount required. All I wish to say at this time is that I hope the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) will be generous in dealing with this matter, that he will continue his negotiations with the premier of Nova Scotia, and that he will see to it that whatever is necessary in the interests of the fishermen to protect and help them in this disaster will be done.
The Nova Scotia minister of public health comes from my own riding. His department is directly responsible for relief projects. I have discussed this matter with him several times, and I know they have difficulties. It is not just as easy as we think it is, talking here at a distance. But I believe that the minister of health of Nova Scotia is sympathetic to the fishermen, because he comes from the greatest fishing county in Canada; that the premier of Nova Scotia is deeply concerned in the condition of the fishermen, and that the federal government.will do their

part in trying to wipe out the damage which has been done by this disaster to the lobster fishermen.
Motion (Mr. Finn) withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did the mayor and corporation or officials of the city of Toronto request the government, or any minister or official thereof, to meet them since the last session of parliament, regarding: (a) unemployment; (b) unemployment relief; (c) relief works?
2.	If so, on what dates?
3.	Were they refused a hearing to present their case?
4.	If so, by whom, for what reason, when, and to whom were they referred?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3, 4. A copy of the correspondence is attached hereto.
Canadian National Telegram
November 21, 1938 Toronto, Ontario. Hon. Norman McL. Rogers,
Minister of Labour for Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.
Will you kindly grant appointment for Saturday next at your convenience for me and members of board of control to discuss unemployment relief works program.
R. C. Day,
Mayor.
Ottawa, November 22, 1938. His Worship Mayor R. C. Day,
City Hall, Toronto, Ontario.
Your night letter received. You are no doubt aware that all funds voted by parliament for this fiscal year for unemployment purposes have been allotted to provinces for disbursement under provisions of agreements concluded with them. This department does not enter into direct negotiations with municipalities in connection with unemployment matters but only with provincial governments. Honourable Eric Cross is to meet me November 29 and I would suggest that your representations should be made to him so that if they meet with approval of provincial government he may transmit them to me. If projects you have in mind are to be undertaken under provisions of Municipal Improvements Assistance Act approval by provincial

Questions
government is essential. Should you present proposals to provincial government I will be pleased to receive copy of these for my information.
Norman McL. Rogers,
Minister of Labour.


LOAN COMPANIES' INTEREST RATES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will any steps be taken this session to curb by legislation small loan companies by reducing the maximum interest rate under the Loan Companies' Act or otherwise, as recommended by the banking and commerce committee last session?
2.	Will the act based on the said committee's report (1938), namely Bill 173 (1938) and only read a first time, be reintroduced this session?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1 & 2. This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.


MARKET GARDEN PRODUCTS-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the approximate value of the market garden products exported to the United States during the twelve months ending December 31, 1938?
2.	What was the value of market garden
products imported into Canada from the United States during the same period?	_
3.	What proportion of this amount was imported into Ontario?
4.	What was the approximate value of the same production of this produce in Canada during the same period?
5.	What proportion of this amount was produced in Ontario?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Fresh fruits, $364,124; fresh vegetables, $905,915.
2.	Fresh fruits except bananas, pineapples and citrus fruits, $2,865,933; fresh vegetables, $4,539,933.
3.	Fresh fruits except bananas, 'pineapples and citrus fruits, 37-8 per cent; fresh vegetables, 48-3 per cent.
4.	Annual vegetable production statistics for the whole of Canada are not collected. Quebec and Ontario make annual estimates which
[DOT] are available in the late spring.
Canada-fruit (raspberries and strawberries) (1938) $2,915,000. (Preliminary).
5.	See answer to 4.
Ontario-raspberry and strawberry production, $958,700 (preliminary).


RASPBERRY PULP
Mr. LENNARD:: How much raspberry pulp was imported into Canada for the twelve months ending December 31, 1938?


Mr. EULER:: Raspberry pulp is not separately recorded in Canadian import statistics


IMPORTS FROM JAPAN, 1938
Frank Exton Lennard: What was the value of the imports into Canada from Japan for the year 1938?


William Daum Euler: 


$4,642,762. FRESH FRUIT-IMPORTS AND EXPORTS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the approximate value of fresh fruit exported to the United States from Canada during the twelve months ending December 31, 1938?
2.	What was the value of fresh fruits imported from the United States to Canada, exclusive of oranges, grapefruit, bananas, lemons and limes, during the same period?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	$364,124.
2.	$3,056,339.


HAMILTON, ONT., POST OFFICE
Frank Exton Lennard: [DOT]
1.	How many extra men were temporarily employed at the Hamilton post office during the Christmas rush of 1938?
2.	How many of these were returned men?
3.	How many of the returned men employed were recommended by officers of veterans' organizations ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	333.
2.	117.
3.	82.


IMPORTS OF COAL FROM RUSSIA
Frank Exton Lennard: How many tons of coal were imported into Canada from Russia during the twelve months ending December 31, 1938?


William Daum Euler: 22,792 tons.


IMPORTS OF ASPARAGUS
Frank Exton Lennard: What was the value of the asparagus, both fresh and canned, imported into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1938?


William Daum Euler: Fresh asparagus, $1,288,324; canned asparagus, $26,900.


REPORTED ILLEGAL ENTRY OF JAPANESE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has the board of review, consisting of Mr. F. W. Taylor, Inspector G. W. Fish and Mr. H. L. Keenleyside, appointed with regard to the illegal entry of Japanese, made a report?
2.	Will it be laid on the table of the house?
Questions

3.	At the same time will the interim report presented by the said board of review and referred to by the premier in the house on May 26 last be also presented?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It was tabled on the 16th of January, 1939.
3.	The interim report was prepared merely to indicate the progress made to the date of its submission, the 14th of May. It was not intended for publication and all the pertinent information which it contained was subsequently incorporated in the report that has been tabled.


MARKING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES FROM UNITED STATES
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Are the shippers of American fruits and vegetables required to mark each package with the name of the grower?
2.	If not, will the government put this regulation into effect?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	No. The country of origin is required but not the name of grower.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


HENRY DIRKS-PAYMENT FOR SERVICES FARM OWNERSHIP BY PROVINCES
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How many farm owners are there in each province of the dominion?
2.	How many farmers are there in each of such provinces?


William Daum Euler: 1 and 2.
1931 census
	Farm	No. of
	owners (1)	farms
Canada	.. 654,241	728,623P. E. Island.. ..	.. 12,631	12,865Nova Scotia..	.. 38,389	39,444New .Brunswick..	.. 33,097	34,025Quebec	135,957Ontario	192,174Manitoba..	.. 44,342	54,199Saskatchewan.. .	.. 115,428	136,472Alberta.. ..	97,408British Columbia..	.. 23,226	26,079(1) Includes part owner, part tenant farmers.	1936	census	Manitoba	.. 45,862	57.774Saskatchewan.. ..	.. 113,354	142,391Alberta	.. 84,150	100,358


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What services were rendered by Henry Dirks, of 1221 Main street east, Hamilton, Ontario, for the one thousand ($1,000) dollars he received from the federal government during 1938?
2.	What benefit did the government derive from the said services?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Mr. Dirks furnished valuations on three areas suggested for a rifle range site to replace the obsolete site at Hamilton, Ont., comprising properties of twenty-seven owners and having a total value of $407,900.
2.	From the information furnished, the government selected three of the most suitable properties, and completed purchase of the same under the terms of the options furnished by Mr. Dirks, for the total price of $99,000.
RADIO LICENCES 1937 AND 1938 Mr. HYNDMAN:
How many radio licences were issued in Canada during each of the years 1937 and 1938?


William Daum Euler: Fiscal year
Fiscal year Fiscal year	1938-39-9 "months
ended March 31, ended March 31, ended December
1937	1938	31, 1938Private receiving licences	
1,038,500	1,104 207	1 162 800All other classes	
3,726	4,40.3	' 48741,042,226	1,108,610	1,167,674
2. Has anything been paid on said loan since it was made?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Principal amount, as consolidated in 1922 into $23,969,720 4 per cent Roumanian bonds due 1968, is outstanding in full. In addition,
*. Neill]


CANADIAN LOAN TO ROUMANIA
Mr. McPHEE:: 1. What is the total amount owing at this date on the loan made by the government of Canada to Roumania, under order in council P.C. 690, April 2, 1919?

Questions
the government has received $359,642.40 in 4J per cent Roumanian bonds due 1949 covering 75 per cent of the instalment of interest due October 1, 1933, not paid in cash.
2.	No principal amount has been payable. Interest was paid in full to April 1, 1933. Coupon due October 1, 1933, paid to the extent of 25 per cent in cash and 75 per cent in 4i per cent bonds.
Interest payments from October 1, 1933 to 1938 are being made on a reduced scale under a plan proposed by Roumania and recommended to investors by the council of foreign bondholders and accepted by the government of Canada.


THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE-PARK SITE
Mr. STEWART:: What steps have been taken to acquire land on Hill or Larue islands, or elsewhere adjacent to the Thousand islands international bridge, for the purpose of a public park?


Mr. CRERAR:: Up to present time no steps have been taken.


TRAINING SCHOOLS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What are the locations of all training schools under the federal Department of Labour in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What is the total number attending same?
3.	What number of women in the city ot Regina were unemployed on the 1st August, 1938?
4.	What number of women attended the training schools in the city of Regina following the 1st August, 1938, and how many gained employment in the vocations trained for?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. The administration of approved youth training projects is the responsibility of the provincial authorities. The agreement with the province provides that, "Courses of training or instruction authorized by or under this agreement shall be given at such centres as in the discretion of the Province are best suited to the numbers of unemployed young people located in the different sections of the province and to local needs and conditions, with authority reserved to the dominion to refuse contribution to the cost of establishing or of continuing the operation of any such centre, where, in the opinion of the minister communicated to the province in writing, it is inconsistent with reasonable efficiency and economy to establish or continue same." The statement attached hereto indicates the location of the various courses in the Province of Saskatchewan.
2.	Urban men's courses, 857; urban women's courses, 717; rural men's courses, 1,760 (up to Dec. 25); rural women's courses, 1,178.
3.	The number of unemployed is not a matter of record with the department. The national registration of recipients of aid to which the dominion government contributed shows that there were in the city of Regina a total of 316 young women, 16 to 29 years of age, on aid and reported fully employable in the month of September, 1938. Of this total 218 were reported to have never been gainfully employed.
4.	The urban classes did not commence until October, 1938, but there have been 36 young women in training in the city of Regina since that time, 8 of whom have been placed in employment.
Location of all youth training schools in Saskatchewan-
Urban classes (Men and women): Regina Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, North Battleford, Weyburn, Swift Current, Yorkton,. Melville, Estevan, Milford, Rosthern, Humboldt, Outlook.
Rural men's courses: Alvena, Areola, Brooks-by, Blain Lake, Birch Hills, Balcarres, Bruno Canora, Craik, Choiceland, Cupar, Colfax, Creelman, Domremy, Edenwold Esterhazy, Evesham, Foam Lake, Fort Qu'Appelle, Gains-boro, Grayson, Herchel, Hefford, Harris, Indian Head, Kinistano, Keniston, Kelfield, Leslie, Lumsden, Langham, Lestock, Luseland,, LaSh-burn, Langenburg, Milford, Mistatim, Moose-Jaw, Munster, Mardstone, Mildred, Nokomis, Neudorf, Primate, Prud'Homme, Paradue Hill, Parkerview, Ridgedale, Robin Hood, Rocan-ville, Redvers, Rouleau, St. Walburg, Southey, Seamans, Sandwich, Starsbourg, Viscount, White Bear, Wiseton, Wynward, White Star, Whitewood.
Rural Women's courses: Ogema, Cupar, Allan, Abemethy, Leslie, Woodlawn, Wingard, Beechy, Elfros, Viceroy, Lampman, Wadena, Kamsack, Langham, Gerald, Leney, Bruno, Foam Lake, Nokomis, Big River, Gull Lake, Camduff, Penzance, Medstead, Waldheim, Meatham, Shaunavon, Theodore, Elrose, Lebret, Battleford, Scott, Outlook, Melville.


DIRECTOR OF HEALTH PUBLICITY
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Is there a post in the civil service of Canada known as director of health education?
2.	If so, when was this post created, and what are the duties of the holder of this post?

Questions


Mr. POWER:: 1.	There is a position of director of publicity in the division of publicity and health education, Department of Pensions and National Health.
2.	(a) Position created January 29, 1938. Appointment of F. W. Rowse, by Civil Service Commission, May 23, 1938; (b) To direct an intensive campaign of publicity in the interests of public health throughout the dominion. To prepare booklets; issue items to the press on health topics; furnish daily health bulletins to radio stations; design exhibits. Is general editorial director for the department.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DAM CONTRACT

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Has the contract for the building of a dam across the Saskatchewan river, at or near Saskatoon, been let?
2.	If so, who is the contractor, and what is the amount of the tender under the contract, and how many contractors tendered?
3.	Who are the inspectors and engineers representiing the government on this project?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Contractor-Poole Construction Company Limited, Regina, Sask., and the A. W. Heise Company, Saskatoon, Sask., jointly. Contract amount-8243,106.25. Number of contractors who tendered-9.
3.	V. E. Thierman, engineer.



SIMPSON, SASK. COMMUNITY PASTURE

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Was a community pasture established at or near Simpson, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, who received the contract for the
fencing of said pasture and what was the cost per mile?	.


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Work performed by local residents under direction of foreman appointed by Department of Agriculture. The cost per mile for fencing was $361.24.



PENSIONS APPEAL COURT-CASES PENDING

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many appeals were pending consideration by the pensions appeal court as at December 31, 1937, in the following categories: (a) appeals by the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
2.	How many appeals were filed with the appeal court during 1938 as follows: (a) appeals

of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories ?
3.	How	many	appeals were	heard by the
appeal court during 1938 as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories ?
4.	How many appeals were allowed in 1938,
as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants	from	the	quorum	pensions commission; (c) other categories?
5. How many appeals were disallowed in 1938, as follows: (a) appeals of the crown from the quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from the quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories?
6.	How many appeals were referred by the
appeal court to	the	pensions	commission in
1938:	(a) appeals of the crown from the
quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants	from	the	quorum	pensions commission; (c) other categories?
7. How many appeals were awaiting consideration by the appeal court as at December 31, 1938: (a) appeals of crown from quorum pensions commission; (b) appeals of applicants from quorum pensions commission; (c) other categories ?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	(a) 8;	(b) 321;	(c) 42-371 pending
December 31, 1937.
2.	(a) 56; (b) 895; (c) 54-1,005 filed.
3.	(a) 48; (b) 1,036; (c) 91-1,175 heard.
4.	(a) 13; (b) 13; (c) 6-32 allowed.
5.	(a) 29; (b) 1,022; (c) 83-1,134 disallowed.
6.	(a) 6; (b) 9; (c) 0-15 remitted.
7.	(a) 16; (b) 180; (c) 5-201 awaiting hearing at as December 31, 1938.



FIELD CROPS-EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the value of field crops in Canada during each of the years 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	What was the total amount of our exports during the years 1937 and 1938?
3.	What was the amount of our imports during the said years?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	1935,	$511,872,900;	1936,	$612,300,400;
1937, $558,387,000; 1938, $527,419,000.
2.	Fiscal years ended March 31 (total domestic exports)-1937, $671,875,566; 1938, $799,069,918.
3.	Fiscal years ended March 31 (total imports)-1937, $1,061,181,906; 1938, $1,070,228,609.

Questions



SOLDIER SETTLERS' DEBT REDUCTIONS

Mr. REID:: 1. How many settlers under the soldier settlement board applied during 1938 for a compromise of their debts under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	What was the total value, by provinces, of the reductions put into effect during 1938 in regards to the appeals so made; and (a) how many cases, by provinces, are awaiting board of review order?
3.	Of the numbers applying for a compromise, how many were ex-service men?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	3,14S.
2.
British Columbia	. 168	$315,786 50Alberta	
.	. 311	675,048 25Saskatchewan	. 99	228,399 95Manitoba	. 85	184,920 38Ontario	. 76	103.248 19Quebec	. 61	94,783 63Maritimes-	Nova Scotia, New	Brunswick and Prince	Edward Island	217	335,120 871.017	$1,937,307 77103	No reduction
1,120
2.	(a)
British Columbia .. .. 206
Alberta	832
Saskatchewan	655
Manitoba	193
Ontario	 76
Quebec	 16
Maritimes-
Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick and Prince Edward Island .. ..	50



IMMIGRATION

Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada during the first six months of the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1938?
2.	How many immigrants entered Canada since the 1st of October, 1938?
3.	During both periods, how were the said
immigrants classified:	(a) as to nationality;
(b) as to religion?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	10,704.
2.	3,874. (To December 31, 1938.)
3.	(a) See statements attached.
(b) Information not available.
71492-40i
Total immigration to Canada, by racial origin, for the six months April 1, 1938 to September 30, 1938 Via
ocean ports	From U.S.A.	TotalsAlbanian	
7	7Arabian	2	2Armenian	
4	1	5Belgian	
115	6	121Bohemian	9	9British- English	1.486	1,093	2,579Irish	
260	423	683. Scotch	
417	406	823Welsh	
47	31	78Bulgarian	
15	15Croatian	
173	2	175Czech	
115	2	117Dalmatian	
1	1Dutch	
152	84	236East Indian.. ..	
3	3Esthonian	
9	9Finnish.. .. '..	
44	5	49French	
77	547	624German	. . .. 382	301	683Greek	#.	
63	3	66Hebrew	.. .. 236	145	381Italian	
213	33	246Japanese	
25	25Jugo-Slav	
154	2	156Lettish	
2	2Lithuanian.. . .	
20	4	24Magyar	
366	10	376Maltese	.... 1.	5	6Mexican	
1	1Montenegrin.. .	
3	3Moravian	
9	9Negro	
3	8	11North American	Indian	7	7Polish	
28S	41	329Portuguese. .. .	
1	1	2Roumanian.. ..	.... 80	1	81Russian	.... 89	10	99Ruthenian	1,073	15	1,088Scandinavian- Danish	
36	26	62Icelandic.. ..	8	8Norwegian.. .	
14	61	75Swedish	
7	52	59Serbian	
32	2	34Slovak	1,259	11	1,270Spanish	.... 5	1	6Swiss	
40	5	45Syrian	
12	2	14Totals.. .	7,339	3,365	10,704
Questions

3.-Concluded
Total immigration to Canada, by racial origin, for the three months, October 1, 1938, to December 31, 1938 Via
ocean From
ports	U.S.A.	TotalsAlbanian	
3	3Arabian	
2	....	2Belgian	3	17British- English	.... 502	457	959Irish	.... 86	190	276Scotch	
166	177	343Welsh	
20	15	35Bulgarian	6Croatian	....	51Czech	
21	....	21Dutch	
20	33	53East Indian	
2	2Finnish	.... 7	8	15French	.... 38	208	246German	
139	110	249Greek	
28	4	32Hebrew	.... 159	68	227Italian	.... 85	13	98Japanese	
11	....	11Jugo-Slav	.... 52	1	53Lettish	.... 2	....	2Lithuanian	.... 15	1	16Magyar	.... 91	4	95Mexican	
1	....	1
Total immigration to Canada, by racial origin, for the three months, October, 1938, to December 31, 1938-Concluded
Via ocean ports	From UJ3A.	TotalsMontenegrin.. ..	.... 5	....	5Negro	12	13North American	Indian ....	2	2Polish	
209	11	220Portuguese	1	1Roumanian	
17	1	18Russian	
45	45Ruthenian	
520	4	524Scandinavian-	Danish	
2	4	6Norwegian.. ..	.... 5	15	20Swedish	
4	28	32Serbian	
25	3	28Slovak	
119	4	123Spanish	
1	1	2Swiss	
9	1	10Syrian	
6	6	12-	-	-Totals	2,489	1,385	3,874


Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	How many of each race?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 1 and 2. See statement attached.

Questions
Total Immigration to Canada, by racial origin, from January 1, 1930 to December 31, 1938
Calendar years
1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	193833	5	4	1	4	9	107	1	2	1	2	3	5Armenian	28	6	5	10	3	5	6	6	6Belgian	427	97	81	50	78	100	94	111	199Bohemian	76	22	24	12	10	7	13	12	10British-	English	24,789	9,417	6,461	4,301	3,491	3,089	3,049	3,736	4,163Irish	7,876	2,748	1,886	1,316	1,021	895	8.54	1,017	1,130Scotch	11,996	3,825	2,612	1,700	1,198	1,204	1,133	1,314	1,365Welsh	1,116	371	184	126	115	88	105	102	130Bulgarian	353	17	16	15	5	13	23	32	261	1	1	1	Croatian	604	118	95	107	152	158	232	262	287Czech	261	78	77	54	76	113	124	182	1721	1Dutch	1,605	308	247	190	150	172	211	221	336East Indian	80	52	61	36	33	26	13	11	9Esthonian	87	9	1	3	2	3	5	3	9Finnish	2,811	136	62	67	79	64	61	94	81French	5,084	2,938	2,832	1,337	903	840	833	871	1,049German	13,544	2,3S9	1,842	1.213	945	725	792	1,137	1,102Greek	575	66	71	53	58	67	92	110	130Hebrew	4,220	670	747	781	869	803	659	559	748Italian	1,327	633	435	365	375	392	349	481	428Japanese	218	174	119	106	126	70	103	146	57Jugo-Slav	521	78	59	68	104	119	109	130	225Lettish	36	2	8	3	1	2	5	10	6Lithuanian	624	65	49	44	45	25	51	44	47Magyar	3,360	530	333	506	442	344	334	573	61722	5	6	4	3	61	1	6	1	23	2	85	1	3	3	9Negro	294	104	71	80	25	28	18	27	27North American Indian	8	29	24	10	6	2	2	11	91	1	1	1	3	Polish	~	5,207	680	474	410	436	447	414	675	633Portuguese	11	5	9	5	5	5	4	5	3Roumanian	300	48	38	38	44	43	61	91	113Russian	1,123	111	104	82	70	99	94	144	165Ruthenian	8,133	541	482	390	578	483	815	1,215	1,905Scandinavian-	Danish	1,421	175	116	82	63	54	63	81	80Icelandic	40	10	12	10	12	11	4	6	10Norwegian	1,808	262	275	144	132	122	101	113	119Swedish	1,440	276	225	126	100	113	81	138	116Serbian	208	50	51	35	38	28	40	80	71Slovak	2,645	344	262	408	594	415	571	1,173	1,523Spanish	36	26	23	12	15	12	22	16	9Spanish American	2	1	2	4	4	Swiss	340	72	57	46	43	55	60	110	58Syrian	93	31	46	34	27	32	26	22	308	2	2	1	1	1	
Totals		104,806	27,530	20,591	14,382	12,476	11,277	11,643	15,101	17,244



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-INDEBTEDNESS

Mr. ESLING:: 1.	What was the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways to the public as at December 31, 1938?
2.	What is the total annual interest on this indebtedness ?
3.	What is the total sum transferred from the consolidated revenue fund to the credit of the Canadian National Railways from the date of organization of the Canadian National railway system to December 31. 1938?
4.	(a) On what portion of the indebtedness to the consolidated revenue fund is the Canadian National Railways obligated for interest; (b) what amount, if any, of this obligation is paid annually?
Mr. HOWE;
1.	Canadian National railway accounts for 1938 are not yet available. As of December 31, 1937, the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways to the public was 81,221,997,399.
Questions

2.	As of December 31, 1937, $48,888,546.
3.	Appendix No. 28, page 113, of dominion public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938, is a statement of assistance given to railways by the Dominion of Canada to that date. Complete information is given therein with respect to cash contributions, loans and advances to Canadian National Railways, amount repaid, transferred, or discharged, the amount written off, and the amount presently outstanding.
4.	(a) The Canadian National railway is indebted to the government of Canada for interest on all sums currently advanced for purposes other than in payment of deficits.
(b) Interest is paid annually to the government until the principal amounts are repaid. Repayments are made from the proceeds of Canadian National railway securities sold to the public, and the new securities become part of those referred to in question 1. Interest on the new securities then forms part of the interest referred to in question 2.
The amount of such obligations fluctuates from year to year, but such information is always to be found in the annual report of the Canadian National railways as tabled in parliament and referred to the select standing committee on Canadian National railway accounts.



LIMA CONFERENCE

Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	By whom was the recent Lima PanAmerican conference called ?
2.	Was Canada extended an invitation to attend the conference?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The invitations were issued by Signor Carlos Concha, minister of foreign affairs on behalf of the government of Peru, pursuant to a resolution of the seventh international conference of American States held at Montevideo, Uruguay, in December, 1933.
2.	No.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- INTEREST DEFICIT

Mr. ESLING:: What sum of money was contributed from the consolidated revenue fund to make up the Canadian National Railway's interest deficit for that portion of the 1938-39 fiscal year, ending December 31?


Mr. HOWE:: 





CHRISTMAS TREES-VALUE OF 1938 CUT

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has the government knowledge as to the number of Christmas trees cut in Canada during the year 1938? If so, what was the total number of spruce trees cut, by provinces?
2.	What was the value in dollars and cents of spruce trees cut in each province?
3.	What was the total number of fir trees cut, by provinces?
4.	What was the value in dollars and cents of fir trees cut in each province?
5.	What steps, if any, are being taken to control and regulate the cutting of Christmas trees?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 1,	2, 3, and 4. No information.
5.	Practically all Christmas trees harvested in Canada are cut in the provinces. Those taken from provincial crown lands are subject to provincial regulations. However the large proportion are cut on privately owned lands and are not subject to cutting regulations.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-QUEBEC LOANS

Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What is the total number and value of loans made in the dominion under the National Housing Act, 1938?
2.	What is the total number and value of loans made under this act in the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the total number and value of these loans made in the eastern townships district (Compton, Sherbrooke, Richmond-Wolfe, Shefford, Frontenae, Brome-Missisquoi) ?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The National Housing Act, 1938, which repealed and reenacted the Dominion Housing Act with important amendments, was passed on July 1, 1938, but lending operations under the new Act did not begin until about August 1, 1938. From August 1, 1938, to December 31, 1938, the total number of loans approved is 1,304, providing for 1,837 family housing units, and amounting to $6,522,347. Under the National Housing Act, 1938, and its predecessor act, the total number of loans approved is 4,675, providing for 7,132 family housing units, and amounting to $27,678,002.
2.	The total number of loans approved under the National Housing Act, 1938, in the province of Quebec is 256, providing for 544 family housing units, and amounting to $2,029,539. Under the National Housing Act, 1938, and its predecessor act, the total number of loans approved to December 31, 1938, in the province

Questions
of Quebec is 889, providing for 1,744 family housing units, and amounting to $7,521,461.
3. The total number of loans approved to December 31, 1938, under the National Housing Act, 1938, in the eastern townships is
eight, providing for eleven family housing units, and amounting to $33,770, as follows:			
		Family housing	
	Loans	units Amount	
Sherbrooke	.. 3	5	$18,900(Sherbrooke Co.) Granby	.. 2	2	4,370(Shefford Co.) Bromptonville.. ..	.. 1	1	4,000(Richmond Co.) Magog	.. 1	1	3,500(Stanstead Co.) Windsor	.. 1	2	3,000(Richmond Co.)	8	* 11	$33,770The total number of loans approved to December 31, 1938, under the National Hous-	ing Act, 1938, and its predecessor act,	in theeastern townships is	14, providing for 25 family	housing units, and	amounting	to $82,648, as	follows:	Family housing	Loans	units Amount	Sherbrooke	.. 8	18	$65,028(Sherbrooke Co.) Granby	.. 2	2	4,370(Stanstead Co.) Bromptonville.. ..	.. 1	1	4,000(Richmond Co.) Magog	. .. 1	1	3,500(Stanstead Co.) North Hatley.. ..	.. 1	1	2,750(Stanstead Co.) Windsor	.. 1	2	3,000(Richmond Co.)	14	25	$82,648



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	How many loans have been made by the federal government to municipalities in the province of Quebec under the Municipality Assistance Act, 1938?
2.	What is the total amount of these loans?


Mr. DUNNINC:: 1.	None.
2.	Nil.


Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	What provinces have taken advantage of the act of 1938 intituled "The Municipal Improvements Assistance Act," authorizing the borrowing of moneys by municipalities at a rate of 2 per cent per annum, on the guarantee of the province interested?
2.	What provinces refused to give such guarantee to the dominion government?
3.	What is the total amount loaned by the dominion government in each of the said provinces which have taken advantage of the said law?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
2.	Ontario. (It is understood that the government of the province of Nova Scotia intends to introduce legislation at the next session of the legislature to enable municipalities in that province to take advantage of the Act. No information has been received as to the attitude of the government of the province of Quebec, but no formal applications for loans from municipalities in the province of Quebec, approved by the provincial government have been submitted to the Minister of Finance.)
3.	British Columbia, $1,416,635; Alberta, $591,318.73; Saskatchewan, 8628,200; New Brunswick, $402,513.80; Prince Edward Island, $7,000; Manitoba, nil.



BREN MACHINE CUN CONTRACT-COST OF INQUIRY

Mr. BLANCHETTE:: What is the cost to the government of the recent Bren inquiry?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: $12,595.34 -To January 23, 1939, from National Defence Appropriation.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION- HORNBY, ONT. STATION

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation station CBL at Hornby, Ontario?
2.	What area of land was purchased for the purpose of erecting the said station?
3.	What was the purchase price of the said land?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	$291,370.14.
2.	51-32 acres.
3.	$6,433.60.
Questions



WAR MUNITIONS-PERMITS ISSUED FOR EXPORT

Mr. REID:: 1.	Were any permits issued during 1938 by
Canada	for the	exportation	of	arms	and
ammunition to China and including airplanes or airplane parts?
2. If so, what were the total number of permits so issued, and what was the total value of all such exports to China during the year 1938?
3.	Were any permits issued during 1938 by
Canada	for the	exportation	of	arms	and
ammunition to Japan and including airplanes or airplane parts?
4. If so, what were the total number of permits	so issued,	and what	was	the totalvalue of	all such exports to Japan	during	the
year 1938?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	101 permits. $602,270.40.
3.	Yes.
4.	2 permits. $43,550.



HOME IMPROVEMENT PLAN-LOANS IN PEEL COUNTY

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many loans have been made in each year under the home improvement plan in: (a) Canada; (b) Peel county?
2.	How much has been so loaned in each year in: (a) Canada; (b) Peel county?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1	and 2.
Canada
Nov. 1-Dec. 31, 1936 Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1937. Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1938.
County of Peel
Nov. 1-Dec. 31, 1936	
Jan. 1-Dec. 31, 1937	
Jan. 1-Dec. 31,1938	
Number	Amount
3,159	$ 1,198,253 02
30,772	12,051,873 12
28,077	11,516,422 92
62,008	$24,766,549 06
. 6	$ 4,031 45
. 135	59,002 21
. 91	37,692 39
232	$100,726 05



TRANSPORT ACT, 1938-&quot;AGREED CHARGES&quot;

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many "agreed charges" under the provision of Part Y of the Transport Act, 1938. have been approved by the board of transport commissioners since the said act came into force?
2.	How many of such applications were refused ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 1 and 2. The railway companies are engaged in the study and preparation of material for submission of "agreed charges" with certain shippers to the Board of Transport Commissioners for approval, but as yet no agreement has been submitted to the board for approval under Part V of the Transport Act, 1938.



BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Will the book of remembrance be completed prior to the visit of their majesties to Ottawa ?
2.	If not, when does the government expect it to be finished?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No.
2.	The chairman, Book of Remembrance committee, expects that the Book of Remembrance will be completed, including binding, during the fiscal year 1939-40.


Mr. PINARD:: 1.	(a) Is the book of remembrance completed? (b) If not, when is it expected that it will be?
2.	How many names have been inscribed in the book?
3.	What has been the cost of the work?
4.	Will it be arranged for its deposit on the altar of remembrance in the memorial chamber of the peace tower, in the presence of their majesties the king and queen, on their visit to Ottawa in May next?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	(a) No. (b) The chairman, book of remembrance committee, anticipates the book being completed, including binding, during the fiscal year 1939-40.
2.	66,784 names.
3.	$45,000.
4.	The book will not be completed in time for dedication in the memorial chamber during the visit of their majesties to Canada.

Questions



BUTTER IMPORTS

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported into Canada from: (a) Australia; (b) New Zealand, during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	What quantity of butter is now in cold storage in Canada?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Imports from Calendar years Australia New Zealand
(pounds) (pounds)
1936	
-	[DOT]	44,5201937	
-	1,4561938	1,400,000	2,871,3732.	January 1, 1939-Total in cold storage (preliminary), creamery butter, 43,784,406 pounds; dairy butter, 455,554 pounds. Total 44,239,960 pounds.


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What is the total number of pounds of butter that was imported into this country from January, 1938, to April 1, 1938?
2.	In January, 1938, what was the shortage of butter in storage in this country as compared to the butter storage of January, 1937?
3.	What is the Canadian monthly consumption of this commodity?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	4,886.930 pounds.
2.	In storage January 1, 1937: Creamery butter, 35,707,463; dairy butter, 292,080; total butter, 35,999,543.
In storage January 1, 1938: Creamery butter, 27,769,429; dairy butter, 137,772; total butter, 27,907,201. Apparent shortage, 8,092,342.
3.	The average monthly consumption of butter (creamery and dairy) based on annual consumption figures for 1937 amounted to 30,313,302 pounds. The monthly consumption based on the five-year average 1933 to 1937, amounted to 28,773,953 pounds.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	Has Canada imported any butter from New Zealand or elsewhere since May 1, 1938?
2.	If so, how many pounds of butter were imported into Canada?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From New Zealand, 166 pounds. From other countries, 5,888 pounds.



CATTLE-NUMBER, EXPORTS AND MILK PRODUCTION

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What is the total cattle population of Canada?
2.	What percentage of our cattle in Canada was exported, in the calendar year 1938, to the United States?
3.	What is the last recorded total, in gallons, of our production of milk in Canada?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	On June 1, 1938, cattle on farms, 8,511,200.
2.	1-72 per cent.
3.	In 1937-1,668,797,835 gallons.



SAMUEL J. MAGUIRE

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was one Samuel J. Maguire the master mechanic in charge of work in the Montreal harbour?
2.	If so, for how many years did Mr. Maguire occupy that position?
3.	Is Mr. Maguire still in that position.
4.	If not, for what reason was he relieved of his duties?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Was employed as master mechanic with duties in relation to repairs of mechanical equipment in grain elevators and shed freight hoists.
2.	May 1, 1930, to April 5, 1938.
3.	No.
4.	Position abolished in interest of efficiency and Mr. Maguire's services dispensed with.



SWAMP LAKE, PETERBOROUGH COUNTY, DAM

Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Did the Department of Transport, in the fall of 1938, build a dam between Swamp lake and Bass lake, in Peterborough county?
2.	If so, did they purchase spruce, pine, or other logs for the construction of the dam?
3.	From whom were these logs purchased, and at what price?
4.	Were tenders called?
5.	If tenders were not called, were any other prices submitted for logs in this connection?
6.	If so, by whom, and what were the prices?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No. Repairs only.
2.	Yes; hemlock logs only.
3.	From Mr. Ralph Phillips, Kinmount; at 20c per L. ft.
4.	Yes.
5 and 6. Answered by No. 4.
Questions



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	Who is the present incumbent in the position of director of public relations in the Post Office Department?
2.	When was this office cieated?
3.	What are the duties attached to the office?
4.	What salary and other emoluments are paid to this officer?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	W. J. Turnbull.
2.	April 1st, 1936.
3.	To control and supervise the Department's publicity, sales promotion, and public relations.
4.	$3,900.



BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT-GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, COST OF INQUIRY

Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Who were the government counsel in connection with the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract?
2.	What remuneration did each receive per day?
3.	What amount for expenses did each receive per day?
4.	What was the total amount for fees and expenses paid to each?
5.	What was the total government expenditure on account of this commission?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	The Honourable J. L. Ralston, K.C., Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C., Mr. Jacques Dumoulin, ICC.
2.	The Hon. J. L. Ralston, nil; Mr. L. A. Forsyth, nil; Mr. Jacques Dumoulin: fees, including living expenses, $75.00.
3.	No per diem expenses.
4.	The Hon. J. L. Ralston: fees, nil; expenses, $2,756.93. Mr. L. A. Forsyth, nil. Mr. Jacques Dumoulin:	fees, including living
expenses, $5,625.00, travelling expenses, $90.10, total, $5,715.10.
5.	$15,352.27-To February 2, 1939, from National Defence Appropriation.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-LOANS BY PROVINCES

Mr. NEEDHAM:: 1.	How many loans, and of what value, have been made in each province under the National Housing Act, 1938?
2.	What is the amount of each such loan made in Saskatchewan?
3.	How many applications were made for loans under the said Act in each of the prov inees of Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The National Housing Act, 1938, which repealed and re-enacted the Dominion Housing Act with important amendments, was passed on July 1, 1938, but lending operations under the new act did not begin until about August 1, 1938. From August 1, 1938 to December 31, 1938, loans under the National Housing Act, 1938, have been approved as follows:
Province	Loans	Family housing units provided	AmountPJ5.I	. 5	5	S 26,000Nova Scotia.. .	. 46	56	196,462New Brunswick.	. 18	20	88,260Quebec	. 256	544	2,029,539Ontario	. 602	828	2,846,996Manitoba	. 68	68	276,219Saskatchewan. .	. 5	5	16,800Alberta	British Columbia. 304	311	1,042,071Total	1,304	1,837	$6,522,347Loans under the National Housing Act, 1938,	and its predecessor act,	have been approved	to December 31,	1938, as	follows:	Province	Loans	Family housing units provided	AmountP.E.I	15	15	S 80,034Nova Scotia.. .	418	431	1,830.960New Brunswick.	110	118	505,117Quebec	889	1,744	7.521,461Ontario	2,041	3,3S0	12.917,420Manitoba	158	218	914,853Saskatchewan. .	*7 /	t	25,000Alberta	British Columbia	1.037	1,219	3,883,157Total	. 4.675	7,132	$27,678,0022. National	Housing	Act- Family housing	No. of	units	Amountloan	Location	provided	of loan1	Regina	1	$ 3,7002	Regina	1	- 3,7003	Regina	1	3,7004	Regina	1	2,5005	Regina	1	3,200Total.... 5	5	$16,800
Questions
Dominion Housing Act-
Family
housing
No. of	units Amount
loan Location provided of loan
1 Prince Albert 1	$2,200
2	Yorkton	1	6,000Total.... 2	2	$8,2003.	Only those applications for loans which are recommended for acceptance by approved lending institutions are forwarded to the Department of Finance. The department has therefore no record of all applications or enquiries for loans made to approved lending institutions.



KEDGWICK, N.B., MAIL CARRIER

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was the person who carried the mail between the post office and the railway station at Kedgwick replaced?
2.	If so: (a) what was the name of the mail carrier prior to January 1, 1939; (b) for what reason was the change made?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Estate of late Joseph A. Roy; (b) Contract expired 31st December, 1938, necessitating new contract arrangements from 1st January, 1939.



STATIONARY SEARCHLIGHTS

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	To what firms or individuals were contracts awarded for the manufacture of stationary search lights for the Department of National Defence in 1938?
2.	What sum was involved in each instance?
3.	Were such contracts awarded on a basis of open tender or by selection?
4.	Have deliveries and complete operating installations been made ?
5.	Were such contracts approved by the interdepartmental committee? If so, what steps were taken to control profits?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	None. A contract is now under consideration.	.
2.	$1,926,000.
3.	Tenders were invited by advertisement in the public press.
4.	See 1 above.
5.	Yes. See reply to No. 3.



MANUFACTURE OF SHELLS

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many contracts have been awarded for the manufacture of shells in: (a) Canada; (b) Great Britain; (c) other countries?
2.	To what firms or individuals have such contracts been awarded?
3.	What is the sum involved in respect of each contract?
4.	Were such contracts awarded on a basis of competitive bids or selection?
5.	Have deliveries been made in respect of each contract?
6.	Were all such contracts or orders approved by the interdepartmental committee? If not, what steps were taken to control profits?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	(a) one; (b) nil; (c) nil.
2.	Messrs. Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment, Ltd., Montreal.
3.	The contract was placed on a cost-plus basis at an upset manufacturing cost of $4 per shell for 20,000 shells, quick-firing, 18-pdr. high explosive, and $6.75 for 10,000 shells, quick-firing, 4-5" Howitzer high explosive.
4.	Selection.
5.	No.
6.	Yes.



SINGLE TRANSIENTS IN TORONTO

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	With respect to the 500 transient, single, young men under 25 years of age in Toronto, whose case was brought to the attention of parliament recently, what steps should these boys take now in order to get means of sustenance?
2.	Whose responsibility are these boys: Toronto's, Ontario's or Ottawa's?
3.	If a combination of all three, whom should the boys approach to register their needs?
4.	Is there a definite office in Toronto at which they can make known their plight and request assistance? If so, where is it, and what is the procedure for them to follow?
5.	What government is responsible for taking the initiative for giving them help?
6.	What sort of assistance will be given: '(a) during the first day; (b) during the first week?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The matter of single transient young men under 25 years of age was brought to the attention of the house on January 20 following the arrest of some of these men. At that time it was stated that information available was to the effect that the matter was receiving the attention of the provincial government (Hansard, page 189). Any persons in need of assistance in the city of Toronto should make application to the city relief office.
Questions

2.	Under agreement the dominion is assisting the province of Ontario by contributing to the cost to the province and its municipalities of food, fuel, clothing and shelter (or any of them) supplied to individuals in necessitous circumstances, but it is the responsibility of the local authorities, under provincial regulation, to determine to whom and to what extent such assistance shall be granted.
3	and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5 and 6. Answered by No. 2.
* TORONTO HOUSEWIVES	LEAGUE-COMPLAINTS



RESPECTING HIGH COST OP LIVING

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action, if any, has been taken by the Department of Labour with respect to the petitions and complaints of the Toronto Housewives League and others respecting the high cost of living, presented in the house in 1938?
2.	Were any prosecutions instituted, or investigations made into combinations in restraint of trade and into trusts and combines in Canada? If so, what were they?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member asked
a question regarding this matter in the house in February last and in my answer of February 17 I stated that "if there are grounds for believing that trade combinations are fixing prices to the detriment of the public, the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act may be invoked in the regular manner by the hon. member's correspondents or others who know of the existence of such combinations." The act was not so invoked and no investigation was made.
In reply to the second question I may say that investigations under the Combines Investigation Act are being made continuously. Prosecution proceedings as a result of the recent report on tobacco have been commenced in Alberta, the investigation relating to corrugated boxes will be completed shortly, and the British Columbia fruit investigation is in progress. These are the principal matters at present receiving attention.



NEW CUSTOMS OUTPORTS

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Were any outports in Canada organized into ports during the last three years?
2.	If so, what are the names of such new ports?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. 10.
2.	Amos, Que.; Coutts, Alta.; Farnham, Que.; Edmundston, N.B.; Lacolle, Que.; Pacific Highway, B.C.; Trail, B.C.; Walker-ville, Ont.; West Toronto, Ont.; Victoria-ville, Que.



NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What is the amount of Canada's national debt as at March 31, 1938?
2.	What are the names of the creditors to whom we owe this debt, and what amount is due each?
3.	What amount of interest was paid on the national debt in the fiscal year 1937-38: (a) in Canada; (b) outside Canada?
4.	On the basis of payments made to date, how long will it take to pay off our national debt?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Total liabilities of the Dominion of Canada at March 31, 1938, amounted to 83,540,237,614.54, of which 83.314,558,031.86 represented unmatured funded debt and treasury bills. The net debt (total liabilities less active assets) -as of the same date was $3,101,667,570.25.
2.	It is not possible to answer this question as only approximately 40 per cent of the funded debt is in the form of registered bonds. Moreover, there are over 160,000 registered holders of bonds payable in Canada only.
3.	Interest on the gross interest-bearing debt (funded and unfunded): (a) $101,780,368.73; (b) $30,337,052.85.
4.	The paying off of the debt of Canada is dependent on the budgetary policy of the government and, therefore, as it is not the practice to answer questions relating to policy, the question should be dropped.



RADIO LICENCES

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many radio receiving licences have been issued during the current fiscal year in Canada?
2.	How many persons have been convicted and fined during the current fiscal year for failure to obtain such licences?
3.	What is the total amount collected during
this fiscal year from the sale of radio receiving licences ?	-
4.	How much did it cost to effect such
collections ?	.


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	1,162,800,
2.	1,410.
3.	$2,679,216.01.
4.	Commissions $194,581.35 and administration $81,264.74.
(All figures for the current fiscal year to the 31st of December, 1938.)



RURAL MAIL ROUTES

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many rural mail routes in Canada have been opened for tender during the calendar year 1938?

Questions
2.	How many were renewed during the same period ?
3.	What is the average mileage covered by rural mail carriers in Canada?
4.	What is the average contract price per mile per year of Canadian rural mail routes?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	479 (including 146 new routes).
2.	750.
3.	21'18 miles per trip (as on 31st March, 1938).
4.	S32.54 per mile per annum based on six trips per week (as on 31st March, 1938).



DELISLE, SASK., MAIL SERVICE

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Who has the contract for the mail service between Delisle post office and Canadian National railway station?
2.	Who had the contract to December 31,
1938?	.
3.	What amount did he receive for his services ?
4.	What amount is the present tenderer to receive?
5.	Why was the change, if any, made?
6.	Upon whose recommendation was the
change, if any, made?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	William Charles Green.
2.	John E. Nugent.
3.	$374.40.
4.	$315.
5.	Contract held by J. E. Nugent expired 31st December, 1938.
6.	Contract was awarded to W. C. Green, the lowest tenderer, in accordance with terms of the Post Office Act.



EXPORTS OF DAIRY CATTLE

Mr. PURDY:: How many dairy cattle were exported from the maritime provinces to the United States during the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 respectively, and what rate of duty was effective each year against such exports?


William Daum Euler: Exports of dairy cattle to the United States through the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1934 to 1938.
Prince Edward
Fiscal	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Islandyear	No.	Value	No.	Value	No. Value$	$	$1934	43	1,409	1935	100	2.871	1936	
18	900	785	38,339	1937	
42	3,160	1,029	51,245	1938	
8	428	748	43,267	
Tariff until December 31, 1935:
Weighing 700 pounds or more each	
3	cents	per	poundWeighing less than 700 pounds each	
2i	cents	per	pound
Tariff since January 1, 1936:
Weighing 700 pounds or more each	
H	cents	per	poundWeighing less than 700 pounds each	
2i	cents	per	pound



MONTREAL POST OFFICE-CHAUFFEURS AND GARAGE EMPLOYEES

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Have certain chauffeurs or garage employees of the Post Office Department in Montreal, who performed substitute service for regular postal employees, outside of their regular working hours, been paid for such extra work by the employees for whom they substituted ?
2.	What are the names of the employees who engaged substitute chauffeurs or garage attendants to perform their work?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No information.
2.	There is no record that the conditions referred to exist.



ALFRED GAUTHIER

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	What is the present classification of Alfred Gauthier, employee of the Post Office Department in Montreal?
2.	For how many years has he been in the employ of the department?
3.	What have been his duties with the Post Office Department since he became an employee of the said department?
4.	By whom "'as he recommended for the position he now occupies?
5.	Has he been asked to file an application for mail superintendent?
6.	If so, by whom?
7.	Was Mr. Gauthier a candidate in the first competition for this position? If not, why?
Questions

8.	Was he not a candidate in the second competition, and why?
9.	Is he an owner or tenant in the city of Montreal, and what is his address?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Superintendent of mails, Grade 12.
2.	32 years.
3.	He has been a letter carrier, senior letter carrier, letter carrier overseer, senior postal clerk, clerk in charge of a postal station, senior clerk in the city delivery branch, principal postal clerk, head postal clerk, superintendent of mails, city delivery branch.
4.	No specific recommendation. He was promoted to his present position by the civil service commission in May, 1928, as a result of a promotional competition.
5 and 6. No information. Competition was open to all permanent employees of the Montreal postal district.
7.	No. The department has no information as to why Mr. Gauthier did not apply.
8.	Yes. Mr. Gauthier is an applicant in the second competition.
9.	He is a tenant in the city of Montreal. His address is 1608 Theodore street.



c. A. MARCOUX

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: What amount, if any, was claimed by the Post Office Department from Mr. C. A. Marcoux, civil servant at the Montreal post office, for gasoline and oil expenses and the use of the department's automobile in Montreal?


Mr. McLARTY:: Nil.



J. D. OLIVIER

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	In what year was an investigation held by Mr. H. Fortier, chief inspector of the Post Office Department, in the case of J. D. Olivier, civil employee at the Montreal post office?
2.	What wras the salary of J. D. Olivier before such investigation?
3.	What was his salary after the investigation?
4.	Was there an inquiry made into the alleged losses suffered by the department?
5.	Was restitution made?
6.	Were other employees included in that investigation ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	1929.
2.	$2,520.
3.	$1,740.
4	and 5. There is no record of any loss, actual or alleged.
6.	The investigation concerned Olivier. A number of employees were examined.



MONTREAL BOTANICAL GARDENS


Mr. DENIS:: 1.	What amounts, if any, have been contributed to date by the dominion government to works performed:	(a) at the botanical
gardens in Montreal; (b) at St. Helene island, Montreal district?
2.	What portion of the total actual cost of such works represent such contributions?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	(a) Under the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, $135,404.38; Under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, $337,500. (b) Under the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, 8167,381.37; Under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1937, $621,267.49.
Under the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1938, the agreement with Quebec provides:-". . . 'material aid' shall mean either food, fuel, clothing and shelter (or any of them) supplied to individuals in necessitous circumstances or, the costs of carrying on works and training projects specifically designated by the province as projects intended to provide said individuals when employed thereon (other than supervisory personnel) the equivalent of food, fuel, clothing and shelter (or any of them) which otherwise would have to be supplied to those individuals, provided in each case that a schedule setting forth a description of the project, the estimated total cost thereof and the specific costs to which the dominion will contribute has been approved in writing by the minister."
Pursuant to this provision of the agreement, the province has, with the approval of the Minister of Labour, included in claims rendered to the dominion for material aid total expenditures of $167,114.72 for the month of May and 8196,829.13 for the month of June, which were incurred in respect to the St. Helen's island project.
2.	The total cost of these projects, which it is understood are still under construction, is not a matter of record with the dominion.



PURSE SEINING

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Is February 5 of each year the date on which purse seining for herring on the west coast of Vancouver island is closed, as fixed by regulations?
2.	Was all purse seining for herring on the west coast of Vancouver island closed on January 19? If so, for what reason?
3.	What was the total quota of herring allowed to be caught on the west coast by seining for the season 1938-39?

Questions
4.	What proportion, giving tons and percentage, of the quota had been taken when the fishing was closed?
5.	Had the quota been too large in recent years?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes, provided earlier closure consequent upon taking of prescribed catch quota not in effect.
2.	Yes. In the interests of conservation.
3.	40,000 tons.
4.	15,084 tons; 37-7 per cent.
5.	Not apparent. The regulations are designed to enable immediate closure of fishing in the interests of conservation should normal inns not materialize in any season.



PRINTING OP PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECHES

Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Did the King's Printer print and/or distribute copies of speeches delivered by the Prime Minister: (a) on July 19, 1937, on his return from his majesty's coronation, entitled "Crown and Commonwealth"; (b) on July 30, 1938, at the Canadian corps reunion in Toronto, entitled "The Struggle for Enduring Peace"?
2.	If so, what was the cost of printing each of these speeches?
3.	Were any copies of these speeches ordered
from the King's Printer by:	(a) the Prime
Minister; (b) the National Liberal Federation; (c) Senator Norman Lambert, or any other official of the National Liberal Federation?
4.	If so, how many copies were ordered, and how much was paid to the King's Printer or the Receiver-General for them?
5.	Have any other speeches delivered by the Prime Minister or by any member of the government outside the House of Commons been printed by the King's Printer?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) Yes. "Crown and Commonwealth," was a reprint of an address on the coronation, and the imperial conference, delivered over the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on July 18th. 1937; (b) Yes.
2.	Cost of printing "Crown and Commonwealth", S228.81; cost of printing "The Struggle for Enduring Peace," $100.14.
3.	(a) Yes, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; (b) Yes; (c) No.
4.	22,760 copies cost S328.95, as follows: "Crown and Commonwealth," 1,000 English, $52.38; External Affairs, 500 French, $59.71. Total, $112.09.
Public Printing and Stationery, 150 copies, $1.72; National Liberal Federation (reprints), 10,000 copies, $115. Total, $228.81.
"The Struggle for Enduring Peace"-External Affairs, 1,000 copies and envelopes, $29.52;
Public Printing and Stationery, 110 copies, 62 cents; National Liberal Federation (reprints), 10,000 copies, $70. Total, $100.14.
Grand total, $328.95.
5.	The following addresses delivered by the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs outside the House of Commons other than those above mentioned were printed by the King's Printer;
On the occasion of the unveiling of the memorial at Vimy, July 26th, 1936, and on the occasion of the visit of President Roosevelt to Quebec, July 31st, 1936;
At the 17th session of the assembly of the League of Nations, Geneva, September 29th, 1936; being a statement of League of Nations policies;
On the occasion of the Canadian Legion Remembrance Day Broadcast, November 11th, 1936;
On the occasion of the visit to Canada of the Honourable Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States, October 22nd, 1937;
At the dedication of The Thousand Islands International bridge at Ivy Lea, Ontario, and Collins Landing, N.Y., at the time of the visit to Canada of the President of the United States, on August 18th, 1938;
On the occasion of the Canadian Legion Remembrance Day broadcast, November 11th, 1938.



OTTAWA TOST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. BAKER:: 1.	What was the original cost of constructing the old post office building in the city of Ottawa ?
2.	Were any extensive repairs and/or alterations made in the building?
3.	If so, what was the cost of such repairs and/or alterations?
4.	What was the cost of dismantling this building?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Original post office building at Ottawa was completed in 1876 at a cost of $242,856.73.
2.	Yes.
3.	$341,897.99.
4.	$3,547.
Note: Queiy No. 3. The above figure includes the following: (a) Extensive alterations for customs purposes, years 1902-03, $47,474.67; (b) Restoration after fire including additional storey, $196,534.31; (c) All other repairs and alterations since erection of building in 1876, $97,889.01-Total, $341,897.99.
Questions


Mr. BAKER:: 1.	What is the contract price, including architect's fees, for the erection of the new post office building in the city of Ottawa?
2.	What was the cost of purchasing the site upon which the new post office building is being erected ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$632,520.
2.	Purchase price, $380,000.



FIXATION OF ARBITRARY VALUATIONS FOR DUTY PURPOSES

Mr. SPENCE:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Revenue, since October, 1935, fixed arbitrary valuations for duty under the provisions of section 43 of the Customs Act, in respect of any commodities other than natural products?
2.	If so, on what dates were such valuations fixed?
3.	In respect of what commodities?
4.	Has any order in council been passed since October, 1935, authorizing the Minister of National Revenue to fix arbitrary valuations for duty, under the provisions of section 43 of the Customs Act, in respect of any commodities other than natural products?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. January 29, 1937, Coronation souvenirs-P.C. 32/129, January 21, 1937; January 31, 1938, Rubber footwear (modification of previously established valuation); December 19, 1938, Souvenirs of royal visit -P.C. 2975, December 2, 1938; January 16, 1939, Bedspreads and counterpanes of artificial silk and cotton-P.C. 42, January 11, 1939; January 16, 1939, Towels and accessories and woven fabric of terry cloth-P.C. 43, January 11, 1939.



&quot; WHAT DID PARLIAMENT DO &quot;-DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR MEMORANDUM

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Was a mimeographed memorandum entitled "What did Parliament Do," distributed by the Minister of Labour during the month of July, 1938?
2.	If so, how many copies were mimeographed and to whom were these copies distributed?
3.	By whom was the memorandum prepared?
4.	What was the cost of preparing, mimeographing and mailing copies of this memorandum?
5.	For what purposes was the memorandum prepared?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	400 copies were mimeographed; copies were distributed to members of parliament, a limited number to newspapers and the re-

maining copies retained for use in the minister's office to meet individual requests.
3.	The memorandum was prepared by officers in the department.
4.	The cost is somewhat difficult to compute accurately but the following is an approximation of the cost:-Preparing: Since a number of officers of the department cooperated in the preparation of this memorandum it is not possible to estimate the cost; Mimeographing and paper, etc., $21.62; Mailing:

.
5.	The purpose of this memorandum was to supply information particularly with reference to steps being taken to alleviate unemployment. The department is constantly in receipt of requests from members of parliament and others for information as to what is being done by the government in this direction and it was considered advisable to prepare a comprehensive statement in convenient form of the accomplishments of the last session and to distribute same to the members of parliament, and also to have this information available to meet the many inquiries received and thus obviate the necessity of preparing lengthy replies to individual correspondents.



NATIONAL WAR MEMORLAL

Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What was the cost of the national war memorial erected in the city of Ottawa?
2.	What was the cost of erecting the memorial, including foundations?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the terrace around the memorial, now in course of construction ?
4.	What was the cost of widening Connaught Place?
5.	What is the estimated cost of re-routing Sparks, Elgin and Queen streets in the city of Ottawa and of other works of similar nature, made necessary by the erection of the national war memorial?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1 and 2. Cost of bronze work erected, $160,000; cost of granite, stonework and concrete foundation. $124,573.25; total, $284,573.25.
3.	$215,000, which includes work not engaged for, estimated at $26,300.
4 and 5. $390,000. which includes work not engaged for, estimated at $41,243.



GATINEAU VALLEY NATIONAL PARKWAY

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has the government or the federal district commission purchased any land in the Gatineau valley for the creation of a national park and/or national parkway or driveway system?
2.	If so, when?
3.	What amount of land has been purchased for these purposes?
4.	At what cost?

Questions


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	July to December, 1938.
3.	2947-5 acres purchased and 1,800 acres expropriated.
4.	The cost will not be known until compensation has been adjudged under the provisions of the Expropriation Act.
ISLAND POINT-LITTLE BRASD'oR BRIDGE MAIL CONTRACT


Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was a contract for the conveyance of mails between Island Point post office and Little Bras d'Or bridge post office awarded in January, 1937, to W. J. Jessome?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	For what amount?
4.	Have any changes since been made in this contract?
5.	If so, when?
6.	For what reasons?
7.	At the present time, who holds the contract for the conveyance of mails between those two points?
8.	What amount was paid to W. J. Jessome in respect of his contract?
9.	Was this payment made by cheque?
10.	If not, by what means was it made?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Instructions were issued December 28, 1936, awarding contract to W. J. Jessome.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	$1,090 per annum.
4.	5 and 6. Action suspended on instructions awarding contract to W. J. Jesome on January 5, 1937, following representations that there was a suspicion of collusion in the tendering.
7.	Malcolm Ferguson.
8.	$50-in full settlement of any claim he might have against the Post Office Department on account of any financial loss following the summary cancellation of his contract.
9.	Yes.
10.	See answer to No. 9.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE-MARKET GARDEN PRODUCTS

Mr. CLEAVER:: 1.	(a) What was the approximate value of market garden products exported to the United States during the twelve months ending December 31, 1934, and during the twelve months ending December 31, 1935; (b) what was the value of market garden products imported into Canada from the United States during the same respective periods; (c) what proportion of this amount was imported into Ontario during each of the said periods?
2.	How much raspberry pulp was imported into Canada for the twelve months ending December 31, 1934, and for the twelve months ending December 31, 1935?
3.	(a) What was the approximate value of fresh fruit exported to the United States from Canada during the twelve months ending December 31, 1934, and during the twelve months ending December 31, 1935; (b) what was the value of fresh fruit imported from the United States to Canada, exclusive of oranges, grapefruit, bananas, lemons and limes, during the same respective periods?
4.	What was the value of asparagus, both fresh and canned, imported into Canada from the United States during the calendar year 1934, and during the calendar year 1935?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	(a) 1934-Fresh fruits, $268,357; fresh vegetables, $1,593,754. 1935-Fresh fruits, $222,484; fresh vegetables, $740,541. (b) 1934

Fresh fruits (except bananas, citrus fruits and pineapples), $2,466,991; fresh vegetables, $2,732,382. 1935-Fresh fruits (except bananas, citrus fruits and pineapples), $2,556,521; fresh vegetables, $3,011,084. (c) Information not available for the periods in question.
2.	Not separately recorded.
3.	(a) 1934, $268,357; 1935. $222,484.	(b)
1934, $2,630,148; 1935, $2,725,149.
4.	Fresh, 1934,	$86,558;	1935,	$68,124.
Canned, 1934, $23,511; 1935, $27,765.
Canada's debt to united kingdom


Mr. GAUTHIER:: 1.	What is the amount of the debt, in Canadian currency, of the government of Canada to the British government?
2.	What is the amount of the debt, in Canadian currency, of the British government to the government of Canada?
3.	What sums of money were loaned by the British government to the government of Canada from 1914 to 1918?
4.	What amounts were loaned by the Canadian government to the British ' government from 1914 to 1918?
5.	Has the British government made any refunds, in currency, to the Canadian government since 1918? If so, upon what dates, and what were the amounts so refunded?
6.	Has the Canadian government made any refunds, in currency, to the British government since 1918? If so, upon what dates, and what were the amounts so refunded?
7.	Have any British companies loaned moneys to the government of Canada since 1914? If so, what are the dates and amounts of each loan, and the names of the companies?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1 and 2. Nil.
3,	4, 5 and 6. During and after the Great War, the government of the United Kingdom expended certain amounts in the United Kingdom on behalf of the government of Canada for overseas war expenditure and for ordinary purposes and the government of Canada expended certain amounts in Canada on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom to provide for various purchases by the latter. These accounts were offset against
Questions

each other and the amount owing the dominion was paid off in cash or bonds of the dominion. The accounts were closed out in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1924.
7.	The government of Canada has issued in London a number of loans since 1914. These issues were underwritten in London and no record is kept of the various subscribers.



MONTREAL POSTAL EMPLOYEES' STRIKE, 1924

Hermas Deslauriers: What were the amounts of the claims of every kind made upon the government, as the result of the strike of postal employees in Montreal, in 1924?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Nil in as far as the Post Office Department is concerned.



A. F. MENARD

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Did Mr. A. F. Menard, a postal employee in Montreal, promote sweepstakes, with the approval of his superior officers in Ottawa?
2.	Is it true that these superior officers promised Mr. Menard a position in the postal service ?
3.	What are the names of such superior officers ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No knowledge Mr. Menard was promoting sweepstakes. He was the employee in Montreal dealing with sweepstake matter found in the mails.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How many loans were applied for under the Canadian farm loan board in the electoral district of Humboldt in the year 1938?
2.	How many loans were granted?
3.	How many loans were made in the electoral
district of Humboldt under the home improvement plan?	'


Charles Avery Dunning: The answers to questions Nos. 1 and 2 are submitted by the Canadian farm loan board:
1 and 2. The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by constituencies and the information asked for is not now available.
3.	Thirty-four loans for $11,245.50.


Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What firm of chartered accountants audits the accounts of the Canadian farm loan board?
2.	When was said firm first appointed to do this work, and what fees are paid?
3.	Why are these accounts not audited by the Auditor General?
4.	Why is there not a properly certified copy of the financial statement included in the report of the farm loan commissioner for the year ending March 31, 1938?
5.	What department of government supervises the operations of this board?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Messrs. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, Montreal, P.Q.
2.	Appointed by P.C. 955 of 1929. Fees paid are based on volume of work involved in annual audit.
3.	Provision is made in Canadian Farm Loan Act for annual audit of accounts of Canadian farm loan board by firm of chartered accountants appointed by the governor in council.
4.	The auditors' complete report on examination of the board's accounts for year ended March 31, 1938, has been tabled in parliament. The commissioner's report also contains copies of profit and loss statement and balance sheet for said year.
5.	The board is a corporate body charged with the administration of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, and reports to parliament through the Minister of Finance.



CAMPBELLTON, N.B., ROCK CRUSHING PROJECT

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How many inspectors, foremen and other workmen are engaged in connection with the work now going on as a relief project at Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	What are the names of each, and their remuneration per hour?
3.	Is there any record being kept of the cost per yard of this fill?
4.	What amount of money has been spent to date?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 1, 2 and 3. Pursuant to the provisions of the Dominion-New Brunswick Agreement of September 14, 1938, approval has been given to a dominion contribution of one-half of 75 per cent of the labour cost of a rock crushing project in the town of Campbellton, the estimated total cost to the two governments being $5,000, and the maximum dominion contribution $2,500. Under the terms of the agreement the province is responsible for the detailed administration of the projects approved and the information called for is not a matter of record with the dominion. The provincial authorities have been requested to supply information as to the names and remuneration per hour of inspectors, foremen, and other workmen engaged in connection with the project, and also as to whether any record is being kept of the cost per yard of the undertaking, which will be furnished upon receipt.
4.	The dominion has paid to the province in respect to accounts received for the Campbellton project $1,065.

Questions



SHAUGHNE8SY MILITARY HOSPITAL

Mr. REID:: 1.	What is the total bed capacity in the Shaughnessy military hospital?
2.	What were the total number of patients admitted during the fiscal year 1938?
3.	Of the numbers receiving hospital treatment during the fiscal year 1938, what numbers were: (a) membens of the Canadian expeditionary force, and (b) ex-imperial?


Mr. POWER:: Normal		197		
Treat-	Veterans'	*ment	care	TotalStrength at 31-3-37	92	35	127Admissions	1,237	52 l	Board and quarters	197	f	1,486Total.. ..	1,526	87	1,613C.E.F	1.272	Ex-Imperials..	55	Other allies	2	Total	1,329	CUSTOMS OFFICIALS-	-ST. ]	LAWRENCE	RIVER,



ONTARIO PORTS

Mr. CASSELMAN:: How many customs officials were on duty at the ports of Cornwall, Morrisburg, Prescott, Brockville, Gananoque and Kingston, respectively, during each of the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Calendar Calendar Calendar
Cornwall .. ..	year 1936 9	year 1937 10	year 1938 11Morrisburg .. ..	4	5	5Prescott	15	15	14Brockville .. ..	10	11	11Gananoque.. ..	3	4	4Kingston .. ..	13	13	13



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PORTS

Arza Clair Casselman: How many passengers entered and left the country respectively, through the ports of Cornwall, Morrisburg, Prescott, Brockville, Gananoque and Kingston, during each of the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Total passengers who entered Canada at the undermentioned ports for the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938:
1936	1937	1938Cornwall	
134,411	157,396	145,447Morrisburg	
43,746	46,478	41.562Prescott	
258,116	277,519	260,115Brockville	
80,375	92,841	73.966Gananoque	
53,822	62.969	45,929Kingston	
41,716	45,533	48,138
Figures of passengers leaving Canada not available.



VALUES OP EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Arza Clair Casselman: What were the value of exports and imports passing through the ports of Cornwall, Morrisburg, Prescott, Brockville, Gananoque and Kingston, respectively, during each of the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938?


William Daum Euler: Calendar years
Cornwall-	1936	1937	1938
Imports	. . .$2,362,401 $3,457,970 $2,935,968		
Exports .	. .. 1,154,851	1,121,108	588,427Morrisburg-Im ports .	. .. 277,294	336,512	317,892Exports .	. .. 60,828	73,027	66,550Prescott-	Imports	. .. 991,537	1.323,019	2,269,078Exports .	. .. 4,241,546	5,473,246	2,940,895Brockville-	Imports	. .. 852,102	966.334	768,825Exports .	. .. 125,295	149,515	144,031Gananoque-Imports .	. .. 199.947	247,746	241,719Exports .	. .. 28,368	14,914	8,851Kingston-	Imports	. .. 1.045,252	1,568,624	1,235,289Exports .	. .. 331,618	138,068	21,539farmers'	CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT	ACT-



RETURNED SOLDIERS' CONTRACTS

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	How many contracts held by returned soldiers in Alberta under the soldier settlement board were reviewed by the farmers' creditors arrangement board in the year 1938?
2.	How many of these applications were settled by the soldiers settlement board without being adjudged by the farmers' creditors arrangement board?
3.	What was the average percentage of reductions made in these contracts?
4.	If a person is adjudged a bankrupt when he places his affairs in the hands of the farmers' creditors arrangement board, why were returned soldiers compelled to take this procedure instead of setting up a special tribunal to hear these cases, such tribunal to work independently of the soldier settlement board?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


Mr. CRERAR:: 1. 162.
2.	None.
3.	44-2 per cent.
4.	Returned soldier applicants are not adjudged bankrupt on placing their affairs in the hands of the farmers' creditors arrangement administration. No statutory authority exists for the setting up of special tribunals to deal with such applications other than the boards provided for under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. These boards act independently of the soldier settlement board.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many men were employed during 1938 at Niagara camp grounds, on construction and maintenance of camp buildings?
2.	What are the names of those employed?
3.	What hourly rate of wages was paid?
4.	What was the total earnings, during 1938, of each man employed?
5.	Were returned soldiers given the preference ?
6.	How many of such men were returned soldiers?
7.	Were all men so employed Canadian citizens, by birth or naturalization?
8.	Upon whose recommendation were these men employed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Return tabled.


TARIFF BOARD-REFERENCES RESPECTING AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY, ETC. INTO HIGH COST OF HOUSEHOLD ESSENTIALS IN CANADA
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On what date was a reference made to the Tariff Commission to inquire into the high cost of motor cars, motor trucks, radios, refrigerators, and other household essentials in Canada?
2.	What was the text of these references?
3.	What has been done in the matter by the tariff commission, and will their report or reports be laid on the table of the house?
4.	Have any reasons been given by the commission for the delays in conducting these inquiries, and in making their report?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled.


QUEBEC UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF STATISTICS
Mr. LALONDE:: 1.	What is the monthly allowance paid by the dominion government to the provincial government of Quebec for unemployment relief since January 1, 1938?
2.	Has the provincial government of Quebec been authorized to apply such moneys or parts of such moneys to unemployment relief works?
3.	If so, where, on what works, and at what cost were they executed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Return tabled.


MINISTERS OF THE CROWN-VISITS ABROAD ON PUBLIC BUSINESS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many ministers of the crown have visited foreign countries on public business since October, 1935?
2.	What countries were visited by each of the ministers ?
3.	What was the purpose of each visit?
4.	What was the duration of each visit?
5.	What ministers were accompanied by a secretary and/or other staff on these visits?


CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	How many persons were employed in the civil service of Ottawa on October 15, 1935?
2.	How many persons were employed in the civil service in the city of Ottawa on January 1, 1939?
3.	How many persons were there employed in the civil service in Canada on October 15, 1935?
4.	How many persons were there employed in the civil service in Canada on January 1, 1939?


COAL SUBVENTIONS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	What was the total amount paid out during 1938 by way of coal subventions?
2.	How much of this amount was paid by reason of movements of coal from: (a) Nova Scotia: (b) Alberta; (c) other provinces?
3.	What persons or companies, together with
the amounts, received payments by reason of movements of coal from:	(a) Nova Scotia;
(b) Alberta; (c) other provinces?
4.	What was the total tonnage and value of
coal imports from:	(a) United States of
America; (b) Great Britain; (c) Russia; (d) other countries?
5.	What was the total tonnage and value of coal exports to: (a) United States of America; (b) Great Britain; (c) other countries?



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PORTS-IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS

Arza Clair Casselman: How many immigration officials were on duty at the ports of Cornwall, Morrisburg, Prescott, Broekville, Gananoque and Kingston, respectively, during each of the calendar years 1936, 1937, and 1938?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Return tabled.



TENDERS FOR TARGET FRAMES

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What are the names of those who submitted tenders for the delivery of sixty-eight target frames to Mount Bruno, Quebec, and Niagara on the Lake, Ontario, and other points?
2.	What were the amounts of the respective tenders ?
3.	To whom were the contracts awarded and at what prices?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Return tabled.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



SEASONAL EMPLOYEES AT CHURCHILL

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What was the number of seasonal employees employed at the port of Churchill during the season of 1938?
2.	What were their names and home addresses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



CANCER RESEARCH, CURES AND DEATHS

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What amounts were expended by the government during the last calendar year upon cancer research work ?
2.	What form did such research work take?
3.	Have any of the provincial governments undertaken to investigate alleged cancer cures? If so. what governments?
4.	Has this government undertaken to cooperate financially and otherwise with the said provinces in the said work?
5.	If so, what form will such cooperation take?
6.	How many people in Canada died from cancer in each of the years from 1918 to 1938?
7.	What percentage of the total deaths occurring in each of said years were attributable to the said disease?


Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.



TRANS-CANADA AIRPORTS

Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	How many airports are owned by the
Trans-Canada Airways:	(a) what are their
names, and where are they located; (b) what are the amounts invested and expended to date on each; (c) are the said airports completed: if not, what is the estimate of further proposed expenditures in each case?
2.	How many airports are partially owned by the Trans-Canada Airways: (a) what are their names, and where are they located; (b) what amounts have been invested and expended to date on each; (e) are the said airports completed; if not, what is the estimate of further proposed expenditures in each case?
3.	What are the names of other airports assisted; where are they located; what amount has been expended to date and what are the further proposed expenditures in each case?
4.	What are the names of all other airports or emergency landing fields proposed to be constructed this year, and where are they located?
5.	What has been the total amount invested in airports, sites, preparations and equipment to December 31, 1938?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



LOAN TO GOVERNMENT OF GREECE

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	In what year did the Canadian government make an advance to the Greek government?
2.	What were the circumstances which led up to the loan?
3.	What was the amount of the loan, and rate of interest?
4.	Have the interest payments been made on due date each year?
5.	What amounts were paid on loan, from year to year, since advance was made?
6.	What amount is still due and outstanding?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled.



DOMINION, PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL REVENUES

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What was the total revenue of the dominion from taxation, for each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total revenue of each province from taxation, for each of the said years?
3.	What was the total revenue, in each province, from municipal taxation, for each of the same years?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled.



DEFENCE COUNCIL

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Who are the present members of the defence council, Department of National Defence, and what are their official positions?
2.	What are the responsibilities and powers
of the defence council with respect to:	(a)
coordination of all branches; (b) recommendations to the minister and the governor in council on questions of policy and administration; (c) direct communication with the British war office or admiralty; (d) direct communication with military or naval departments in other countries?
3.	How many meetings of the defence council were held in: (a) 1937; (b) 1938?
4.	To what extent are important contracts and decisions as to sources of supply for arms, munitions, military and naval equipment reviewed by the defence council?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Return tabled.



NATIONAL REGISTER

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Have any steps been taken by the government to secure a national register for Canada for defence or economic or industrial or labour purposes?
2.	If so, what are they?
3.	Will a census or modem doomsday book, or national register be ordered or compiled of: (a) industrial power; (b) economic power; (c) food power; (d) man power; (e) military and defence power, and (f) unemployed?



EMPLOYMENT OF LAWYERS, HAMILTON AND WENTWORTH COUNTY

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What lawyers of the city of Hamilton or the county of Wentworth were engaged by the government during the year 1938?
2.	For what specific purpose was each engaged?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
3.	What respective amounts were paid by way of fees, emoluments or expenses to each of these lawyers so engaged?
4.	What amounts, if any, are still outstanding?



PUBLIC WHARVES AND PIERS

Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	How many wharves and piers are under the control of the Department of Transport, as provided for in the Harbours and Piers Act: (a) in Canada; (b) in British Columbia?
2.	Are there any completed wharves and
piers under the control of the Department of Public Works? If so, how many in:	(a)
Canada; (b) British Columbia?
5.	What is the number of wharves and piers
in respect of which wharfingers are now appointed:	(a) in Canada; (b) in British
Columbia?
4.	What *was the revenue secured during the fiscal year 1937-38 in the collection of tolls and dues on such wharves and piers for: (a) top-wharfage; (b) side-wharfage?
5.	What was the total amount retained as commission by wharfingers during the fiscal year 1937-38 in the collection of tolls and dues for: (a) top-wharfage; (b) side-wharfage?
6.	What is the number of wharves and piers in British Columbia with regard to which tolls and dues for side-wharfage are now collected?



RELIEF AND UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Mr. REID:: 1.	Of the total numbers registered on relief throughout Canada, what is the number of those: (a) 50 years or over; (b) between 20 and 30 years?
2,	What are the total numbers of those registered under the various single unemployment schemes: (a) throughout Canada; (b) in each province?



CANADA-UNITED STATES TREATY-TRADE WITH FAVOURED NATION COUNTRIES

Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	How many countries will obtain the same tariff reductions as the United States obtains by reason of the recently negotiated Canada-CJnited^ States treaty?
2.	What are such countries?
3.	What was the amount of Canada's trade with each of such countries in each of the last five years: (a) exports; (b) imports?
4.	What percentage of the import trade of each of said countries will be affected by Canadian concessions in the said Canada-United estates treaty and favoured nation clauses in other treaties; such percentage to be reckoned on the average import of the last five years?



MERCHANT MARINE TONNAGE AND SEAMEN

Mr. TREMBLAY:: 1.	What is the total tonnage of merchant marine registered in Canada?
2.	What is the tonnage of merchant, ships plying in: (a) the high seas; (b) coastal waters, and (c) engaged in fishing, registered in Canada?
3.	How many seamen are there in Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Return tabled.



MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. CHURCH:: What loans, listed by provinces, have been made to municipalities in Canada by the government towards the cost of self-liquidating municipal works and projects under R.S.C. 1938, chapter 33, "An Act to assist Municipalities in making self-liquidating improvements''?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled.



MILITARY DELEGATION TO THE CORONATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FAIR;
1.	How many officers and men whose expenses were provided for under vote number 249, 1937-38 estimates, attended the coronation of his majesty the king?
2.	What are the names, addresses and ranks of the officers who attended?
3.	What amount was paid to or for each officer as salary, expenses or otherwise?
4.	What amount was actually spent under this vote?
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Frank Exton Lennard: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, specifications and other documents in the possession of the government with respect to repairs to and maintenance of south pier, Burlington channel, during the year 1938.



HAMILTON BAY DREDGING

Frank Exton Lennard: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, contracts and other documents in connection with dredging in Hamilton bay during the year 1938.



SASKATCHEWAN COMMUNITY PASTURES

Mr. PERLEY:: For a return showing the number of community pastures established in the province of Saskatchewan, the extent of each, the number of miles of fencing in each and the name of the contractors to whom the contract was given for the construction of fences.



SASKATCHEWAN RIVER-DAM NEAR SASKATOON   DIVERSION OF WATER

George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, engineers' and inspectors' reports and other documents, as well as a statement showing the estimated cost of the dam and the number of farmers who will be assisted thereby, in connection with the building of a dam on the Saskatchewan river at or near Saskatoon.


George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, tenders, engineers' and inspectors' reports and other

Motions for Papers
documents, with reference to the diversion of water from the Saskatchewan river to Caron, Saskatchewan, along with a copy of any contract entered into by any department of the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan, the city of Moose Jaw or any person, firm or corporation with reference to said project.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


George Halsey Perley: For a return showing,- (a) the amount of wheat acquired by the Canadian wheat board during the months of August, September, October, November and December, 1938; (b) the amount of wheat disposed of by the board during the same period; (c) the amount of wheat held by the board in terminal elevators at Fort William, Port Arthur and eastern terminals, as well as in interior terminals, mills, and elevators, private and public; (d) the rate of storage paid on grain held by the board in such storage.


Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.
Robert's creek, b.c., wharfinger


Charles Grant MacNeil: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents in the possession of the government with respect to the appointment of a wharfinger at Robert's Creek, British Columbia, during the year 1938.


Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.



WEST KOOTENAY DISTRICT, B.C., WHARFINGERS

William Kemble Esling: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, reports and other documents received by the Department of Transport from district officials, or others, during the past two years, concerning the appointment of wharfingers in the federal district of West Kootenay, British Columbia.


Charles Gavan Power: Return tabled.



DOMINION STEEL AND COAL COMPANY-SUBSIDIES

Mr. PELLETIER:: For a return showing the amount of subsidies paid to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company of Montreal, or its subsidiaries, each year, for the past ten years.



LINCOLN COUNTY, ONT., RIFLE RANGES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LOCKHART;
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, recommendations, reports and other documents in the possession of the government, dated during the years 1937 and 1938, with respect to the purchase of a site and the establishment of the new rifle ranges in Lincoln county, Ontario.

Mr. HOMUTH:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, dated August 15, 1938,
to date, relative to the request of the boot and shoe workers' unions of South Waterloo with respect to the importation of shoes from the United States.



MONTREAL POST OFFICE

Hermas Deslauriers: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department in Montreal with respect to the investigation into the case of J. D. Olivier, held by Mr. H. Fortier, chief inspector of the Department, together with a copy of all papers, memoranda and other documents in the possession of Mr. H. Fortier, concerning the said investigation.


Hermas Deslauriers: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, plans and other documents concerning the plan of reorganization of the employees at the Montreal post office, from 1937 to date.



NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION- ROWELL COMMISSION

Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: For a copy of any letters, memoranda or other documents addressed by the Minister of Labour to the chairman of the national employment commission, or any member thereof, which contain the request of the Minister of Labour that the said commission should give consideration to the fact that the Rowell commission on dominion-provincial relations is investigating certain questions which have also come within the purview of the national employment commission, as indicated in the second paragraph of Mr. A. B. Purvis' letter to the Minister of Labour, dated January 26, 1938, appearing on page 2 of the final report of the national employment commission.



GRAND BEND HARBOUR, ONT., PUBLIC WORKS

Karl Kenneth Homuth: For a return showing the total cost of public works undertaken at Grand Bend harbour during the years 1937 and 1938; the names of persons employed on such works and the total amount of wages or allowances paid to each of such persons.



VICTORIA BRIDGE, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, NJ, WHARF

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all correspondence and pay . rolls in connection with the new wharf at Victoria bridge, Black river, Northumberland county, New Brunswick.



CONTROL OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of memorandum prepared at the request of the then leader of the opposition and under the instructions of the then prime minister, showing by comparison the old system of control of the treasury and the new, and what the differences between the two may be. and referred to at page 1715 of revised Hansard of March 22. 1934.
Motions for Papers



APOHAQTJI, N.B., POST OFFICE

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and petitions in connection with the appointment of postmaster at Apohaqui post office, New Brunswick, since the death of the former postmaster, the late Mr. George Secord.



DOMINION STEEL AND COAL COMPANY-SUBSIDIES ON COAL SHIPMENTS

René-Antoine Pelletier: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government and the Dominion Steel and Coal Company of Montreal, during the past five years, concerning the granting of subsidies on coal shipped out of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have had some inquiry made into the matter of answering this question. I find that there would be literally thousands of documents to be copied. With the existing staff it would take a very long time to do this work, and if additional staff were put on it would still take a considerable time. I suggest to the hon. member that he might drop the motion and take the matter up with the secretary of the fuel board, who might be able to give him the information he wishes to secure.


René-Antoine Pelletier: For a copy of all documents gathered during the course of investigating the financial set-up of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, or its subsidiaries, before the payment of subsidies on coal.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is difficulty in understanding just what the hon. member refers to. There has been no investigation into the financial set-up of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company. In connection with arriving at the subventions which should be paid, the fuel board has obtained certain information of a confidential nature, which I should not feel at liberty to bring down. I might suggest to the hon. member that if he would see me some day about this, perhaps I could satisfy him.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I gather from the minister's answer that there has been no investigation of the financial set-up of the company.



CANADA-UNITED STATES-GEEAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
*	TRADE TREATIES
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters and telegrams exchanged during the years 1937 and 1938 between the honourable the Minister of Finance or his department, or any officer thereof, and all industries or commercial companies or organizations or labour

organizations, in respect to requests for hearings in connection with the trade treaties between Canada, the United States of America and Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: I ask that this motion be allowed to stand. I spoke to the hon. member about it. It would mean the copying of about five thousand documents.


Walter Edward Foster: Stands.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
Monday, February 6, 1939