1939-02-16

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. McGeer be substituted for that of Mr. Streight on the standing committee on public accounts.
' That the name of Mr. McPhee be substituted for that of Mr. MacKinnon (Edmonton West) on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARTHUR-J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to amend the Civil Service Act.
He said: (Translation) The purpose of this bill is to provide for the appointment of the secretary to the Civil Service Commission, in view of the importance of that office, by the governor in council in the same way as the commissioners are appointed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. LENNARD:: Can the government give the number in each of the recognized trades that were out of work in 1938?


Mr. ROGERS:: No registration is made of all the unemployed in each of the recognized trades, hence it is not possible to give the exact number in these categories who were unemployed during 1938.
In the federal Department of Labour a register is made of all those unemployed receiving material aid and at present a classification is being made of these by crafts and a return will be made to the house in a fortnight or three weeks showing the result of this classification.
Returns are also received in the department which reveal, as of the last day of each

month, the percentage of unemployment among the recognized trades, who are members of trade unions. Approximately two-thirds of the total numbers of trade union members in Canada are covered in these reports and it is assumed that if returns were received from all trade union bodies the percentages of unemployed would not be materially changed. The following table shows the percentages of unemployment among trade union members in Canada by months during 1938 and the yearly average for the
same period:
Month
1938	Per cent
January	 12-4
February	  13-7
March	 12-8
April	 13-1
May	 13-2
June	 13-5
July	 14-0
August	 11'6
September	  10-4
October	 12-3
November	 13-7
December	 16-2
Average for the year	 13-1


IMMIGRATION SINCE 1930
Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada under the Immigration Act since 1930?
2.	(a) How many of such immigrants entered Canada since 1930 through orders in council and special permits, upon recommendation of members of the cabinet or members of the House of Commons; (b) from what country or countries did they emigrate; (c) what was their original nationality?
3.	(a) How many immigrants, since the said year, entered Canada after being naturalized British subjects in other countries, viz: the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth of Australia. the Dominion of New Zealand, the Irish Free State, Newfoundland and British colonies; (b) what was their original nationality?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	1930, 104,806; 1931, 27,530; 1932, 20,591 ; 1933. 14,382; 1934, 12.476; 1935, 11,277; 1936, 11,643; 1937, 15,101; 1938, 17,244.
2.	The departmental records do not enable the preparation of an answer to this question in its present form. Such immigrants are not admitted on the recommendation of members

Questions
of parliament or members of the cabinet but by the Governor General in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Mines and Resources. The attached statement shows the numbers of immigrants, by racial origin,
admitted by orders in' council during the period mentioned.
3. Statistics showing the manner in which immigrants obtained British nationality prior to their coming to Canada are not kept.
Statement showing the number and racial origin of immigrants to Canada, whose admission was authorized by naming them in orders-in-council
Race	1932
Austrian	 7
Albanian	 1
Armenian	
Arabian	 [DOT].
Belgian	 18
B. W. I	
Bulgarian	 5
Czechoslovak	 34
Cingalese	 1
Danish	 22
Dutch	 11
East Indian	 1
Esthonian	
English	
French	 49
Finnish	 9
Greek	 20
German	 135
Hungarian	 39
Hebrew	 166
Icelandic	 1
Irish	
Italian	 25
Jugo-Slav	 13
Japanese	
Latvian	
Lithuanian	 8
Maltese	
Mexican	
Norwegian	 24
Polish	 45
Portuguese	 1
Russian	 15
Roumanian	 22
Swiss	 18
Swedish	 16
Spanish	 9
Scotch	 2
Syrian	 29
Serbian	
Ukrainian	
Totals	 746
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938 Totals	22	4	2	11	5	34	851	1	2	511	3	10	8	2	341	3	429	13	30	16	21	27	1542	22	3	5	5	2	2227	18	30	39	37	48	233118	7	8	5	7	13	8023	5	6	13	17	21	962	1	42	4	1	73	2	2 -	2	2	3	1434	35	37	79	81	70	3855	7	4	7	14	16	6238	23	25	16	23	15	160128	42	43	41	78	73	54054	24	25	27	27	44	240637	152	525	284	197	608	2,5694	1	1	1	82	1	367	43	60	43	50	50	33822	29	40	41	26	16	1871	12	2	1	2	714	7	15	12	5	3	645	57	1	821	5	9	8	8	4	7971	43	71	81	63	82	4561	. .	233	7	7	13	9	13	9713	10	17	12	6	19	9918	13	10	11	17	20	10717	7	11	5	12	5	735	5	6	3	3	31i	1	1	1	629	8	29	12	14	14	1352	1	1	. .	423	25	21	26	951,357	520	1,059	819	759	1,242	6,502
Questioyis


ROYAL VISIT TO CANADA-COMMEMORATIVE COINAGE
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Will the government have silver coins in dollar denominations struck to commemorate their majesty's visit to Canada this year?
2.	If so, how many of such coins will be put into circulation?
3.	When will the said issue be available?
4.	What is the estimated net profit to the government from the said issue?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	It is the intention to issue as many of these coins as the public demand may require, in so far as the facilities of the Royal Canadian Mint will permit.
3.	At the time of the visit of Their Majesties' to Canada.
4.	The net profit to the government from
the said issue cannot be determined, as the number of coins which may be issued is not yet known.	[DOT]


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-HOTELS
Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: 1.	What are the names and locations of the Canadian National hotels, and what was the cost of each, including furnishings?
2.	What were the results of operation of each of the said hotels, giving net profit or loss for the last fiscal year?
Mr. HOWE-
1 and 2.	Total	cost
to Dec. 31,1938
Name of hotel

Location	(inch furnishings)
Chateau Laurier-Ottawa, Ont	 $8,673,307 68
Prince Arthur-Port Arthur, Ont	 1,186,065 52
Fort Garry-Winnipeg, Man	 2,906,934 58
Prince Edward-Brandon, Man	 525,623 10
Macdonald-Edmonton, Alta	
2,271,967	36Bessborough-Saskatoon, Sask	
3,567,459	62Nova Scotian-Halifax, N.S	
2,448,464	30Canadian National-Charlottetown, PE.1	
857,579 45Jasper Park Lodge-Jasper, Alta	
2,660,425 32Minaki Lodge-Minaki, Ont	
1,094,079 24Pictou Lodge-Pictou, N.S	
199,456 21Net operating income Year 1938 Profit	$168,293	51Profit	19,402	10Loss	18,413	50Loss	8,021	21Profit	26.338	25Loss	24,456	59Profit	14,549	59Loss	3,367	36Profit	49,467	21Profit	1,890	73Profit	331	02


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MONTREAL TERMINAL
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Were tenders called for by the Canadian National Railway Company for part of the new scheme for the completion of the project in Montreal?
2.	Was the tender of E. 6. M. Cape & Company accepted and at what figure?
3.	Was the tender of E. G. M. Cape & Company the lowest tender?
4.	What other firms tendered?
5.	What were the figures of the tenders other than the one accepted?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The tender of E. G. M. Cape and Company was accepted for a part of the work tendered for. It is not the policy of the management to disclose the amount of bids contained in tenders.
3.	Yes, for the part accepted.
4.	Jas. Bertrand, Frascarelli Construction Co., A. C. White Landscape Co. Ltd., H.
I.	O'Connell Limited, Angus Robertson Limited, D. Veroehio Limited, Frank Lapan

Limited, Duranceau & Duranceau, Chas. V. Billie, Marien-Wilson Limited, Rene Lafleur, A. F. Byers Co. Ltd., G. Archambault Limitee, Kennedy Construction Co. Ltd., Northern Construction Co. Ltd. and J. W. Stewart Ltd., N. Gentile, Atlas Construction Co. Ltd., E. G. M. Cape & Company, Anglin-Norcross Que., Ltd., L. G. Ogilvie & Co. Ltd., The Foundation Co. Que., Ltd., A. Janin & Co. Ltd., Dansereau Limitee, Concrete Construction Co. Ltd.
5.	See answer to question No. 2.


BEATJHARNOIS POWER COMPANY
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Has the government received any requests either directly or through a subsidiary from the Beauharnois Power Company for per second foot water increase or other concessions which would mean a creation of more power?


Mr. HOWE:: A request has been received
and is being studied, but any action must be taken by introduction of a bill in parliament.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.

Questions


MILK PRICES IN MONTREAL
Mr. LACOMBE:: What average price was paid for milk: (a) per gallon; (b) per eight-gallon can, in the city of Montreal, to producers in spring, summer, fall and winter respectively, of the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?


Mr. EULER:: Milk, fresh, price paid to producers, delivered at railway station at Montreal (mid-month quotations)
per	per	per100 lbs.	gal.	8 gals.1933-	$	$	$January. .. .	. 1-600	[DOT]165	1-320February... .	. 1-350	*139	1-112September.. .	. 1-500	[DOT]155	1-2401934	:	January. .. .	. 1-500	[DOT]155	1-240July	. 1-450	[DOT]149	1-192September.. .	,. 1-850	[DOT]191	1-5281935-	January. .. .	. 1-850	[DOT]191	1-528April	.. 1-700	[DOT]175	1-400June	.. 1-445	[DOT]149	1-192September.. ,	.. 1-770	[DOT]182	1-4561936-	January. .. ,	.. 1-770	[DOT]182	1-456June	.. 1-445	[DOT]149	1-192September..	.. 1-770	[DOT]182	1-456November..	.. 2-095	[DOT]216	1-7281937-	January. ..	.. 2-095	[DOT]216	1-728June	.. 1-750	[DOT]180	1-440September..	.. 2-200	[DOT]227	1-8161938-	January. ..	.. 2-200	[DOT]227	1-816June	.. 1-770	[DOT]182	1-416September..	.. 2-150	[DOT]221	1-7681939-	January. ..	.. 2-150	[DOT]221	1-768
Montreal firms quote price paid to producers per 100 pounds delivered at railway station at Montreal.
Column 1 shows month of price changes throughout the year.
In column 2 the bureau has calculated the price per gallon at 10-3 pounds.
In column 3 the bureau has calculated the price per 8 gallons.


YOUTH TRAINING IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many are employed by the federal government in the training of youth in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What are their names, home addresses, salaries and expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 1 and 2. The administration of courses carried out under the Dominion Youth Training Agreement is the responsibility of the provincial authorities.
Mr. H. C. Bingham, of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, is the representative of the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour in that province, his salary being S200 per month and his duties to see that the terms of Dominion-Provincial agreements, including that respecting youth training, are carried out. Mr. Bingham has been paid $357.33 in respect to travelling expenses incurred by him during the fiscal year 1938-39 while engaged in the performance of his duties respecting the Dominion-Saskatchewan Youth Training Agreement.
Mrs. A. J. Currie, of Govan, Saskatchewan, formerly a member of the women's advisory committee of the National Employment Commission, has accepted the honorary post of dominion representative in Saskatchewan, acting in an advisory capacity to the dominion supervisor of youth training, in respect to women's courses. Mrs. Currie receives no remuneration for her services but she has been reimbursed for her out of pocket expenses while travelling in connection with youth training matters to the amount of 8306.45 during the current fiscal year.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-MALTON AIRPORT
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Upon what date will the passenger service at the Malton airport be inaugurated by the Trans-Canada Air Lines?
2.	At the date of such inauguration, will passengers be able to travel from coast to coast on the said Trans-Canada Air Lines, and, if not, when will the service be completed from Halifax to Vancouver?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	April 1, 1939 has been tentatively set for the commencement of passenger operations, at the Malton airport.
2.	Effective on above date, it is anticipated that passengers will be able to travel between Montreal and Vancouver. It is proposed that the service will be extended to Moncton during the summer of 1939, which point will be the eastern terminus of Trans-Canada Air Lines.
Questions


*EOYAL VISIT TO CANADA-SPECIAL DECORATION FOR MILITARY FORCES
Frank Exton Lennard: In view of the fact that a British reigning sovereign has never before been in Canada and in view of the approaching visit of their majesties this year, will the government consider the striking of a special decoration to be awarded to all members of the defence forces of Canada and all ex-service men in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This subject, like others relating to the visit of their majesties, is before the interdepartmental committee, and also before the government, for consideration.


Walter Edward Foster: Answered.


BROADCASTING OF SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: Will the government give consideration to having a summary of the main mere facts of the daily proceedings of parliament given over the public radio station CBO?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has been giving consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member, and will continue to do so.


Walter Edward Foster: Answered.


Thomas Langton Church: In view of the fact that the Canadian daily press, since the advent and general use of the radio, do not report the plain facts in regard to what occurs in this house, with very few exceptions, would the Prime Minister consider doing something of this nature?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have answered the question.


RELIEF OF SENIOR UNEMPLOYED
Thomas Langton Church: Will any steps be taken by the Department of Labour to give some relief or have consultation with the provinces regarding the cases of thousands of senior citizens, industrial workers, and others out of work, who are in destitute circumstances, and who have not asked for relief, and who, because over 40 or of in middle age, are to-day refused work by some industries ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Agreements with the provinces provide for federal assistance to individuals in necessitous circumstances without restriction as to age or reason for being in need.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was any request received during 1938 by the government of Canada, or any member thereof, from the government of Great Britain, for leave to seek recruits for the Royal Air Force in Canada?
2.	If so, on what dates?
3.	Will such correspondence or other documents be tabled along with Canada's replies to the same?
4.	Was any assistance, in 1938, asked for or given to young Canadians seeking to go to England to enlist in the air force?
5.	If so, what was the nature of such assistance, financial or otherwise towards the travelling or other expenses of those seeking to enlist?


PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How much money w'as given to each province during each of the past three years?
2.	How much was guaranteed to each province during the same years?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.
Ottawa public works Mr. BARBER:
1.	What public works have been completed in the city of Ottawa since October 23, 1935?
2.	What was the cost of completing such public works?
3.	What public works are now in the course of construction and erection in the city of Ottawa ?
4.	What is the estimated cost of completing such public works?


H. P. SUTHERLAND, GASPAR CHARTRAND, HORACE HALCROW, JOHN BACON, A. G. HALSTEAD
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Are the following:	H. P. Sutherland,
Gaspar Chartrand, Horace Halcrow, John Bacon and A. G. Halstead in the employ of
.the federal government, temporarily or permanently ?
2.	If so, what are their home addresses, their respective salaries, the date of their employment, and in what capacity are they severally employed ?



TOURIST TRADE

Frank Exton Lennard: What progress has been made in furthering the tourist trade with the object of lessening unemployment ?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.



SILVER PRODUCTION AND SALES TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Mr. REID:: 1. What was the total production of silver in Canada, by ounces, during the calendar years from 1933 to 1938 inclusive?

Trade Agreements-Policy
2.	What was the total value in each of the said years of newly mined silver, and what was the market price per ounce?
3.	Of the total production of newly mined silver, what annual amounts were purchased by the government of the United States during the calendar years from 1933 to 1938 inclusive?
4.	What were the total amounts paid during each of the said years by the United States for all newly mined silver?
5.	Have any representations been made by the government of the United States that all future purchases of newly mined silver will be paid for by goods manufactured or produced in the United States?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What were the gross earnings, operating expenses and fixed charges of the Canadian National Railways and subsidiaries, including Canadian government railways, for each year from 1920 to 1938, giving surplus or deficit for each year?
2.	What was the operating ratio, year by year, during the same period?
3.	What were the gross earnings, operating expenses and fixed charges of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for each year from 1920 to 1938, giving surplus or deficit, for each year?
4.	WTiat was the operating ratio, year by year, during the same period?



MONTREAL POST OFFICE-TEMPORARY CHRISTMAS EMPLOYEES

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many temporary employees were engaged by the Post Office Department during the 1938 Christmas season in the district of Montreal ?
2.	How many of these employees lived: (a) in Montreal city proper; (b) outside the limits of Montreal; '(e) in Verdun city?
3.	How many of such employees, in each of the above locations, were returned soldiers, and how many were students?
4.	What were the minimum days and maximum days paid to these temporary employees?
5.	WTiat was the schedule of wages (minimum and maximum) paid to these employees?



ROWELL COMMISSION-REQUIREMENTS AS TO REPORTS OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1. On what date was the Rowell commission appointed, and for what purpose?
2 What has been the total cost to January 1, 1939?
3.	Have any interim reports been received? If so, will they be tabled?
4.	When will the final report be received?
5.	Will the government consider amending the Public Enquiries Act to provide that all commissions appointed under it shall report within ten days of the meeting of parliament?



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to considerable pains to state that the domestic policies of any country would not preclude trade with Canada. That is reported in this morning's Gazette under this heading:
No Curb on War Exports to Japan is Intimated by King in Commons.
The article goes on say that the statement of the Prime Minister-
-may be regarded as a final answer to those in parliament who are demanding an embargo on the export of essential war materials to Japan.
Does this properly interpret the Prime Minister's statement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I said yesterday appears in Hansard. From what my hon. friend has read I should think the report to which he has just referred conveys an impression diametrically the opposite to what I said. I was speaking, of course, about the negotiation of trade agreements.



FISHING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: The other day we had a debate in regard to assistance to the lobster fishermen in the maritimes, and I believe the house was unanimous in agreeing that something should be done. I have received the following telegram,' having to do with the same general situation, which I have been asked to bring to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud). It is as follows:
Heavy gale swept coast last night. Lobster fishermen at Devil's Island entrance Halifax harbour lost two hundred traps. No report of damage along the coast as most of gear destroyed in previous gales.
Then it continues:
No action taken so far to replace lost gear. Cannot something be done?
Perhaps the minister would give us some statement in regard to what has been done, following the discussion we had the other day.

Royal Visit


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: Negotiations are still proceeding with the government of Nova Scotia with a view to helping these fishermen.



ROYAL VISIT TO CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The day before yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) read an item which had appeared in the Ottawa Journal to the effect that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were busy in various parts of the country which are to be visited next spring by the king and queen, checking on the activities of people who have been candidates for public office and who have expressed certain radical views. I do not know where the Journal secured that information, but I must tell my hon. friend that it is absolutely wrong.



REFERENCES TO THE KING IN CERTAIN UNITED STATES PERIODICALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Postmaster General) :: I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) on Tuesday last, as reported at page 919 of Hansard, having to do with an article published in the February issue of Scribner's magazine. The hon. member was kind enough to send me a copy of the article. I have read it over and I agree that it is an extremely flippant article, and in bad taste. This magazine is published in New York city. So far as the Post Office Department is concerned, at one time this magazine did have what is known as the mailing in Canada privilege. It does not enjoy that privilege to-day, which would indicate that it would have to come into Canada by either freight or express. In either event it would not be the duty of the Post Office Department but rather the duty of the Department of National Revenue to check up on any impropriety in the article, and I have brought the matter to the attention of my colleague the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley).


Thomas Langton Church: I
should like to ask a further question on this point. What does the Postmaster General propose to do about the Canadian press which have carried the same article in a dispatch from London, England, which circulated through the mails of Canada?


Norman Alexander McLarty: While I am taking the matter into consideration, I doubt if under the definition given in the criminal code the article could be deemed to be seditious. If it is not, I think it will be impossible for the Post Office Department to do anything. I should like, however, to give the matter further consideration.



BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) could give an answer to the question I directed to him a couple of days ago in regard to an account for legal fees amounting to $10,000 reported to have been put in by a gentleman connected with the Bren gun inquiry.


Ernest Lapointe: The matter has not been disposed of or adjusted; it is engaging the attention of the department at the present time. As soon as information is available it will be given.


Robert James Manion: The question was whether the account had been received, not whether it had been paid. Did this lawyer put in this account?


Ernest Lapointe: Even that is entirely departmental business. As a matter of fact an account has been received, but I do not think I am bound to give the information. The matter is before the department and is confidential until it is adjusted, when the information will be given.


Robert James Manion: But parliament has a right to know some of these things, too.


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is purely a matter of administration. I have to make a decision myself before acquainting parliament with it.



VALIDITY OF ALBERTA STATUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: In reply to a question asked last session the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) advised the house that the government was taking into consideration the disallowance of an act passed in Alberta under w'hich, unless a creditor and debtor rearranged their mortgage by agreement, the mortgage would be void. I believe

C.NJt.-Montreal Terminal
the time for disallowance expires in April of this year. Would the minister be good enough to advise the house whether a decision has been arrived at; if not, will the government arrive at a decision and will the minister advise the house before the expiration of the period within which this measure may be disallowed?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether a little bird has whispered to my hon. friend, but the matter is engaging my attention at the present time and I think I shall be able to give my hon. friend the information some time this week.


James Earl Lawson: I can assure the minister that it was just premonition.



SPANISH CIVIL WAR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: I
should like to ask if the government of Canada has paid the transportation or any other expenses of Canadians who fought with the army of the nationalist government of Spain, from the area of war to their homes in Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer is no.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: An answer was given to-day to a question placed on the order paper, and according to the rules I think it is pertinent for me to comment on what I might call the incompleteness of the answer. I think I am justified in making a complaint. Let me read the question and answer complained of:
Was the tender of E. G. M. Cape and Company accepted and at what figure?
The answer was:
The tender of E. G. M. Cape and Company was accepted for a part of the work tendered for.
The remainder of the answer is what I complain about:
It is not the policy of the management to disclose the amount of bids contained in tenders.
This was an accepted tender, and it seems to me I am entitled to an answer to the 71492-635
question:	At what figure was the tender
accepted? In justice to the house as a whole, and the rights of- its members, I protest that this answer is incomplete, and that the question is a proper one within the rules of the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that I have followed the practice, which I think has been in vogue for many years, that of referring questions concerning the operation of the Canadian National railways to the railway management and filing in this house such information as is received from the management. I may point out to my hon. friend that the officers of the railway appear before the railway committee each year, and are then prepared to answer questions of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Once again, on a question of the privilege of the house, I think it ought to be made perfectly clear to the minister that if reasonable information is not given in the way I have suggested, it forces those of us who are seeking that information, when the committee is appointed or on the estimates, to enter into a more or less controversial discussion or attack in order to extract the information. I do not wish to do that. I am asking for simple plain information that can be easily given. I think it is in the interests not only of the government but also of the railway management itself that proper questions should be answered in a frank and open way. Otherwise it gives rise to the suspicion or the suggestion that there is something they wish to hide. I am not saying that is so in this case, but I do say it tends to create suspicion and to promote a controversial attitude towards the railways which I think is unfortunate, and which I should regret to be forced into taking.



BARTER IN TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) based on the Associated Press dispatch from Washington under date of February 13, and published in the Ottawa Journal on the evening of February 14. In brief the article states that Germans are offering to exchange farm machinery and certain other commodities
Barter in Trade

for 50,000 tons of wheat and several thousand tons of lard, the value of which would exceed $30,000,000.
It is also indicated in the dispatch that Secretary of State Hull told a press conference last week that he did not object to pure barter, provided it did not interfere with his trade agreements and provided it was not complicated by artificial currency devices. My question is this: Do Canadian regulations permit of such an exchange of commodities?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, it is. There is no prohibition against the importation of farm machinery from Germany to Canada, and there is nothing to prevent, so far as our regulations are concerned, the exportation of similar products to Germany. It is a matter of arrangement between the importing and exporting interests of the respective countries.



GERMAN ALLEGIANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, is the government prepared to make a statement now with regard to the circular issued by the German consulate at Vancouver and with regard to which I directed a question to the ministry a few days ago?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend a reply at the moment. I have made some communications concerning the matter, to which I have not as yet received replies.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, when may we expect a report on the inquiry into radio tubes?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I presume the hon. member is referring to the inquiry by the tariff board. I am expecting the report some time during the session, but I cannot say exactly when.


Mr. SPENCE:: It is coming up in a week or two.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 10, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
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.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) had the floor.
John Charles Landeryou: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Would the carrying out of the financial operations indicated by this resolution result in a reduction or an increase in Canada's national debt?


Mr. DUNNING:: That is a difficult question to answer. It depends on the extent to which this house votes money for expenditures which, during the period covered, cannot be met out of the current revenues of the country. To that extent the debt of the country may be increased. With regard to the refunding operations, with which the bill is mainly designed to deal, no increase in public debt will be involved.


John Charles Landeryou: Does the government intend to set aside any reserve to retire this debt within a period of twenty years?


Charles Avery Dunning: I believe I have indicated on a number of occasions my own belief that a sinking fund policy is a desirable one for Canada, and that as soon as the finances of the country reach such a condition that an annual provision for sinking fund against the national debt can be instituted, I personally would favour such a course. I do not think it would be a good thing to get into the position in which other countries having definite sinking fund provisions have found themselves during the past few years. For instance, in Great Britain it has been all too common in recent years for the chancellor of the exchequer, on account of prevailing conditions, to be compelled to ask in his budget for the suspension of the sinking

Loan of $750,000,000
fund provisions for the current year. In the present state of dominion government revenues and expenditures in Canada, it is fairly evident that we should be likely to reach that position if we had in effect a definite sinking fund provision with respect to the whole of our debt.


John Charles Landeryou: I have raised that question because I understood that in sound financing it was a cardinal principle that money be set aside in a sinking fund to take care of debt.


Charles Avery Dunning: In principle I agree.


John Charles Landeryou: In one of the resolutions I notice it is the intention of the government to provide a sinking fund to retire in ten years the sums borrowed for capital expenditures in the Department of National Defence. I had hoped the government would possibly set aside a sinking fund to provide for the retirement of this $750,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are making a beginning on the principle in the manner the hon. member has indicated.


John Charles Landeryou: I am pleased to note that. Section 91 of the British North America Act reads, in part, as follows:
4. The borrowing of money on the public credit.
Would the minister explain just what we mean by "public credit"?


Charles Avery Dunning: When the government of Canada borrows money it pledges the word of the people of Canada, as represented by their duly constituted government, to repay the amount borrowed. The public credit of Canada therefore consists of the obligation which I have just stated, authorized by this parliament.


John Charles Landeryou: Could the minister tell the committee just what stands behind the bonds and securities issued against the public credit? Is it just the word of the dominion, or what is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the last analysis, the good faith of the people of Canada, their willingness as a people to honour their given word.


John Charles Landeryou: Would it be fair to say that the natural resources of Canada stand behind the bonds and securities issued by this government?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a highly theoretical question. No securities issued by this dominion constitute a mortgage upon any of the business assets of the dominion. What
is given is the word of the people to pay. As I understand it, it is the word of the people that stands behind the bonded obligations of this country.


John Charles Landeryou: I am glad to know that it is just the word of the people to pay. At the moment would the minister consider amending the act to provide a sinking fund?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have already dealt with that.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask a question founded on the last five words in the resolution, "public works and general purposes." Will the financing of the new station at Montreal be charged up to this program, or will it be charged to income?


Charles Avery Dunning: In so far as any Canadian National expenditure is an expenditure by the railway, it will of course be chargeable to the railway and not to this legislation. To the extent to which any part of the work may be a relief project, and therefore chargeable against the general revenues of the country, it would be charged here to the extent to which it may be necessary to borrow to meet that or other obligations.


Thomas Langton Church: The latter part of the resolution reads:

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.
Some of these have been sold privately and many investors have suffered losses of from one to three thousand dollars because of bond payments having to be made in Canadian funds. Will any consideration be given in the new financing to regulate or prevent in the future such losses by reason of exchange differences between New York and Canada?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think my hon. friend misunderstands the intent of the words in the resolution to which he has referred. They enable the government to take advantage of the call privilege where it exists in bonds now outstanding. We have a number of issues of bonds in connection with which the government has the right to call after a certain date and at a certain price. That is why those words are in the resolution.
With respect to the question as to losses because of exchange movements, let me say to my hon. friend that any person who buys a bond of the Dominion of Canada can depend upon that bond being paid to him in the terms of the currency called for by the bond itself. That is to say, if a person is the owner of a bond of the Dominion of Canada which is payable in lawful money of the United States,
Loan of $750,000,000

it will be paid in that money regardless of what the rate of exchange may be. If he holds a bond payable in sterling in London, England, he will receive payment in the currency called for by the bond. Similarly, if he is entitled to Canadian funds, that is exactly what he will get.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Sometimes it is optional.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, there are some bonds that are optional. Certain bonds guarantee payment in terms of United States or sterling currency. I am strongly opposed to issuing that kind of bond, and I do not think it is likely that any more will be issued. The volume of these bonds is being reduced gradually by maturities and by call, but in such cases the Canadian government, in accordance with the terms of the bond, must pay the holder thereof in the currency he chooses to receive. He has the option -of being paid in either one of two currencies.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: This resolution
says, "and for public works and general purposes." Can the minister tell us how much of this money is to be used for public works and general purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall try that again. This is not a spending authority, this is a borrowing authority. The extent to which this will be used to cover expenditures will be determined, not by this legislation but by the amounts voted from time to time by this house in relation to the total revenues received by the dominion. If this house votes an aggregate sum of money going beyond the total revenues of the dominion, then the balance must be borrowed. Similarly, certain expenditures are stated in the estimates to be capital expenditures, against which money is borrowed. It is intended to give to the Department of Finance authority to borrow such moneys as this house from time to time determines shall be raised for the purposes indicated.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Should not parliament be told how much money is to be spent on public works and for other purposes before this measure is passed? There does not seem to me to be any great rush about giving the government power to borrow this money before parliament knows for what it is to be borrowed. I am heartily in accord with the principle of borrowing money for refunding and such purposes, but before we give authority for the borrowing we have a right to know for what purpose the money is being borrowed, especially in the light of conditions as we have them to-day, with the terrible taxes and tremendous debt facing this country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I indicated some days
ago that I would ask the minister to be good enough to break down this resolution and give us certain information, which would include the information asked for by my hon. friend. If the committee will permit I should like to ask the minister to reply to three or four questions I shall ask along that line.
The resolution states that this money is for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada. Will the minister state what loans or obligations are covered by that particular part of the resolution? I have before me the public accounts, which as near as I can judge show that something in the neighbourhood of $425,000,000 will mature in 1939 and 1940. I understand that this resolution is intended to cover 1940. I should like the minister to give us a list of the maturing obligations which it is intended to retire by this resolution. I shall then follow up with one or two other questions.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Leaving about $420,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: About that, except that there are $155,000,000 of treasury bills.


Henry Herbert Stevens: $155,000,000 of treasury bills; and the $420,000,000 must be met.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the $155,000,000 must
be met.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should point out, to make sure that my hon. friend has correct information, that under the appropriation acts the treasury bills are renewable, but if they are funded, or any portion of them, it must be done under this authority.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was just going to ask the minister to make that perfectly clear. The treasury bills may be renewed?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And if they are renewed, is the renewal subtracted from the $750,000,000 for which authority is being asked here?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only in case they are funded.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Otherwise not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Otherwise not. The
appropriation act covers treasury bills-shortterm three months bills-which is what we use, but if they are ever funded it must be under this authority.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it is not the general practice to fund them at the present time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the last year there has been a steady increase in the issue of treasury bills, and I personally approve of the use of them.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have used them more in the last two years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I agree with that method of financing. The point I wish to make, however, is this: If you take all the treasury *bills and all the maturing loans, it accounts for $575,000,000, which leaves $175,000,000 of free money; that is $175,000,000 in respect of which authority will be given to the minister. He may use that in part for taking up callable loans.


Charles Avery Dunning: I may use it all for that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In this resolution we have what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) referred to a moment ago, namely, authority in respect of " public works and
general purposes." What proportion of this $750,000,000 is to be devoted to public works and general purposes?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has had experience as a minister of the crown, and I am sure he knows well the answer to his own question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do, pretty well.


Charles Avery Dunning: He knows that this is not a spending authority but a borrowing authority. He knows, moreover, that every government periodically, as and when its authority already existing expired, had to come back to parliament to get further borrowing authority, which had nothing whatever to do with the government's spending authority, the latter being derived from the appropriation acts based upon what this parliament votes every session for expenditure. My hon. friend knows that I cannot possibly tell him the answer to his question. No one ever could, and in my experience this is the first time that an effort has been made to involve the question of the general borrowing authority with that of the spending authority, which is otherwise provided for by this parliament. I am sure my hon. friend knows that there is no means of answering his question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tell the minister just why I am exhibiting this high degree of ignorance.	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: Which he doubts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is quite correct in saying that I understand it quite fully. Perhaps I understand it a little more clearly than I ought to, for the convenience of the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is impossible.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister tell us what proportion of the amounts in previous appropriation acts is still available?


Charles Avery Dunning: About $36,000,000 as at February 1.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not very much.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not materially affect the situation. I appreciate what the minister has said, and he is quite correct in his statement that this is an authorization to borrow. But if this borrowing power is not granted, obviously the government cannot go ahead with appropriations without knowing that the minister has authority to cover any expenditures that are made. That is, I think, correct.
Loan of $750j000,000


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no easier way of tying up the business of the country that I know of.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am informed, and I think I am not very far out, that the government has in preparation a large public works program amounting to something in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000. I understand that the amount at present before the government is some $112,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: How does my hon. friend know?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have made a shrewd guess at it, and the minister knows I am not very far out.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is wholly imaginary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We will let that pass. It is true that the minister, as the watch dog of the treasury, will probably sift that down considerably, but what I am concerned about is this: If we give the minister this authority to borrow for public works and general purposes, and he has there a sum amounting to about $175,000,000 which may be used for those purposes, I think we are entitled to know what the special supplementary estimates are going to be before the bill founded on this resolution is passed-either that or the minister should state clearly what proportion of this amount will be used for these purposes. The minister, of course is in an advantageous position. He can laugh at me; he can make light of it, because perhaps a month or two will pass before these very luscious supplementary estimates are brought down. But I have been here long enough to know that in a session preceding an anticipated election, usually a very fine, fat, supplementary public works estimate is brought down. I am not particularly objecting to that provided that the public works estimates this year are directed towards the relief of unemployment. What I do and shall object to is the voting of huge sums of money to be distributed among the constituencies of Canada in a manner best calculated to bring the greatest possible influence to bear upon the electorate in favour of the government. That is what I object to, and that is why I think we are entitled to a clear statement as to what proportion of this authorization will be available for those purposes. The minister is very fair and very courteous, and I compliment him in that regard. But all we know is that the $575,000,000 is clearly provided for, except that of the $155,000,000 of treasury bills, I imagine that at least $100,000,000 will be renewed.


Charles Avery Dunning: It depends on the circumstances.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, but from my experience I would say that at least $100,000,000 will be renewed, which means that only $475,000,000 out of this $750,000,000 is actually allocated. That is giving a wide authority to the minister, putting him in a pretty secure position to carry out any appropriation which the government may choose to bring down.


Charles Avery Dunning: Any appropriation which parliament passes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, with 175-odd members behind the government-


William Daum Euler: They aren't so "odd."


Henry Herbert Stevens: -obviously interested in
patronage, it is pretty well assured to the government that they will pass anything that is brought down-with the old back-slapping, log-rolling processes which are so well known to this and other parliaments. I do not specify any particular party, but at the moment it happens to be the Liberal party; and I know, and the minister knows, that if they bring down a supplementary estimate it will go through exactly as it comes down. It is a rare thing to have it changed; and with the anxiety of the supporters of the government for a share of this large public works appropriation, there is no question about what is going to be done. Parliament-and I include hon. gentlemen sitting on this side-is merely a cipher as far as the passing of that appropriation is concerned. They will have no more influence on it than the young people down in the Lisgar high school, and the minister knows it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I cannot confirm
that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, the minister would
not confirm it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish I could.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He knows it is true.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I may talk and
my hon. friends may talk for a few weeks.


Charles Avery Dunning: But my hon. friend
said, "members."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly-members. I
say that hon. members on this side of the house will exercise no more influence on the supplementary estimates when they come down than the high school pupils at the Lisgar school.

Loan of $750,000,000


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, I have yet to
meet a member of the house on the other side who did not want some money spent. They are all demanding it.


Mr. HEAPS:: "All"?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes-the hon. member as well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It happens that I am
referring to the 175 supporters of the government in the house. However, that does not alter my opinion that we are entitled this afternoon to a definite statement as to what proportion of this huge sum of $750,000,000 may reasonably be expected to be used for the purposes I have mentioned. Further, I think the minister ought to give the committee the assurance that it will not go beyond a certain figure, because we are asked to vote a very large sum. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou), I think it was, a few moments ago asked whether the passing of this motion would increase or decrease the public debt. The minister knows perfectly well that it will substantially increase the public debt.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not prepared to say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may not admit it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know. But I can take these figures again and go over them. If it is agreed that all the $155,000,000 of treasury bills are to be paid-which they are not; if it is agreed that the $230,000,000 of callable loans are to be bought in, then you have the answer. But I say,-and I want it on record, because unquestionably there will be a review of this some other time, whether I am here or not,

that a comparatively small proportion of the $230,000,000 is likely to be called, and a very substantial proportion of the $155,000,000 will be renewed and will not affect this appropriation at all. We know only of about $475,000,000 that is actually needed for this appropriation; the balance of it might all come-taking the extreme view-under the last few words, "public works and general purposes."


Charles Avery Dunning: And it would not authorize the spending of a dollar.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no. The minister is always clear and I need not clarify what he says, but let me analyse a bit that repeated excuse. Of course parliament has to make the appropriations.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have already pointed out, what every hon. member knows, that the estimates I hold in my hand, covering some hundreds of items, will pass, as to every last one of those items. Why? Because this is a government measure. I will venture to say, from my experience of twenty-eight years in this house, that during that period estimates have not been changed more than half a dozen times. I doubt if it is half a dozen. I remember a few, but very few occasions, and then it was only by way of changing the wording of the estimate. I think I can recall two such cases.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have moved more than once to reduce.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know, but it did not pass.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes-corrections or adjustments, voluntarily made by the government. But very seldom are there changes. And when the government's supplementary estimates come down it will be towards the end of the session, when the heat comes on, when we are all anxious to go, when the ranks are very thin, when the committees are sitting, and there is a bare quorum in this chamber.


Charles Avery Dunning: Right now I will give my hon. friend the assurance that the supple-mentaries will not be delayed that long.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am very glad to hear that, but I should like to see them down before this resolution passes, so that we can have a look at them. However, I repeat that when that supplementary comes down it will pass as a matter of course.
The minister talks about appropriations. Of course these appropriations are made by parliament; but, as I said a moment ago, they are made by the government, supported by their followers in the house, and they pass as a matter of course.


John Charles Landeryou: May I ask the hon. member for Kootenay East if he is in favour of the method proposed by the resolution of raising this $750,000,000?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, the method is not disclosed, but I will say this-


John Charles Landeryou: The resolution reads, "by way of loan"

borrowing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. That part of the matter has not been under discussion, but I am quite willing to discuss it. I think that

Loan of $750ft00,000

the major portion of it will have to be raised in what is known as the orthodox method, the method which has been followed throughout the years; that is, by the government issuing securities, either short term securities in the way of treasury bills or longer term securities sold on the market in the usual way. Personally I have long held the view that we should make more use of the method of raising money by way of treasury bills.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have gone further in that direction than any other government ever went.


Henry Herbert Stevens: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Two-thirds of one per
cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I were in the minister's place I would increase the financing of this country by treasury bills. That is one thing. And I would go further. If the minister accepted my advice he would endeavour in this period of stress, provided he had a policy that would tend to the permanent relief of this unemployment question-which the government now have not-


An hon. MEMBER:: They have.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, no; not by a long way. They have no permanent policy; they have a policy of palliatives, that is all.


Mr. GOLDING:: Is there such a thing as a permanent policy in any country in the world?


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the hon. member has in mind a sort of eternal policy I would not say there is; I do not pretend to say that. But coming to something more than mere palliatives, I think measures can be adopted which might be termed permanent. If they had a policy-leaving out the word permanent-to deal with the unemployment question, then I would not hesitate to enlarge the currency in the hands of the public, and that can be done without any inflation. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), a colleague of my hon. friend the Minister of

Finance (Mr. Dunning), named a figure to which he said he would go, which I would not at the moment name as my figure. He is about four times more generous, more optimistic, more wild than I am. One need only read the pledges of the Minister of National Defence before the last election.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I may
tell my hon. friend that my figures were founded on the scientific currency basis adopted at the world conference of 1933.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Splendid; and my hon.
friend was right. But I would not go quite as fast or as far as he, prior to the election, pledged himself to go.


Charles Avery Dunning: But my hon. friend would not agree with him at all when he proposed it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, in
justice to my hon. friend I think at the conference of 1932 he proposed a resolution on the same basis, subsequently adopted in 1933. Is not that correct?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not quite. The resolution adopted in the conference in 1932 was that there should be an easy money policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought the basis was twenty-five per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that was laid down at the international conference in 1933. On that basis we have a wide margin. I am not suggesting that we go that far. I do suggest however that we should go a measurable distance towards it, because as I pointed out the other day we have in the hands of the public in Canada only about half as much circulating media per capita as they have in such countries as Great Britain, the United States and Australia.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my friend permit
me to say that his information regarding that is slightly in error. I shall deal with it later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All I can say is that four years ago I took a great deal of time and trouble, with the assistance of the bureau of statistics, in working that matter out. Last spring I verified, my figures and brought them down to date. If they are brought down to the present day there may be some slight variation-


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite a big difference in one case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -because in the United States there has been inflation of a kind during the last year. But taking it as about a year ago, my figures are accurate, because

Loan of $750,000,000
they are based upon a very careful computation by experts and authorities. But answering my hon. friend's question, I would use that measure to a certain extent. I would not use it recklessly; I would not suggest that we should go in for inflation at all. But keeping well within the bounds of orthodox financing as laid down by the international conference, as laid down by orthodox financing in London, New York and Australia, using those three countries as a comparison, I would certainly use some of our powers in that regard in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is very cautious.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad the minister thinks so.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is going to try to satisfy everyone with that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister cannot suggest that.


John Charles Landeryou: I should like to ask the hon. member a question on this point. Would he be prepared to go so far as to have our financial system accurately reflect our real ability to produce goods and services in this country?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend knows that I should very gladly answer any question that it is within my power to answer, but he knows also that to start on that question would take an hour's explanation and analysis.


John Charles Landeryou: I just wanted to
determine the bounds the hon. member would lay down.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would keep within
reasonable bounds.


John Charles Landeryou: What does the hon. member mean by reasonable bounds?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think I would be somewhere between the wild optimism of the Minister of National Defence and the reactionary position of the Minister of Finance. And I think I would be in a pretty safe position.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Safe, between the two of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is room for you here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You had better come over.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, but I have an idea that if the Minister of National Defence were in his right place in keeping with his financial
71492-64J
policy he would be along with our friends to the left, the social crediters, and the Minister of Finance would be sitting here.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, never.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. For an old country Gladstonian Liberal, of the Walter Scott Liberalism of Saskatchewan-


Charles Avery Dunning: First class Liberalism, too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -the Minister of Finance could not be recognized to-day for what he was in those grand days.


Charles Avery Dunning: I could quote Gladstone by the yard in support of exactly what I am doing in the matter of financial policy. And he was the greatest finance minister the British empire ever had.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will agree that Gladstone was one of the greatest finance ministers, and I remember that Gladstone looked with horror at the commencement of income tax. He thought it was a revolutionary thing, a terrible thing, but I believe he did ultimately introduce it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Succession duties, too.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister may be
referring to the beginning of Gladstone's career or the end, but wherever the minister was, he was a good Gladstonian Liberal-


Charles Avery Dunning: He is still.


Henry Herbert Stevens: and now in his financial administration he is an ultra reactionary. But I do not want to get away from the purpose of my remarks. I want the minister to tell us what proportion of this $750,000,000 will be allocated to public works and general purposes.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I am to answer all these questions I hope the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) will give me opportunity to do so by instalments. In the first place let me congratulate the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) upon once more posing very cleverly that question: Have you stopped beating your wife? He knows that is exactly what he is doing. The: purpose is to convey to the country the impression that the opposition is vigilant to prevent undue expenditure of public money, as of course an opposition has a perfect right to be.
My hon. friend in his references to supplementary estimates yet to come is either calling upon his own memory of his experience as a member of a Conservative government, or upon his imagination. He knows that I find it very difficult to answer him categorically
Loan of $750P00,000

with respect to supplementary estimates which may be in contemplation, without breaking my oath of office. He knows that I cannot be as frank as a finance minister would always like to be with respect to efforts to control public expenditure. He knows that as well as or better than I know it myself. I said once before in this parliament, and I repeat to-day-nobody will like it but it is the truth- that parliaments came into existence originally having as one of their primary purposes that of preventing the king from spending too much of the people's money. Parliament has changed; it has become a body demanding of the king, as represented by the government of the day, that more and more of the people's money be spent. And that is not confined to any one government or any one party in this house; we all know that it is the public demand upon the membership here. Again I say, however, when my hon. friend indicates some knowledge on his part which I do not at the moment possess, as to what the government contemplates bringing down in the form of supplementary estimates, that it is pure imagination or is based upon his experience of the methods followed by the government of which he was a member.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Based upon twenty-eight years of experience in this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now, to come to the point of my hon. friend's impossible demand, I am prepared to take him at his word, if he so desires, if he speaks for all on that side of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: -when he says that before we pass this borrowing authority we must know every dollar that the government proposes to spend by way of main and supplementary estimates during the present year. The opposition have a perfect right to take that stand if they wish to do so, and if they so wish we can avoid wasting a great deal of the money of the people in a long discussion here by my undertaking right now to stop this discussion at this point and proceed no further with the bill until the supplementary estimates are down. I am quite prepared to do that, but only if it will save ft great deal of unnecessary talk and expense. My hon. friend well knows that during all the years he was a member of the government of Canada the borrowing authority was never seized upon by the opposition as one of the means of controlling expenditures, but they have a perfect right to do so. My hon. friend may exercise that right now if he wishes, but I do submit to him and to
[Mr Dunning.]	.
others who hold his views that if that is the desire it is better to attain it by my consenting to hold back the legislation right now, instead of wasting hours of time and then reaching that conclusion anyway. If this house really desires to see all the government estimates before granting this general borrowing and refunding authority I am prepared to hold back this measure until that time, purely in the interests of getting on with the business of the house.
Now I should like to answer the specific questions. A question was asked the other day, and it was referred to again to-day by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), with respect to the amount of currency in circulation in various countries. The hon. gentleman sought to prove by the figures he gave that we could stand a further measure of currency inflation. I draw attention to that because of course there is a distinction between currency inflation and currency and credit inflation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course I did not use the word "inflation."


Charles Avery Dunning: No, but I think my hon. friend indicated a willingness-well,	his
language was so carefully guarded in his effort to appeal to the extreme left on the one hand and not to offend St. James street on the other that it was rather difficult to know exactly what he did mean.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was my hon. friend I did not want to offend.


Charles Avery Dunning: As to being reactionary in my own person, I will let the Canadian people judge me and my works, as to whether or not I am reactionary; and they will do that.


John Charles Landeryou: They would if they knew the facts.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend might, but thank goodness he is not the people of Canada, and I have plenty of evidence to that effect.


John Charles Landeryou: The same applies to
the hon. gentleman who has just spoken.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly. Now, with
respect to the volume of currency in circulation, the other day the hon. member for Kootenay East said the circulation of currency in the hands of the public in Great Britain was $41 per capita; in the United States, about $42; in Australia about $40 and in Canada, about $22. He is in error with respect to Australia, where the figure is approximately $21 instead of $40. In other

Loan of $750fl00,000
words Australia is very similar to Canada in regard to the amount of currency in circulation.
There is one explanation as to why we have less currency in circulation in this country than they have in the United States. There is a different explanation with respect to Great Britain. The explanation with regard to the United States is one with which every hon. member of this house who thinks is familiar. The Canadian public have a great deal more confidence in their banking system than the people of the United States have in the banking system of that country. The hoarding of actual currency in the United States is known and acknowledged by the United States authorities to be very large indeed, whereas' the deserved and continued confidence of the Canadian people in the Canadian banking system has involved an ever-increasing growth in the use of checking accounts instead of piling up large volumes of currency.
With respect to Great Britain, for a different set of reasons altogether the British people have not come along in the use of checking accounts to anything like the extent to which that method has been used in this country. Just here I should like to quote from the December bulletin of the United States federal reserve system touching on this exact point in connection with the volume of currency in circulation in that country. This bulletin is authoritative; as hon. members know, the federal reserve system is a governmental institution in that country. The bulletin states:
The higher level of currency in circulation that has been maintained since 1936 at about $2,000,000,000 above that of 1929 represents increases both in large-denomination currency and in coin and small-denomination bills. The increase in large bills reflects in part the holding of savings in the form of currency rather than in bank deposits, securities, or other property. The banking difficulties in the early thirties may be partly responsible for the increase in the volume of savings held in currency rather than in banks, notwithstanding the safeguarding of bank deposits after 1933 by federal deposit insurance. Another factor is probably the reduction in interest rates paid on savings and other time deposits.
I would direct attention to the fact that the $2,000,000,000 there noted as the increase in United States circulation since 1936 would account for approximately $16 per capita of the difference between that country's per capita circulation of currency and the circulation of currency in Canada.
I do not know that there is anything I Gan add to what has been said already, except this one point which I overlooked. I was asked the other day as to the proportion of
Canada's funded debt which was held in Canada and the proportion payable in other countries. I have the figure here somewhere and will be glad to place it on record. Without waiting to find that figure I would say that as things stand at present, seventy-five per cent of the funded debt of Canada is due and payable to Canadian people in Canada. That, I think, is a record of which we have no reason to be ashamed.
There is just one other point bearing on the same question. The other day the hon. member for Kootenay East asked us to give consideration to whether or not Canadians should increase their indebtedness to the United States. At that time I indicated to him that all the matters to which he referred were of necessity receiving constant study at the hands of the experts of the finance department, the officers of the central bank and, necessarily, myself. I can tell him now that the latest information with respect to the movement in that regard, developed by the bureau of statistics, indicated that there has been a net reduction of Canada's indebtedness abroad-I am speaking now not of the government alone but of all indebtedness abroad by all Canadians-of $524,000,000 during the past five years.
I indicated to my hon. friend, who expressed some doubt the other day, that I was quite sure that there had been during the last few years a continuous reduction in the balance of indebtedness in foreign countries against the Canadian people. This is the figure vouched for by the bureau of statistics in that regard: $524,800,000, in the last five years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister permit a question?-because we want to keep the record straight. The minister began his answer by referring to the United States. The figures he gave apply to all countries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, quite.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It would be a misleading situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. If I indicated the United States alone, I was wrong. It is our general international balance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; I do not wish the minister to think I misquoted him. I have said that he commenced his answer to me on the question of the indebtedness of Canada to the United States. And then, without differentiating, he led up to the total reduction. Would he indicate the amount of reduction to the United States?
Loan of $750,000,000


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister added to it
the statement that he would like to get along with the business of the house, and the inference was that this would be obstructing the business of the house. My own view is, and
I speak for myself only, that it would be better for all concerned, that it would be better for parliament, if we had the supplementary estimates before this was disposed of.


Charles Avery Dunning: If that is the general
agreement, I am content.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not suggest that that is the view of all hon. members on this side, because I am not speaking for them. The minister made a statement with regard to external loans; he said that there had been a reduction of Canada's obligation abroad by $500,000,000 in the last five years. I have not had an opportunity or the time to check the figures. The minister has not referred at all to the point I raised the other day. I asked whether it was advisable for Canada to continue borrowing in the United States in the light of the heavy indebtedness of Canada to the United States, and the further fact that we were not able by an interchange of goods to meet our obligations in the United States.


Charles Avery Dunning: And I agreed with my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To-day the minister's remarks would seem to indicate that I was wrong in my position. His statement is that there has been a substantial reduction, and therefore we have nothing to worry about. The minister is unable to give the figures. I may say I have studied these figures, perhaps not as closely as the minister, and I question whether our indebtedness to the United States has been diminished at all in the last five or ten years. If it has been, it is because of the shrinkage in the value of securities due to the depression and the failure of a number of institutions which had borrowed in the United States. There may be a shrinkage in that regard, but in so far as repayment or discharge of these obligations is concerned, I question whether there has been any reduction. It must be remembered that we owe Great Britain something in the neighbourhood of $2,500,000,000. The minister knows, and anyone who has studied this matter knows perfectly well, that there are no precise statistics.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only the totals for all countries.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are no precise
statistics upon which those totals can be based. There are estimates and calculations, and so on, which I think are reasonably accurate. However, when anyone by an analysis of these balances says that we have
Loan oj $750fl00,000

reduced our obligations by $500,000,000 or $100,000,000 or any other figure, that statement is not necessarily an accurate one. No one knows exactly what has happened. The point I was getting at the other day, and which I reiterate now, was this. Our indebtedness to the United States is so heavy that I question the advisability of raising additional loans in that country. The minister agreed with me the other day. The minister may not think it advisable to do so at this time, but I should like to know if he can intimate whether he intends to borrow any substantial portion of this $750,000,000 in the United States, or whether it would be preferable again to open up our borrowing in Great Britain.
At this point I should like to ask the minister if he has considered the brief that I sent to him last year and which I was prevented from presenting in the house because the subject was sub judice. That brief referred to the Grand Trunk shareholders. In my opinion that matter is at the root of the difficulty of Canadian financing in London. I believe that if we were to remove that obstacle we could open up again the British market for borrowing. It would be infinitely better for Canada to secure its financial requirements in London. We sell Great Britain from $100,000,000 to $150,000,000 more goods than we buy, roughly speaking. She is a good customer. In other words, that is a market which is open to us where we are unable to pay back our indebtedness in goods. It is more or less an open market. The reverse is true of the United States. Therefore it is advisable [DOT] for Canada to borrow its capital requirements in the British financial market if at all possible. If there is anything we can do to reopen that market, it ought to be done. I am not going to discuss the Grand Trunk shareholders' matter to-day-


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be going too far. [DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Possibly, but I think it might well be brought in under the argument I am now making. I shall probably do that on some other occasion, because it is a matter which I think ought to be discussed in the house. If the minister could indicate whether he will seek this financing in the United States or in Great Britain, it would be desirable.
The minister referred to certain recent increases in the amount of currency in the United States and Canada. The spread between the amount of currency in the hands of the public in Great Britain and the United States and Canada is something that deserves careful study. If within the ambit of the

international conference decision as to what is reasonably safe in the way of gold reserve we can expand the currency issue in Canada, I think it ought to be done. Last year when discussing this subject the minister constantly used the word " inflation " and he used it again to-day. I object to that because I am not suggesting inflation in the ordinary interpretation of the word. Inflation is where you get beyond the realm of recognized safety. I say further that you can have inflation of credit just as easily as you can have inflation of currency.


Charles Avery Dunning: Easier.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is really what
happened in 1929. Probably- that was the' main cause of the collapse of the financial market at that time. I want to make it very clear that I am not talking about inflation.


Charles Avery Dunning: Either of credit or of currency?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. .


Charles Avery Dunning: We are not so far apart.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not very far, but there is a substantial percentage of difference. I think we should go a long way towards improving conditions in Canada if we had a little broader and easier policy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A scientific expansion of the currency.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I am not as much alarmed about managed currency as my hon. friend seems to be. Do not let us forget that we are off the gold standard. Here is a question I should like to put to the minister. Why is it that Canada has tied itself to the American dollar?


Charles Avery Dunning: Canada has not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to propound a phenomena which exists at the present time. Since the Prime Minister was in New York and Washington, since the signing of the treaty down to the present time, while sterling has fallen as low as $4.50-it is around $4.70 to-day-Canada has not followed sterling down at all. Canada's dollar stayed within a fraction of New York, and no one will persuade me that without some artificial action on the part of the banks of Canada or the Bank of Canada in connection with our relation to United States exchange, Canada's dollar would not have followed sterling down to a certain extent, although perhaps not as rapidly as sterling went.
I say further, because I disagree with the general course followed in 1931, and I disagree with the course to-day, that in the last five

Loan oj $750,000,000
months the Canadian exporter, and the Canadian government is an exporter of wheat, has lost a very considerable sum of money. We might just as well have been paid with a dollar that was tied to sterling, which would have greatly benefited the primary producer, as to have been paid with a dollar that was tied to New York.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not tied to New York.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says it is
not tied to New York.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When
the opposition of that day suggested that course, they were condemned by the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And I say very frankly that I disagreed with that attitude.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
very glad to hear that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We should have followed sterling.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I rise to correct an impression given by my hon. friend which would be detrimental to the best interests of Canada. I want to state categorically and positively that the Canadian dollar is not tied at this moment, nor has it been, either to the United States dollar, on the one hand, or to the pound sterling on the other. I state that on my responsibility as minister, with the utmost positiveness.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All right, I accept the
minister's statement that it is not tied.


Charles Avery Dunning: Don't do the country
harm.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot allow that to
pass.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, my hon. friend stated that he knew that it was tied.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not say that. I
said that no one could persuade me that it was not tied. The minister says: Don't do the country harm.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not mean that,
offensively.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot see that it is
going to do this country any harm to discuss the situation frankly.


Charles Avery Dunning: But to state what is not true may do the country harm.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister says it is not true. He says the Canadian dollar is not tied to New York. All right. But the
fact is that the Canadian dollar has stayed within half of one per cent of New York. It has been down varying from two to four-sixteenths, and it rarely went above one per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not often.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not recall its doing so. Most of the time it was five or seven-sixteenths off New York. What I do say is that if the Canadian dollar had been allowed to follow sterling-


Charles Avery Dunning: Allowed? It was positively. not prevented from doing so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will put it in another way. If the Canadian dollar had been tied to sterling we would have been infinitely better off in this country, to the extent of millions of dollars in the hands of our producers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is definitely true of 1931.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will tell my hon. friend that if on September 21, 1931, when Great Britain went off the gold standard, Canada had followed sterling, it would have put millions of dollars into the hands of the people of this country. Exactly the same condition prevails to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nonsense.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In the last few months, exactly the same position. If we were tied to sterling, Canadian producers to-day would be receiving a substantial increase of income.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did my hon. friend not vote against a resolution moved by the then member for Macleod, and supported by the Liberal opposition of that day, advocating that very policy in 1931?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not recall it. But suppose I did; my hon. friend knows very well that I was a member of the government, and I had to agree with what was done or get out. Ultimately I did get out. But that is not the point. I say that that was my opinion then, and it is my opinion to-day, whether it is done or not. I say that if we -were tied to sterling, not merely the pound sterling but to the sterling area, which includes not only Great Britain, but Norway, Sweden, the Scandinavian countries, Holland to a certain extent, Belgium, * and all the British colonies, the primary producer in this country would be greatly benefited. Of course there would be some slight handicap on those who have to pay on securities in New York. But I think it would be an advantage to half the
Loan of $750fi00,000

population in Canada, our agricultural population, in the prices they would receive for their meat products, their cheese and their butter, their wheat and other primary products, and surely that would more than offset the disadvantage on the financial side.
I am not for one moment, as I said the other day, criticizing the banking institutions, because their business is to look after their own interests. But it is the business of this parliament and of this government to hold things in balance and equity among the various conflicting interests in this country, and for that reason I would welcome some indication from the minister that he intends in this instance to seek to reinstate Canada's place in the London market and that, if it can be brought about, the Canadian dollar will be tied to sterling.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong the out-of-order discussion which is now proceeding, and for which I am perhaps as much responsible as anyone else. But is my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) enunciating the policy of his party when he says that we should tie the Canadian dollar to sterling? I want to know, and the people of Canada want to know.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will answer. What difference does it make whether I am speaking for the Conservative party or for myself?


Charles Avery Dunning: No difference at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I stated at the outset that I was giving my own opinion. I am not speaking for the Conservative party; I am speaking for myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: I thought my hon. friend was speaking as the financial critic of his party-


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, just as a private
member.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and therefore with some responsibility as to policy. I will answer him at once and say that this government does not believe, under the conditions now prevailing, or under the conditions which have prevailed since we came into office, in tying the Canadian dollar to any other currency anywhere, whether it be the pound sterling or the American dollar. I would earnestly submit to this committee that the moment we do so we abdicate the function with which the Canadian people have entrusted us, namely that of managing our own currency. We cease to manage it ourselves the moment we tie it up to any other currency. At the present time the Canadian dollar rides on the tide of trade. It is not tied to any other currency, and I 
think any student of present conditions would question the desirability of tying it either to the United States dollar on the one hand or to the pound sterling on the other.
My hon. friend painted an alluring picture of the benefits to be derived from tying our dollar to a depreciated pound. He spoke, as many do, of the advantages to certain groups of producers, and of the disadvantage to those having securities payable in terms of United States currency. He did not mention at all the effect it would have upon all the people of Canada who are consumers. He did not mention at all the fact that depreciating our currency in relation to the United States dollar at this minute would impose a protective tariff much more effective than anything we have. To the extent of the difference between the depreciated Canadian dollar and the United States dollar it would impose a tariff against all imports entering this country, without, in so doing, bringing in a cent of revenue to the Canadian treasury, but definitely increasing the cost of all domestic commodities which have to be purchased which are governed by the cost of imported commodities. The thing is not so easy as that. If it were, does anybody suppose that any government would not desire to get additional returns for primary producers of exportable products? Would it not be something that we would jump at? My hon. friend well knows that it is much more complicated in its essence than that. In my best judgment, advising the government on these matters, with conditions as they are to-day, it would be definitely bad business for the Canadian people to have their dollar tied to any other country's currency. In the changing circumstances which surround us today we must retain control of our own currency, which we have through the legislation enacted by parliament.
My hon. friend refers to the previous occasion. May I point out to him that a $4.70 pound in relation to our producers of exportable products is a very different thing from a $3.25 pound. That is the whole point. These things are all matters of degree. I will admit at once that if the pound sterling declined to anything like the levels which existed in 1931, when, as he said, he was compelled to vote for his government although he disagreed with them, in the process of managing our own currency in the interests of the Canadian people we should have to take cognizance of that position and adjust ourselves accordingly. But I do submit that to claim that there is any parallel between a $4.70 pound, seventeen cents below parity for the pound, and a pound which was $3.25 as

Loan of $750,000,000
against $4.86, is-well, not merely begging the question, but exaggerating for the purpose of making a debating point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister believe that it would be disastrous for Canada to follow sterling down to the $4.70 level, and some sort of glorified blessing to follow it down to the $3.25 level?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment ago the minister was emphasizing the possible disastrous effect of going on the $4.70 level, and then he says it was a vastly different thing when the Conservative government was in office and the pound went to $3.25.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will let my point go. I will let Hansard record it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is difficult, however, to allow the minister to get away with any such argument as that.


Mr. POULIOT:: What about the Australian pound, Mr. Chairman? Some friends in the antipodes sent me their speeches in which they contended very strongly that the Australian pound, which is tied to sterling, is much lower than the British pound.
I have listened attentively to the discussion, which was most interesting. A great gentleman in this country has deplored the manner in which experts in economics, sociology and political theory use terms and phrases not understandable by the layman. He mentioned that it was " an abominable jargon." In this connection I should like to quote a few words from "A World in Debt," by Freeman Tilden, which was published in 1936 by Funk & Wagnalls. One fears the entrance of economists in the financial field; they seem to make it more complicated. At one time the statute of 1908 provided that the deputy minister of finance would receive a salary of $4,000 a year, provided that he had been the general manager of a chartered bank for ten years. At that time they were looking for people of common sense and experience in business. Now I am very much concerned about the fact that some of the advisers of the Minister ojf Finance are experts in economics.
Here is what Mr. Tilden says of economists: it is very short:
Then I turned to the economists, the political economists. Lord save us, my friend! what shall I say of the economists? What can anyone say of the economists? Nerissa asked of Portia, "How say you by the French lord, Monsieur Le Bon?" Portia replied, "God made him, and therefore let him pass for a man." As to economists, let us not be outdone in benevolence by Portia; they are undoubtedly
as they were intended to be; but for any adequate explanation of the difficulties and dangers that beset our industrial economy and the fortunes of those who exist within it, you may as well consult the Great Pyramid.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Diligently I have perused the modern economists, and I frankly confess that I now know neither what political economy is nor what the economists pretend to teach. If the professors of this alleged science really have any definite notions translatable into practice, it would seem the right time to expose them, for the world stands very much in need of enlightenment. Sir Isaac Newton once refused to publish the results of certain experiments he had made, saying that the publication might serve to widen the circle of his acquaintance, "a thing I chiefly study to decline." Our economists do not seem, so far as mere publicity is concerned, to share Sir Isaac's aloofness; their love of society is so great as sometimes to appear promiscuous; so it must be that a kind of freemasonry among them seals their lips against revealing the prodigious truths of which they are possessed.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, there is always a danger in listening to experts. One very able judge used to say that there were three
kinds of liars-liars, d

 liars, and experis.
Of course what we need in finance as well as any other business is a clear understanding of what is going on; and very often the accessory currency is considered as the principal when the principal is always trade.
Another point that concerns me very much is the fact that during the last years, and especially from 1930 to 1935, instead of following the practice of Westminster we have been aping it. One thing I cannot understand is the loss of ministerial responsibility and the decrease in parliamentary control. Hon. members have received an extract of the reports of the British parliamentary committee on national economy. May I draw attention to four points which should be placed on Hansard?	The document is dated from
Treasury Chambers, March 12, 1920, and is the interim report on the position of accounting officers:
At their first meeting the council proceeded to discuss the general position of accounting officers and the possibility of effective reform in the present financial procedure of departments. On November 10, 1919 the chancellor of the exchequer requested the council to consider, together with other proposals for strengthening the hands of accounting officers, the suggestion contained in paragraph 9 of the first report of the select committee on national expenditure (1919), that the accounting officer of each spending department should be a treasury official appointed by and solely responsible to the treasury.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. What is the
hon. gentleman reading from?
Loan oj $750,000,000


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reading from the
official report of the committees of Westminster, an extract from the report of the committee on national economy, which I got here in the library.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am of the opinion
that the hon. member is out of order in quoting that. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the resolution.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, and if you
permit me I will explain how this is in order. We are now discussing a resolution to authorize the borrowing of $750,000,000. The administration of this will be in the hands of the Department of Finance. We have to see what the present constitution of that department is compared with what it was before 1931. I am just telling the committee what has been decided in England with regard to the appointment of officers of the treasury in various departments.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have already made
my ruling, and I would ask the hon. member to observe it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. Then I will not mention this further at present. But my point is that in regard to all the money spent by the government, each item of expenditure should be authorized by and payment made by the minister concerned. The minister of any department has an allotment of so many hundred thousands, so many millions of dollars for his department. According to my view of ministerial responsibility, responsible government and parliamentary control the minister should have the right not only to authorize an expenditure but also to control the payment of that expenditure, in order to be responsible to parliament for the disbursement made on that account. I hope I make myself clear in that regard. Some years ago under the previous administration the whole financial system of the dominion government was entirely changed; instead of having payments made under the authority of the minister concerned they are now made only by the Department of Finance under the authority of the comptroller of the treasury who is himself under the authority of the Minister of Finance. I submit that we should follow the practice which was in force in this country for a hundred years; from 1834, the time of the ninety-two resolutions-it was put in force six years later in 1840-to 1934 we had responsible government in this country, but since 1934 all payments are made by the Department of Finance and not by the ministers of the departments concerned.
[The Chairman.]
There are now no accountants in the departments who are not under the Minister of Finance. The minister concerned has no authority over the accountants in his department. Here in the House of Commons we have an accountant, a very able man; but he is not one of our officers; he is not under the authority of Mr. Speaker; he is under the authority of the comptroller of the treasury who is under the authority of the Minister of Finance. To this I strongly object on constitutional grounds, because each minister should be responsible for his own department, and if he is not responsible for the payment he cannot be held responsible for incurring any expenditure. Further, according to my view, in the present situation all the estimates should be submitted by the Minister of Finance himself, because he is responsible for the payment. I do not see how any other minister can come with them save the Minister of Finance, who through his officials authorizes every payment made. I do not see how any other minister can come and justify the administration of his department, because he administers practically nothing. I do not blame this government for that legislation, far from it; it was imposed on parliament by the previous administration, but it is all wrong. The former Prime Minister used to say that he needed to have it that way in order to get information more quickly. Last year, two months after the expiration of the fiscal year, I telephoned to a high official of the Department of Finance to know the exact amount of the debt of Canada. He told me he had not ascertained it yet. As I say, that was two months after the expiration of the fiscal year. There is no progress in that.
Another point is that with accountants in the various departments to check the expenditures and make the payments under the authority of the minister they become familiar with the work of the department. There is no man in the civil service who can be familiar with the expenditures of all departments. I defy the comptroller of the treasury or anyone in the Department of Finance ta be able to justify each expenditure in the various branches of the department; it is beyond the mental ability and the physical capacity of any man. Therefore I hope that some day the Minister of Finance will consider what is being done at Westminster. The proposal was made at Westminster to have officers of the treasury in the departments ; this was refused by the mother of parliaments. And I do not see why we do not act here as they do in Westminster. They have behind them the traditions of many

Loan of $750,000,000
hundreds of years, while we are just a relatively new country in parliamentary practice. We have a great deal to learn and nothing to forget of what was done by our forefathers in this dominion to secure ministerial responsibility and gain parliamentary control. If we have no ministerial responsibility, where is the control of parliament? There is none. I consider it a real shame that ministers for whom I have great respect should have to crawl before officers of the treasury in order to have something done in their departments.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I regret to
have to interrupt the hon. member, but he is again definitely out of order. I ask him to confine his remarks to the resolution before the committee.


Mr. TUCKER:: I do not intend to take up more than a few minutes, but I should like to indicate my view in regard to this resolution. One advantage of the issue of currency, as pointed out especially in the last parliament, is that it is a means whereby the credit of the country can be drawn upon without having to pay interest on the use of that credit. For that reason I understand that the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) at that time urged the issue of $400,000,000 in currency, to be used in part towards the payment of the national debt, having in mind that if that were dohe it would avoid the payment of interest to the extent it was so used. I am 100 per cent in support of that view. I think the extent to which we can issue currency and pay the national debt and avoid payment of interest on that debt without in any way dislocating the set-up in the country is the extent to which we should go.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), the amount of currency in circulation in Canada is about $22 per capita, compared with $42 per capita in the United States. If we issued the same amount of money per capita in Canada as they have in issue in the United States we could issue another $220,000,000 and use that money to retire interest-bearing debt. By so doing we would save no less a sum than $7,700,000 annually. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) says the reason why we have not as much money in issue in Canada as they have in the United States is that the Canadian people have confidence in our banking system, as a result of which, instead of keeping currency on hand they deposit their money in the bank and use cheques. The result is simply this, that since we have $220,000,000 less currency in issue
on account of the people of Canada having confidence in their banking system they are penalized to the extent of $7,700,000 annually. While that may be the actual reason why we have not so much currency in issue in order to do our business, it is no reason in the world why it should be so. Why should we pay interest on that sum of money just because the banks can get by with less or business can get by without that money being in issue. I do not think it can be argued that we could not put that amount of money into circulation in this country without in any way dislocating our banking set-up. As I say, if we did put that amount of money into circulation we would save $7,700,000 every year.
When I suggested last year that we put several hundred million dollars in issue on which we would not have to pay interest it was stated that under our banking system the banks made loans or investments, or tend to do so, at the rate of ten dollars for every dollar of currency put out, and that if you put $600,000,000 of currency in issue, under our present system this would inevitably result in the long run in the banks putting out by way of loans and investments something around $6,000,000,000. At that time I suggested that if the banks showed any such tendency unduly to inflate their loans and investments you could take control and prevent them from doing so. The United States increased the amount of currency in circulation, and in order to prevent the banks from unduly inflating credit they increased their reserve requirement, as I understand it, from ten to twenty cents for every dollar invested or loaned by the bank. In other words the reserve requirement in the United States to-day is twenty cents for every dollar loaned or invested, whereas in Canada the legal requirement is still only five cents per dollar loaned or invested. No one can tell me that we cannot thus control our banks by taking control at any time over the reserve required. We can put twice the amount of money in circulation and double the reserve requirement if necessary in order to prevent the banks from inflating their credits or investments by a single cent. As a matter of fact, we have in the past three years to a very limited extent actually increased our currency in circulation, but the banks claim they cannot, under present conditions, greatly increase loans to commercial institutions. The result is that they have not actually increased their loans or invests ments in that direction and so the inflation of credit predicted has not yet occurred. So I submit that, under present conditions, without changing our reserve requirement we could
Loan oj $750ft00,000

increase the amount of currency in circulation without fear of immediate credit inflation. But as we did so, to make entirely certain that the banks would not take advantage of the situation, I say we should take power to increase the reserve requirement in order to prevent that inflation of credit if it threatened.
The situation in regard to this resolution, therefore, is simply this. There is roughly $400,000,000 of this debt Canada owes and which it is proposed to refund by reborrowing at interest which is payable within Canada. I submit that we could require the Bank of Canada to print $400,000,000 of notes and pay that $400,000,000 as it came due with those Bank of Canada notes. As I understand it, the average rate of interest to-day is roughly three and a half per cent, and by adopting that course we could save $14,000,000 of interest every year. I think that is worth considering. If it be said that the moment you put $400,000,000 of new currency into circulation the banks are going to loan or make investments to the extent of $4,000,000,000, I say you can prevent that by increasing your reserve requirement, or by taking power to do so. You would not need to increase it; the very threat would prevent the banks from going to any extreme.
I welcome very much the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that the servants of the people, the officials of the Bank of Canada, should be called before the representatives of the people of Canada to explain what use they are making of the control we have given them over the currency and credit of this country. I welcome that because it seems to me that they should be asked, among other things, if it would not be feasible for us to take the step I have just suggested. I hope the minister will announce at a very early date that this procedure will be followed, because it seems to me high time we put looking after our old and sick people, looking after our unemployment situation and giving opportunity to our young people, above the payment of unnecessary interest on government debt. To me that is the one place where to-day parliament can save money. We hear speeches these days from Toronto, for example, suggesting that if certain business supermen were in control of the dominion government they could save money; but if you asked them where they would save it to any great extent they would not be able to say. Would they eliminate help to the farmers of western Canada? Would they eliminate help to the fishermen of the east? Would they eliminate help to the unemployed or old folks of Ontario or Quebec or elsewhere? Where would they save the money? This is one place, Mr. 
Chairman, where it would be possible to save money in order to do the things that we as a people want to do. So I welcome the opportunity to have the officials of the Bank of Canada, whom I regard as experts in their particular line, come before the representatives of the people in the banking and commerce committee and explain why it is not possible-if they so think-for us to increase our currency in that way, at the same time preventing undue inflation.
I think the ultimate ideal should be this, that you should gradually increase the amount of currency in circulation and gradually increase your reserve requirement until you have every cent owing by the banks by way of deposit in the banks-amounting, as hon. members know, to almost $3,000,000,000-covered by money issued by the government of this country. Thereby you would save over $100,000,000 in interest and you would prevent the present inflation of credit by the banks. Under our present system the banks are, in effect, little, private mints- On the basis of their reserve requirement they can extend credit at the rate of ten dollars to one dollar to the country, which means purchasing power created as the money loaned is subject to check by the government or other borrower and is received by those to whom the cheques are paid as if they were money. When there is a threat of bad conditions the banks begin to draw in their loans and destroy purchasing power. As a matter of fact, one of the common sayings of the period since 1933-34 has been, "Where has the money gone? There is just as much money in the country'as ever." As a matter of fact, there was not as much money in the country, because the banks had drawn in loans represented by deposits in the banks against which cheques could be issued. They had,-as I remember the figures,-contracted those loans to private enterprise to the extent of roughly $900,000,000 between 1929 and 1934. The marvel to me is this, that with that contraction going on in the money to do the business of the country, over the short period of only five years, it did not absolutely wreck our economic structure.
I am glad the Minister of Finance once more is well enough to carry on in the vigorous manner he has demonstrated this afternoon. I have every respect for him. But when he worries about increasing, say, the amount of currency in circulation per capita in Canada to a point at least equal to the amount in circulation in the United States, sufficient to save that interest I have mentioned ; when I think about the financial

Loan oj $750fi00,000
leaders who are advising him to-day being willing, without protest and without seeing to it that the system is changed so that the banking system could not do what it did between 1929 and 1934 again and thereby destroy the purchasing power of the country to the extent of $900,000,000; when those people are content to stand by and let that condition remain, without insisting that the system be changed-well, I cannot understand it.
I submit that the one way of getting away from the banking system engaging in periods of undue inflation and then engaging in periods of undue deflation is gradually to increase the reserve requirements to a point where the banks will be able truly to say that for every dollar they owe depositors they have a dollar on hand. To-day, as I pointed out, by law they can loan out $20 for every dollar they have in legal reserve.
As I pointed out, that leads to a condition where, when the country wants to borrow, it must pay interest. It leads to these inflational booms. It leads to the destruction of purchasing power in deflationary periods. It leads, whether we like it or not, to the very thing that is happening to-day. The people do not know the reason why our system is not functioning, and they are inclined to blame our parliamentary and democratic institutions. We must make that system . function, or it will ultimately be destroyed. Those people who seek power by blaming the present government, but without offering any policy of their own and who, if the people believed them, would find themselves in power without any policy, and would carry on for five years without solving the fundamental problems of the country, are playing with the very future of our democratic system.
I would say that no man should seek power in Canada if all he has to offer is a palliative, something which would not go to the root of matters in solving the problems of this dominion. If any man does that, he is playing with the confidence of the democracy of Canada.
I submit the one place where the system does not work to-day is right in the realm of currency and credit. That is the one burden- the payment of interest on the use of its own credit-which the government must shed. It is one place where the credit power of Canada can be placed at the service of the people of Canada, to the extent that the Canadian people should be permitted to use their entire man power, and their entire brain power, to develop the resources God put within their control. They should be permitted to work at full capacity to produce wealth.
And if the system is not working to put our unemployed to work and to develop what, after all, is theirs-the resources of Canada- then that system is not working properly.
Unemployment is not a scourge. Those who are unemployed to-day should be regarded as an asset, not a liability. They should be regarded as people who could be put to work to produce real wealth. Then, after we have our entire machinery working to produce the maximum amount of wealth, there would be no difficulty in seeing to it that the people of Canada enjoyed or consumed that wealth. The standard of living of all would be immeasurably raised.
As I see it, that is the crux of the whole problem. We must face that problem. No amount of quibbling and fighting as to whether the tariff should be raised from, say an average of twenty per cent to thirty per cent, no amount of condemning the party in office by the very party which held office for five years-but did not do anything to solve the problem.-will gain us anything. The point is this: The people of Canada want fundamental remedies applied to the problem. They are patient. They are asking us to solve the difficulties, but I am afraid-


Mr. HARTIGAN:: I should like to ask a
question.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have almost finished; the hon. member can then ask his question. I am afraid history teaches that if a government does not serve its day and age, or if a system does not serve its day and age, it cannot indefinitely endure.
My last word at this time is this: I appeal to every member, if the time does come when we have a chance to go into these problems, with the experts we have at our disposal-and there are no better experts in Canada than are to be found connected with the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance-to give his best attention, so that we may benefit by the advice those officials can give. I would ask hon. members to follow closely the discussions before that committee. I say that because I believe everybody realizes something fundamental must be done to solve the problems facing us to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, may I
be permitted a word? The discussion has now got into the realm of monetary theory and principle. The experience last session indicated that on almost any subject before the house it is possible to discuss monetary theory and principle.
I do not wish the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker) to think that my failure to speak at length with respect to the matter
Loan of $750,000,000

he raises arises from any disinclination to do so, or from any lack of respect for his aims and the study he has given to the subject. However, based on previous experience, I do suggest that nothing will prevent members from discussing this matter on innumerable occasions in both the near and distant future.
When the other day I volunteered the suggestion that officers of the Bank of Canada might appear before the committee on banking and commerce, I thought I was opening the way for members who have ideas in these matters to examine those ideas critically, by and with the advice of, I think, the best we have in Canada in that .line.
I was pleased to note the hon. member for Rosthern welcomed the suggestion, and I can indicate to him now it is my intention-I hope early next week, at the latest :-to lay on the table of the house the report to me of the governor and the board of the Bank of Canada, and then as an ordinary formal motion to move that that report be referred to the committee on banking and commerce. Such action would afford the proper means of having the governor of the bank and such other officers as may be required, and indeed any officer of the Departs ment of Finance, before that committee.
I indicated the other day some rather desirable limitations which might be imposed.
I stated that we must trust to the discretion ' of the governor of the bank with respect to the giving out of certain information. I do not want to exaggerate that; I merely want to state it as a necessary condition. I am quite sure, however, that would not affect the possibility of discussing in detail with those experts the ideas which the hon. member for Rosthern seems to think are so simple and easy of achievement. I know he is quite sincere in that, as are other hon. members on all sides of the house. I only want to say that 1 have not found anything very easy. In my experience with finance I have found that the more I know, the less I am certain of. That may be the experience of others, but I do not know.
I am not pressing this resolution, but I should like to get the bill before the house. There will be an opportunity on the second reading and again in committee to prolong this discussion. To be perfectly frank, I do not want to have to come here to-night because I have had a rather hard afternoon. I should like to get the resolution along, or I am quite willing to do what I suggested in all seriousness to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens).


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter about which I stated previously I intended to speak. I believe this resolution affords me a chance of discussing what I consider to be one of Canada's greatest problems at the present time. We have spent some eight or ten days discussing the Bren gun contract, a matter involving $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, at which time we heard political speeches from both sides of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member should proceed to discuss the resolution.


John Charles Landeryou: I had hoped that
during the discussion of this resolution we would hear the policies advocated by the various parties in connection with monetary reform.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend
permit me just a moment? I hope he realizes that the passing of this resolution does not exhaust the possibilities of discussion thereon. The second reading stage of the bill will afford an appropriate opportunity for discussion. The bill will be identical in its terms with the resolution, and it must again come before the committee of the whole house. I hope he is not under the impression that he is being estopped in any way should he permit the introduction of the bill. I merely want to get the bill before the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Charles Landeryou: It is not carried. I appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Finance, but I want to say that I allowed the resolution to go into committee of the whole without speaking, on the understanding that I would have an opportunity of saying a few words at this time. I agree with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) when he says that democracy is being criticized, and that parliament is being criticized. Rather we should be criticizing the present financial system which is responsible for the poverty and want and misery that is so apparent throughout the dominion. I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he states "that the gold standard has been abandoned and that we are now in an era of managed currency. I do not say that the Canadian dollar has been linked or tied up to the United States dollar or the English pound, but it is a significant fact that the Canadian dollar has for some considerable length of time remained on a parity with the United States dollar.
If the monetary policy pursued by this government is working inimically to the interests of the primary producers, as has been

Loan oj $?50fl00,000
suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) and as has been declared by the province of Manitoba to be so, then those who are suffering because of the financial policy of this government should be aided by subsidies or by some other measure of restitution of their losses. The minister also pointed to the fact that the Canadian debt is largely internal. In fact, he said that seventy-five per cent of Canada's debt has now become an internal debt. That is all to the good because we realize that it is much easier to handle a debt internally than it is to handle it externally. But other countries are pursuing the same policy. Germany's external debt to-day is only 20 per cent of what it was in 1931. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) declared before the 1935 election that usury once in control would wreck any nation. Yet we find that debt and taxation are on the increase in Canada. When they were in opposition the Liberals railed against the taxation imposed by the Conservative administration, and yet to-day they are collecting more taxes than were ever collected by any former administration or by any government since confederation.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Charles Landeryou: I will permit a question when I have finished. In 1932-33, federal revenues totalled $311,130,000, and we find that in 1937-38 this government collected over $500,000,000. There has been an increase of $200,000,000 in taxation. To-day the government is collecting almost double what was collected by the Conservative administration in 1932-33, and yet the Liberals severely criticized the tax policies of that administration. The Liberals claim that there is less unemployment, that times are more prosperous and that our trade has increased tremendously.


Charles Avery Dunning: Are we going to permit a general debate that covers the whole world? I do not want to stop any discussion of the resolution, but-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has a perfect right to speak on the resolution before the house, but I would ask him to confine himself to that.


John Charles Landeryou: I had the assurance of the Minister of Finance that when we got into committee of the whole there would be no restriction placed upon the observations I wanted to make.


Charles Avery Dunning: Dealing with the subject, of course.


John Charles Landeryou: This is dealing with the subject. In spite of the claims of the Liberal party, debt and taxation are still going up.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would inform the hon. member that it is the chair that decides who is in order and who is not.


John Charles Landeryou: I agree with that. I was simply pointing out the fact that in spite of these promises-this has a direct bearing upon the question-we are borrowing S750,000,000 and increasing the debt and taxation of this country. That is the point I am trying to establish. From time to time they point out the increase in foreign trade, that we are now fourth among the trading nations of the world, but still we have to borrow money, still our taxes go up and still our debt increases. That is the point. Do we have to capture the trade of the world before we can reduce our taxation and borrowings? Do we have to feed the world before we ourselves can eat? That is the question I am asking of this government. The Liberals claim that we have democracy in this country. True, we have certain political rights and certain liberties, yet we are in financial bondage because of the financial policy pursued by the present administration, and it looks as though this is to be perpetual bondage. Last year I asked the government a question which was answered by the Minister of Finance. I asked if the government had in mind any plan which, if pursued, would substantially reduce and eventually pay off Canada's national debt in a period of, first, thirty years; second, fifty years, and, third, one hundred years, and, if so, in what way would this policy differ from the policies pursued during the past thirty years. His answer was: This is a matter of government policy. This year a similar question was placed on the order paper by myself, and it was ruled out of order by the Speaker. This question must be answered. Why all the secrecy about it? Is the idea that the less the people know, the more they can be fooled? That seems to be the whole idea behind this thing-hush up the debate on finance-do not let the people get to understand exactly what Canada's position is in regard to these matters.
A number of people falsely assume that the present financial system is responsible for the tremendous technological development we have witnessed in the world in the last thirty years, but it is not right to say that finance is responsible. Scientists and inventors, with the aid of skilled and unskilled workers, are responsible for the technological development.
Loan oj $750fl00,000


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member is again out of order, and I would ask him onee more to confine himself to the resolution before the committee, which reads:
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.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Chairman, the resolution calls for the raising of 8750,000,000 for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of the loans or obligations of Canada. That is a large sum of money. It is just twice the amount of all the cash in the Dominion of Canada; it is greater than the entire debt of Canada in 1914; so it is worth considering.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to the hon. member that the amount of money involved has no bearing on the question whether the hon. member was out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg pardon, Mr. Chairman. I hold no brief for the social credit party or their ideas, but I would submit that in discussing the amount of money involved he is quite in order.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think there was a misunderstanding.


John Charles Landeryou: As I was saying, $750,000,000 is a large sum of money. This resolution indicates that the government still believes it can borrow its way out of debt or tax its way to prosperity. I should like the Minister of Finance or any member of the Liberal or Conservative party to inform this section of the house just how we are going to lower taxation and get out of debt under the present debt-creating system.


Charles Avery Dunning: You tell us.


John Charles Landeryou: In a few moments I am going to move an amendment which will at least indicate in part my answer to the minister's question.
The Minister of Finance has referred on numerous occasions to hoary fallacies. There is no more hoary fallacy than that now being pursued by the Minister of Finance and his government. They still believe they can borrow themselves out of debt or tax themselves into prosperity.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never believed it in my life, and on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman cannot attribute to

me statements of that kind. I never made any such statement. I don't believe it, and I don't expect to.


John Charles Landeryou: I said, "this resolution indicates-"


Charles Avery Dunning: You did not.


John Charles Landeryou: My words are in
Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, they are there.


John Charles Landeryou: I said that the resolution indicates that the Minister of Finance and those supporting his policy still believe in that hoary fallacy that you can borrow yourself out of debt or tax yourself to prosperity.


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not indicate anything of the sort.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) would tell us how the resolution indicates that. It is simply for the purpose of repaying what is already due.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Melfort is out of order unless he is speaking on a point of order.


John Charles Landeryou: There is a great deal out of order with this present financial system, Mr. Chairman. I have received a number of inquiries along this very line: When are we ever going to stop borrowing? When are we ever going to be able to reduce taxation? Here is a list of questions sent to me by a man in Nova Scotia, and he says that the people of Canada are demanding that these questions be answered:
1.	Who created the money and credit which the nation now owes as a debt?
2.	To whom do we owe our financial debt?
3.	Is it possible for Canada to pay off
this debt?	_
4.	If so, how can it be paid?
5.	If it can be paid, why don't we pay it?
6.	If it can never be paid, why continue to fool the people by enslaving and starving them to pay interest on a debt that can never be repaid?
7.	Is it true that with interest Canadians would have to pay more money to meet their debt than is in existence in Canada? More than was created and loaned in the first place?


Mr. KIRK:: What is the name of the
writer?


John Charles Landeryou: It was written by a
friend of mine in Nova Scotia. I have no intention of giving his name in public. The hon. member can see his name if he likes to come to my room.


Mr. GRAY:: Did the hon. member answer
the question?

Loan oj $750ft00,000


John Charles Landeryou: I received letters not only from Nova Scotia but from many other sections. More and more the people of Canada are beginning to ask these questions. If hon. gentlemen want names, here is an address by the general manager of the Bank of Montreal.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rose-mount):: The hon. member has not given us the name of the other writer.


Malcolm McLean: He has spread
the letter on Hansard, without anyone vouching for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Calgary East a moment ago quoted a document and according to the well-established rule of the house and in committee he must disclose the name of the writer.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Dixon. I quote
now from an address by Mr. Spinney, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, who, in speaking of Canada's debt burden, is reported as follows:
Sherbrooke, Que., Jan. 24.-Canada's debt burden gradually is lowering the general standard of living, G. W. Spinney of Montreal, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, said in an address prepared for delivery to the associated boards of trade of Quebec eastern townships to-night. The indifferent attitude towards mounting government debts threatens the country's welfare, he said.
Mr. Spinney stressed the seriousness of the drain relief expenditures and railway deficits made upon the country's resources without showing tangible returns and he urged that effective action be taken towards practising government economy and solving the unemployment and railway problems. "A great deal is heard nowadays of the effectiveness of the totalitarian states and it does seem to be a fact that unless general government administration is improved, the very foundations of our democratic forms of government may be threatened," he said.
"The primary threat to the welfare of this country lies in our indifferent attitude towards mounting debts. Federal and provincial government indebtedness is ever on the increase and some municipal bodies are shaping their courses in the same direction. Let us consider how our capacity to pay is keeping pace with the growth in our promises to pay.
"Comparing the year 1937 with 1927, we find the annual national income of the country is less by something like $1,230,000,000. On the other hand, the total of dominion, provincial and municipal direct and guaranteed debt had increased in the same period by some $2,620,000,000. In other words, while the wherewithal to enable us to pay our contractual obligations has shrunk in the last decade, we have in the same period substantially increased the total of our borrowings.
"Something seems to be out of kilter here because we are obviously making promises *which our present growth in wealth and income does not appear to justify."
Severe criticism has been cast on the province of Alberta for its technical default. Alberta simply said to the bondholders, "we have not the money to pay and so we will give you half the interest." Now, which is the more honest, or dishonest-the policy of a government which says, "we will tell you frankly the position," or the policy of a government which tries to hide the truth from the people when it knows full well that these debts can never be paid? That is the position.


An hon. MEMBER:: If they can be paid, tell us how.


John Charles Landeryou: Yes; if they can be paid, tell us how. This government claims to have complete control over the issue of money and credit: why doesn't it issue it; why does it continue this policy of borrowing? I remember the statements made by the Liberals before the 1935 election, that the control of money and credit was not of concern to the banks only but of direct concern to every man, woman and child in the country. I remember that they were going to take over the control and issue of money and credit, restore it to parliament, and issue it in terms of pubic need. But they still pursue the same old policy of borrowing themselves out of debt and taxing themselves to prosperity. They argue now that they have complete control of money and credit. But what have they offered to the muncipal-ities and the provincial governments as a solution of their financial problem? Just in that regard I want to say a few words about the situation in the provinces. I notice that I have only a few minutes, so I may not be able to go iDto it at this time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Charles Landeryou: Well, then, I will refer to the municipal indebtedness as given here in a supplement to the review of the activities of the Montreal board of trade, volume 5, No. 2, November 1937. In regard to the municipal debt, table No. 14 gives the gross total bonded indebtedness of all classes of municipalities, 1926 to 1934. We find there a continual increase in the bonded indebtedness of municipalities; evidently they still think they can borrow themselves to prosperity or tax themselves out of debt. In 1926 the debt was $1,050,206,121, and by 1934 it had increased to $1,452,850,565. Steadily it has been on the increase. And what does H. Carl Goldenberg say in relation to the fiscal position of these municipalities?
1.	The duties and responsibilities of municipalities have increased without a proportionate increase in the power to raise the revenue necessary to meet their new obligations;
Loan oj $750fl00,000

2.	Having regard to these increasing ^duties and responsibilities; real property, the principal revenue, is no longer an adequate basis of taxation;
3.	Declining revenues accompanying diminished assessments and increased rates have necessitated a greater resort to borrowing, thereby increasing still further the charge against real property and discouraging new construction and home ownership.
4.	Debt charges and the increasing cost of social services and particularly of unemployment relief are absorbing a continually increasing proportion of annual revenues and are tending to paralyze normal municipal services;
5.	Forced economies in current municipal services are resulting in a huge accumulation of deferred maintenance and expansion.
6.	Having regard to the heavy burden of debt charges, further economies in ordinary expenditures can afford no material relief to the taxpayers of the municipalities.
There are the financial problems of municipalities. What has this government offered to them as a solution of those problems?
Then, in respect to the provinces, in the presentation of the case for Alberta, at page 376, under a heading, "Provincial Debt and Finance" as shown in clause 4, I quote:
The urgency of the general debt situation requires that the dominion government should deal immediately with the civic, municipal and private debts of the province, or provide facilities for the provincial government to meet the situation.
Further in part 2, chapter 1, clause 7, under the heading.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is my hon. friend quoting from?


John Charles Landeryou: From the case of
Alberta.


Charles Avery Dunning: What case?


John Charles Landeryou: It is a brief submitted to the sovereign people of Canada by the province of Alberta. It was not submitted to the Rowell commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it was not submitted by the Alberta government to the commission.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


John Charles Landeryou: Under the heading, "Alberta's case in Summary", we find the following:	.
Coincident with these vast resources which are at the disposal of the province we find-
(a)	52,000 persons on relief, living at a very low standard. Of these, 10,000 represent unemployed persons-or a reserve of labour which could be employed in much wanted production.
(b)	Total taxation-dominion, provincial, civic and municipal-representing depletion of already inadequate incomes-is estimated at

$48,563,276 or about 30 per cent of the net income of the people available as purchasing power for consumers' needs.
(c)	Debt charges and payments would, in existing conditions, represent a further 25 per cent of gross income-the main burden of this falling on producers and traders.
(d)	The income of the province is depleted further by the extortionate freight charges which have to be paid by the people for both goods sent out of the province and goods brought into the province-with the disadvantage of selling in an uncontrolled market and buying in controlled markets.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I intimated, I cannot go on this evening. My hon. friend, I take it, does not want this to carry.


John Charles Landeryou: I do not want it carried at the moment. I want to pass an amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member cannot do that.


John Charles Landeryou: I wanted to move an amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then, Mr. Chairman, I will ask you to report progress and ask leave to sit again. If I cannot get the resolution carried now, I cannot. I appreciate the cooperation of my hon. friends immediately opposite.


An hon. MEMBER:: The minister will have to answer some of these questions.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of his majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1939.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to oppose this vote; I think it is a very good one; but there are one or two points about this agreement which I think should be explained to

City of Ottawa Agreement
the committee. It would be a good thing if the federal district commission were to take the members of the house around a bit and show them what work is being done. I do not say there is duplication, but I refer to one or two points of this agreement.
The agreement started in 1920 at $50,000, then went to $75,000 and now it is $100,000. First there is the question of snow cleaning. At the present time the city of Ottawa is doing very good work in that connection. Snow cleaning is done partly by the city, and then there are in the city a number of parks and driveways and federal property on which the roads are cleaned and kept in repair by the federal district commission. The basis of the $100,000 payment is consideration for services rendered by the city of Ottawa to the government: water supply, police, fire protection and other civic services. There is a principle underlying this. The principle follows what was done in the capital cities in New Zealand and Australia; they receive something in exchange for the civic services given. For example, in New South Wales the government maintains the police force; in other places, the fire department. There are other cities in Canada where there are these federal buildings-Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Vancouver. They give the federal authority the very same civic services which Ottawa is giving, and good services; yet this principle is not applied to these places. It should apply. The Ontario government are giving to the municipalities part of the liquor licence revenues. The municipalities are now demanding something from the fees collected for motor vehicle licences. Some years ago the dominion government took from the municipalities the income tax. From confederation down to 1918 the income tax was the exclusive field of the municipalities. In 1918 the government no doubt needed the money on account of the war expenditures and they imposed a duplicate tax. In some provinces there is a triplicate tax on incomes. The Ontario government has taken the municipal income tax away altogether and established a flat rate for the province, which, some say, works a hardship to the larger municipalities especially. I am not objecting to this Ottawa vote; I am glad to see Ottawa get it, but the same principle should be applied to other places, when one considers how the municipalities have had their field of taxation invaded by federal and provincial power.
This $100,000 is not all. Parks, playgrounds, squares and driveways within the confines of the municipality of Ottawa are maintained at the expense of the dominion. From the
annual report of the federal district commission for the year ending March 31, 1936, it will be seen that there was a contribution of $217,000 from the dominion. Then the report goes on to refer to these public improvements within the city of Ottawa. The city I come from is paying for roads for fifteen miles around the city through the Toronto highways commission, and also for No. 7 highway to Brampton it is paying about $200,000 on capital and maintenance. Then, in the city of Ottawa the federal district commission pays for certain municipal services on these parks, driveways and squares. In Toronto we have a harbour commission, and we might just as well ask the dominion to pay for University avenue, Fleet street, the exhibition park, waterfront and other places in the riding of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence). The report of the federal district commission refers to 137,100 perennials and annual flowering plants sent out from the commission's greenhouse at Rockcliffe to be planted in the commission's parks and government grounds throughout the city, as well as a number of trees and shrubs. Then there is $58,385 for construction and development, including new greenhouses, Elgin street subway improvements, and so on. The total disbursements amounted to $244,389. That also covers the amount spent on Rideau Hall and the grounds, improvements, maintenance and so on.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask all hon. members to keep order. It is very difficult for the Hansard reporter to hear the remarks of the hon. member who has the floor.


Thomas Langton Church: Last year we provided another Ottawa district vote of $100,000 for the acquisition of land and for surveys in connection with a national parkway in the Gatineau valley district and the Laurentian hills, and I should like my hon. friends to listen to this. It is said we do no work here, but some of our friends in another place in this building have gone on a sit-down strike, and on three weeks more holidays, expecting us to do all the work. That is not what they do in the senate in Washington, the Ottawa of the south. There they stay on the job, and it is not hard for them in their senate to find work. Speaking of the unemployed, I think the other chamber should take up this problem. Why do they not do something about it as they did in the senate in Washington in 1927?
To return to the question of $100,000 for the new Gatineau and district park, the learned and respected clerk of the house gave
City oj Ottawa Agreement

an address a few years ago in regard to what could be done to improve this city and district and make it fit to be the capital of this great country. I think from what I saw of that address the clerk would have made a good parks engineer. I do not see the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Leduc) in the chamber, and I hope he will not think I am objecting to this second item. He has a splendid historic county and district, and I do not object to the creation of a national park there; far from it. But I believe that with the present unemployment situation, when we cannot provide the necessities of life for our own people, we should exercise a little care in the expenditure of our money. I believe we are tearing down too many buildings in Ottawa, and ruining the continuity of business on some of the business streets. That is particularly so here in Ottawa. The assessment here has been reduced and the city is losing a large amount of money every year. All this money has to be provided in some way. In the ordinary city expenditures in connection with parks, their expenditures are charged to capital, but I understand that under this government agreement these moneys must come out of income.
It was said by the two Ottawa newspapers that I was unfair to this city. That is not so. I should like to see Ottawa get everything it is entitled to, because I think they have a good city government here. But I do say the government is taking away the revenues of the large municipalities; in addition those municipalities are charged with the cost of relief, and I submit that other places should get equality of treatment. The Minister of Labour brought down a program to provide works for the relief of unemployment in the municipalities, and he also announced that the new division of the cost of direct relief would be forty per cent by the dominion, forty per cent by the province and twenty per cent by the municipality. What does the province of Ontario do? It takes the forty per cent which it is supposed to give the municipalities, chisels it down to about twenty per cent for January, February and March of this year, and does not give them the forty per cent expected for three months.
We should follow the practice that is followed in Australia, where the federal government grants a subsidy, bonus and subvention to the municipalities in compensation for the tax-exempt federal properties and the municipal services rendered, or gives them a share of the income tax collected. In some of the states to the south the state capital is given

a subsidy in compensation for certain municipal services, but in Canada this government gives nothing, except to the city of Ottawa. In the city of Hamilton, for example, the municipality has to supply police protection, fire protection, local improvements and so on, and the city gets nothing in return for aid to the federal government. I think the time has come when we should have equality of treatment by the federal power in regard to these municipal services. I do not oppose this vote; I am not opposed to the creation of the Gatineau park, but I do think it is time something was done for the other municipalities. Real estate is being burdened as a result of these federal and provincial taxes so that to-day the holding of real estate is a liability. Mortgages are being foreclosed and industrial workers are being put on the street as a result of the heavy taxes on real estate for relief. As you no doubt are aware, Mr. Chairman, the taxes on an average property constitute a rent in themselves, and the taxes on the homes of workingmen are about twice that. It really amounts, in many instances, to confiscation of property. No wonder the home building program has not been a success, when one considers the way in which these taxes are put on real estate. A man may own a property with a first mortgage, a second mortgage, a chattel mortgage on some of his goods, a bill of sale on the remainder, a lien note, a building lien on the property and every other kind of lien. So he cannot qualify for a loan either from a bank or from a shark loan company.
I hope the minister will take some action in the near future to remedy this situation. In Toronto we have a federal building on Front street covering nearly a block, on which no municipal taxes are paid. The city has to supply that building with fire and police protection; it has to furnish water at cut-rates; it has to construct a road and sidewalk in front of the property, and all that sort of thing. When Sir James Whitney became premier of Ontario, he introduced a policy under which the provincial government paid for local improvements such as sidewalks in front of provincial public buildings, parks and so on. If that is not done, the cost of these works has to come out of the general tax rate, and it becomes a burden on real estate. So I believe we have come to a time when the government must do something in order to help real estate and give other cities something. Otherwise we shall be carrying on a policy of favouritism, robbing collective Paul to pay selective Peter.

City of Ottawa Agreement
What is the principle of this legislation? These are moneys to which other municipalities in Canada are entitled too. What kind of legislation is that? Would the hon. member for Parkdale adopt such a principle in connection with his York highways commission? I hope some hon. members will have the opportunity of travelling on some of his highways, because he has a fine type of highway there.
I say the time has come for a change in jprinciple whereby some of these moneys might go to the other cities and towns in which the other 243 members live, so that they may get the same treatment as the city of Ottawa.


Mr. BARBER:: Is the vote of $100,000 supposed to compensate Ottawa for the property which has been removed from the assessment rolls, and therefore no longer revenue producing so far as taxation is concerned? I might point out to the minister that it is the opinion of several people in this city, particularly business men, that the removal of property from the assessment rolls, property which has been taken over by the federal government, has imposed a heavy burden upon the other taxpayers of the city. It is suggested to me that if the federal properties were called upon to pay taxes, instead of the sum of $100,000 the cost would be close to $1,000,000. I should like to have the minister's opinion as to the object of the payment of $100,000?


Mr. CARDIN:: May I say to the hon. member who has just taken his seat that the question he raised was discussed in 1920 when this agreement became effective. At that time the city of Ottawa made a heavy claim on the federal government for compensation for the very things the hon. member has just mentioned. They claimed that because the federal government was taking over or expropriating certain properties the city was being deprived of taxes which otherwise it would derive from those properties. Upon that occasion they made a claim, although at this time I do not remember exactly what the amount was. As a result, however, of discussions between representatives of the city and the government an agreement was reached whereby all those claims would be wiped out, and the city of Ottawa would undertake to protect federal buildings from fire and, in addition, supply the water used on the parks for sprinkling purposes.
The sum of $100,000 has been paid to Ottawa since 1925 or 1926. Prior to that time, under the terms of the agreement of 1920, the annual grant was $75,000. Those payments have been made for the services I mentioned, namely fire protection and sprinkling service, and, if not directly, at least indirectly to help to compensate for loss of revenue in taxes. Such a compensation was claimed by the city when discussion of an agreement took place in 1920. The agreement has been renewed every year, and the resolution now before us provides for the introduction of a bill to renew the agreement for another year.
The federal government has been paying the city of Ottawa certain sums of money for a very long time. The first payment was made in 1899 for the reasons pointed out by the hon. member. Since that time the federal government has continued to contribute money to the city. I believe I am free to say that the agreement is not wholly satisfactory to the city. I am informed the city council had in mind asking the federal government for an increase to at least $150,000. The federal authorities, however, thought the present amount was a proper one and could see no reason for increasing it, particularly in view of the fact that we are making other expenditures in Ottawa which in certain ways help to relieve the situation so far as unemployment is concerned. We have thought that for this year at least it would be fair to renew the agreement as it is and pay the same amount as we paid last year.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) mentions the fact that other cities might claim the same privileges. That has been considered. But if we began to apply the same principle and attempted to compensate all cities in Canada where there are public buildings, I am afraid very serious complications and difficulties would arise in adjusting the claims of the different cities.
There is justification for the present vote for the city of Ottawa, because it is the capital of the country. We are supposed to be a little more generous towards the capital city than towards other cities. In addition to that, the federal government has much more property in Ottawa than at any other point in Canada, which may serve as an additional justification for the payment to this city. I know there are public buildings in Montreal and Toronto, but the value of those properties does not compare with the value of federal government properties in Ottawa. Although I should like to see something done in other Canadian cities, I am inclined to be a little more generous towards Ottawa, a capital city of which we are proud, and for which we ought to do the best we can, according to our financial ability to provide developments and betterments.
City of Ottawa Agreement


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no objection at all to, in fact I support, the vote for $100,000 which the government intends to pay to Ottawa in lieu of taxes and other revenues of which the city is deprived by reason of the federal buildings. But I think, taking it all in all, our federal government treats Ottawa in a fairly generous way. I have not the slightest objection to the improvements which, as a matter of policy, the government are bringing about in the city. In fact, I approve most of them. But at the same time the people of Ottawa are not appreciative of that very fact. They seem to accept these things as a matter of course. There is really no compulsion upon the government to go to all the expense they have incurred over a period of years to beautify the city and to make it a worthy capital of the Dominion of Canada.
There is no city in the dominion which receives anything like the amount of support from either a provincial or federal government that is received by the city of Ottawa. And, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), the federal government provides parks and driveways in the city which in all other cities of the dominion are entirely a municipal responsibility. Going back over the years I can find nothing worth while calling an improvement that has been initiated and carried out by the people of this city. I have made inquiries on the point and have tried to learn about anything by way of beautification of the city which has been done by the city, but so far I have been unable to find anything whatsoever.
I do not know the exact amount that is being spent by the federal government upon what might be called purely civic enterprises, such as parks, playgrounds and other schemes of beautification, but I believe the amount would run into many millions of dollars. The amounts mentioned a moment ago by the hon. member for Broadview when he was speaking of the money spent by the government in Ottawa did not cover everything. I am wondering whether the Minister of Public Works has in his possession information as to the full amount spent in Ottawa each year by the federal government. I am not asking for the salaries paid to people employed by the government, but I should like to know what it costs the government, so far as Ottawa is concerned, to maintain these parks and driveways, to pay for the removal of snow from the streets and to keep up other improvements which in other cities are looked upon as entirely civic matters. I wonder if the Minister of Public Works has that information with him at the moment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret I am not in a position to give that information to my hon. friend, for a very good reason. The works which he has just mentioned are carried on by the federal district commission, which is not under the Department of Public Works. That commission speaks in this house through the Minister of Finance. I believe my hon. friend could get the information he is asking for from the report of the federal district commission. If my hon. friend is interested in having that information, I can have the figures prepared for him.


Mr. HANSON:: I have pleasure in supporting this resolution. I supported resolutions in former years when the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) was Minister of Public Works. I think all members, no matter from where they come, should support this vote. After all, any impression that a foreigner may gain of our country is helped by the impression he gets of our capital city. I believe this money has been efficiently administered by this and former governments. This is a resolution that should not require much discussion, and I am glad to give it my support.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I should like to associate myself with the last speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). I feel that Ottawa should be a beautiful city. A thing of beauty is a joy forever, its loveliness increases and it will never pass into nothingness. If there is anything that can be done by way of relief for the people, I think it should be something that will add beauty to our cities. We should be willing to do all we can to help to make Ottawa a beautiful city. I believe this $100,000 can be put to doing good work at this time, especially with the great plan they have in mind for the beautification of the city. This is an annual grant. I am certain that Ottawa has become much more beautiful since we came down here. Beauty is truth, and truth is beauty. That is all we know in this world, and all we need to know.


James Houston Spence: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) is willing to support a proposition of this kind. He got a very nice building in his little town. I do not begrudge him it; I only hope that Prince Rupert grows to a size where that building will be in proportion to the size of the town. Every on: seems to be willing to support this vote of $100,000, so I am not going to oppose it. However, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said a minute ago, certain other cities in Canada should also receive some consideration. The hon. member referred to the many services rendered by Toronto. There are in that city

City of Ottawa Agreement
a great number of public buildings from which the city receives no taxes. I think the Minister of Public Works should include something in the estimates for Toronto to cover the work that city is doing.
I understand the city has been communicating with the Minister of Labour in an effort 4o obtain a grant to help in the construction of a sewage disposal plant. We have a plant now, but it is inadequate. It is almost dangerous because some of the sewage is running into the lake without being treated properly. A proposition of that kind would employ thousands of people for the next two or three years, and better results would be obtained than if the money was spent in many other ways. It will cost about $15,000,000, and I understand the provincial government has offered to pay twenty-five per cent. The city was hoping that this government would pay twenty-five per cent, which would leave about eight million dollars for the city to spend itself.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Does that come under beautification?


James Houston Spence: No, it is better than beautification; it has to do with the health of the people. We do not want our lake polluted with sewage from any city. This matter should receive attention. I hope the Minister of Labour, with all the money he has under his control, or the Minister of Public Works, will see that this is done. It would be something of lasting credit to this government and to this country. The taxpayer of Toronto has been literally overwhelmed paying taxes. Relief there is getting worse and worse every year. No matter what anyone may say, relief in Toronto is getting no better.
The hon. member for Broadview referred to the Toronto and York roads commission. At one time I was chairman of this commission, and I have been a member for the last twenty-four years. When my hon. friend was mayor of the city, an arrangement was made between the county of York and the city of Toronto whereby the city paid twenty-five per cent of the cost of maintaining roads extending all over the county. The provincial government was to pay fifty per cent of the cost. This arrangement covers roads extending out as far as fifty and sixty miles to the borders of Ontario, Peel and other counties. No doubt York is a rich county and has done great things in its time. There are over 400 miles of roads in York. The present chairman of the roads commission is my old-time friend, Senator O'Connor. I am sorry to say that he has been ill in Florida, but perhaps hon. members will be glad to know that a letter 71492-65
was received last Monday by the commission stating that he was getting better and expected to be back by the middle of April or the first of May.
I am tired of hearing people call Toronto a hog town. " Hog-town " pays a great deal of money to this government by way of taxation. Just consider the business done in the post office and the money taken in at the customs.


Mr. BAKER:: More income tax is paid there than in any other city in Canada.


James Houston Spence: We cannot take all the credit for that because Toronto is the centre of the district. But I do get sick and tired of people referring to Toronto as "hog-town." I have lived in Toronto for forty-eight years and I have been behind every big municipal proposition and development carried on in that city. I have supported the program of bridge construction, road building, the improvement of the harbour front and many other useful developments. I am proud of Toronto at all times. Not only has it contributed largely to the building of roads in the county of York, but it contributed $200,000 to Ontario towards expenditures in other counties of the province. So don't talk about Toronto being Hog-town. Toronto is doing more to build up that portion of the country than this government is doing here.


Mr. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, as I recall this agreement and the bill that is proposed to be founded upon it, it is for the purpose of compensating Ottawa for certain specific services which are rendered by the city. We have been discussing beautification, but that is entirely a separate matter and does not come under this resolution at all. There is only one feature of the discussion to which I wish to refer, and that is the suggestion that Ottawa has lost a considerable sum in taxation by the removal of certain buildings, but if a careful check-up were made I think it would be found that other buildings were erected to take the place of those torn down and that the city is getting the benefit of the assessment on these new buildings. I recall in particular one building on the south side of Sparks street which is assessed for a great deal more than the many small buildings that were removed from the area in question.


Harry James Barber: What about the land
though?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The buildings must be erected on other land, and the land is still assessed. There has been also an increase in the assessment of many properties bordering

City oj Ottawa Agreement

on these improved areas. So, on balance, I think it would be found that Ottawa has lost nothing, or practically nothing, in assessment through the removal of different buildings. The resolution and the bill are based upon an agreement, and until a new agreement is made there is no alternative then to pay the amount stipulated.


Mrs. BLACK:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) and say that I feel we can hardly do too much for Ottawa, for, after all, all trails lead to the capital city of this dominion. The capital city of Canada should be a city of which every member of the house and every person in Canada may be proud, and I am only too glad to support the resolution.
But when Ottawa complains of loss of revenue through the taking over of property by the government, may I point out that if it were not for the government of Canada being located here, Ottawa would be nothing but a little country town. Hundreds of thousands of people are attracted here every year who would under no circumstances come to Ottawa unless it were the seat of the national government. So I think we can take the complaints of Ottawa citizens with just a grain of salt. I am going to support the resolution.


Mr. NEILL:: I do not wish to oppose this resolution, but as a matter of curiosity I would ask the minister this question. I understood him to say that the major portion of this amount goes to compensate the city of Ottawa for taxes they have lost through the taking over of property.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. It is to compensate the city for providing fire protection for federal buildings and for the supply of water which is used by the federal government in the government parks.


Alan Webster Neill: I know the minister said that, but I think Hansard will show that he also said it was to provide compensation in lieu of taxes that had been lost.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Possibly I did not express myself correctly. Before the first agreement was made between the city of Ottawa and the federal government, the city had built up a big claim against the federal government for compensation for loss of revenue on account of the expropriation of private property. That was all discussed at the time, but the agreement does not take that claim into consideration at all. The agreement is to provide compensation for the two services I mentioned, fire protection and the use of water in the parks.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the actual value of the land and buildings owned by the government in the city of Ottawa and exempt from taxation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say offhand, but it would run into millions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If we had that information it would give us some idea of what we are getting for the $100,000. I have no objection to this resolution. In fact, I have supported everything the federal government has done in the city of Ottawa, and I would have supported them in going a little further than they have gone in the past. But when we are providing $100,000 for compensation for fire protection and water service, I think we ought to have some idea of the value of the buildings that are being served and the assessed value of the land as well.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not state the value at the moment, but the agreement covers all federal buildings in Ottawa. I do not think any actual figure was arrived at when the agreement was made. The agreement was reached after a discussion of a number of subjects advanced by the city in those days, but the agreement itself states that the $100,000 is paid as compensation for the services I have just mentioned. I can undertake to ascertain the total amount of government property that is protected against fire by the city.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the minister when he gives us that information give us a detailed statement of the various buildings so that we can form our own conclusions in the matter?


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques Cartier):: (Translation) Mr. Chairman, I should like to see this vote carry without any further discussion. But in case the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) should be influenced by the eloquent pleas made by the hon. members for Broadview (Mr. Church) and Parkdale (Mr. Spence) on 'behalf of the city of Toronto, I wish to remind him of the existence in Quebec province of a large "village" called Montreal where several buildings belonging to the federal government are exempt from municipal taaxtion. I doubt whether the appeal of my two hon. friends will be heard beyond this chamber, but in case it is I wish to make the same request on behalf of the city of Montreal.
(Text) Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):	Mr. Chairman, as regards this resolution to provide $100,000 for Ottawa as compensation for fire protection and water services, while I am quite

Fisheries Act Amendment
in accord with the expenditure of this money, I do think there are other cities in Canada which should receive their relative proportion of public moneys expended.


Olof Hanson: There is only one capital of Canada.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I quite understand that, and I am sorry the hon. member for Skeena thought it necessary to interject that remark. There is not a school child who does not know that Ottawa is the capital of Canada. But I rose to suggest to the minister that he grant proportional compensation to other cities which have dominion public buildings that are exempt from municipal taxation, and in that way relieve the overburdened property owners in the various cities. I hope the minister will take that suggestion into consideration.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES ACT, 1932 ASSESSMENT UPON OWNERS OF OBSTRUCTIONS TO ASCENT OR DESCENT OF FISH IN STREAMS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Frederick George Sanderson: Clause 1-Repeal.


Alan Webster Neill: Before clause 1 is dealt with I should like to introduce an amendment to a section which comes prior to this one, which is section 57. The section I want to amend is No. 32. I therefore move:
That section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1932, chapter 42, is hereby amended by inserting the following as subsection 2 thereof:
2. No one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada.
I do that in order to get an opportunity to press the need of this reform in the interests of the fishing industry and of the fishermen of British Columbia, and also to give the minister an opportunity to state his policy on the matter.
It will be recalled that on January 23 of this year I asked him a couple of questions on the orders of the day. I asked him if his
71492-65J
attention had been called to a paragraph in the Vancouver Sun to the effect that the senate of the state of Washington was preparing and would shortly introduce two fish trap bills that would enable fish traps to be restored in the state of Washington waters. The second question I asked was: In view of that fact, was he, that is the minister, prepared to take the responsibility of maintaining our traps, only four in number, as against their 219, knowing that the results will be that our catch in those waters will drop from 80 per cent, as it is at present, to 30 per cent, as it used to be when the United States traps were operating? The minister replied that the question of the advisability of reciprocating or of maintaining the policy of issuing fish trap licences was being considered at the present time-that is at that date, January 23, which is three and a half weeks ago. We have heard nothing more yet, and the matter will have to be decided, I should think, within the next few days in any case, because the season is coming on.
The fishermen out there have quite recently organized very strongly in this matter. They are proposing to put on a campaign of a very considerable extent and of their own accord. Last year I presented to the house a petition signed by almost 10,000 people from British Columbia against the fish traps being used any further; and now the unions of fishermen have taken the matter up. One union alone comprising 1,400 practical working fishermen are proposing, as I have said, to get up a campaign. They have support from boards of trade, the trades and labour council, and the city council. They have been stirred up by the notice I have referred to that there was the proposal to re-install traps on the Washington side, and particularly on account of the fact that the argument the trap owners on the United States side were using, are going to use, and do use, is that Canada has not kept faith and has not taken out her traps. I quote a few lines from one of the organizations:
The organized fishermen of British Columbia are at present conducting a vigorous campaign against the continued operation of the fish traps at Sooke, especially on account of the fact that Washington interests are attempting to reintroduce traps in sites over the border.
This is from another union, which says:
Our fight against the issue of fish trap licences is started again. We are holding a series of meetings and starting three petitions, one to be signed by fishermen, one by sports fishermen, and one by business men.
Then I have a record of a conference, as they call it, which was held in Vancouver on
Fisheries Act Amendment

January 23, 24 and 25, attended by delegates from the following bodies:	Prince Rupert
Fishermen's Cooperative Association, North Island Trollers Cooperative Association, Fishermen's Cooperative Association, Inc., Kyu-quot Trollers Cooperative Association, representing over 1,400 individual fishing boat owners, and the resolution they passed was as follows, of which a copy was sent to the minister at that time:
Whereas the department of fisheries of the Dominion of Canada has promised the fishermen of British Columbia to eliminate all fish traps this coming year;-
I do not think it was this year; they promised it three years ago.
-And whereas the state of Washington is now considering the reinstatement of such traps in order to obtain its share of the fish now being caught by the traps in the British Columbia coast waters;
And whereas the depletion of the salmon run calls for strong conservation measures in order to preserve these resources;
And whereas the fishing boats engaged in the trolling, purse seining and gill netting industry are in a position to create a livelihood for a greater number of men than are at present employed by the trap owners, and at the same time provide for the better escapement of the salmon to the spawning grounds.
Therefore be it resolved that we, the members of these associations-
And I will not read them again.
-in convention assembled this twenty-third day of January, 1939, do strongly recommend to the fisheries department that all fish traps shall be completely removed from the waters of British Columbia.
I might continue and go thoroughly into the history of the matter to enlighten those hon. members to whom it is not familiar; but it might save time if I stopped here and gave the minister an opportunity to express his policy on the matter, because I am hopeful, from the representations which have been made to him and from his attitude in the house the other day, when he intimated that it was being considered, that he may now be in a position to state that he has decided to stop these traps being issued any further in these waters.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I am very
definitely against this amendment-


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment has
not been read.


James Samuel Taylor: -not only because I consider the amendment is developed in the cause of class fishing-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The amendment is not yet before the committee. It has not been read by the chair.


James Samuel Taylor: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that my hon. friend is giving notice that he will move such an amendment?


Alan Webster Neill: No, I am moving the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely we have not reached the point where it could be moved.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, because I am introducing it as an amendment to a section which comes prior to section 57, which is dealt with by clause 1 of this bill.


Ernest Lapointe: But that section is not mentioned in the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: But the Fisheries Act is open. This bill is to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.


Ernest Lapointe: In a certain way.


Alan Webster Neill: I am amending the Fisheries Act, 1932, not in the same section I admit, but another section. That, however, is commonly done. It is a well known fact that when a bill is open it is open to any hon. member to move an amendment to any other section, provided it is dealing with the subject of the bill. And the bill is to amend the Fisheries Act.


Ernest Lapointe: To amend the Fisheries Act in a certain way, with regard to certain provisions. I do not object formally to the amendment, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the bill and the amendment of my hon. friend. But if the amendment proposed is not relevant to the matter of the bill-not the whole Fisheries Act but the matter which is the subject of the amendment proposed in the bill-I do not think the amendment of my hon. friend is in order. I might read May, thirteenth edition, page 404:
Amendments cannot be moved which are based on schedules or other provisions, the terms of which have not been placed before the committee-
This is a different matter altogether. But again I speak with certain reservations because I do not know enough-


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister quote any of our own standing orders in relation to this?


Ernest Lapointe: No, there is no standing order. I am quoting May.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit our standing orders take precedence of May, and our standing orders do permit what I have suggested. Moreover, if we are going to quibble about a

Fisheries Act Amendment
technicality, I suggest that it is relevant to the section proposed to be dealt with, which relates to fish ladders or the penalty imposed for non-observance of certain rules; the object, as stated in the explanation, is the conservation of fish, and if there is anything that tends more to the conservation of fish than the abolition of fish traps I should like to know what it is.	.


Ernest Lapointe: If the
amendment is relevant I have no objection.


James Samuel Taylor: I support the statement of the minister. Last year in this house I lost an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act for the very same reason as that advanced by the minister. If the proposed amendment is to go forward without let or hindrance, then I oppose it definitely. I have a good deal to say on this matter, because the situation has been definitely stirred up-


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. member discussing the point of order or the ethics of the amendment?


James Samuel Taylor: I am stating a fact.


Frederick George Sanderson: In order to keep the
record clear, this amendment should be read from the chair, which has not been done. The amendment is moved by Mr. Neill, to insert a new section to be known as subsection 1 of section 32:
That section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1932, chapter 42, is hereby amended by inserting the following as subsection 2 thereof:
2. No one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada.


James Samuel Taylor: If I am now
in order-


Alan Webster Neill: I challenge anyone who objects to this on a point of order to state which of our standing orders this action of mine contravenes.


Ernest Lapointe: There
would be very few points of order raised if they had to be based on the letter of a standing order. It is rather the appreciation of these standing orders and the decisions which have been rendered based on them.


Alan Webster Neill: There are 130 standing orders; surely it is covered somewhere in them. It is for those who object to this amendment to point out a rule forbidding it; it is not for me to prove that no such rule exists.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
going to read something else-*


Alan Webster Neill: I do not recognize May.


Ernest Lapointe: -which will not have the effect of defeating my hon. friend's purpose, but may delay him a little.
May says:
It is irregular to propose an amendment which is irrelevant to the subject matter of a clause but it should be submitted at the end of the bill as a separate clause.
We have not yet started to consider this bill. Before we reach clause 1 my hon. friend substitutes what would be another bill altogether by moving the insertion of that new clause. I suggest that we proceed with the bill as it is; then at the end my hon. friend might move that his clause be inserted, and then we shall see whether it should be accepted or opposed.


Alan Webster Neill: That is quite satisfactory,.
Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my amendment at this stage in deference to the Minister of Justice, who has kindly indicated the proper stage at which he says it should be brought in.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Minister may assess owner of obstruction.


Alan Webster Neill: The first part of clause 2 is, as the minister stated when he introduced the bill, for the purpose of making more definite his power to collect certain sums for the maintenance of fish ladders or a substitute for those fish ladders. As far as that part of it goes, I quite agree with it. But I am doubtful about the clause which he did not mention. that is subsection 2 which reads:
Such lump sum or annual sum shall be payable at such time or times as the minister may direct-
That is all right.
-and may be sued for and recovered with full costs of suit in the exchequer court of Canada.
The previous way was that if any man did not fulfil the obligation imposed on him by the minister under section 57, then by the last clause of paragraph (d) of section 57 he was liable to a penalty of not less than $4 and not more than $20 for each day or part thereof during which such notice was not complied with. Now the minister changes that into a provision by which he can sue this man in the exchequer court and recover the amount with full costs of suit. That might result in a condition which would vitiate the very object the minister has in view. An exchequer court proceeding is a long business. If I remember rightly, the exchequer court sits only once a year on the Pacific coast. The section that was in the bill before which provided for a penalty of so much a day was easily enforced by either
Fisheries Act Amendment

summary conviction or indictment; the minister could get quick action. Assume this condition: A logger has an area of timber to log; it suits him to put a dam across the mouth of the outlet from a lake, and he stops the passage of the fish. Representations are made to the department here, and they write the logger but he does not pay any attention. Time goes on, and he is cutting his timber. Presently the minister is compelled to tell him that if he does not put in a proper ladder he will be sued in the exchequer court. The man just laughs at the minister and his officials and goes on logging. Finally the case is brought up in the exchequer court, but by the time that court sits out there and judgment is rendered the man has finished logging that area and has moved on, leaving the river ruined with nothing whatever to show for it. While I quite agree with the first part of the provision, which makes it easy and convenient for the minister to collect any sum he thinks proper, I think it would be better to retain the penalty to which this man may be liable if he puts in a dam in defiance of the government order. This penalty of $20 a day could be enforced readily and speedily by a justice of the peace or some similar court. I suggest that to the minister, who is himself a lawyer.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I think the hon. member altogether misunderstood what I said when the bill was introduced. The object of this amendment is to enable the government, through the department, to collect the amount which may be assessed against any person or company interfering with the ascent of fish in certain cases; but it does not apply in all cases. If the hon. member will look at section 57 of the act, he will find in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) four provisions which enable the department to see that there are proper openings in canals or rivers for the ascent of fish. I think under paragraphs (a), (c) and (d) a case such as that mentioned by the hon. member could be dealt with. An obstruction at the mouth of a river, for example, a dam, by logs or anything else, could be opened up and the person owning the obstruction or placing it there could be fined. But the purpose of the amendment to paragraph (b) of the act is to provide for cases much more important than cases such as my hon. friend mentions. Let me read the first part of this section: Every owner or occupier of a slide, dam or other obstruction across or in any stream,-
(a) Where the minister determines it to be necessary in the public interest that a canal around a dam or a fish-pass therein, should (Mr. Neill.]
exist, who, after three days' notice in writing, neglects or refuses to provide a durable and efficient fishway or canal, or who neglects or refuses to maintain the same in a good and effective condition in such place and of such form and capacity as will admit of the passage of fish;-
shall be liable to a penalty of not less than four dollars and not more than twenty dollars for each day or part of a day during which such notice is not complied with.
This is not affected at all by the amendment, and paragraph (b) now reads:
(b) Where the minister determines that the provision of an effective fishway or canal around the slide, dam or other obstruction is not feasible, or that the spawning areas above such slide, dam or other obstruction are destroyed, who after thirty days' notice in writing, neglects or refuses to pay the minister such sum or sums of money as he may require to construct, operate and maintain such complete hatchery establishment as will in the opinion of the minister meet the requirements for maintaining the annual return of migratory fish; shall be liable to a penalty of not less than four dollars and not more than twenty dollars for each day or part of a day during which such notice is not complied with.
My hon. friend will readily see the difficulty of enforcing the provisions of paragraph (b), with the sanction provided at the end of that clause. There is no way of collecting the amount determined by the minister as necessary to provide for the continued propagation of fish in those waters. So, in order that the provisions of this act may be effectively enforced, we are providing for a court in which to sue and collect the amount which has been assessed. It may be said that the exchequer court is a tribunal difficult of access, but it will be seen that the amounts which may be determined under paragraph (b) may be no trifling sum. Where it is not feasible 'to build a fishway it may be necessary to build a hatchery, and the cost of maintaining a hatchery to replace the natural propagation that would result from the natural ascent of fish over an obstruction might be a large amount. I have in mind one case where it would be not less than $4,00(7 or $5,000 a year. This is to provide for cases where, for instance, substantial power dams which may be built in some waters would absolutely destroy the possibility of the natural propagation of fish.
So I believe the ordinary cases can still be dealt with, and those violating the act can be penalized, under the remaining paragraphs of this section; but we had to provide an extraordinary remedy in order that we might be enabled to collect the amount of money that might be assessed in other cases, in addition to the fine.

Fisheries Act Amendment


Alan Webster Neill: In that case I suggest that the amendment has been badly drawn. In reading the section the minister forgot that it is all one sentence. It states that every owner, occupier and so on, where the minister determines, and so on, shall be liable to a penalty. It is all one sentence, and by striking out paragraph (b) and inserting the amendment the minister proposes to insert a separate section with a beginning and end to it. Apparently now he proposes to maintain the penalty as well. Is that the minister's idea?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. It is under the new section, as provided in the bill now under consideration. We are doing away with the provision whereby we can impose a penalty, but we are providing for the collection of the amount we need to pay costs of maintaining and operating the hatchery.


Alan Webster Neill: I am asking for information;
I am not trying to obstruct.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister not think it would have been better to have left paragraph (b) as it is now, which says that every owner or occupier, where the minister determines that the provision of a dam is not sufficient-and it needs a hatchery, to put it bluntly-who after thirty days' notice in writing neglects or refuses to pay the minister such sum or sums of money as he may require to construct, operate and maintain such complete hatchery as will in the opinion of the minister meet the requirements, shall be liable? The minister takes that away, as he now tells us. He is taking away that penalty and is providing for an action in the exchequer court of Canada. Why not have kept the section as it was and, instead of saying " pay a lump sum," say " pay a lump sum or annual payment." Then if the minister did not order it to be paid-suppose it was S5,000-he would still have his right to recover, and in addition he would have the penalty of $20 per day for non-fulfdment. Would that not be better than the expensive, long drawn out and possibly futile method of going to the exchequer court? Does it not take nearly a year to get an ordinary case into the exchequer court?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. I think we could not attain the object that we have in view, were we to leave the clause to read as the hon. member suggests. All these points were fully considered and looked into carefully. In order to put some teeth into paragraph (b) we have to provide means to recover the amount assessed against these people. They
would gladly pay a penalty of $4 a day or even the maximum of $20 a day. But we could not sue them month after month or week after week and not attain our object of getting from them the $5,000 or $8,000 a year, depending on the amount necessary. It is because we are afraid that our purpose will be defeated if we sue them for penalties rather than for the money which will be required to operate the hatchery.


Alan Webster Neill: I will not further dispute the point. The minister ought to know, and his law officers should know, but I would just mention that $20 a day comes to $7,300 a year. He would get his payment in that way.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: But the hon. member knows it would mean instituting proceedings in order to collect an assessment in a roundabout way by having fines imposed; and then it would not be clear whether the fines which would be remitted to the department could be applied for the purpose for which the assessment is made. This provision would be ineffective, as it had been in the past. It is for the purpose of being able to apply it when necessary that we are seeking the amendment.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister, who has the act before him, is aware of what I believe is an anomaly in section 20 of the Fisheries Act. I believe if he will read section 20 he will find a repetition of the new section now before the committee, because they are almost similar. It seems to me that in the present bill we are repeating ourselves. Section 20 of-the Fisheries Act is as follows:
20. (1) Every slide, dam or other obstruction across or in any stream where the minister determines it to be necessary for the public interest that a fish-pass should exist, shall be provided by the owner or occupier with a durable and efficient fishway, or canal around the slide, dam or other obstruction, which shall be maintained in a good and effective condition by said owner or occupier, in such place and of such form and capacity as will in the opinion of the minister satisfactorily permit the free passage of fish through the same. If it be determined by the minister m any case that the provision of an efficient fishway or canal around the slide, dam or other obstruction is not feasible, or that the spawning areas above such slide, dam or other obstruction are destroyed, the minister may require the owner or occupier of such slide, dam or other obstruction to pay to him from time to time such sum or sums of money as he may require to construct, operate and maintain such complete fish hatchery establishment as will in his opinion meet the requirements for maintaining the annual return of migratory fish.
The minister will notice the similarity.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Is there a penalty clause provided at the end of section 20?
Fisheries Act Amendment


Thomas Reid: There are ten clauses dealing with fish passes, slides, obstructions and penalties. I wonder if the minister has noticed that these clauses are somewhat similar to the one under discussion, and, if so, whether or not there might be an anomaly?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, there is no anomaly there. I believe the hon. member has an unrevised copy of the Fisheries Act. It has been revised and the sections have been renumbered. That is the reason for the apparent discrepancy.


Mr. STIRLING:: Is the provision the
minister is making in the amending section. 57A, to take care of dams to be built in the future, or does it apply also to those presently in existence?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It will apply to those in existence.


Grote Stirling: In connection with an existing fall, dam or runway, where in the past it has not been considered feasible to provide a fish ladder, does the minister now propose to design a hatchery and demand payment?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, not in all cases, or arbitrarily. But when it is represented that through the construction of a fishway, dam or obstruction, the ascent of the fish is prevented and natural propagation stopped, and it is represented to be in the interests of the conservation of the fisheries to ask these people to contribute towards the artificial propagation, it is the intention to apply the act.


Harry James Barber: Where are these hatchery establishments? I understand all of them have been closed in British Columbia.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If it should become necessary to apply the provisions of this act, even to British Columbia, then it would1 be up to the department either to open one of those hatcheries or 'to build another one and charge the maintenance to those who have made it necessary. At the present time, however, there is no intention of doing that.


Harry James Barber: It would not be necessary if there is not a hatchery?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, but it would be necessary to build one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Under standing order No. 76, all the clauses of this bill having now been considered, I beg to move the amendment I moved a few moments ago.


Ernest Lapointe: If the amendment h.as been formally moved I would move that the committee rise and report progress so that the amendment of the hon. member might be considered as to its validity and merit. Then the committee could sit another day to consider it.


Alan Webster Neill: Should the amendment be put in order to have it on the record?


Ernest Lapointe: The
amendment is there. If anyone thinks it is irrelevant or out of order, he can discuss the point again. The amendment is before the chair and it will be up for discussion when the committee sits again.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I would ask that the amendment be read in order that the record may be clear.


Frederick George Sanderson: The amendment is by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) to insert a new subsection. The amendment is:
That section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1932, chapter 42, is hereby amended by inserting the following as subsection 2 thereof:
2. No one shall use a salmon trap net in any of the Pacific waters of Canada.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Marketing service-
21. Marketing service administration, $106,595.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: 

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
with the marketing of wheat in western Canada under our different systems will agree that our experience in connection with cooperative marketing in the past indicated that for a government to do that particular thing would have resulted in disaster not only to the wheat producer but to the system itself.
When the 1938 crop was coming on the market, world conditions were different from those of either 1936 or 1937. It became evident that the unsettled situation in Europe, together with the enormous world production, would result in a low world price.
It was also evident that if war resulted in Europe in the fall of 1938, as it threatened to do, wheat would rise rapidly in price. It was therefore considered that an emergency existed which, together with the difficulties experienced by the wheat producers in the years immediately preceding, necessitated the establishment of a minimum price which would in all probability pay a bonus to the wheat producing farmer.
The price was set at 80 cents a bushel, which has resulted to date in paying to the producer what amounts to a bonus of from fifteen to twenty cents a bushel. I think a bonus of even that amount can be justified for this year under all the circumstances. It can be justified as the legislation has been justified from the beginning, namely, that it is dealing with an emergency condition. With the world price below the set price the board naturally gets all the wheat.
I should like to place before the committee information as to who has received the greater part of the bonus which has been paid, in order that we might have information upon which policy might be based for the handling of wheat in the future if we are going to give assistance of any kind to wheat growers.
During the last few months I have had prepared a statement of just what happened in relation to the bonus paid to date in one province, Saskatchewan, which is the largest wheat producing province in the dominion, and of course the figures I have before me are of necessity still based upon estimates, but I think the committee will realize that they are so close to what will actually happen that they can be taken as authentic.
It is estimated that Saskatchewan farmers will receive, at the rate of twenty cents a bushel on the wheat they will market, a minimum of $18,000,000 above the market value of the marketable surplus of wheat in the province in the year 1938-39 through the operation of the minimum price policy of the federal wheat board.
Let me repeat that. An average of twenty cents a bushel paid on all the marketable

wheat in Saskatchewan will net to the farmers by way of bonus 818,000,000. But if one were to estimate the net returns to the farmers of the three western provinces on the same basis of twenty cents a bushel, I am given to understand from a discussion which took place in the Alberta legislature the other day that Alberta would collect $22,800,000, although the crop acreage in that province is very much lower than the crop acreage in Saskatchewan.
Taking all three provinces, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the estimated amount would probably reach some $48,000,000, if put on the same basis as I have estimated for Saskatchewan.
What I wish to point out in that connection is this, that all of the area in western Canada which had a complete crop failure during this past year is in Saskatchewan. There are eighty municipalities in Saskatchewan that have an average crop of less than six bushels to the acre; more than half of these have an average crop of less than four bushels to the acre; the greater part of that half have an average crop of less than three bushels to the acre, and a number of them have no bushelage whatsoever. Yet, out of $48,000,000 which will be paid out of the treasury of Canada this year, if this estimate is correct, only $18,000,000 will go to Saskatchewan, the province with the greatest acreage and with the greatest amount of difficulty because of lack of crop.
To illustrate the results from another point of view, five municipalities in Saskatchewan which have no crop at all have 1,700 farm operators, with a total wheat acreage estimated at 153,000 acres; that is, 1,700 farmers with no crop at all will receive under the bonus system nothing at all from the treasury of Canada by way of bonus on wheat, and they become a complete charge upon the treasury, first of the province, and then, because of the difficulties existing in the province in so many municipalities, indirectly a complete charge upon the treasury of the Dominion of Canada in relation to the amounts that have been paid out under the bonus itself.
If we look at the matter in another way, there are 159 municipalities in Saskatchewan, or more than half the municipalities in the province, accounting for approximately half the acreage in the province from which there is a marketable surplus, where the crop ranges from half a bushel to six bushels to the acre, with an average of 3-8 bushels to the acre for the total 159 municipalities. The total amount of price bonus received under the present system in the 159 municipalities having within them half the crop acreage will

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
be 86,000.000, or one-third of the amount paid in to the province. In these municipalities the price bonus will have to be supplemented by relief from the government of Canada; and that assistance, as I stated the other night, for all of those within the 159 municipalities and for those in the other areas I have spoken of, has been estimated at about $9,000,000. Therefore, in addition to paying $18,000,000 by way of bonus to farmers in Saskatchewan, we shall have to pay another $9,000,000 in order to provide relief and assistance so that those who get nothing out of the bonus can live through the winter.
If we look at it in still another way, in eighty-one municipalities with wheat acreage approximating one-fifth of the total in the province and with yields per acre of marketable surplus of wheat in excess of eight bushels and ranging up to twenty-five bushels, it is estimated that the price bonus will amount to $6,000,000.
That is, you have one group of municipalities, numbering 159, with an average marketable crop of 3-8 bushels, and all farmers in that great area obtain under this system only 86,000,000. Then you have another eighty-one municipalities with an average marketable crop in bushels per acre running from nine bushels up to twenty-five, getting $6,000,000. I suggest that in this latter group is a considerable number of farmers who did not require any assistance from the government in order to make their crop a paying one this last year. Then you have another considerable number of farmers in the other vast area, who, no matter what price would have been given to them, would not have had a paying crop because the average per acre of marketable grain was only about 3-8 bushels.
Then, in seven municipalities with an average of half a bushel per acre of marketable surplus, and with 284,000 acres under wheat, the wheat board price bonus under this policy is estimated at $28,000. In seven other municipalities with a marketable surplus of wheat ranging from sixteen to twenty-two bushels to the acre, and with a wheat acreage of 192,000 acres, which is almost 90,000 acres less than were in the other seven municipalities, the wheat board price bonus is estimated at $314,000.
I suggest to the committee that a policy which gets results of that kind is not a sound policy; that a policy which gives, unto those who have, still more and gives nothing at all to those who have nothing, is not a sound policy to follow in connection with the marketing of wheat in this country.
If one wanted further proof of that statement, all one has to do is to review what happened in all the municipalities:
Number of rural municipalities
Amount of wheat board price bonus per acre at 20 cents the bushel of marketable surplus
5		 '.0
7	 10
18	  .30
18	  .50
32	 70
37	 90
41	  1.10
49	  1.30
25	  1.50
15	  1.70
12	  1.90
I think it will be found that all but sixty-seven or sixty-eight of the municipalities in Saskatchewan are in the list down to that point, the committee will note that no one up to that point has received as much as $2 per acre and that it runs down to ten cents an acre. To start from that point:
Number of municipalities 9 10 12 11 7
Price bonus . $2.10 .	2.30
.	2.50
.	2.70
.	2.90
The last mentioned is the second seven I dealt with in the previous comparison. The first seven got ten cents an acre; these seven got $2.90. To continue:
Number of
municipalities	Price bonus
6	  $3.10
4	  3.30
5	  3.50
1	  3.70
1	  4.30
1	  4.70
1	  4.90
In other words, the system operating this year in Saskatchewan paid on an acreage basis all the way from nothing to $4.90 an acre, depending on whether the district was one where crop failures took place or one where they had the best crops in the province. Again I say that a system which makes that difference possible in the distribution of funds from the treasury of Canada is not a system that can be advocated or that can be maintained by the federal government.
If I had the time I could give other figures which would further bear out the statement I am now making, but I do not think it necessary to go into all the details; I wish only to give sufficient to justify the government in having come to the conclusion that

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
there should be some change in policy if we are going to establish a permanent policy for the handling of wheat in Canada. I believe, too, that I have given sufficient to indicate that there should be some change in policy even to establish an emergency procedure which we might follow in years when there are crop failures. It is desired that this emergency policy might, at the same time, relieve us from a considerable number of charges which we have been paying in the past, having to do with the giving of relief in areas where there is no crop.
For some time we have been preparing legislation based upon the policies which we hope to place before this house, and eventually that legislation will be introduced, probably without any considerable delay. But before submitting the legislation or even putting the draft in its final form, I thought it advisable that I should announce to the committee the general policy which the government intends to follow, in order to meet, not only the recommendations which were made by the Turgeon commission which reported at the end of last session, but also, because of experiences we have had during the emergencies we have faced in recent years, and particularly this year, to be in a position to discuss more freely with some of those to whom we have not had access because of lack of announcement of policy down to the present time, the effect of the policy we are announcing on the general marketing of farm products in Canada in future years. In order that this statement may be placed before hon. members in a form which cannot be misunderstood I shall read that statement Of policy and some of the things which led up to it.
Three years ago when we came into office a wheat board had been set up under the Wheat Board Act of 1935. The government was of the opinion that this legislation only provided a means for dealing with an emergency created through the methods followed during previous years in attempting to market Canadian wheat under existing world conditions. It was therefore decided to appoint a royal commission to hold sittings throughout Canada and elsewhere and to report upon past and present methods of marketing wheat as well a3 make recommendations of policy for the future. The commission has reported and recommended the continuance of the open market system, regulation of the grain exchange and encouragement of the pool system of marketing as an alternative to the open market which might be utilized by producers.
Between 1935 and now we have had a continuation of crop failures which has neces-

sitated government assistance. It is now evident that marketing legislation alone will not solve the problems of the wheat growing areas. It is evident that an area which produced the wealth of the period from 1922 to 1928 must be utilized to the fullest possible extent in the effort to develop a nation of home builders.
May I say at this point that as far as the government is concerned we do not feel that the most important thing to be done as a government is to try to see how much wheat we can have produced in Canada. Nor do we think it is important in itself that we should try to have all the cattle produced that can possibly be produced in Canada. Nor do we feel that it is important in itself that we should have all of the dairy products or all the fruit produced in Canada that it is possible to produce. What we think is most important is to put the greatest possible number of families in comfortable circumstances upon the farm lands of this dominion. Believing that, we think that any policy for the marketing of farm products should be based upon the idea that sufficient returns should come to the individual families to make it possible for them to maintain themselves with the ordinary comforts and give proper education to their families. The objective of this government has been and will continue to be to set up as many homes as can possibly be maintained on farms in the prairie section of western Canada. We believe that to do so will assist in solving our labour problem, our railway problem and every other national problem.
May I enlarge on that to say that I am not at all interested in encouraging the production of wheat at thirty-five cents a bushel by putting into operation as many tractors as can possibly be operated on the farm lands of western Canada. Even if it costs forty cents a bushel or if it costs forty-five cents a bushel to grow the same amount of wheat, or a lesser amount, while other products are being produced on the same land, with five families upon, say two and a half sections of land instead of having one family and three tractors and two hired men, then I am in favour of the five families. The encouragement of the placing of more and more families upon our land rather than the production of more and more wheat from our land will assist in solving the labour problem of this country. It will assist also in solving our railway problem to have as many families as possible maintained in comfort upon these lands. It will assist in solving every other national problem which is confronting the

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
people of Canada at the present time. For that reason I believe that any policy which we follow should be based upon the idea that we want to put families upon the land.. To that end we have already greatly extended and established on a continuing basis the attempt to reestablish farmers in the area where wheat is grown for export. That is, our whole rehabilitation program, which will again receive consideration when our estimates for that purpose come before the house, is directed to the end that more families may be maintained in the area that has been known as the drought area during recent years.
Three years of experience with the Wheat Board Act of 1935 has shown that it is legislation which can only be helpful to deal with a marketing emergency, and could not form the basis for a permanent system of marketing. The present year has shown that it does not provide an equitable method of dealing with the emergency created through drought and grasshoppers. The minimum price per bushel results in those having most receiving most and those having no crop receiving nothing.
Realizing that the present legislation does not offer a solution for our marketing problems and does not provide a means of dealing equitably with the difficulties which stand in the way of home building on the prairies, we intend to introduce legislation which will carry out as far as possible the recommendations of the Turgeon commission, which were:
First, that the government should remain out of the grain trade and our wheat should be marketed by means of the futures market system.
Second, that the grain exchange should be placed under proper supervision.
Third, that encouragement be given to the creation of cooperative marketing associations or pools.
May I repeat that it is our intention to bring down legislation which we hope will make effective all of those recommedations. In addition, we intend to deal by legislation with another phase of the subject which has not been dealt with particularly by the Turgeon commission. We intend to introduce a bill to deal with emergencies, which legislation we hope will make home building on the prairies more secure. This bill will be drafted on the principle that assistance will be given in proportion to need, calculated on an acreage basis, and so adjusted as to encourage home building and maintenance rather than increased wheat production.
In drafting the legislation having to do with the marketing of wheat and for the promotion of cooperatives in relation to marketing of wheat we shall be mindful of the fact that the same principle might be applied to the marketing of other natural products. In other words, we feel that the principle which has been applied to the marketing of wheat during the last three or four years in Canada is not a principle which could be applied to the marketing of other natural products, including other farm products. Therefore we do not think it is a sound principle upon which to base farm product marketing legislation. We cannot agree that there is likely to be permanency to any system of marketing farm products which is based upon price fixing. We prefer to embark upon a policy which will lead to costs of production and standards of product which will invite a paying market for all our farm products.
As I said at the beginning, I wanted to place before the committee, in these general terms, the policy decided upon by the government in order that we might be free, between now and the introduction of the legislation, to discuss it more intelligently with those who will benefit by it. In due course the legislation referred to will be brought in. As I have already said, I make this statement partly because of the request by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar a few nights ago, when my estimates were under consideration, that at the earliest possible date some statement should be made with regard to the policy of the government in relation to wheat; partly because of our desire to be able to discuss the matter more freely both within and without the house and also particularly in order to make known to producers the policy under which we shall probably be operating during the coming crop year. I repeat that when the legislation is under consideration ample opportunity will be given all hon. members to discuss everything I have mentioned to-night, with all the information that is available and all the necessary details with regard to the policies announced in the statement I just made.
I hope the announcement of this decision on the part of the government may have some effect on the discussion of private members' resolutions now on the order paper. It may be that the legislation will be down in any case before those resolutions come up for discussion, but if that should not be the case the business of the house probably would be expedited if those motions could remain in their present position until the legislation is introduced, when we shall have an opportunity to discuss all matters in regard to our

Supply-Agriculture-Marketing
future wheat policy. I wished to place that information on Hansard so that it might be available to all hon. members, and if it meets with the approval of the committee I should like this item to be allowed to stand.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I just say that
I think the committee appreciates the statement just made by the minister; I know I do personally. Many points were raised which will be discussed later. I am in disagreement with some of the minister's statements, but I think he is to be congratulated upon having placed before parliament at least some constructive proposals for dealing with a problem that is pressing in the part of the country in which some of us are particularly interested. While we probably will not agree with him as to some of the proposals he is about to lay before us, I think as a basis of discussion both in this house and in the country the statement does the minister a great deal of credit.


Mr. PERLEY:: I was very gjad to hear the minister make this statement; it shows that after four years of what might be termed comparative inaction the government is going to try to do something worth while. The minister made a comprehensive survey of the results of the present marketing scheme. In common with the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, I cannot agree with everything the minister said, but certainly I agree with much of what he said in outlining his future policy. I think the matter of placing more families on the land is very important, because if something is not done to reestablish agriculture we shall get into tractor farming with one or two men working large areas of land.	_
Hon. members will appreciate that it would be impossible this evening to review the minister's comprehensive statement. I should like to suggest, however, that he bring in the legislation as soon as possible, because there is on the order paper a resolution in the name of the hon. member for Bow River, as well as one of my own, which may precipitate a general discussion in connection with the marketing of wheat, and those discussions probably would be more or less repeated if the bill came in later. So I suggest that if possible the minister should introduce his measure before these resolutions are reached. I very much appreciated his statement, and I am sure that anything of a constructive nature will receive my hearty support.


Mr. SENN:: I should like to ask the minister just one question; I do not know whether
he is prepared to answer it to-night. He made the statement that the farmers of the west

would profit by some $48,000,000 as a result of the action of the government in setting the price of wheat this year. Could he give the committee any estimate of what will be the loss to the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: It woidd be exactly the same amount if settlement were made now. That was an estimate at twenty cents a bushel, based on the bushelage which will be marketed. The final result may be a cent or two above or below that figure, and of course there is always the possibility that whatever is carried over may be sold at a higher price, in which case the loss would be reduced. Up to the present time, however, the greater part of the wheat has been delivered by the farmers; the farmer has received whatever he is going to get over and above what he would have received at the world market price.
I should like to make one more observation. I was dealing particularly with wheat and did not emphasize other matters having to do with the cooperative marketing of other products, but we have in mind legislation dealing with that as well.
Item stands.
Administration service-
2. Publicity and extension, $140,730.


George Halsey Perley: Would the minister explain the increase in this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: The net increase in salaries and wages to provide for statutory increases and authorized reclassifications is $1,470.


George Halsey Perley: I see on page 51 of the estimates provision for two editors, a grade 1 editor and a seasonal editor. Would the minister explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is provision for one new appointment of a publicity editor and a part-time man, making the two.


Major James William Coldwell: Does this cover publicity both in Canada and abroad, or is there a special estimate for the overseas work?


James Garfield Gardiner: The advertising abroad is all done through the Department of Trade and Commerce, but this is not the advertising vote. That comes under marketing.


Major James William Coldwell: None of the overseas publicity is done by this department?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Major James William Coldwell: It is all under the Department of Trade and Commerce now?

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The advertising overseas has never been done by our department.


Mark Cecil Senn: A great many publications dealing with agricultural matters are issued by this department. How many are there, and have there been any new ones this year? What method is employed to acquaint the general public, for whom these publications are intended, as to what ones are available and in what way they are distributed?


James Garfield Gardiner: I could read the list.


Mark Cecil Senn: It is not necessary.


James Garfield Gardiner: I could give some figures to indicate what it amounts to. These are the statistics covering 1937-38, the last year for which I have the figures:
70,166 personal requests received for publications,
630,401 publications mailed on personal requests,
409,199 publications mailed in bulk,
1,727,918 copies of market reports mailed on request,
366,031 copies of press notices,
73,281 clip sheets,
279,620 farm notes,
7,984,764 copies of miscellaneous articles, 10,033 stencils cut for mimeographing,
7,522,131 copies printed from mimeographed stencils
693 jobs on multigraph,
2,320,775 copies printed on multigraph,
2,131,872 envelopes addressed.
Those are the activities in connection with publications in that branch for one year, and they would be approximately the same from year to year.


Mark Cecil Senn: But I am asking the minister in what way the public is made acquainted with these publications. How do they learn that the publications are ready, and what they are. They are not sent around indiscriminately. I understand from what the minister has just read that quite a number of them have been asked for. How are the public made acquainted with those publications?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are made
acquainted through statements put in the press. Some of these press statements which are issued from time to time are statements indicating to the public that certain publications are available. Then there are certain set lists to which we mail-agricultural col. leges, municipal secretaries, county clerks, members of the House of Commons and of the provincial legislatures, and to some others. Then, they are mailed to persons who may write in. Hon. members will note that 630,000
publications are mailed on personal requests, which means th.ait some interest has been stirred up in relation to them.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Are not a number of these publications given to the agricultural representatives in the various provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, quite a number of them are given to the agricultural representatives. At exhibitions these publications are in the different stands so that people may carry them away or have them explained by the men in attendance.


Gordon Graydon: Does this vote include
any amount for radio advertising?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no payment for radio services out of this amount. But officials in this branch do prepare the radio statements announced to the public.


William Hayhurst: We have found some of the pamphlets very useful, and others not so valuable. In connection with pamphlets dealing with dairy and live stock prices, which are sent to farmers throughout Canada, may I say that I have had letters from farmers stating, " We know from the papers what the price of cattle was last week; what we would like to know and what we would be interested in would be the price of cattle next week or six months from now." So that I suggest there is some wastage in some of the pamphlets sent out. There is a duplication of much of the information which appears in the daily press. Probably it would be better if that money were spent on educational pamphlets, such as were suggested some time ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is
that the reports appearing in the press are supplied by us. We put them in from day to day, across Canada. In addition to that, the daily radio reports are prepared by this department. The report to which the hon. member has referred is a general one which goes out from time to time. Speaking as a practical farmer I would say they are more useful to me than any others because, after all, they show a review of marketing conditions not only on one day but over a period. When one is located, as a good many of us are, two or three hundred miles from where our stock is going to be marketed, it takes us some days to get it to the market place. At the time of shipment we really want to know the market trend. We get as much information out of those mimeographed articles which are sent out as we do from the daily press reports.
Supply-Agriculture-Publicity


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Are all the departmental publications published in French, too?


James Garfield Gardiner: Practically all of them. There may be some that are not, but so far as I know they are practically ail published in that way.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Is there a substantial demand for them?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there is a substantial demand, one which would compare favourably with the demand for the English edition.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand publicity is given by means of exhibits at the fairs. I have seen some of those exhibits, and I think they are commendable. I would ask the minister, for my own information-and his reply may be of service to others-how a fair makes application for those exhibits, and if any fair, large or small, is entitled to them?


James Garfield Gardiner: The larger fairs are all covered from booths in those fairs where the publications are placed. Individuals in charge of the booths make explanations. As a matter of fact, at the time of the fair in Toronto I had the experience of standing before a booth for fifteen minutes while one of our officials explained to me all about the marketing of hogs. One of the members accompanied me. I must say the official made a very good job of his explanation.


Mark Cecil Senn: I heard all about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: He convinced me that the publication was a good one. We send men around to the different fairs. We are not able to cover them all, but men are sent to fairs throughout Canada where we do not have booths, but where information in pamphlet form is distributed.


Mark Cecil Senn: How would a fair undertake to get an exhibit of this kind? There are a great many small fairs at which exhibits would be of great interest to the farmers. I think education might be promoted in that way as well as any other.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fair board may
make application for this assistance. We are not able to cover them all, so we select certain groups which cover an area. One year we may select one group and another year another group in the same locality. We try to cover the areas each year, but not always at the same places.


Grote Stirling: In recent years considerable reorganization has taken place within the department. Frequently, when I am at home,

I find the need of something in the nature of a directory to cover at least the province in which I live. I need something from which I could find out the names of the different officials and where they are located. The telephone book that is issued here forms an excellent directory of the officials in Ottawa, but during the recess I am 3,000 miles away from Ottawa and I need some sort of directory when I want to get in touch with an official in the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I said to the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) the other evening, that directory has been prepared and is now in the printer's hands. It was impossible to get it out earlier because of this reorganization. We wanted to have the staffs complete so that the directory would be up to date.


Grote Stirling: Will that directory cover all the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: All the services and all the provinces.


George Halsey Perley: Who will get copies? Will it be advertised in the press?


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone who desires will be able to get it by writing in. We will probably send it to all hon. members, and in any case it will be mailed out to those on our mailing list.


George Halsey Perley: No doubt there is a great deal of useful information in these pamphlets, but many people do not know where to get them. I have been asked several times where such and such a pamphlet could be got. A person might see one in an office or in someone else's home and want to know where to get it. The system of distributing seems to be lacking in some way. Possibly this directory will help considerably because it will enable the rural people to know where to get it.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister
thought of putting a list of these valuable pamphlets in the post offices? Possibly a card could be prepared with the names of the most important pamphlets.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think something along that line might be done and I shall give consideration to it. I may say that different plans have been tried out in the department at different times. We have tried putting the pamphlets into banks, post offices and other _ places where they would be available, but there has always been a great wastage in that method. We find that it does not pay to make bulk distributions at different points.

Supply-Agriculture-Publicity
We get better results by trying to advertise the fact that pamphlets are available, and then those who really want them can write in. Much of the information gets about, not directly from a pamphlet but from someone who has read a pamphlet and tells others about it.


Major James William Coldwell: To what extent are these distributed through the schools?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not distributed through the schools except where a teacher writes in for them and asks for copies to be used in connection with teaching agriculture in the school.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not know whether the expense would be prohibitive, but I was thinking of an inexpensive cabinet with a glass front which could be placed in the important post offices. This cabinet would contain a complete set of the most important pamphlets, and would bear a notice to the effect that copies could be obtained by writing to such and such an address. I have thought a number of times that it was really too bad that valuable pamphlets like these, are not more widely known. As hon. members said a minute-ago, many people do not know that these pamphlets exist or where to get them. The material contained in them is incomparably valuable for men doing practical work.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister any idea of the extent to which teachers apply for these pamphlets?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are certain special types of pamphlets for which a considerable number of teachers apply. These are pamphlets that will ,be helpful in teaching agriculture, but generally speaking there is no application for a great mass of the pamphlets.
Mr. COLDWrELL: I know from personal experience that many of these pamphlets have proved most valuable in the schools, and to the communities through the schools. I was wondering if some effort could not be made to have the provincial departments of education or the normal schools direct attention to these pamphlets. This would save the department sending them out. I may say that I knew nothing of these pamphlets when I started to teach, and it was only by accident that I got a list of them. I sent for some of the pamphlets, and I believe I am still on the mailing list of the department.


John Horne Blackmore: Speaking as a practical teacher and principal of a good many years experience, I think something could be done along the lines of preparing a circular to send
out from time to time to every rural school in the west, either through the provincial departments or direct from Ottawa.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not familiar with what is done in all the schools, but when I was minister of education in Saskatchewan the practice in the normal school was to send for pamphlets to all the dominions. You can go into the normal library in Regina and see copies of pamphlets describing conditions in Australia, New Zealand and so on. I expect that this would be generally the practice in all normal schools across the continent. The teachers who are taking courses in these normal schools have the opportunity of learning about these pamphlets, and I would expect that when most of them go out to teach they would make use of them.


Major James William Coldwell: I believe in recent years certain courses of study have referred to certain of the pamphlets of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: The hon. gentlemen to my left who have just spoken come from Saskatchewan and Alberta. I may tell them that for many years in Manitoba these publications have been noted in the departmental journal and in the journal of the teachers' federation. As the minister has said, teachers in training in the normal school have been made aware of these publications. I do not know what happens in Saskatchewan or Alberta, but I know that has been the case in Manitoba for a great number of years.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a practice in China whereby a rich man pays his doctor just as long as he is well. When he is sick he does not pay. There are doctors of every description in the Department of Agriculture. I suggest that they receive salaries only when things are good for the farmers. When the farmers have any reason to complain, all the doctors in the Department of Agriculture should not receive one cent of salary.


Major James William Coldwell: What about the lawyers?


Jean-François Pouliot: There are no lawyers in that department.


William Hayhurst: It has been intimated
that the people of Alberta would not know anything about these pamphlets, but I must tell hon. members that the department of education in that province has always kept these pamphlets before the people all the time. The endeavour has been to heal the sick, and, if possible, to have no sick, so far as the knowledge distributed from this department is concerned. I am sure that we in
1042	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Empire Bureaux
this corner of the house very much appreciate the policy which the Minister of Agriculture has outlined this evening, so that we might have an opportunity of studying it before discussing it at a later stage. We feel that the department has been very efficient in the last few years.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I should like to add my word of congratulations to the department upon issuing these pamphlets. They serve not only the rural sections but the urban sections of our country as well. A great number of people in my riding in the city of Toronto write me from time to time asking me to secure various pamphlets which the department has at the disposal of the public. I have also gone through the department and was favourably impressed with the way in which it is carried on, and through it I have been able to be of service to a great number of my urban constituents.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is a pamphlet known as Economic Annalist. I do not know if it is issued by this department or not, but if so, I would ask the minister if he is responsible for the opinions therein expressed, or if he knows just what those opinions are.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is got out by the economic service in the department, under Mr. Booth.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the minister read those opinions, and, if so, does he agree with them?


James Garfield Gardiner: I cannot read the thousands of pamphlets they are putting out, but of course I have to take responsibility for whatever is put out by the department. What is the matter in particular?


Mark Cecil Senn: The pamphlet is called Economic Annalist. I do not agree with all the ideas, economic principles and suggestions set out in that publication.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not read them all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
3. Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
George Halsey Perley: Who is on this advisory committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: Doctor Barton; Doctor Christie of Guelph college; Reverend Father Leopold; Doctor J. W. Black; Mr. Reek, the deputy minister in Ontario; Doctor E. S. 
Archibald; Mr. Rioux, the deputy minister in Quebec; Doctor Newton, and Mr. True-mann.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
1,. Contributions to empire bureaux, $33,823.34.
Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister give us a brief explanation of the work that is done in connection with these first four items?


James Garfield Gardiner: The imperial agricultural bureaux were set up as a result of the imperial agricultural research conference of 1927, which recommended that eight bureaux be established to collect, collate and disseminate information on research in selected branches of agricultural science, and generally to assist research workers in the empire with information on their subjects and with introductions to other research workers.
These proposals were accepted by empire governments, and in 1928 a number of these bureaux were set up. Since 1929 this service of common empire interest has been maintained from a fund jointly subscribed by the governments of the empire and administered by an executive council, composed of representatives directly appointed by the governments for that purpose. The functions of the bureaux have to do with the distribution of information; they do not themselves undertake research, but they gather and make available to every country that is a member of the bureaux the results of the research work carried on.


Mark Cecil Senn: What is the work undertaken at the Farnham laboratory, and where is it located?


James Garfield Gardiner: Parasitology is undertaken at that laboratory. It is at Farnham, in England.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Is this a grant, and have we a representative on the bureaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a grant made to these bureaux, and from them we get the information.


James Alexander Marshall: Have we Canadian
representatives on the various bureaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a representative of every government on the bureaux executive. Our representative at present is a man from the high commissioner's office in London.

Supply-Agriculture-Animal Pathology


Mark Cecil Senn: Is there an interchange of information between these bureaux and any similar bureaux in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, all the information we gather by research is sent to this clearing house to be made available to other parts of the empire.


Major James William Coldwell: For bureaux which
simply collect and distribute information, is this not rather a large sum, if it is simply a statistical collecting and distributing organization?


James Garfield Gardiner: They maintain an expert staff to go over all the information gathered and put it into form to be made available to the various countries. The services of these experts are paid for out of these grants, and as it is under the supervision of all parts of the empire it is fairly safe to conclude that we are paying only equally along with other parts of the empire, that we are not overpaying.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister any
idea of the total amount expended by the imperial government and charged to the other dominions?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact
amount, but each part of the empire contributes its just share in proportion to its agricultural activities.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are all parts of the empire connected with these bureaux?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: That is, the dominions,
the crown colonies, and so on?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, all of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
5.	International institute of agriculture,
Mark Cecil Senn: Is this the one in Rome?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is an international organization of the same type as the other.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
6.	Science service administration, $28,090.
James Alexander Marshall: I notice that there is
an entomologist in connection with this service. What are his duties, and are they distinct from those of entomologists in other branches of the service?


James Garfield Gardiner: He happens to be an
entomologist, but it is a transfer from the other branch to the administrative section of the service. The committee will notice that the entomology section is covered in the science service further down. But this official happens to be an entomologist who is in the administrative staff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
7.	Animal and poultry pathology, $158,550.
Mark Cecil Senn: What work is undertaken by
this particular branch of the science service?


James Garfield Gardiner: The work of the division of animal pathology falls into three main groups or sections; scientific research relating to animal diseases of major economic importance; serums, vaccines, diagnostic reagents and other biological products; analytical and routine diagnostic services.


Major James William Coldwell: Are all these officers
in the department at Ottawa, or are they at various points in the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are not all in
Ottawa; they are at the different laboratories across the country.


Major James William Coldwell: Where are those laboratories situate?


James Garfield Gardiner: One of them is in British Columbia; one is at Lethbridge.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are there only two outside
Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a third one, at Langley Prairie. There are two in British Columbia, one at Langley Prairie and one at Saanich.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understood the minister to say that one branch of this service had to do with the investigation of diseases. I suppose that would include such diseases as shipping fever and Bang's disease. I do not know whether the minister would prefer to discuss questions of that kind under the health of animals branch, or here, but if it should be discussed here I should certainly like to say something about what is being done and ask some questions about Bang's disease.


James Garfield Gardiner: The work having to do with investigation is covered in this branch, and the work having to do with service will be covered in the production branch. It can
1044	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Agriculture-Dairy Research
be discussed at either place. It is late to-night to start this discussion, and if we could carry this item, when we come to the other item we can discuss the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
8.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $40,450. Mr. GARDINER: The same remark applies to that. They can be discussed under production service.
James Alexander Marshall: I was wondering about the note at the bottom of No. 11, "Appropriation not required for 1939-40, $76,700." How much of that would be laken from each of these items under science service? How would that money be distributed?


James Garfield Gardiner: The $76,700 is not taken out of this service. It was voted last year for buildings, and is not required this year because the buildings have been erected.


Mark Cecil Senn: Along the same line, was the vote of last year for these items altogether used up?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. It is not all consumed yet, but practically all of it will be by the end of the financial year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science Service-
9.	Botany and plant pathology, $306,665.
Major James William Coldwell: Are all these officials in Ottawa, or are they distributed across the country at the various farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of them are in Ottawa and some of them are distributed across the country.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice, for example, that there are thirteen assistant agricultural scientists.


James Garfield Gardiner: They are at the different stations across the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
10.	Agricultural chemistry, $101,730.
Mark Cecil Senn: I think we should know what is undertaken under the study of agricultural chemistry. Soil composition?


James Garfield Gardiner: As will be understood by the hon. member for Haldimand, many of the agricultural services are based, of course,

upon chemistry. Analyses of soil and all that kind of thing are based upon chemistry. I have here quite a statement about it if it is desired to go into it. Probably we had better not start it this evening.


Mark Cecil Senn: I wanted to know whether
private individuals could have soils analyzed free of charge, and how they would go about having this done.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are local laboratories, some of them provincial and some operating with our assistance, and people can send in soils and have them analyzed. I understand it is quite a general practice in some parts of Ontario to have the soils analyzed, in order to determine the type of fertilizer required.


Mark Cecil Senn: But it is all done, I believe, by the provincial department of agriculture. That is the reason I was asking why it is necessary to have the duplicate branch here.


James Garfield Gardiner: In western Ontario it is done largely by the province, but there is an understanding between the federal department and the province as to the division of activities in connection with it, and in some sections it is done by the federal department.


Mark Cecil Senn: Well, does the federal government pay any of the cost of analyzing by the provincial government?


James Garfield Gardiner: Not for analyses, except in connection with soil survey work. Where we are making soil surveys of certain areas of the province we make contributions towards the work.


William Hayhurst: Is all the soil testing done in Ottawa?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, soil testing is done right across Canada. It is done by the university staffs, I believe, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and some of it is done at Swift Current in the plant we have there.


Major James William Coldwell: But the cost of doing university work is not included in this particular estimate?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I notice there are just four assistants. I suppose all of them are in Ottawa,


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.

Canada-V. S. Trade Agreement


Mark Cecil Senn: Does that include analyses of fertilizers as well?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: And if anyone is buying fertilizer and wants it analysed to make sure it is according to the description which is on the bag, is it possible to have this done here?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; if it is sent in here it w'ill be analysed and a report made on it.


Mark Cecil Senn: Free of charge, I suppose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 17, 1939