[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I apologize for not sending it to him in advance, but it is a simple one. When will the tariff board reports be tabled, if they are to be tabled; and if so, on what subjects referred to the board? Perhaps the minister would rather not answer to-day, the next sitting will do.


Mr. DUNNING:: I shall look into the matter and advise my hon. friend.



PRIVILEGE-MR. McNIVEN REFERENCES BY MR. BENNETT TO STATEMENTS REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on my return to the city early last week I was twitted by a number of hon. members with

Farmers' Creditors Act
regard to certain things I am alleged to have said during the progress of the Saskatchewan election. Although I searched diligently for it, I could not until Wednesday afternoon locate in Hansard what the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) had charged me with saying. I would have brought it to your attention yesterday, but out of deference to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who was presenting his budget I deferred doing so until to-day.
I find on reference to Hansard of June 7 last at page 3619 the following:
Mr. Chevrier:	I am sure your government
would satisfy the hungry people.
Mr. Bennett: Do not let us talk about hunger. Just think of it! One hon. member, not here, saying that if you be hungry in Saskatchewan do not think of voting for this government. Do not think of voting for this government. If you be hungry think what will happen if you do not vote for the Patterson government. That is what the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) has been stating to the people of this country, according to the public press.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and other hon. members, that I never said anything, either directly or indirectly, which by any stretch of imagination could be so construed. What is more, I have diligently searched the Regina press, and I cannot find any reference therein that could be so construed.
Again on June 9, as reported in Hansard on page 3700, I find these statements in an address by the right hon. leader of the opposition:
And we have those who are responsible for providing the relief telling them that if they do not vote Liberal they will be hungry.
As a result of that statement the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked the leader of the opposition this question:
Will the right hon. leader of the opposition give the committee the name of a single individual who stated to any one that unless he voted in a certain way he would go hungry?
Mr. Bennett:	The hon. member for Regina
City is reported in the press to have said that the reason why the electors of Saskatchewan should return Liberal candidates in that province in yesterday's election was that they had obtained more money than they would have obtained if there had not been a Liberal government there and a Liberal government here.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I deny absolutely that I made any suggestion that any money had been obtained by the people of Saskatchewan, either through the provincial or through the dominion government, other than that -which was necessary by reason of the disaster which had befallen that province.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I was not in my place when this matter was first raised. Had I known that it was to be raised I should have brought the papers with me to which the references were made. If letters from various citizens of Saskatchewan have any merit I shall be glad, when the appropriate time comes, to read them into the record.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: He has
denied the whole thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and I say I shall
produce the press reports and letters.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting their honours that this house disagrees to their amendments to Bill No. 25, an act to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, for the following reason:
Because the adoption of the said amendments would impose hardship in certain provinces.
And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that apply to all
the amendments?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I will explain. The amendment to which exception is taken is an amendment to the last section of the bill as it left this house, section 8, an amendment which provided as follows:
On and after a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, no new proposal shall be made or filed by any farmer or accepted by any official receiver in any province in respect of which the said proclamation is issued.
That was as the bill left this house. But coming back from the senate a new section 9 is added which provides to the following effect:
The said act is further amended by adding to section eleven, as subsection three, the following:
No proposal shall be received in any province later than the thirty-first day of December, 1938, except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the senate amendment. The effect of it, of course, is to end the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act at the end of this year in all provinces except Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The view of the government is that it is not at all certain at this time that in all the other provinces the Farmers' Creditors
Farmers' Creditors Act

Arrangement Act should go out of business, so far as new applications are concerned, on the 31st of December of this year. The government, and I as Minister of Finance, have received representations from people in some of the other provinces that this would be unduly arbitrary so far as they are concerned, and I think that may be said particularly in respect of Manitoba. The discussion of this motion might serve to reveal the views of representatives of other provinces concerned, as to the desirability of arbitrarily terminating the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act at the end of the year in all provinces except Saskatchewan and Alberta. The view of the government is that we should disagree with the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the motion that has just been placed in your hands should be amended so as to make it clear that this house disagrees with their honours with respect to the amendment they have made to section 11.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is, the new subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The senate have added as subsection 3 of section 11 the following:
No proposal shall be received in any province later than the thirty-first day of December, 1938, except in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.
We do not, I understand, disagree with the whole of their amendments, and as the motion of the minister reads, it would be an erroneous statement of the position of this house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as this particular amendment is concerned, it is a question purely for the government. They have indicated that they propose to deal with it by order in council, and the senate has dealt with it by fixing an arbitrary date in all the provinces but two. It is probable, as the minister has said, that the executive would be better able to exercise the discretion than would this parliament with respect to any particular province, and I would concur in the message to their honours if the motion be amended so as to make it clear that it applies only to section 9 of the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to amend the resolution accordingly, if the clerk will put it in shape to apply only to the new section 9 that has been added by the senate.
I should like, however, an expression of view from hon. members from other provinces who may take exception to this senate amendment.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has indicated that the government intends to oppose the amendment .made to this bill by the senate. So far as I know, no representations have been made on behalf of anyone in the province of British Columbia that the operation of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act should cease in that province at the end of this year. I was surprised that the amendment should have been moved by someone who had no interest whatever in British Columbia and had received no representations from that province, when the effect of the amendment is to leave British Columbia outside the operation of the act after the end of this year. The amendment would certainly work a great hardship not only on certain farmers but particularly on the soldier settlers, who we were told this year, would have the opportunity of going before the board under this act with a view to receiving an adjustment. I protest against the senate amendment, and I am glad that the minister has moved non-concurrence.


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, from statements made in this house and representations made from various parts of Ontario I believe it would meet with the approval of the province of Ontario if the act were discontinued so far as Ontario is concerned. Quite a number of members from Ontario spoke on this bill when it was before the house, and almost all of them, if not all, were in favour of having the act discontinued in respect to Ontario.
It occurred to me that instead of sending the message to the senate in the form suggested it might be possible to change the wording of the bill

I am making not a motion but merely a suggestion-to make it read that no new proposals shall be received in the province of Ontario after the 31st of December, 1938.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has said, that this house should refuse to accept the amendment made by the senate. I know there are arguments pro and con respecting the continued operation of this legislation in Manitoba, but there has been no crystallized opinion in that province against the continuance of the act, and now that the question is before the house I submit that Manitoba itself should have the right to say whether the legislation should be dropped so far as that province is concerned. I am quite sure I speak for many in Manitoba when I say that

Farmers' Creditors Act
the Manitoba legislature is the proper authority to cancel the operation of the act, and until that has been done I entirely agree with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, while I heartily endorse the action taken by the Minister of Finance in rejecting the amendment made by the senate, I would call attention to a phase that has not been mentioned by previous speakers. At page 2710 of Hansard of May 9, when the minister was putting through this bill, I called his attention to the fact that-
*-the opportunities of this act were largely relied upon by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) when he was putting through the amendment to the Soldier Settlement Act.
We asked him again and again what the soldier settler was going to do without an extension of the dollar for dollar bonus provision that we were asking for, and he replied that they could get relief under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I called the attention of the Minister of Finance to that and asked him to give his assurance that he would look into it before he made, any decision, at least as regards British Columbia, and he did give that assurance. I may say I heard no suggestion that it should be done away with in British Columbia, and certainly, if it is done away with, one would expect in all good faith that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) would introduce amendments to the Soldier Settlement Act giving us an extension on the dollar for dollar bonus.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I understood that for some time the British Columbia government has been opposed to this legislation, and no doubt any information which the other house acted upon came from that source. Without doubt there have been complaints. At the same time I think we agree that this legislation has done a lot of good, in relieving many of the farmers in our province. However it cannot continue very much longer, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has been wise in proceeding as he has, and in providing that it shall be left to the governor in council, who would be in a better position than this house to ascertain at what period the legislation should be withdrawn from British Columbia or any other province.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: I heartily agree with the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) that so far as Ontario is concerned we should like to see the act discontinued. I was in the house when this
act passed, and we were assured it was to be a temporary measure, to give temporary relief to people who had purchased land in war time, when prices were very high, and had borrowed money at a high rate. They have now had four years to make these adjustments, and I should like to see this act wiped off the statute books. Any statute which interferes with a legitimate contract is dangerous legislation, and this act has interfered with legitimate contracts between borrowers and lenders. The government may have had some justification for entering upon this course four years ago, when farmers were paying high rates of interest and when it was thought desirable to adjust some sales of land which had been made at exorbitant prices. But they have had time to make, these adjustments. I think the act has fulfilled its usefulness and should be discontinued.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: This gives me an opportunity to repeat what I have said on former occasions in connection with this act. As has been stated by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), it was intended to be a temporary measure. Moreover the act has application only to debts contracted before it was passed, which was in the year 1935; so that any debt contracted by a farmer since 1935 does not come under its provisions. Surely three years is a sufficient time within which debts contracted prior to 1935 could be brought to an adjustment under the provisions of this act. I believe that most of the farmers who can come under the act with respect to debts prior to 1935 have done so; at least they have had their opportunity, and if notice is now published and given to them that the end of 1938 will be the limit of the act, they will have had ample time to come in.
I regard it as in the public interest that the act should be terminated, and I think it ought to be definitely known when it will be terminated. Let us remove the uncertainty about it. I do not care to speak for any province other than my own, but in Ontario the sentiment is overwhelmingly in favour of immediate termination. I had hoped that the minister would end it by the first of July, but of course that cannot be done, under the provisions of this measure, until it passes. I still hope that he will take the very first opportunity to proclaim the termination of the act in its application to the province of Ontario.


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain):: With reference to what the last two speakers have said. I am glad indeed to know that
Northioest Territories Act

the act so far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned is not to be interfered with, and I thoroughly concur in what the Senate and the House of Commons have agreed upon, namely, to leave the act, so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, still in operation. Certain portions of the province of Saskatchewan, over fifty per cent of its area, have not had a crop for nine years. How is it possible to go in there at the present time and adjust debts? The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in those portions of the province has not even begun to operate. It is impossible to value land which has had no crop for nine years. No one can say what it is worth. Only after we have some crops-and we hope we shall have crops from now on-will it be possible to put the act in operation. So we are glad that the act is to remain operative so far as Saskatchewan is concerned.
Motion as amended agreed to. NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT



AMENDMENT BESPECTING SHIPMENT OR TAKING OUT OF FURS WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORITY- CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 110, to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is really the preparation and submission to this house of an entirely new bill. It cannot in any sense be said to be a mere amendment. It proceeds on an entirely different theory from the legislation submitted to us in Bill No. 110. The bill contemplated the issue by the exchequer court of what is known technically as a writ of assistance. The senate has seen fit to draft a new bill, which provides that the Secretary of State may issue a certificate which has all the effects of a writ of assistance and is issued under the seal of the Secretary of State. After a cursory examination of it but taking some degree of care it would seem to me that from the standpoint of efficiency and effectiveness the senate's suggestion is probably a better one than ours. In every case it was contemplated to attend on the exchequer court and secure a writ of assistance. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows that a writ of assistance is something which is easily obtained but sometimes may be readily abused, and this gives the government complete control of the situa-

tion by the grant of a certificate the form of which is set out in the new statute, which contemplates that the certificate shall be issued only to some person in the public service of Canada and at the instance of His Majesty's Attorney General of Canada. To ask that we concur in the amendments means that we concur in an entirely new bill, with which I am not in disagreement at all, though I think it fair to point out that it is an entire departure from that which we commenced with when we considered Bill No. 110.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The right hon. gentleman is
quite right. This is entirely different from what has been proposed in the bill introduced by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and it is also rather a change from what is usually done under similar circumstances. But we have carefully considered the change made by the senate amendment. Neither the officers of the Department of Justice nor those of the Department of the Secretary of State have any objection to the change, radical as it is, and under the circumstances I am quite willing, so far as I am concerned, to accept it, and concur in the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the substitution of a new bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



PELAGIC SEALING


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 98, respecting the North Pacific Pelagic Sealing convention.
Alan Webster Neill: There are quite a number of amendments, but for the most part they consist in the striking out of certain sections of the bill, which brought in certain sections of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, bringing pelagic sealing under those sections. The senate has struck out those sections and substituted a sort of summary of them, and I should like to call attention to what is now proposed. I know that they have only followed the wording of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act,

Pelagic Sealing
but the fact that something is old does not necessarily mean that it is right, and if we never did correct anything on the ground that it was long established we would not make much progress. At page 456 of Votes and Proceedings the proposed amendment to subsection 2, of section 1 reads:
If the master or person in command of any such ship, vessel or boat does not, upon any examination under oath by any officer or person under the authority of this act touching the cargo, equipment and voyage of such ship, vessel or boat-
That is, any boat that has been boarded by the officials.
-truly answer all questions put to him in such examination, he shall incur a fine of $400.
I would point out first of all that the men concerned, who will be accused in these cases, will almost inevitably be Indians, because the bill is dealing with Indians who shoot or kill seals illegally. If they took ten seals in one day, which would be phenomenal, the total value would not exceed thirty or forty dollars; and for an offence involving the illegal shooting of forty dollars' worth of seals, these Indians will be liable to a fine of $400- that is, if they do not truly answer all questions under oath. Now, there is a criminal code in Canada and that code provides a certain penalty for perjury. That offence is dealt with by itself in the code and it is severe, and I cannot see why it is necessary to introduce into this act a part of the criminal code, setting it up independently of the code and putting it into operation.
Next it is proposed to insert the following as a new subsection (3) of section 11:
(3) Every person opposing any officer or person in the execution of his duty under this act or aiding or abetting any other person in such opposition is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of $800 and to two years' imprisonment.
Section 4 of the bill as we passed it provided that under the circumstances here indicated the person contravening the regulation should be guilty of an offence against the act; and in section 11, as the bill passed this house, it was provided that every person guilty of an offence against the act or of a contravention of any regulation should be liable to a fine not exceeding $500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; and that was upon summary conviction. It seems to me that what we provided in the bill originally was quite sufficient considering the essentially small value of the goods involved; but the other legislative body
has taken the matter out of the category of summary convictions and made it an indictable offence, imposing the enormous penalty of $800 and two years' imprisonment. That, I submit, is unjust. It is unfair to impose such a heavy penalty for an offence involving so small a matter as thirty dollars' worth of skins. Surely the provision in the bill as we passed it, making the offence subject to summary conviction, was the most workable one in these outlying places. Now, however, it is proposed to make the offence indictable, and the penalty as severe as I have indicated. I submit that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) might consider the wisdom of objecting to that amendment on the ground that it is unnecessarily severe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one section
to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and that is the new section 13 which provides that the statutory limitations shall be three years. I submit that, having regard to the character of this legislation, twelve months would be ample time within which to institute proceedings. When we are dealing with a floating population, to have these matters stand over for as long as three years is sometimes, in my opinion, to do nothing but encourage what I once heard a learned judge describe as a species of blackmail, and I think three years may be a little long.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that
a provision added by the senate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. It reads:
All actions for the recovery or enforcement of penalties or forfeitures imposed by this act shall be commenced within three years after the offence committed.
I submit that one year is ample, but I merely express that view to the minister. So far as the other sections are concerned, there is no doubt that what the senate has done is to endeavour to make this a code within itself, by adding thereto, instead of leaving to inference, the provisions of a statute, namely, that dealing with violations of the customs act; and notwithstanding what my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has said, I always think it is desirable to have within the four corners of a statute itself all provisions that have to do with the institution of proceedings and the recovery of penalties rather than leave them open to uncertainty and doubt. I am inclined to think
Pelagic Sealing

that the amendments made by the senate are an improvement in the legislation, but owing to the discussion that took place when the matter was before this chamber, and the indication by the minister that he wanted the matter treated in the way in which it was, we made the provisions of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act applicable without specifically indicating, as the senate has now done, the sections in question.
I am at variance with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni as to the severity of the penalty in connection with interference with officers in the discharge of their duties. I suppose the hon. gentleman would expect me to differ from him anyway, but it is one of the general principles of our jurisprudence that we cannot afford too great protection to those into whose hands we entrust the enforcement of laws in view of the fact that very often they risk their lives in carrying them out. I have a consistent record of endeavouring to ensure that, and therefore I must be at variance with my hon. friend and favour the amendments made by the senate.


Mr. MICHAUD:: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is right in stating that what the senate did in this bill was to include the provisions that were there before only by inference. Section 3 of the bill as it left this house read:
Section five and all of the following sections, except sections ten and twenty-nine, of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, chapter forty-three of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, shall be deemed to apply, in so far as applicable, for all the purposes of this act, and shall have effect as if enacted herein.
The provisions of section 3 of the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act, and other sections referred to herein, have been included and have been made specifically part of this act. I believe this tends to make for greater clarity in administration, and especially is it better in view of the fact that the act is to be distributed in other countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Regarding the undue
severity of the penalty, may I say that the senate committee has not informed us of its reasons for maintaining them as they were; but inasmuch as there is no actual change from what was enacted in this chamber, we have been disposed to approve of and to accept the suggestions of the senate.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, June 13, consideration in committee of Bill No. 145, to assist the construction of houses-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: As I recollect it, we were considering section 4, subsection 2 (b).
On section 4-Advances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Section 4 was permitted to stand for the purpose of enabling the minister to deal with paragraph (b) of subsection 2 of section 4.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I do not believe we had finished consideration of the section. The section had not been passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Paragraph (a) was
passed and paragraph (b) was permitted to stand.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave some consideration to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition that the 70 per cent minimum ought to be lowered-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; take it out altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: Anyway, the effect would be the same. To take it out altogether would mean that no matter what percentage a prospective home owner might have, in the form of equity, the loan would nevertheless be eligible to come under part I of the National Housing Act. Of course, as I said the other day, the purpose behind the measure is more that of helping the man with a small equity to obtain his objective of owning his own home than that of merely reducing interest rates to those who have substantial equities. I am anxious that the amount of money put into this scheme by the dominion should go as far as possible towards that line of development.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in my judgment paragraph (c), which mentions 25 per cent, covers that point. It states that the sum total of the two should not exceed 25 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: The proportion advanced by the dominion, according to paragraph (c), is not to exceed 25 per cent of the total of the whole loan.

National Housing Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It states:
The advance made by the minister shall not exceed 25 per centum of the total advance made jointly by the minister and the lending institution.


Charles Avery Dunning: It shall not exceed more than 25 per cent of the whole amount loaned. Frankly it is my view that lending institutions would tend to put on pressure for dominion housing loans in which the prospective borrower had considerable equity, and they would tend therefore to be reluctant to act for the benefit of those with the smaller equity. That is really what I fear, put in a nutshell. If the act does what we hope it will do, it will be much more effective as it applies to persons with smaller equities. That is the class it is designed to help.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All right. I find it difficult to follow the theory that we should provide not less than 70 per cent. However if the minister has made up his mind that that is the action to be taken, it would merely be wasting time to talk further about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will say that since, we last considered the bill my mind has been pretty full of other matters, and I have had opportunity on only one occasion to discuss with my officials the point raised by the right hon. gentleman. It may have greater importance than I now attach to it as a result of experience thus far gained under the Dominion Housing Act. I suggest that we let paragraph (b) stand, so that I may give detailed consideration to it, because I realize it has to do with a vital feature of the legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it has.
Paragraph (b) stands.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (e).


Mr. DUPUIS:: I did not know this bill would be discussed this afternoon. It had been my intention to go into the matter with the Minister of Finance, because some people fear that it would affect certain parts of the civil law of the province of Quebec. For instance, paragraph (e) reads as follows:
The loan shall be for such period and upon such terms as to payment of principal, interest and taxes by monthly instalments as the minister shall determine-
And so on. I believe there are other parts of the measure to the same effect. May I point out that according to the laws of the province of Quebec as contained in the civil code and other municipal legislation, municipal taxes, school taxes and church assessments
are privileged, and are paid before a first mortgage or any other imposition. In view of the wording of the section I wonder if the people in the province of Quebec are not justified in the fear that when the act says the money loaned by either the minister or a lending corporation shall be secured by a first mortgage, such mortgage will be privileged over church assessments, and municipal and school taxes. I should like to ask that some clarification of this and other sections be made, so as to allay the fears of people in my native province.


Charles Avery Dunning: Paragraph (e) is worded in exactly the same way as the corresponding section of the Dominion Housing Act under which we have been operating for more than two years. I may point out at once that there is no intention, nor would it be valid if there was, to set the mortgage ahead of taxes. That could not be. The subsection merely intends, and has been so administered in the past, to enable the mortgage agreement to be dealt with by means of monthly payments. In some provinces, and in some connections, it is desirable to have the arrangement for monthly repayment of the loan also include a monthly contribution to be applied on the taxes, and so far as I can learn we have had no trouble in any province in working out that phase of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is purely a matter of contract.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is purely a matter of contract between the lender and the individual borrower, and in no case do we pretend to set this mortgage ahead of the statutory charges created by provincial legislation. I can assure my hon. friend of that without question.


Vincent Dupuis: I thank the minister for the explanation, though some may criticize it as not _ being sufficient. An explanation by a minister of the crown is not enforceable as the law itself, of course, but I perused the act when I received complaints about it from those interested in church assessments. They were told that the levies made for the building of churches, for instance, would come after the first mortgage, as indicated in this act. So far as I am concerned I feel sure that the federal government in the past, no matter which party was in power, never tried to override provincial legislation, but in this case some interested parties whose opinions I respect were afraid that what is mentioned here and in similar sections might be so construed as to permit such preference.
National Housing Act

Personally I am ready to interpret the law as drafted in the light of the explanation of the minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I realize what the hon. member has in mind. He is thinking of the decisions of the privy council that a debt due the crown has priority over other debts; and because the mortgage is given to the crown, his majesty in the right of the dominion, and the lending company, someone has been raising with the friends of the hon. gentleman the question of the priority of the crown. That question could arise only under circumstances which the minister hopes never will prevail. I -may say to the hon. gentleman that the question of priority never should arise, but apparently some of his friends have construed this as giving priority to the crown as against taxes assessed for church purposes under a provincial statute. That is quite clearly what he has in mind, but I do not think this section intends in any way to deal with that. It merely makes provision for the terms of repayment. Does the minister think it advisable to cling to the monthly payment, or might there not be a discretion with respect to quarterly payments?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a discretion
now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it clear that there is? I understand from something I heard, which I questioned, that some of the loans did not provide for monthly payments. Probably that is erroneous, a misunderstanding. It was under the farm loan act that provision was made for quarterly or half-yearly payments; this act in terms provided for monthly payments. I was wondering whether it might not be desirable to provide also for quarterly payments. I do agree with the minister that in connection with this type of loan monthly payments are much to be preferred.


Charles Avery Dunning: One of the most satisfactory experiences of the past two years has been the manner in which the monthly payment method has come to be accepted by the interested parties. Even the lending institutions, which, as my right hon. friend knows, were strong objectors to the monthly payment system, are now practically unanimous converts to it, particularly in the low cost housing field.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what it was done for originally.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. The fact that the monthly payments, similar to rent, month by month are building up the equity of the owner

in his own home is a good thing in practice, and I feel inclined to stick to it as a result of the experience we have had. If we once provide an alternative I am afraid there will be a constant leaning away from the sound principle, particularly in the case of wage earners, of repaying this money monthly in the same manner as they now pay rent. They have become accustomed to that in these thousands of cases, and I have not heard a complaint from any source regarding it for a number of months now.
On the other point mentioned by my hon. friend from Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), my legal advice is that this section does not at all touch the point of setting the mortgage in these cases ahead of taxes.


Vincent Dupuis: If the minister will allow me, it reads, "principal, interest and taxes." It does not say which has priority.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question could arise only on liquidation.


Charles Avery Dunning: It could arise only on complete liquidation, of course. I would hesitate to put into the law anything providing that the crown in any sense yields in advance any rights it may ultimately have.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not necessary here.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not necessary to
do so. It is necessary to give recognition in practice, as we do, to provincially-levied taxes that are within their constitutional field, and I understand that in Quebec the taxes for church assistance are just the same as any other taxes and have the same priority. Many loans have been made under this provision in the province of Quebec without any difficulty, and I am fairly sure that the apprehensions of those who communicated with my hon. friend are quite unfounded in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to make just one further observation. The minister was not in the house at the time, but when the provision for monthly payments was inserted in the previous bill the minister of finance of that time gave practically the same reasons that are now given as to why we concluded that monthly payments were the proper form of repayment. But conditions have improved a bit, and I wondered whether or not provision might be made for quarterly payments. Since the minister says that complaints in that regard have entirely disappeared, however, perhaps the proper course to pursue is to say

National Housing Act
that the experience has been such that there is no reason why there should be a change, so we will leave it at that.
I am satisfied that my hon. friend from Chambly-Rouville has in mind that what has been said as to the priority of the crown with respect to its debts must have some relation to this section, but clearly that is not so in any shape or form. That would come about only in the event of there being a sale of the property; then the question of priority might arise, but not otherwise. Is the minister quite sure that all the loans made have provided for monthly payments?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, absolutely; and
we are in the fortunate position of having no losses to date. Those who studied the matter very closely from the standpoint of lending institutions attach a great deal of the credit for that condition to the working out of the monthly payment plan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of the big loan
companies in England which provided for monthly payments make the very same observation ; they attribute their freedom from losses to the monthly payment plan.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
Section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (f).
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that fixed by the
terms of the contract? I see that it is in the old act. Should not the losses be borne in proportion to the advances made?


Charles Avery Dunning: The old provision is that in the event of a loss being sustained in connection with a loan from whatever cause arising, the amount of the loss shall be allocated as follows-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the contract?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. It reads:
(a)	If at the time the loss occurs the amount owing under the mortgage or hypothec for principal, interest, taxes, costs and other charges properly due on the mortgage account, is more than the amount advanced by the company two-thirds of the loss will be borne by His Majesty the King, represented as aforesaid, and one-third by the company;
(b)	If at the time the loss occurs the amount so owing under the mortgage or hypothec is less than the amount advanced by the company two-thirds of the loss will be borne by the company and one-third by His Majesty the King, represented as aforesaid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the state of the
loan is the test?


Charles Avery Dunning: The state of the loan is the test, and it is a standard form of agreement. Then follows paragraph (c), which deals with what happens in the event of sale of the mortgaged premises.


Vincent Dupuis: Paragraph (f) reads as follows:
(f) except as provided by paragraph (g) of this subsection, any loss sustained in respect of any loan shall be borne by his majesty and the lending institution or local authority. . . .
If we go back to section 2, part I, the explanatory note (f) reads:
"Local authority" means any province, municipality . . .


Charles Avery Dunning: Having authority to
undertake a housing scheme.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes. I do not see anything in the act which prohibits such action, but would the bill forbid the municipality or any local authority or lending company to sell such houses at any time after they are built, provided that certain conditions proposed by the minister have been complied with? I am interested to know that, having regard to the experience I had in municipal affairs some years ago. The committee will recall that we had federal legislation under which similar associations or companies built houses in municipalities and small towns and even in cities, and it was found to be a complete failure, a complete loss to the municipality. I have in mind municipalities which lost large amounts of money, over a million dollars. I do not want to compare municipalities with governments, but sometimes we find from experience that they are worse than the government as to their capacity to administer something that private individuals could administer. With a municipality administering houses in that way, the residents of the municipality generally believe that they are not bound to pay the rent, not bound to make repairs or pay for them. Sometimes they go further than that; they do not take care of the property at all, and the municipality generally speaking is in a very bad situation. So that unless there is some measure which forces the municipality to impose its city regulations upon the tenants, I do not believe it is a good thing. That is my personal view. That is why I am in some cases in favour of selling these properties to individuals. I believe it is a good policy to give facilities to municipalities to build these low cost houses, but at the same time I believe it would be good policy to facilitate the selling of these houses to reliable persons in the municipality.
National Housing Act


Charles Avery Dunning: In this part of the act the municipality comes into the situation only if it decides to assume itself the position of a lending institution. That is, the local authority becomes the lender, and as the lender it enters into an agreement with the minister in the same manner as any private lending institution would do. Then of course the local authority becomes just the same as any other lender having to put in a great deal of its own money. No local authority has yet availed itself of that privilege, and I gave some consideration in the redrafting of the bill to the question whether it would be desirable to leave in connection with part I the right to a municipality to become itself the lending institution. I thought, having regard to all the possibilities which might arise, that it was desirable to leave it in such a position. It has never occurred yet, but I can conceive of its occurring in places where the municipality exists for one industry, and the industry might desire that the municipality should become for that municipality only a lender under the terms of part I. We do not bar that, but of course if a municipality does become a lender under the terms of part I, it must comply with all the provisions which the minister must exact from private lending institutions.


Vincent Dupuis: I am sorry, in this discussion I was quite ahead of the clauses. What I said should apply to part III.


[Stage Direction]
Paragraph agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (g).
Richard Bedford Bennett: I find it a little difficult to understand that we would incur a liability " not exceeding $600 per habitable room " in the case of a multiple family dwelling. Under the statute " multiple family dwelling " is to be defined by order in council. That leaves a very uncertain situation to be dealt with. We can pay losses not exceeding $4,000 in the case of a single family dwelling and $600 a room for multiple family dwellings; and what is a family dwelling and a multiple family dwelling is to be settled by the governor in council under regulations, if I remember aright, provided for in section 8.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, defined for the purpose of this part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like a little explanation as to how these figures are arrived at. We are providing for losses; it is not a question of values. That would mean that the property they were contemplating building would be worth somewhere between

$6,000 and $7,500, because it would be very bad business to contemplate a loss of as much as $4,000 in the other type of case. That is the only clause about which I have any difficulty. I quite understand the crown undertaking to assist, but we are going to assist up to a $4,000 loss.


Charles Avery Dunning: No-loan, not loss.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Loss in respect of loan.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not loss; it is loans up to $4,000. That is where I could not follow my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I first thought, but look at it:
-the minister shall pay losses sustained by the said lending institution ... in respect of loans, not exceeding four thousand dollars. . . .


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a question of the meaning. The meaning we intend to apply is that $4,000 is the limit of the loan. It is a question of draftsmanship.


Mr. McCANN:: Take out the comma after " loans."


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not pretend to be a master draftsman. The legal authorities went into this very carefully. Leaving out the intervening part between " losses " in the first line on page 4 down to the word " minister " in line 7, it would read:
The minister shall pay losses ... up to certain amounts specified in a schedule of amounts fixed by the minister, graduated downwards in accordance with the size of the loan and graduated upwards in accordance with the percentage which the loan bears to the lending value.
It is a complicated thing to try to set out, I admit.


Mr. MASSEY:: If the minister will accept a suggestion, why not say in line 3, "such loans not exceeding four thousand dollars."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be in
accordance with the general meaning of the section.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the loans that are not to exceed four thousand dollars.


Denton Massey: Yes, "such loans not exceeding four thousand dollars."


Charles Avery Dunning: Or we could take the comma out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or put the word "such" in.


Mr. STIRLING:: If you take the comma out, you do not need "such."

National Homing Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: The senate added "such" in half a dozen cases the other day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Let us say, "losses on loans which do not exceed four thousand dollars."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite, there is no doubt about that.


Mr DUNNING:: Then, Mr. Chairman, we will put in the words after the word "loans," in line 3 of page 4 of the bill, "which do," and delete "ing" from "exceeding," so that it will read, "loans which do not exceed."


Grote Stirling: And again in the next line.


Charles Avery Dunning: And delete the words "not exceeding" in line 4.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not "and" be "or," so that it would read "which do not exceed four thousand dollars in the case of a single family dwelling or six hundred dollars per habitable room in the case of a multiple family dwelling."


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I would ask the chairman to substitute "or" for "and" in line 4. Now, Mr. Chairman, if you would be good enough to read what you have.


Frederick George Sanderson: It will read:
The minister shall pay losses sustained by the said lending institution or local authority in respect of loans which do not exceed four thousand dollars in the case of a single family dwelling or six hundred dollars per habitable room in the case of a multiple family dwelling.


Mr DUNNING:: Right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. HEAPS:: In connection with the granting of these loans by private lending institutions I have one particular case that I think it desirable to bring before the committee. The following letter is from Montreal, dated June 13, 1938:
Two years ago I secured a loan under the Dominion Housing Act through the Sun Life Assurance Company, and built a house. My loan was granted in June and I went ahead and gave a contract and proceeded with the work. But when the document called the "deed of loan" was handed to me for my signature in August, I discovered in clause 26 that if I should not be able to pay or if I defaulted one monthly instalment, thirty days after it was due the lender (the Sun Life) becomes, ipso facto, the absolute owner of the property. This I consider very unfair. If I should meet with an accident or be sick, or for any other reason fail to make one monthly payment then I lose all the money I have put into the property, which in this case amounts to $4,300, the loan being $5,700. I took this matter up with the Deputy Minister of Finance at the time. He agreed that it was unfair but did not see what he could do about it.
In a case of this kind, where a man in fairly good circumstances has an equity of almost fifty per cent in the building, and through some misfortune is unable to make his payments for two or three months, if the owner of another part of the equity then forecloses it is most unfair that the borrower should not have ample opportunity of redeeming his property. I was wondering if, through regulation by the federal authorities, the owner of such a large equity in the property could be given reasonable opportunity of retaining at least his own equity in it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That raises a most difficult question. We do not dot every "i" and cross every "t" in the contract as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor. The terms are, of course, made subject to the existing provincial laws in relation to mortgages. I have not in mind the clause to which my hon. friend refers, but I can assure him that although such a clause might be in the contract, no mortgagee such as one of our great life insurance companies desires to foreclose on property. They may have the power to do so under such a particular clause, but their method of doing business is certainly not to do so. I shall be very glad, however, to look into the case if my hon. friend will supply me with particulars. It is a delicate matter for the federal authority to attempt to prescribe mortgage conditions. Because of our interest contractually we shall have certain rights under this statute with respect to approval of the mortgage terms, but we cannot go very far, in exercising that right, from what the laws of the province provide with respect to it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I can understand that in certain , circumstances the mortgage companies might exercise very strict control. Where a person has a small equity in a property there may be some reason from the company's standpoint for strict supervision. But where a man has normally a fifty per cent equity-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is why I should
like to look into it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should be quite content
to give the minister the details of the case so that he may look into it, in the hope that, when the regulations are made effective, in such a case the man who has the equity in the property will be given what I consider a reasonable protection.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend can, of
course, see the difficulty. In drafting a contract to operate under this new law, in which the owner can put in as low as a ten per cent equity-that is how small his equity

National Housing Act

can be-obviously the rights of the mortgagee must be pretty strong with respect to default in the monthly payments, because the equity is so very small in relation to the amount advanced jointly by the lending institution and the government. But where there is a fifty per cent equity, I can see that the same provisions might not be necessary. I shall be glad to have it looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. member will look into it, I think he will see that this provision is not applicable in any province other than Quebec. The old principle, "once a mortgage always a mortgage" is the foundation of our whole system of jurisprudence with respect to the foreclosure of the equity of redemption. But that does not apply to the province of Quebec. In our western country we used to provide that the mortgagor should, in the event of default, attorn to the mortgagee and become a tenant at a rental equivalent to the payment which was to be made. That still obtains, I think, in some provinces, although I believe some had it taken out. The one rule that the supreme court in two or three cases, notably that of Williams v. Box, which came from Manitoba, laid down, was "once a mortgage always a mortgage," and no contractual agreement or terms of any understanding between the parties could foreclose that equity of redemption on the question of its being subject to redemption on the part of the mortgagor at any time while the mortgagee held title to it. But in the province of Quebec the situation is entirely different. I believe the hon. member will find on investigation that, while that reads as a very drastic provision, in practice it will be impossible for the company to secure title to the property without taking appropriate proceedings to that end, and the mere declaration in the contract that failure to make or default in making the payments called for has the effect of vesting the property in the mortgagee is not to be taken as severely as it reads.


Mr. GRAY:: It must be bound by provincial law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, I think, is why that provision appears in the contract to which reference has been made.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (h).


Richard Bedford Bennett: This provision is subject to great abuse, I would point out to the minister, and probably will be abused. The small amount of twenty dollars is to be provided for the purpose of assisting the lending
rMr Dunning.]
institutions, in addition to travelling expenses, I doubt whether it is wise to make a statement of that sort in a public statute,. It is a very great encouragement of something which is not the purpose of the statute itself, especially that part of it which says:
. . . shall not exceed twenty dollars for any one loan together with an allowance fixed by the minister for necessary travelling expenses based upon the distance from the nearest place from which the loan can be arranged and supervised by said lending institution.
That is one of the things which has caused more trouble in this country than anything else in connection with loans, the question of that-


Charles Avery Dunning: -expense.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. That is a short word to cover it. I think the minister knows exactly what I refer to.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been a serious
drain upon private borrowers and private lenders, especially with respect to certain types of companies. To the borrower's amazement, when the loan is settled he finds that the costs of making the inspection and of travelling are out of all proportion to what he expected they would be. The allowance was too much. I doubt the wisdom of including this provision in the statute. The minister has concluded it is desirable to do so, but I -think it would be better to say, even though it does permit of possible difficulties, that the minister may assess and name a sum in excess of twenty dollars which would include everything, not exceeding fifty dollars in any one case, or something of that sort. It is very desirable that the country should in these remote communities be able to make some contribution, but the number of miles an automobile can cover on such an inspection tour and the quantity of gasoline that may be consumed are almost beyond one's imagination. I suggest to the minister the desirability of considering it from that angle.
iMr. DUNNING: I must admit that this question of expenses has given me a great deal of concern, because I am certain that if we are to make the benefits of this measure available to communities remote from what may be called lending centres we must provide some way to assist in the expense of making the loan. During the last little while, by regulation under the old act, a contribution of ten dollars per loan has been offered with respect to certain remote districts, and the lending institutions have told me just

National Housing Act
what the leader of the opposition has been now saying with respect to that sort of thing. I wanted to advise parliament through this section that it was our intention to endeavour to work out contracts with lenders covering a whole community, let us say, the Gaspe peninsula, a place like Mont Laurier, Prince Rupert, Chapleau, and a number of others of which my deputy reminds me, and which are subjects of correspondence, where we cannot possibly get lenders to undertake the expense involved in carrying out the normal operations of inspection of the security which is offered while the house is being built. Of course the intention would be not to allow a mileage on one house in Mont Laurier or one house in Gaspe, but rather to work out an arrangement under which a lending institution undertaking to make so many loans in a remote area would be given a mileage allowance for automobile travel during the inspection of these loans. I admit at once that there will be quite a large executive responsibility in endeavouring to keep this property under control, but I honestly see no other way of making the facilities of the measure available to many communities in which it is needed and in which it would do very considerable good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister has read what took place in another place in connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act-the debate in the senate?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I read it, and I have heard it too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister then,
realizes why I am making the observation I do in respect to this section.


Harry James Barber: I noticed that the official at present in British Columbia, while in Vancouver, met representatives of a community located some forty miles from that city, and gave them to understand that it would be necessary to have six contracts before they could undertake the work in that particular section. The committee returned with that understanding, that a particular lending institution required six contracts before they would undertake anything in that district.


Charles Avery Dunning: That would be a typical case of a lending institution applying conditions to a district. With reference to the visit of Mr. Nicolls to British Columbia, he has been there for some time and since he went out these new conditions which we are considering have been evolved. He is not fully familiar with the form which they have now taken, and they might conceivably now 51952-252i
affect the lending institution to which my hon. friend refers so far as that point is concerned. I do not regard it as unreasonable, however, for a lending institution to insist on a reasonable number of loans.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And one loan would not carry the load.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a matter of economy of operation, and I believe that this provision will enable us to do some constructive work along that line.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Is it proposed to pay the twenty dollars only on condition that the loan is made?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. It is a loan.
Paragraph (h) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Loans by lending institutions.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Only the words underlined are new.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is a very important section of the bill and one which I hope will be made use of to a very large extent. I know that there are very many people who are anxious to take advantage of this provision to build small homes valued at between $2,500 and $3,000. At the present time there is a shortage throughout the country of that type of home for small families. One thing I was afraid of a year or two ago when we passed the housing act. During the course of the discussion then I spoke of the fear I had that the men engaged in selling the commodities necessary for the building of houses would increase their prices when there was a demand for their materials, and I believe it was so. After the passing of the act, when construction became a little brisker than usual, the cost of material went up in many instances, and I am afraid that unless there is some kind of check kept by those responsible for the administration of the present bill when it goes into effect we may again have an increase in the prices of the various commodities that go into the construction of houses. In that event the equity which a person may have of ten or fifteen per cent would be wiped out automatically by the increased cost of materials.
I wonder if the minister has in mind any means of preventing such an increase in the cost of commodities. We want to encourage people to put up decent homes at the prices contemplated in this particular section of the bill. I know the task is a very difficult one and it means that the minister may have to regulate, to some extent perhaps unofficially, the cost of building material. But in the
National Housing Act

announcement he made in the budget he has already given a considerable concession to the building industry in wiping out the sales tax amounting to eight per cent. I am wondering whether he has in mind now, in view of the statement he made when introducing the bill, that it was a challenge to the building industry, some means whereby the cost of building material will be kept from rising.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend knows how difficult that question is. Section 3 of this bill gives the minister power to make an investigation with respect to factors entering into the cost of construction and as to the feasibility of securing economies and increased efficiency. That provision is there to enable the minister to have machinery whereby he can investigate causes which might operate in increasing costs of material. My hon. friend must recognize of course, as we all do, that there are legitimate reasons for some increases in the prices of commodities, and there are, of course, price increases which we might regard as illegitimate. The minister is given authority under that section to find what the facts are in connection with such a situation, and then, of course, he will have available the machinery of law as it now exists, dependent upon what the cause was found to be. That is as far as I can go in answer to my hon. friend. I have spoken very plainly, both publicly in this house and privately to the construction industry, pointing out that there is one way for this whole program to be killed or to be deprived of its effectiveness, and that is for those engaged in it, no matter who they may be, capital or labour, to regard it as an opportunity for increasing the prices of the commodities they have to sell, irrespective of what those commodities may be. I believe that, and I can only assure my hon. friend that, regarding it as seriously as I do, everything that can be done to prevent anything of the sort he suggests will be done. I do not think I can be more specific than I have been in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
On section 7-Limit of time.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This section really permits the governor in council to repeal the act. It is a rather serious matter from that angle.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not to repeal the act, if my right hon. friend will read it carefully.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the effect of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
fMr. Heaps.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the governor in council may fix and determine a date on and after which no loans under this part may be made.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; I see the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely that operates as a repeal of the act for that purpose. I think I can understand why the minister desires to have that power, but on the other hand I think he will agree that if ever the conditions become so serious as to warrant any such action being taken, the action will not be taken. That is, there will be no applications for loans. The officials would say that that is the very time that they would apply; I would say it is the very time they would not. But it is an extraordinary power.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It appears in all these statutes in one form or another. The effect is to declare that we are going to grant $20,000,000, less what has already been loaned- because that is what section 6 means. It provides for advances and the payment of losses, and so on, of $20,000,000, less the advances made under the authority of the Dominion Housing Act, 1935. Under that act, about how many millions have been advanced?


Charles Avery Dunning: Our advances amounted to $4,500,000 and total loans to $17,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as we are concerned, four and a half millions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the amount still available would be some fifteen and a half millions?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or, if the same ratio were maintained, it would contemplate possible loans amounting to some $70,000,000. Four times seventeen would be sixty-eight and four times four and a half would be eighteen millions, so that roughly speaking, it contemplates seventy or seventy-five millions. This power to bring about the repeal of the statute with respect to loans has also a further difficulty, in that as the section now reads once it is done there is no power vested in the governor in council to renew it. That is the end of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The intention is to wait for parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I thought so. I think that is an extraordinary power, but I can understand why it is being sought.

National Homing Act


Charles Avery Dunning: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) and speaking to the observations of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I would call attention to the power involved in the section. It is an extraordinary power. I shall not discuss the reasons I know the leader of the opposition has in his mind which might make necessary the termination of the act. But it is important for the government to be able to say, in the event of inflated prices, "Gentlemen, we have power to stop making loans under this act, or to stop making loans of more than a certain amount per house." That is contained in section 7, and is one of the reasons why the government believes the house might be well advised to grant this power to the governor in council.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think it is a very necessary power to have. I believe that at the present time there is price regulation on many of the commodities which go into house building. I think the prices of lumber and plumbing fixtures are regulated, and the prices of some of the other commodities which go into house building are pretty well monopolistic in character. The power the minister is assuming under the bill is a very desirable one, and may even act as a deterrent on many corporations which otherwise might increase the price of commodities if an opportunity presented itself.


Denton Massey: Is there any limitation in the number of homes one person may build under this part of the bill? A person may wish to build a house for himself and houses for several of his children.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no limitation.


Denton Massey: In other words the loan is relative to each house, and not to the individual?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could a speculator obtain loans for several houses?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, under this part he could, if he could arrange with the lending institution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Any person who wishes to take a chance on building a home for resale may do so under this section of the bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Denton Massey: If he wishes to rent the house?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Denton Massey: That comes under part II of the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He does not come within the definitions contained in section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8, subsection 1-Regulations.
Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with subsection 2 I have considered the suggestions by my right hon. friend with respect to publication in the Canada Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister sees the
reason for the suggestion? The section has the effect of law, therefore I think we should publish the whole in order that it may be available to those who desire to know about it. I am glad the minister has taken that action in respect to it.


Denton Massey: In regard to houses that
are to be built in accordance with the plans in the possession of the department and available to the would-be home owner, will the estimated cost of the house be taken from the plan, or from the location of the house? A house may be valued at $2,500 in Toronto but may not have the same value at some other point. The value might be lower.


Charles Avery Dunning: The location will be the factor.


Denton Massey: Not the plan itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: The calculation of the
cost must be made by applying to the specifications the costs prevalent in the district in which the house is being built.


Denton Massey: In other words, contractors will tender for the house.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 8, subsection 2.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What did the minister
do with the amendment to subsection 2?


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is not sufficient. I thought the minister was moving an amendment.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Subsection 2 reads:
(2) All orders and regulations made hereunder shall have the same force and effect as if they had been included in this part and all such orders and regulations as are of general application, or abstracts thereof, shall be published in the Canada Gazette.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.

National Housing Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: There asre two limitations there. I think everything should be published.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would make a tremendous volume.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not matter.
If it were in this statute it would have to be made public, and as it has the force of a statute it therefore should be available in its entirety. The minister sees the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, I do; but if my
right hon. friend will permit me to develop the difficulty, I should like to do so. I have used the word "abstracts." In the first instance the governor in council may by order or regulation determine the manner in which the cost of construction of a house shall be estimated, and by whom and in what manner the appraisal of the value of a house shall be made. That will be for the minister, and will in effect be a specification. And then we have paragraph 2 which states that the governor in council may prescribe sound standards of construction. Gazetting would be tremendously expensive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Remember, this is law,
as though passed by this parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and it was so under the old act. There was no suggestion under the old act that specifications and standards should be published in the Gazette. That would be going entirely too far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not a provision in the old act.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, general regulatory powers were given; and under those general regulatory powers all these things had to be done. Here we are setting them out in detail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And you are going much farther. You say:
All orders and regulations made hereunder shall have the same force and effect as if they had been included in this part-
That is, as though passed as a statute by this parliament.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the old act it is stated:
The governor in council may make regulations for the purpose of determining what shall be included in the cost of construction and by whom and in what manner the appraisal of the value of a house shall be made, to require any department of the government of Canada to furnish to the minister advice and assistance upon his request, and otherwise for the efficient enforcement and operation of this act and for carrying out the provisions thereof according to their true intent and meaning.

Of course my right hon. friend would not contend that the regulations made under that general power did not have the effect and force of law. Of course they did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They stood in an entirely different position as a matter of law; but that is a technical matter which need not be discussed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am anxious to meet my right hon. friend, but on the other hand I am anxious to avoid the necessity of publishing whole, books in the Gazette especially to meet the interests of only a few individuals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of only a few individuals? I hope the minister realizes what we are doing is dealing with the exercise of executive power by a government, which is equivalent to the exercise of legislative power by parliament. That is a thing to keep in mind.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not recognize that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are substituting for the parliament of Canada the executive of government.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think that is so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And therefore everything done by that executive is legislative, not administrative-and this is legislative and not administrative; and therefore every person in this country has a right to know what the laws of the country are. I want to make clear to the minister that this is not an effort to clog the Gazette.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understand that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an effort to make clear the distinction in the mind of every hon. member, and in the minds of people outside the house, between legislative power and administrative power. When this parliament clothes the executive with administrative power it is not a matter of importance to publish all the details, because they become known as acts of the government. When they exercise legislative powers, then that legislative act should by some means be known to the people,


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have endeavoured to make it clear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my right hon. friend let me say a word so as to put the matter simply before the committee. He regards the act set out in section 8 as being legislative in character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them.


Charles Avery Dunning: I regard them as administrative in character. Take the first one-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say they were all legislative.


Charles Avery Dunning: Take paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection 1, which have to do with the manner of construction and the prescribing of sound standards. Is there any good purpose to be served by publishing these in the Gazette? Are these specifications legislation, or are they an administrative effect of legislation? I take it that undoubtedly these would be considered administrative. With respect to paragraph (iii), which has to do with prescribing the information to be given by an applicant for a loan under this part, surely that is clearly administrative. We would not think of setting out in an act of parliament the information which should be given by an applicant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unfortunately we always used to do that very thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: The next paragraph says:
(iv)	determine the manner in which losses incurred in connection with loans made under this part shall be established.
That is an administrative matter. We have determined the principles which are to govern; we have surrounded the governor in council with controls in that regard, and within that limit we say there must be regulation. That, I take it, is an administrative act. When we come to the next paragraph I admit that it may be legislative:
(v)	define, for the purposes of this part, the expressions "habitable room," "multiple family dwelling," and "single family dwelling."
I admit at once that here we come into the legislative field, and the only reason I am asking for power to define what these terms mean is because I find it quite impossible to come into this house to-day and define them
with sufficient particularity to suit the conditions in all parts of Canada. The matter will have to be very carefully worked out. The sole difference between my right hon. friend and myself is not, as he puts it, that legislative powers extended to the governor in council should be made public in the Gazette.
I agree entirely with that. The point of disagreement is that I do not regard any of the powers here extended, save the one I mentioned, as legislative powers at all, but look upon them purely as powers of administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Clearly there is an acute difference between the hon. gentleman and myself with respect to what is legislative and what is administrative. When we talk about the losses of this country in connection with this measure, surely that is not administrative. There is a principle laid down, which of course is legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: And it is in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of it is in the bill, but the clause provides:
(iv) determine the manner in which losses incurred in connection with loans made under this part shall be established;
I am not going to do more than to say this, and then I shall have concluded all I have to say, and shall be satisfied. This, with other legislation dealing with this subject matter, goes further than most legislation has gone in this country in conferring upon the governor in council-and you will note that I am saying nothing about the Prime Minister's fear of the governor in council in other days- power, authority and jurisdiction to an extent that is not usual. I have suggested that whenever the exercise of that power is legislative in character, it should be published in order that "he that runs may read," so that "wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." That is the position. If the minister, with his knowledge of legislation, thinks subsection 2 is ample for that purpose, I have done my part in directing attention to the point. I feel that subsection 2 is not ample, in some respects, and I feel it my duty to direct attention to the fact that it is a negation of the theory propounded by the present government as to the powers to be exercised by the governor in council. I am glad that the minister at least has kept before him the distinction between what he conceives to be the exercise of legislative power and the exercise of administrative power. The book to which reference has been made so often, by the lord chief justice of England, was directed against the exercise of legislative power by the executive. It was not directed against the administrative power; for everyone knows that you cannot have laws

National Housing Act
if you undertake to set out in a statute all the details of administration. You must clothe with power the officials charged with responsibility, and the governor in council must name the persons to discharge that responsibility. But when you get into the legislative field you are dealing with another matter altogether, because this parliament is asked to confer upon a committee of parliament, namely the cabinet, power to legislate, which of course is the negation of Magna Charta itself, as one of my hon, friends from Toronto would say. It is the negation of it; but at the same time, if the minister thinks this is ample for his purpose, I have served mine by making the distinction abundantly clear.
When an executive exercises legislative power pursuant to authority given by parliament, this has been regarded as the beginning of autocracy, and it was the anathemas thundered against the late government by the present Prime Minister with respect to matters less important from a legislative standpoint that brought about so much discussion in this chamber. The Smiling face of the Minister of National Defence is always there to remind me of the fact that at all times, in dealing with these matters, he would be ready to join in that well known psalm "I the sinner am," or probably, with respect to a matter of this kind, "I the chief sinner am."


Mr. STEVENS:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to one feature which I think should be considered. I found that a great many people who desired to take advantage of the act as it existed previously found great difficulty in ascertaining what they had to do, the nature of the thing and so on. In fact, many told me that they had endeavoured to find out from institutions such as insurance companies and so forth, which were more or less agents for the handling or administration of the act, and that those institutions were so vague in their knowledge of the matter that these people had just given up hope of getting any accurate information. This clause has to do with the terms, conditions and so on that will govern, and what the applicants must do or must know in order to determine whether they desire a loan or can comply with the terms.
I think there is a danger, and I should like to point out one or two clauses and then indicate where that danger may be. Paragraph (ii) of subsection 1 provides for the prescribing of sound standards of construction. In the United States they have a bureau of standards, which publishes certain standards regarding cement, electrical equipment and the 
various branches of construction. These standards are established, fixed and definite, and are accepted and conformed to by the building industry. We have no such standards here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are, generally, part of the specifications.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; but we have no such standards established here, although the national research council did have the matter in hand, I know, and did hope to establish such standards. I know there are certain standards set up within the industry itself, and the national research council had some part in that, but here we must have uniform standards for all, because you may prescribe standards in one part of the country and, if the governor in council chose to change that order in council a month later, you might have another standard. That is where the fine distinction comes in between legislation and administration. I think we should surround this legislation with the utmost safeguard, so there will be the least possible tendency to change it, and so that it may be made as perfect as possible before it is promulgated.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend let me deal with that point before he goes on to the next one? He has put his finger upon one great difficulty I found in attempting to administer the old housing act, particularly with respect to providing standard specifications. They were too difficult. First, there could not be a standard specification for the whole of Canada; that became obvious very early in the work we were doing. Second, there was that absence of real standards to which the hon. member refers. Towards the end of last year I directed the attention of the national research council to this problem, and as a result the national research council,
I think, in January, summoned a meeting of all the elements which might be conceivably be concerned with it. I was present at the meeting, and the ground work was there laid for studies which would lead to accepted standards along basic lines such as those which my hon. friend has suggested. Of course it will not be a quick matter, and the grave problem of diverse climatic and other conditions in various parts of Canada does not make it easier; but I agree that we must attain something of the results which have been attained-although they are not by any means universally acclaimed in the United States-by the bureau of standards of that country in relation to the building industry there. For the present, however, we had to evolve specifications under the Dominion Housing Act; we had to do the best we

National Housing Act
could with the material at hand; we had to make the best decisions we could, in consultation with the construction industry, architects and others, for the various parts of Canada. And that has been done in our standard specifications as they now exist. I may tell my hon. friend what I believe he will be rather pleased to hear, namely, that in the correspondence I receive the attacks made on the specifications are always that they are too stiff; that a little lighter construction here and cheaper there would do as well. It is the usual contest between the technical men and the practical men as to what can be done. I try to avoid getting on either side, but to find the best from both, and we are making progress in that regard as a result of contacts which the housing division maintains with the construction industry.
With respect to people knowing about the law, it early became apparent from our experience with the act that generally speaking, people in those areas in which lending institutions were not prepared to lend, would not know much about it. It was for that reason that we evolved in pamphlet form publicity material descriptive of the whole scheme, of which pamphlets many thousands of copies have been distributed; they are going out all the time in response to requests which my hon. friend will appreciate come constantly to the department. But that has not overcome the difficulty of lending in the more remote districts. That we hope to overcome by other provisions.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Once the department arrives at a conclusion in regard to these various matters, it strikes me it would be wise- although I do not think the minister will agree with this-to publish it in the Gazette.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like to publish it in something which is more widely read.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But this occurs to me: Most lawyers, for instance, and institutions like insurance brokers' offices in the towns and cities, get the Gazette. Usually in a smaller town there is one person who carries on a general financial brokerage business. Once these matters were published in the Gazette and were in the hands of that type of citizen, particularly in the smaller communities, and also in the cities, the person desiring to borrow usually goes to such an agency for information, and it strikes me that if these were so published, there would be available what might be called an authoritative document which would convey the necessary information.
Then as to paragraph (iv), "to determine the manner in which losses incurred in connection with loans made under this part shall be established;" with all due deference to the minister's observations of a few moments ago, it seems to me that should be very definitely set forth in the most authentic way, and published in some official organ such as the Gazette.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, that would be, of
course, under subsection 2 of section 8.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am reading paragraph
(iv).


Charles Avery Dunning: What is described in
paragraph (iv) would be published in the Gazette; that is the intention. It would be of general application and therefore would be published.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understood the minister to say that down to paragraph (iv) inclusive would not be published.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. As a matter of fact, I would endeavour to publish abstracts under paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) for the purpose just indicated by my hon. friend. But to publish in the Gazette the set of specifications applicable to British Columbia, or the prairies, and another set applicable to another part, seems to me wasteful. We might in the Gazette give notice that such specifications had been approved, and where they could be secured. But the regulations covering the establishment of losses would, of course, under subsection 2 have to be published in the Gazette and made available to everyone.


Grote Stirling: The minister referred
just now to publications which had been prepared and had already gone out with regard to the previous act. Those, I take it, will all go by the board now?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, much of them will still be useful.


Grote Stirling: But they will have to
be modified.


Charles Avery Dunning: Revised.


Grote Stirling: Have such revised publications already been prepared and, if so, will they be made available promptly so that they may be in the hands of members of the house and others who desire to make use of the provisions of the new measure?


Charles Avery Dunning: Instructions have already been given to proceed with the preparation, subject only to this, that they must not be finally settled until this measure passes parliament.
National Housing Act


Grote Stirling: But they could be very rapidly finished.


Charles Avery Dunning: The basic work is going on now. We shall have to wait until we see what our brethren in another place do before we finally decide. But as quickly as possible descriptive matter is being prepared.


Grote Stirling: Certainly the sending
out would have to await the royal assent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Even the printing.


Grote Stirling: Will the minister see
that hon. members of the house are furnished with copies of all of them?


Charles Avery Dunning: We can do that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That seems to me to
be an admirable idea. They have to be printed anyway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Literature is always sent in any case, but I shall make a special note to see that hon. members get this material.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Strict adherence to these regulations has been a difficulty in the past. If they are to be rigidly adhered to and made uniform throughout Canada, this is going to limit lending in various parte of the dominion. Eor instance, certain municipalities have a building department, building by-laws and fixed specifications. Where these specifications do not agree with those of the department, there is conflict.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the trouble.


Donald Alexander McNiven: For example, in Regina they require for a house a nine inch cement wall. The department's specifications require a ten inch cement wall. It is argued that the extra inch does not cost any more. They have not succeeded in proving it to me, but the department does take that point of view. Contractors and home builders say it increases the cost of construction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course it does.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Another point, which I admit is debatable, is that the department's regulations absolutely prohibit the use of second-hand material. I can understand this in relation to lumber, but there are many houses for which second-hand material, such as siding, in good condition could be used at a substantial saving of cost, and secondhand bricks can be used for the cellar walls or the inside of a chimney, but this is absolutely prohibited by the regulations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After the United States act came in, they tried to rush second-hand

plumbing material into this country, because they had so much of it they did not know what to do with it.


Mr McNIVEN:: In eastern Canada, with its snowfall, the eastern regulations direct that the ceiling joists be 2-inch by 6-inch or 2-inch by 8-inch lumber, and those directions have been adopted by the department. In the west, where our snowfall is not as heavy or as wet as it is in other parts of Canada, good building regulations permit the joists to be constructed of 2-inch by 4-inch lumber. Again, it is suggested that these regulations do not increase the cost, but actually they do increase it.
There is another difficulty. I do not know whether we have experienced it in western Canada or not, but I am informed that in Ontario the hydro-electric commission designates the type of wiring and the type of electrical fixtures that may be put in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before they will supply the current.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Yes, and that is done in Saskatchewan by the power commission. I have had considerable correspondence from wholesale firms in Toronto stating that materials approved by the American Fire Underwriters Association will not be approved by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission for use in construction in this province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have had trouble over radios on that account.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I am not familiar with that, but I am told that plugs and switches, approved by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission are available at a cost of twenty cents each, while similar articles, approved by the American Fire Underwriters Association can be purchased in quantities in the United States, brought in here duty paid, and sold for seven cents each, but the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission will not approve this imported equipment.


Charles Avery Dunning: We cannot do anything
about that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, yes.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I give these as illustrations of how the rigidity of the regulations may restrict the application of the act and in some degree defeat the intention the minister has in putting this legislation through. I hope that a strictly uniform specification will not be laid down applicable to the whole of Canada, but that variations will be permitted in accordance with good building practice in different parts of this country.

National Homing Act


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend could have had the privilege of sitting in, as I had, with all the different interests, municipal and otherwise, in the national research council office, I am sure he would agree that it is one of the most difficult tasks possible to secure the kind of agreement which would bring together the different interests even in those areas where conditions are reasonably identical. The disputations waged hot and violent as to what was proper even in the same area; they are still going on, and I am not criticizing those who are taking part in them, but I do doubt the possibility of us getting anywhere in this committee in attempting to define the specifications.
I should like to correct the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) in one particular, when he said that no second-hand material may be used. I have our specifications in my hand, and they provide that the face brick shall be new bricks, in good shape and condition, but that the backing bricks may be second-hand stock if they are hard burned and complete. My hon. friend did not suggest second-hand brick for the front, did he?


Donald Alexander McNiven: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: So he was in error in saying that no second-hand material was permitted. I doubt if I can discuss with any degree of assistance to the committee what should and should not be permitted in the way of second-hand materials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Second-hand plumbing
should not be permitted. After the housing act came into force, the Americans tried to flood our market with second-hand plumbing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Electrical equipment is also a red hot and very difficult subject.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Hydro is supreme in Ontario.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But that is not the only difficulty. We tried some years ago to establish through the research council a standard for Canada; we came into conflict with hydro, and a compromise was arrived at. But the point in the matter referred to by the hon. member for Regina is that the underwriters association in fixing rates for fire insurance had adopted, and I think they still do to a large extent, the United States standards fixed in Chicago by the underwriters bureau of standards, or whatever they call it. The result is that some equipment of British or Canadian manufacture is not approved by the Chicago laboratories. That applies to switches and many other articles. There has been a conflict of opinion and of interest.
I think it would be very difficult in the specifications under this bill to deal with a subject of that kind, but unquestionably it is desirable that there should be established an official standard for Canada by federal authority under the national research council. My opinion is that the dispute is quite capable of being ironed out between Ontario and the national research council. As a matter of fact, I know that four years ago there was an understanding and a compromise arrived at.


Charles Avery Dunning: Which satisfied neither party.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is quite true, but I still believe the matter could be ironed out. The main difficulty was with the fire underwriters association and their demanding a certificate under the Chicago laboratory standards.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have that in mind.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Coming into force of part I.
Denton Massey: When does the minister think there is a possibility of this measure coming into force?


Charles Avery Dunning: I left it in this way instead of having it come into force on assent, because it was desirable to get into touch with the lending institutions at present under contract under the old housing act, and to work out the new types of contract which this part I will involve. We expect to commence that work on Monday. We got a little ahead of the game in assuming that parliament would enact this legislation, but we wanted to be well ahead with preparations, and we thought it advisable to leave the coming into force subject to proclamation. In the meantime the existing contracts continue and loans are being made under the old act.


Denton Massey: Has the consent of the provincial legislatures to be obtained in order that part I may become effective?


Charles Avery Dunning: No consent of the province is required for anything in part I.


Denton Massey: In other words, as soon as this measure is proclaimed as being in force, it is automatically in force without any reference to provincial legislatures whatsoever.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
National Housing Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 12-Cost of construction of houses built under a low-rental housing project.
Paragraphs (a) to (f) inclusive agreed to.
On section 12, paragraph (g)-"Local housing authority."
Denton Massey: Perhaps we went a little rapidly for a moment. Paragraph (e) reads:
"house" includes any single house or dwelling, duplex or apartment house, providing housing accommodation built in accordance with a low-rental housing project.
Does that include garages in connection with a large block of flats or something of that sort?


Charles Avery Dunning: As will be seen later, it may include incidental commercial space in connection with an apartment development, and that would, of course, include a garage.


Denton Massey: Many of these apartment developments, as the minister quite properly calls them, have rather large service buildings, such as a heating unit, which is placed in the centre of a large block, perhaps in a U-shape or L-shape, and a garage for the use of the tenants, and in some instances the cost of these outbuildings may be twenty per cent of the cost of the whole building. That could be included as a "house."


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course one must remember that this part of the bill is for low-rental housing for people who cannot afford to pay an economic rent for a house.


Denton Massey: True.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reason for making provision for incidental commercial space is in order to enable the project to attain that objective. I rather doubt whether we should approve garages for people who cannot afford to pay an economic rent. When the state is subsidizing the rent that people are paying, I doubt very much if we should make provision for a garage also. My hon. friend might consider that point.


Denton Massey: I was thinking more particularly of buildings in connection with an apartment house, where flats are let at a low rent, it may be to a single individual who wishes to live very modestly, and who owns a car. He is prepared to move into that apartment house and rent a flat. I am thinking of similar projects elsewhere.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think one need worry about garages in connection with the kind of people we desire to have come into this scheme.


Denton Massey: The minister and I are thinking of two different things. My mind goes to projects I have seen in other countries, where there are small flats which contain, perhaps, two rooms let at a very low rental, but which are exceedingly comfortable and are used by people of fair means.


Charles Avery Dunning: But they are not state-subsidized in the manner we are contemplating here.


Denton Massey: Some are. Some Swedish ones are. The "H.S,B.," which has built more houses than any other company in Europe, is state-subsidized, at least guaranteed by the state, and all its blocks of flats have outbuildings of one sort or another, which are part of the block. Then, if there are to be stores and properties of that kind-


Charles Avery Dunning: "Incidental commercial space."


Denton Massey: That is what the minister means by "commercial space"? That comes within part II of the bill?


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: What brought the minister to the idea of an income five times the rental? Is the rental of the average workman in Canada not about fourteen per cent rather than twenty per cent? Did the minister fix the price arbitrarily?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was a question of finding a fair means of measurement, and after taking into account all the bases of economic rent elsewhere, the experience which has developed elsewhere in regard to the schemes, and 3uch information as is available to us in that regard from our own bureau of statistics, we reached the conclusion that five times is about right. If you take a particular case and apply it to a family as one knows a family, I think it will be apparent that the standard is about as close as we can come to accurate measurement relative to the decision we shall have to make as to when it is appropriate for the state to subsidize. That really is the point: At what point is it appropriate for the state to subsidize? We say in this part that in principle it is appropriate for the state to subsidize only when the economic rent is more than one-fifth of the family income.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister explain- I have been out of the house, and perhaps the question has been asked already-whether it will be possible to have this low-rental system in force in places where there is what one might call a settlement of anything up to five or six hundred people, not incorporated?

National Homing Act


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be very difficult to assume that such a community could comply with the essential economic conditions demanded; that is, to provide a scheme large enough to enable the resultant economies, both in construction and in management of the project after it is completed, to make possible a low-rental project in a small village, for instance, or in an unincorporated area. I can hardly conceive of that being possible.


Thomas Reid: There are districts I know
of in British Columbia-I have one in particular in mind, the one I live in-that are developing to a very considerable extent. This particular one is just outside the limits of New Westminster. It is a rural municipality. There are also in the municipality three health resorts, which are also developing; people are going there and putting up houses, living there the whole year round. I think such settlements should be considered. I was going to mention that under paragraph (k). I would ask the minister to consider the matter further.


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be possible, of
course, under the "limited-dividend housing corporation" as defined in paragraph (f), provided you could persuade the limited-dividend corporation to undertake what was inherent in the size of the project and the distribution of it. But I should like hon. members again to remember that part II is intended to provide low-rental housing for people who in the nature of things are not in circumstances which would warrant them in becoming home owners, that is, people of very low income; and it is presumed that the state therefore will help, that the province will help in certain eventualities. If the municipality is the authority set up, the province must help by way of its guarantee and the municipality must help by way of maximum tax provision. What we have in mind as developing under this scheme principally is large-scale projects of flats. We hope that in the area surrounding Montreal something of that sort will occur through the operation of the limited-dividend corporation. In one or two other places it may very well develop by action of the municipality. But it will be for the purpose of dealing with the poorest people, the people of the lowest incomes, because it definitely involves the principle of state subsidies for those people who are unable to pay economic rents. We must keep that in mind as the basis of the whole scheme. To imagine that under part II we can go out into summer resorts and places like that and do such things seems to me questionable, although certainly they will be
eligible if they can comply with the conditions. There is no doubt at all that to get down to the rental standards contemplated by part II it will be necessary to have large-scale projects, a very considerable number of units, and the most economic construction.


Alan Webster Neill: I quite agree with the minister that the scheme will have to be on a substantial scale if low prices are to be obtained. Still, the bill does provide presumably for the scheme to be applied generally, and one might conceive of a settlement with one thousand inhabitants not incorporated, where there might be need for ten small tenements or small, low-rental houses. As far as I can judge from the bill, it does not seem possible to apply it to such settlements because it is provided that the municipality must give certain guarantees in connection with taxation, and there does not appear to be any provision for anything of that sort in an unorganized territory under provincial jurisdiction. I do not think it is possible to meet such a situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a unique situation in British Columbia. To whom could the limited dividend corporation give an option in such a case, in British Columbia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only to the provincial
government.


Alan Webster Neill: And then the provincial government would be responsible.


Mr. ESLING:: Would the minister consider the possibility of the purpose of this bill being facilitated by the persuasive measures with industrial concerns? No matter what inducements are offered, there are many communities that feel they are being discriminated against, and yet it would not be sound business for any financial institution to engage in operations in such places. It seems to me, however, that where there are substantial industries which are not in the red-they must have reserves if their businesses are to be carried on on a proper basis-they might be persuaded to undertake construction of houses for their employees, which would do away with a lot of red tape and obligations and responsibilities. In such a case the firm would build a house and deduct from the employee's pay cheque each month such a sum of money as might be agreed upon so that he could carry on for the rest of the month.
Perhaps I might be forgiven for citing the operations that are going on at Trail. That company's first thought is the convenience of the employees, because they are convinced
National Housing Act

that this is the first step towards efficiency, and for that purpose they have let a contract for the construction of 240 houses. They have selected a desirable location midway between Trail and Rossland, and these 240 houses are now under construction. Each will have concrete basement, a furnace, four rooms and a modem bathroom on the first floor, and the second floor will be so arranged that it can be finished by the employee himself at his own convenience. The construction of these houses is substantial, and the cost is at the very minimum, far lower than the employee himself could build a house by his own contract. These houses are for the use of employees only and are sold only to employees. The employee can pick out his location and purchase his house at the minimum cost. The cost will range between $2,200 and $2,300. An employee is permitted in the first place to rent at such a figure as covers the rent and five per cent interest and amortization; at the end of the year, if he thinks he would like to own the house, the rent he has paid for that year will apply on the purchase, and he will carry on his payments, which are deducted from his cheque each month. There are few complications and very little of the intricacy inevitable in small communities.
As regards advertising in the Gazette, in my opinion anyone who wants to hide information instead of giving it to the public should choose the Gazette. I had occasion to inquire as to the circulation of the Gazette last year, and I was informed that they were distributing 1,053 copies throughout the dominion. Many of these copies go to members and very few to lawyers. I should like to know, therefore, what particular use there is in advertising in the Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a matter of advertising; these are statutes of Canada.


William Kemble Esling: A little while ago we were discussing the question of information and the way in which the public might learn what was going on and what the regulations were. If we approach the matter properly, when the minister has completed all such information as he chooses to give the public, the best medium, it seems to me, would be the local newspapers, and inquiries could be made at a central point. It would be of advantage and would save a great deal of trouble, time and expense, if some of the larger industries would take up these low-rental housing projects on the same principle as I have indicated.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is nothing to
prevent a corporation, such as the type of

corporation to which my hon. friend has referred, from operating under part I of this act, as in fact some of them have operated under the old housing act. I believe it is generally known-I am not giving away anybody's secret-that in the town of Comeau Bay there was a housing development so arranged by one of the lending institutions, and guaranteed by the industrial corporation developing the property. A similar development is possible elsewhere. In the case most familiar to my hon. friend, the industrial concern has preferred to develop its own housing scheme, under its own control, instead of having anything to do with a lending institution. But it is competent for any such corporation to make arrangements with lending institutions under part I.
With respect to part II, which deals with low-rental housing, there would be nothing to prevent any industrial corporation from becoming itself a limited dividend corporation under the terms of that part for the purpose of supplying low rental houses to its own employees, provided it is prepared to accept the responsibilities imposed upon it by that part. While part II does impose provincial government responsibility where the authority is municipal, no provincial government responsibility is involved where the housing authority is a limited dividend corporation, so that it is possible, even in provinces where the provincial government cannot see their way clear to comply with the conditions with respect to municipalities undertaking low rental housing schemes under part II, that in such provinces there may be, as I am reasonably sure there will be, instances where the limited dividend corporation method can be followed.


Denton Massey: In order to be consistent, paragraph (g) will have to be amended. If we turn back to paragraph (f) of section 2, part I, we find that we made the paragraph to read in this way:
(f) "local authority" means any province, municipality, society, association, corporation or commission-
And so on. I believe the words "or commission" should be added in paragraph (g).


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I wonder if it should be done. The committee will understand that this is a different case.


Denton Massey: But both refer to the local housing authorities.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, it might be by way of commission. I believe the words "or commission" should be added after the word "corporation" in paragraph (g).

National Housing Act


Mr. ROGERS:: I move:
That in paragraph (g) the word "or" be deleted where it occurs between the words "association" and "corporation," and that after the word "corporation" be added the words "or commission."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister look into this aspect of the matter so as to make this part of the bill apply to unorganized territories? It seems to be clear that a limited dividend housing corporation must give an option to the municipality concerned. If there is no municipality, who will take its place?


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall deal with that when we get to the conditions. I would rather amend the conditions than amend the definition.


Donald Alexander McNiven: In view of the possibility of municipalities becoming local housing authorities, I was glad indeed to hear the minister and the hon. member for Kootenay West enlarge upon the possibility of corporations undertaking building schemes for their own employees. The experience of the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company in connection with workers' houses in Trail, British Columbia, is beyond the experimental stage, and has proven a boon to their employees. The experience of the Imperial Oil Company and other corporations in Regina along similar lines has proven most beneficial to employees and I suggest might well be undertaken by other industrial corporations in various parts of Canada.
A difficulty I foresee in a municipality becoming a local housing authority is found in a provision in the law of the western provinces, and one which, I believe, is found in the law of Ontario, that a municipality borrowing money for any municipal purpose whatsoever can do so only by by-law submitted to the burgesses, and carried by a two-thirds majority. That means that the class which it is intended this measure shall benefit would be excluded from voting on the by-law. Only a property owner would have a right to express himself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unless provincial legislation is changed.


Donald Alexander McNiven: For this building season in any event it would be necessary under the present law to submit a by-law to the burgesses. In some centres at least the burgesses are vitally interested in raising rather than lowering property rentals. It is anticipated there would be some difficulty in attaining the necessary assent under the existing law.


Mr. McIVOR:: Perhaps I have been acting prematurely, but because of the shortage of houses in Fort William I have written a company in that city, enclosing a copy of the bill, and asking them to go into the housing business. If I have acted ahead of time, it can be corrected.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
Paragraphs (h) to (k) inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
On section 15, paragraph (a)-Conditions of contract.
Denton Massey: I should like to ask a general question on the sections we have covered so rapidly. When the minister introduced the resolution he discussed briefly the possibility of a municipality purchasing land outside its own then boundaries. It was indicated that the taxes they would receive as a result of the purchase of that land would be in addition to the taxes they had heretofore received. There was a question as to the possibility of the municipality foregoing taxes on land for the first three years. I understand that under this arrangement 100 per cent of the taxes are to be paid for the first year, 50 per cent for the second, and 25 per cent for the third.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the hon. member is talking about part III of the bill, which has no relation to this part at all.


Denton Massey: Yes. I thought we were coming to that, and I was endeavouring to anticipate discussion of the matter. As we were going so fast, I thought I would draw it to attention now so that some of us could catch up to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am wondering if the provision in paragraph (a) is a wise one. Should not the municipality be the certifying authority? The paragraph refers to " other designated official." It seems to me it must be the municipality itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: If we are to attain our objective, there must be some certification.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One authority is set up by law; it is the municipality itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: Unless the head of the department of welfare or other designated official of the municipality concerned. . . .


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Why should it not be the municipality? It seems to me that would be logical.
National Housing Act


Charles Avery Dunning: "Department of welfare" was a general term. In the case of a limited dividend corporation operating a housing unit would it be well to leave the statute in such condition that the vote of a municipal council could decide whether a particular family had or had not an income which would bar them from the benefits of the measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it seems to be a matter of fact. It is a question of fact, not a question of votes. I am afraid my hon. friend hears so much dealing with them that he forgets it is a question of fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a question of fact, but a kind of question of fact with which the relief administration have the greatest difficulty, because incomes of the type of people being dealt with are very often at least partly of a more or less casual character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree.


Charles Avery Dunning: The object of having
one official designated was to relieve the limited dividend housing corporation of being placed in the position of having people certified by a vote of a municipal council to be eligible, with all the difficulties that would involve.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it involves that, this
statute must be a complete failure. Nobody ever thought you were going to have votes about this, because it is a matter of fact.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is, and should be.
So are relief questions turning upon exactly the same point, the income of the family.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this case, if the rent
is $15, the man must have an income of $75 a month.


Charles Avery Dunning: He must not have more than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must be $75.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
provided for a department of welfare or some designated official of the municipality. In many municipalities I do not think there is an official who has charge of such a department; that is the point.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the reason for
the alternative.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should be definitely
an official of the municipality; then let the municipality and the government determine which official it shall be. It may be that it will be the department of public welfare, the department of public relations or something else. We should not tie them down to that; let it be an official of the municipality, and the arrangement can be made between the two governing bodies. I think the minister caught my point at first, but certainly he does not have it now. I say the moment you undertake to designate one you impinge upon the value of the words which provide that it shall be any designated official. Leave the whole matter open; let it provide that there shall be a designated official of the municipality concerned, and you will get over your difficulty.


Mr. MALLETTE:: Does it not mean an
official designated by the municipality?


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite, and agreed to
by us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You have signified one
authority, the department of public welfare. Some of the municipalities do not have any such department. I think you should make your term broad enough to cover everything, and say, "unless a designated official of the municipality concerned certifies that there is not a demand for such unit."


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a very important certification that is given. This official, or somebody, must say there is not a sufficient demand from families with low incomes, and therefore these dwellings may be rented to families with higher incomes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It must not exceed that. It must be up to $75; I will put it that way in order to make it clear. This statute means that a man must have an income not exceeding $75 a month in order to be eligible under this part. I do not believe anyone thinks for a moment that you are going to require a vote of the municipal council in order to determine whether or not that man has an income not in excess of $75 a month. That is not what I had in mind. There must be some designated official. Here you have


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very thing
we want to do away with.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite so, and that is why we should have some say in connection with the designated officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. The paragraph provides that the annual rental shall not be more than one-fifth of the estimated total income of the family, unless a designated official of the municipality concerned certifies that there is not a demand for such housing

National Housing Act
accommodation. I hope that will be changed to provide that this official must be agreed upon by the government and the municipality, because the moment you talk about a department of public welfare you are going to get into trouble, because some municipalities do not have such departments. Very often these are in charge of-


Donald Alexander McNiven: Committees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is it exactly.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The department of welfare in most instances is in charge of a committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no objection to having it read "a designated official of the municipality concerned," which leaves it subject to agreement as to who should be designated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no objection to striking out the words "the head of the department of welfare or other" and inserting the word "a" to make it read "a designated official of the municipality concerned."


Norman McLeod Rogers: I so move.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I quite get the point the minister has in mind, but it does seem desirable to put it in such general terms as will cover all cases. If you do it otherwise you will have conflict at once, because sometimes the heads of these departments change frequently. One man may take the chair for a week or a month, and then the next man will take it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If we say "a designated official," we see to it in the agreement that an official is designated, because this is one of the ways in which the scheme could be abused if we did not have the proper safeguard.


James Samuel Taylor: That does not necessarily imply acceptance by the minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite. The ruling section is "each contract with a local housing authority shall provide," and under that we shall be agreeing to the designation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph as amended agreed to.
On section 15 paragraph (b):
Donald Alexander McNiven: Is it intended that the cost of insuring these properties should be included?


Charles Avery Dunning: That cost comes under management expenses.


Denton Massey: If the total income of a family were say S25 a week, and then one of the younger boys got a job at $10 a week, what would that do to the rent?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would not do anything to the rent.


Denton Massey: It would not do anything?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Denton Massey: It would put the family out; that is all.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a question of the terms of the lease as to how frequently a review of the family income will be required. It does not do anything to the rent, but it does put them out if their income is above the maximum specified. That would be a matter to be worked out, as to whether the leases should be annual or semi-annual, as the case may be. I am sure nothing would please my hon. friend better than to find that numbers of families were compelled to move out of these low-rental projects because they had become too prosperous to qualify for occupancy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where can they go?


Charles Avery Dunning: If a family becomes too prosperous to qualify under part II, they should be sufficiently prosperous to qualify under part I and build their own houses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it will take time, and there should be some real balance with respect to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Certainly it will have to be arranged that they will not be put out on a week's notice or anything like that.


Denton Massey: There is a great uncertainty here. Suppose you have a man and his wife with a boy of fourteen and a girl of twelve, with both the children in school. A year or so later the boy leaves school and gets a job; three years later the girls does the same thing. That means the family must move out.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is why we made provision with respect to the terms of leasing and did not make any provision with regard to ejection. Perhaps we can leave it at this point for the present.
Paragraph stands.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Stella Maud Lash Dawes.-Mr. Lawson.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Elizabeth Dubnitsky, otherwise known as Elizabeth Dubney.-Mr. Leonard.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Harry Roth - Mr. Jacobs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woods-worth for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code.
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is of sufficient importance to deserve a more extended discussion than possibly the temper of the house at this moment will permit. No one who has taken part in this debate has as yet expressed any disagreement with the principle involved. Certainly the slightest knowledge of the character of the present economy of the world must suggest that workers should have the right to organize in the same measure as employers. Keeping in mind the experience of older countries, particularly the United Kingdom where the labour movement grew up at first under a cloud of suppression and later under the shadow of respectability, one would hope to have the progress of trade unions generally in this country proceed along similar lines.
Before expressing my view on the merits of the bill and in order that I may not appear to be giving expression to something merely for the purposes of the moment, I should like to quote from a speech I made in a radio series along with the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and others dealing with this general problem. I do this in order that the hon. gentleman who is sponsoring this bill may not suggest that I am supporting the principle of the bill to-night after having taken a contrary stand at an earlier date. I stated my views long before this bill was introduced in this chamber. I am quoting my own words not because
(Mr. Dunning.]
they are of special significance, but because they indicate clearly my own views before the bill was introduced. I said:
It is not enough for a man to be able to think freely. This would be indeed a one-sided liberty, which would not be freedom at all. A man must be free to associate with his fellowmen for joint action in realms where there is a community of interest. The difficulty arises, not so much with the denial of this right of association, as with the measure of control which the state is entitled to use over voluntary associations; and this raises one of the most, difficult problems of political science.
And further:
Liberty must reside within the context of this restrictive basis, but this restriction itself must be defined.
I ask the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill to follow particularly what I am going to read. Perhaps very few members will subscribe to it, but it represents my view and indicates how I thought then and still think about these matters. I quote:
A government is not justified in suppressing an association, the mere beliefs of which are subversive of the existing order. The occasion for governmental interference must be when the association has moved to action unmistakably in an attempt to bring about an overthrow of the estalished order.
I can go the whole way with the hon. gentleman in the expression of a belief in the principle of freedom of association as applied to workers and to all other groups within the state. I think it would be unfortunate if the hon. member were to suggest that because of the observations of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the government had expressed a view contrary to the principle of this bill. The Minister of Labour indicated clearly that he believed in the principle of the bill. He did not object to it except on one ground that must be obvious to all. He said that the law officers of the crown having determined that this was not within the constitutional powers of this government, it would be a matter almost of political immorality if we passed something so clearly outside our authority. The Minister of Labour made a statement a year ago, to which he referred in his remarks during this debate. I think that statement bears repetition to-night. The Minister of Labour was speaking on behalf of the government, and his statement indicates the temper of the administration with respect to this whole matter. He said:
It is necessary to state in the clearest terms that the right of association is a civil right, long established by law and usage. It was affirmed with special reference to Canada by an order in council of July 11, 1918 (P.C. 1743). It

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
was proclaimed explicitly in the Treaty of Versailles at the close of the world war. To deny the right of workmen to combine in any lawful organization they desire for the promotion of their common welfare is an open invitation to extremists to preach the futility of collective bargaining as an alternative to direct action. The right of association for legitimate purposes should be respected in the national interest and labour should not be denied the means of organizing for collective bargaining. The right of employers to organize for all lawful purposes is not questioned in any quarter. Employers are not entitled in the same breath to protest against governmental regulation of industry and to deny to labour its right to resort to legitimate measures of self-help through voluntary association.
That is a very strong declaration. I think it was the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr Stevens) who stated that the order in council passed shortly after the war was merely a pious declaration. I suppose the same thing could be said with regard to this statement. The reason they may have merely the effect of pious declarations is that the matter concerned does not come within the constitutional powers of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have we not the right to make anything we please a crime?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the right hon. gentleman is right. As he knows much better than I, we have the right to make a crime of matters that are essentially criminal in character.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Who made the decision?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The courts have decided. The judicial committee has decided.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That in respect of matters which come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces we cannot in the assumption of criminal jurisdiction deal with matters that come under section 92 of the British North America Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot use that as a device to occupy the field.


Paul Joseph James Martin: At the moment this
assumption of authority is being exercised by the provinces. In Nova Scotia we have the Nova Scotia Trade Unions Act, 1937. In British Columbia we have the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act. In Manitoba we have the Strikes and Lock-outs Prevention Act, 1937. In Quebec we have the Fair Wages Act, and we have acts that were recently passed in Saskatchewan and New
Brunswick. I quite agree that in some respects these acts lack the necessary teeth to deal with the problem. I would say that, certainly with regard to at least three provincial acts, but that does not, one way or the other, affect the problem.
I submit, and I put this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr Woods-worth), that the law officers of the crown having decided that this matter comes under the caption of property and civil rights it would not be justifiable for this or any other government or any parliament to act contrary to that advice There may be methods of determining whether or not that advice is correct, but in so far as the measure now stands before the house there is, I submit, no other course open to us.
In addition, I would suggest this, that in respect of the servants of the dominion or in respect of labour in those parts of Canada not coming within the organized provinces we have the power to enact legislation covering them, and having in mind that legislative competence I would, speaking for myself, agree to the application of this bill to them. I do not want the hon. gentleman to misconstrue what I have been saying, and I am sure he will not. While to some this bill may seem extravagant in its extent, it is nevertheless a bill which in our day deserves support in principle. I believe that if it were constitutionally possible it should be made a crime, as my hon. friend suggests, in the case of an attempt to prevent the proper organization by labour to obtain its legitimate rights. Representing as I do a constituency where labour is to be found in great numbers, I appreciate that point more perhaps than anyone else. I was going to make a personal reference, but I leave that out.
I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that even if we had the power of passing this bill-and assuming the power I would agree that we should pass it

that is not in the long run going to be the effective way of protecting the rights of workers through organizations and the like. The Minister of Justice referred to the tradition in England. I wish we had the same tradition in this country, and then the events that took place in this province in the course of the last-year would not have been possible. I agree with all that. I agree that it was wise for the hon. gentleman to bring forward this method of trying to have this house assert in no uncertain manner its views, and because oi that I am taking part in this discussion, but I suggest to him. as one who knows the
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

tradition in the common law countries, as one who knows conditions in respect of the handling of this matter in other places, that the effective way has never been the use of coercion, and that method will never be a guarantee in itself.
Reference was made in this house in the admirable statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) to the position in Sweden. Of course, there you have altogether a different problem, just as in the United States you have under the Wagner Act an altogether different situation, in so far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned.
If any hon. member suggests, and I think it has been suggested in this debate, that the Minister of Justice takes his stand because he happens to come from a province where there seem to be restrictions which, speaking for myself, I certainly do not countenance, I submit that the Minister of Justice long before this measure was introduced into this house did give expression to the proper method of bringing about the realization of the rights of labour. That expression of his could be given in England because it is so often thought that French-Canadians themselves do not appreciate the full import of the words "liberty" .and "freedom" and all that they mean. Let me quote from a speech made by the Minister of Justice, speaking at a communist [DOT]gathering in Montreal, where he was opposed to the use of force as a means of coercing the communists, and what he said there might equally in reverse order be applied to this whole problem. He said:
(Translation) If we would secure for ourselves political as well as economic security, if we wish to repulse successfully the onsets of the enemies of order, we must depend less ou the criminal code, on the police force and the gaols, and more on personal dignity, on individual efforts and on cooperation, which make up the substance and the soul of a free people. Guns and hand grenades are of no avail against those who preach violence, be the reasons good or bad. With an enlightened mind, we must accept necessary changes and unavoidable reforms, if we would take from the enemies of order the weapons provided them because of certain errors and abuses.


Mr. POOLE:: I should like to direct a
question, if I may, to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). It seems that his objection was that we did not have the power in this parliament to deal with the matter. I wonder why the hon. gentleman differentiates between the subject now under discussion and unemployment insurance, speaking of which some days ago he said, in

substance, that if we did not have the power to put it into effect we should assume the power.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Quite.


Eric Joseph Poole: Then why should we not
assume the power in this case when it is for the protection of labour?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The cases, if the hon.
gentleman will permit me, are not at all analogous. What I said with regard to unemployment insurance was based on the assumption that we have the right of amending the constitution without going through all the stages that the hon. gentleman contemplates. But with respect to the matter before us, property and civil rights, under which certainly the doctrine of contract must come, are specifically given by the British North America Act to the provinces. That is the difficulty. It is unfortunate that our dual jurisdiction should in respect of great national problems such as this always be in the way. I have said in this house that unemployment is a national problem, and I think this problem should properly be dealt with as a national one, but unfortunately I was not born in 1867 and had nothing to do with framing the British North America Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I confess I
was not able to follow the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in the observations he made a few days ago based upon the report made by his officials that this proposed act now in the form of a bill is ultra vires of this parliament in its entirety.
I followed the speech made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) this evening, and I could not help thinking of one of his illustrations. He said that he had a few weeks ago declared that man's belief was one thing but that unless he expressed it in oveyt acts he saw no reason to complain. He reversed the process in the speech we listened to this evening, and while his apology for the administration was admirable, the only way in which I think there can be an expression of an overt act would be by voting for the measure; for there can be added to it without any difficulty a provision that it shall not come into force until proclaimed, and in the meantime it could be referred to the courts to determine its validity.
I think the right hon. Minister of Justice will agree with me that in two paragraphs of this bill we are not dealing with property and civil rights at all, that what we are dealing

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
with is intimidation and conspiracy. In the paragraph to which I refer, paragraph (b), we are dealing with the offence of intimidation. We are dealing with an offence against the body politic on the part of those who may be in a position to enforce their views by threats, intimidation or otherwise, preventing that which arises out of property and civil rights, namely a contract being made effective. No one would question the right of the provinces to control matters of property and civil rights. No one has questioned the right of the provinces to deal with matters of contract. But it does not follow that because that is so, this parliament in the exercise of its jurisdiction over criminal law may not express itself in the Strongest possible terms as to those who interfere with freedom of contract and the making of it. It is with respect to this that my difficulty arises.
This legislation in the last two paragraphs deals only with matters in which by force, by intimidation, by threats-the character of the threats and the extent of the intimidation are not the issue-an effort is made on the part of one person to prevent another person from exercising a civil right. The civil right is, as indicated by the last speaker, the right to belong to a union or to an association, the right to do as a man pleases with respect to the matter of collective bargaining. If the other person said, "You shall not exercise that civil right," and stops there, well and good; but if by intimidation, by threats, by the power and authority and force of his position he says " 'Thou shalt not' exercise your civil rights," that is a matter of criminal law; that establishes our right to exercise our jurisdiction with respect to it, which wo are doing every day. All one needs to do is to read the criminal code and note its provisions with respect to mischief and matters of that kind, with which I shall not trouble the house to-night. That does not conflict at all with the right of the provinces to deal as they please with matters of contract, of property, of civil rights. But where a man says, " ' Thou shalt not' use your property or exercise your civil rights," and he uses towards you intimidation or force or threats to see that you do not exercise your rights, that is an offence; that is within the criminal law, and solely within the jurisdiction of this parliament. It is that offence at which this bill strikes.
I am now dealing with the two paragraphs at the end of the bill. Look at the next paragraph. Is it or is it not a criminal offence if a man "conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with any other employer or his agent"
to do any of these things? Is it wrong, as a matter of law, to conspire to do an illegal act? Well, the criminal law is clear on that point. There may be a conspiracy which is a combination to do a lawful thing. Against that the law does not strike. But when there is an agreement between parties to do an unlawful thing the criminal law interposes. And what have you here? You have here intimidation, threats to deprive a person of what the hon. member for Essex East so well described as the exercise of a civil right -freedom of association, freedom of speech. I was reading a book the other day, The Voice of England with respect to Freedom. Starting away back a thousand years ago, and along down through all the centuries, the voice of England has been the voice of freedom. Here we have a combination or association which is permitted by law, and we see, in the last paragraph to which I am directing attention, that if you combine and agree to do an unlawful act, namely prevent a man from belonging to an association or trade union, you are liable to the criminal law of the country. Have we not jurisdiction there ?
There remains one other matter, and that is the first paragraph. You can read that in a sense which is consonant with the views expressed by the minister, but I do not so read it. The first paragraph deals with refusal to employ or the dismissal from employment of any person for the reason that he has exercised his freedom of choice by belonging to a union which is formed for the purpose of advancing in a lawful manner the interest of the workmen. If it is a penalty for a breach of contract, then of course I have no difficulty in agreeing with the minister. But it is not a penalty for a breach of contract, because that is covered by a provincial statute; that penalty sounds in damages, as many acts provide. This bill goes further. It does not, as I read it, contemplate the question of contract or property and civil rights in that sense at all. It merely says that if a man refuses to employ another, or dismisses him from his employment because he has exercised his freedom of choice by associating himself with a particular trade union, that is such a deprivation of a civil right, the great right of freedom or association, as to incur the penalties of the criminal law, and not a pecuniary result, sounding in damages. That, I think, is the distinction between the provincial statutes and this bill. Of course I agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Essex East, reflecting in that respect the mind and almost the speech of the Minister of Justice. We should not
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

openly pass laws which, in the opinion of those responsible for their promulgation, are ineffective and invalid. On the other hand, if we have what I conceive to be the strongest reason in the world for believing a statute to be valid, we should place it on the statute books and ask that it be referred to the court so that its validity may be determined. That is the method prescribed by law for that purpose. I am sure the minister will remember the very strong words used by the late Edward Blake as to the desirability of that course being followed in dealing with a matter of this kind.
I believe the bill to be valid. I believe it to be within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. I believe it makes it an adequate and proper offence for a person to interfere with any man exercising his freedom of choice and his right of association, provided always that it is exercised-in the language of the bill itself-" in a lawful manner." By those words we should, I feel, all be bound-"in a lawful manner," consonant with the laws of the country, with its institutions, with everything they imply. I support the bill.


Thomas Reid: I rise to endeavour, if I can, to correct an impression which I believe was left during the time that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) spoke, and again to-night when the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) spoke in connection with the measure at present before the house. I judge from the remarks of the two hon. gentlemen who spoke on this matter, and particularly from what was said by the Minister of Labour, referring to the old country in comparison with Canada, that Great Britain is one country to be followed because in regard to labour legislation they have not placed a great deal of it on the statute books. The Minister of Labour suggested that we in Canada would perhaps do well if we followed the same line as Great Britain. Well, as one who in early youth came from there, and had belonged and still belongs to a trade union, I can tell the Minister of Labour this: The reason there is little on the statute books of Great Britain with regard to labour or trade union legislation is that for many long years labour and the working people had no representation in the British House of Commons. In the early days of the fight for trades unions, members of the House of Commons comprised in large measure land owners, steel mill owners and coal mine owners. The history of the trade union movement in Great Britain is one which I think should be told to the world. The fight put up in the early days by the working
(Mr. Bennett.]
people of the old land for trade union legislation was a very tragic one indeed; it was one of bloodshed, starvation, intimidation, trial, and in many instances, flight from their homes to other lands. I believe that other countries have benefited to some extent in consequence of what the workers did.
I am all for the principle of this bill, and I intend to vote for it, though it may not be within the purview of the dominion government ; and I do so not only because I represent a considerable section of labour in the constituency of New Westminster, but also because I have vivid recollections of the early days of that struggle for trade unionism when this very principle was being advocated in the old land. We in this country have a good deal of reason to be grateful for the fight that was made in those early days in Great Britain, and I should like to see this legislation put into effect in every province in Canada. We are, or should be, heading in that direction. We may not reach the goal immediately, but -we shall utimately come to the point where all the provinces will give absolute freedom to labour to organize.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill, and I have no notes-perhaps you will say, "Thank goodness"-so I shall have to think on my feet. This is not a government bill; but I know something of the tasks of the toiler; I know something of his struggle. When I came out of university in my first year the only job I could get was wheeling bricks at fifteen cents an hour, and the third day after I had been at that job my hands were in such a state that I could not hold on to a baseball as well as I did *to-night. I know something of the struggles of the labourers in Winnipeg in those early days. They comprised English, Scotch, Irish, Icelandic and Swedish, and I was one of them. I cast my lot in with them. I can say that they were as fine a group of men as ever struck this great Canada of ours and there are hundreds of them to-day who are not wheeling bricks. Of course, I admit that I did not have to stay at that very long because the contractor, who was going into big business just then, thought I might assist him in his office work and take charge of the labourers.
When I hear that some members of this house hold their breath when a preacher comes around, I can tell them that I have heard language which would put them to shame, because I have heard men who could swear even scientifically. I was an officer of the first labour union in the city of Winnipeg, and we wondered why it was that we should

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
have to work for fifteen cents an hour when bricklayers were getting forty-five cents. Some of us were green, of course, but none of us were yellow. As I think of those men and the struggle they had to make for their rights, I can recall how they used to sober up a little and keep their cheques in order that they might be able to pay their board and keep their wives and families in difficult times. In those days I formed habits and trains of thought which I have not changed. I take second place to no man in this house in my interest in the toiler, and I will take no part in anything that will cast reflection on the honest toiler. I may tell the house parenthetically that if we had more employers of labour like an hon. minister who comes from some place near Fort William, it would be better for the country, because when the depression came he did not say to his office hands and his workers, "I have no more contracts; take a rest for a while". W'hat he did tell his office hands and his workers was this, "Employ yourselves as best you can; your cheques will come just the same". No wonder I stand behind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). When he did not have to, he treated the honest toiler in a generous way. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know something of the struggles of the working man, and I know why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has brought in this bill. Some of our employers of labour do not know how to treat the honest toiler; they do not give him fair play: I have known employers who would organize themselves into an association and then refuse to let their workers organize.
I belong to a party in this house as progressive as any in the dominion, and when we get a free fling, as, thank goodness, we get it in caucus, though I must not tell tales out of school, I can tell you it is the finest thing I have ever struck. We are not muzzled, and you will never hear the crack of the whip, as some people think. But, like other hon. members, I feel that I am free to vote just as I please, and I am going to vote for this bill if somebody does not talk it out. Having said that, therefore, I shall now sit down, thanking you, Mr. Speaker, and the house.


Vincent Dupuis: Coming from the province of Quebec, where our first magistrate is so scrupulous about provincial autonomy. I think it right to do my share in seeing that this House of Commons does not override his very important point with regard to rights in that province. As everyone knows. Hon. Mr. Duplessis in some circumstances is protesting against some
federal legislation, because he is convinced that we are overriding the autonomy of the province of Quebec. And in some other cases he claimed otherwise. I shall not enter into the question of the constitutionality of this bill because that was covered pretty well by previous speakers, the distinguished Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), and on the other side, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who is sponsoring the bill. But as far as I can compare this legislation with some legislation which has been overruled and found ultra vires, I do not see any difference at all. We must admit that we are in such a situation to-day that we have to accept the constitution passed in 1867, and we have to deal with it according to the interpretation given by the highest court of this country, the privy council. If that is true, what is the use of this house spending time, and what is more important, spending money, to pass legislation which after great expense for fees may be declared ultra vires of this parliament. And, mind you, I am a lawyer; I am speaking against my own interest; it might be that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be inclined to choose me as his attorney in that case. But I try to take a higher view than my personal interests, and consider the interest of this country first. I believe it is our duty as legislators to prevent this bill from becoming law, because we know beforehand that the result would be its submission to the supreme court and then to the privy council. And I for one do not want that.
If we compare this bill with legislation which has been enacted in the province of Quebec lately, Bills Nos. 19 and 20, I think the present administration of Quebec have dealt with this matter and the purpose aimed at by this bill now before us. I am firmly convinced that the legislation which has been passed by the Quebec legislature is entirely wrong, if I compare it with the alleged request of the labour men in that province. Nevertheless I believe the premier of Quebec is right in claiming that in the situation in which we find ourselves to-day, due to the British North America Act, the right to legislate in such matters belongs to the province. I am sure the premier of Quebec is wrong when he refuses to consent to this parliament dealing with this social legislation. I am convinced that so long as some provinces refuse to this parliament the right to legislate in social matters, the result will be against the interest of our provinces. I know perfectly well, and hon. members will agree, that if we
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

are left in that unfavourable situation as regards social legislation-take, for instance, the question of unemployment insurance, if one province decides to pass a law to establish unemployment insurance and other provinces refuse to do it-the consequence is clear. The people engaged in such industries which fall under that law will move from the province which refuses to pass the law into some province which has passed the law. On the other hand capitalists who have invested money in such industries will leave the province which has passed the law and go to a province which has refused to pass the law. It is easy to see that so long as the provinces refuse to agree to transfer their right and allow the federal parliament in common understanding for the best interests of the citizens of this country to enact this social legislation, no good result will be attained.
So far as the principle of Bill No. 4 is concerned, I might be ready to agree with it. Of those in this house who are in favour of justice, who want to see the citizens of this free country have their share of sunshine, who are against oppression, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville is one. But the duty to see that there is a sure right for employees to enjoy free association, and that employers should not do anything to molest or prevent their employees from associating for their common good, is the duty of the province. What is the use of our passing such legislation as this when we know perfectly well it is ultra vires? As to this, however, I am ready to respect the views of those who differ with me, who have at their head the right hon. leader of the opposition. But, as I say, we are in a free country, and I think the majority of those who know something about law in Canada will admit that it is useless for this parliament to pass such legislation. I do not see why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre brought in the legislation, since I am sure he has studied the judgments of the supreme court and the privy council in regard to similar legislation. He knows perfectly well


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to a statement of that kind. I object to the hon. member virtually saying that I brought in this bill knowing it was ultra vires. I object to being charged with anything of that kind.


Vincent Dupuis: I know perfectly well that there was no improper motive in the mind of the hon. member; I admit that readily, so he need not protest. I know he is sincere, but I have seen many sincere people who have made mistakes. I am told that the road to hell is supposed to be paved with good intentions.

We cannot agree with the hon. member though we appreciate his sincerity. It may take a great deal of good will to admit all these things, but it is absolutely the custom of the House of Commons to believe in the sincerity of those who compose this assembly of legislators. But if, on the one hand, we are ready to admit the sincerity and good intentions of members of this house, I am sure, on the other, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will also admit that we on this side are sincere in endeavouring to prevent this bill from becoming law, and that our only endeavour is to see that the citizens of this country do not have to pay any more taxes than they are paying at the moment. If this bill could be considered constitutional; if it had a chance to be put into operation all over this country, you would not hear me speaking now, except to help the bill pass as soon as possible. That, however, is not the case. If this bill becomes law, it will be contested; it will be brought before the tribunals of this country and before the privy council, and it will be declared ultra vires.
We do not want that. I have seen a good deal of legislation since I have been in the House of Commons. For nearly ten years now I have followed the discussions in this house, and in that time I have had the pleasure of listening to many good speakers. Just to show that on this side of the house we are sufficiently broad-minded to admit the truth even though it may please our opponents, I may confess that if there is one thing in the world I like it is to hear speakers like the right hon. leader of the opposition and many of his followers, because they are parliamentarians of long experience. Sometimes they are a little sophistic, but we are glad to listen to them. This we admit frankly, and that is not only so with reference to hon. members opposite. I hope I may not be taxed with possessing too much pride if I say that at times I have noticed good speakers and good legislation on my side of the chamber. Nevertheless, admitting all these things, it is my duty to protest against this legislation, for the reasons I have given. You have only to read this bill, Mr. Speaker, with your knowledge of the jurisdiction of this parliament, to conclude that it is entirely ultra vires. We are not only legislators in this house; I believe we are also-


An hon. MEMBER:: Statesmen.


Vincent Dupuis: No; I would not claim to be a statesman, though I hope to be some day. I think everyone will agree that in addition to being legislators we are the highest tribunal

Supply-Agriculture.-Live Stock
in this country. Why should we pass legislation like this, which will be disputed and brought before the courts, when it is possible for us as legislators and judges to decide on its legality right away and declare it ultra vires? I believe that when I conclude, Mr. Speaker, you will rise and make a declaration to that effect. That will satisfy me, and particularly will it please the premier of Quebec, who is so scrupulous about the autonomy of that province.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would direct the attention of hon. members of the house to the fact that if the hon. member speaks now, he will close the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nine o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Marketing services-Live stock and poultry- further amount required, $7,040.
Mr. LEADER:: The hon. member for
Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) had quite a lot to say when this item was last before the committee. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his statements, but because of his experience as a member of this house and as a minister having charge of the very department to which he referred, I think his words should receive some attention from the committee. He stated that some of the packing institutions have been making monkeys out of the officers of the department. I have sometimes thought the members of parliament have been treated in almost the same way. Since I entered this house I have come to the conclusion that members have not a great deal to say about the legislation and regulations that are passed. Those matters are mostly settled in the departments. This is irksome to me. I have always prided myself on being able to take my own part. When I was elected to this house I figured I could do more than my share in the house. I considered what I was fitted for, and I decided that perhaps I could so something for the live stock industry of this country.
Let me say that I have received nothing but the utmost courtesy from the officials of the Department of Agriculture. Any time I wanted information I always got it if it was within their power to give it to me. I believe enough evidence has been presented in the last few years to warrant the minister in asking for an investigation into the live stock industry. My conclusion is that we should have a better system than we have at the present time. I am not suggesting the appointment of a roving, meandering royal commission, but I contend that at the very first of the session next year-it is too late to do anything this year-a select committee should be appointed to deal with this matter. In the meantime hon. members can obtain all the information possible in order that they will be able to deal intelligently and expeditiously with this question. We have had too many royal commissions. Nine times out of ten, when a royal commission is appointed, it is appointed to evade responsibility. I come from a farming district and farming is the only business with which I am conversant.
I feel I should have some responsibility in investigating a question of this kind. I could make a number of suggestions, but I shall be satisfied with making just one. We might very well consider the selling of live stock by means of auctions as they do in the old country. I believe that is worth considering as a new method of marketing our cattle in the stock-yards.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: I quite appreciate what the hon.
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has had to say with regard to the necessity of an inquiry being made into the methods of handling live stock in Canada. However,
I may say that it is the intention of the department as at present organized to carry on that kind of investigation continuously. I agree with much of what the hon. member has said with regard to meandering investigations being more or less a means of shifting responsibility on certain occasions. It was for that reason that in reorganizing the department we set up a marketing branch which would be continuously in contact with all the activities of the stock-yards and marketing in general. I am hopeful that with the completion of the reorganization we shall be able, in the year that is ahead of us, to carry on an investigation that will be effective at all times throughout the year.
I think we can accomplish more by that method than by the appointment of a committee. However, I have no objection to a committee being appointed. It could be appointed whether or not I objected, because that is the right of the house. If a committee is appointed, the department will be

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
ready to cooperate in every way possible. However, I repeat that this work can. be done more effectively by the officials who are continuously in touch with the activities of the stock-yards and the packing plants. I think I can say to the hon. member that such an investigation will be carried on continuously throughout the year.


Harry Leader: I do not believe the live stock men of this country will be satisfied with the form of investigation to which the minister has referred. I know there are serious objections to the methods being used at the present time, and there is an increasing demand that some investigation should be made into these matters. The department of agriculture of Manitoba conducted an investigation into these matters this winter. I do not know the results of their findings, but they must have discovered something. We could use that. In the meantime, we could use this United States trade agreement. All this evidence would be available for this committee next year. I am firmly convinced that this is the proper way to carry on the investigation, and there is no doubt that an investigation is needed. I know there are hon. members coming from rural constituencies who are just aching to take a more prominent part in the work of parliament.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: For some time I have thought there was something radically wrong with the marketing of live stock. When I was discussing this matter with a farmer he told me that the main trouble to-day is the fact that there are no drovers going up and down the country making competitive bids for live stock. The reason for that is that there is no competition at the big markets such as Toronto and Winnipeg. In the old days the drovers used to run up and down the country and try to buy direct from the farmer, and when the farmer did not get what he thought was the right price he did not have to sell; but to-day he has to send his cattle to Toronto or Winnipeg and sell them on a commission basis, and as was suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay East he has simply to take what is left, which is sometimes extremely little. I have known cases where there was nothing left. Certainly the farmer cannot continue to market his products on that basis and make money.
It is quite true that advice is being given by men who are watching the operations of the big markets and trying to advise the fanner. Over the radio on certain days you will hear these men advising the farmers 
to ship a certain kind of stock to market. I have known farmers who listened to that advice and then went to the best drover they knew and told him to come to their farm and pick up the stock needed for that kind of market, but they found, after they had shipped their cattle, it was the same old story.
When cattle are disposed of, the meat is sold. It is different from selling grain. There is no sample market. The farmer has to take just what he can get for his cattle. I profess I do not know how to cure the situation; I know it would be difficult, because all the small abattoirs have gone out of business. The law of supply and demand is working fairly well at the present time, but we have known times in the last seven or eight years when the farmer got hardly anything for his products, and that is not good for any business. I feel sure that the minister would be well advised to look into the marketing of live stock, and if something can be done I hope it will be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I suggest to the minister that he refer this matter to the tariff board? I have listened to a great many speeches and read considerable evidence on this matter, and I confess that I have been somewhat bewildered by the views which have been expressed pro and con. It is a matter of vital importance to the farmers of this country. I find, on investigation, there is jurisdiction for the tariff board to deal with this question, and I therefore suggest that the minister ask the tariff board, which is there for the purpose of dealing with matters of this kind, to ascertain the exact facts and make a report which will enable us to understand the situation, if there be any further doubt about it. It is contended that the operations of one firm have brought about certain results. Whether or not that is so is a question of fact. That can be ascertained by the tariff board, which has the powers of inquiry and investigation, and I suggest that if the government would refer the question to the tariff board it might be exceedingly useful. But if we undertake, as the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) suggests, to deal with the matter by a committee of this house, we shall inevitably have certain difficulties which I can foresee. There will always be difficulties in dealing with it by some body other than a body of a judicial nature. The body is there; the jurisdiction is there; the tariff board is there. If the minister would take the appropriate steps to have the facts ascertained by
40M

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
the board, I think it might be useful alike to himself, to the government, to the great farming body of this country that is so vitally interested, and to the packers themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I shall be pleased to take into consideration the suggestion made by the right hon. leader of the opposition. I should like to have an opportunity of looking into the possibilities of whether that type of inquiry would serve a useful purpose. At the same time I should like to emphasize what I said a moment ago, that with the reorganization of the department as we have it now there will be facilities to make a much more careful inquiry into the whole matter, and not only an inquiry, because I think there is much more required to be done. Regulation and direction are necessary in connection with the whole matter.
There is the view that methods of marketing is partly responsible for some of the criticisms. The system of marketing is passing through a transitional stage on account of the fact that the trucking of live stock has become quite general throughout Canada; indeed, in all countries it is becoming a general practice, and whenever there is such a decided change in the methods of transporting any product as there has been in respect to live stock we are bound to require new regulations and to have new conditions set up for the marketing of that particular product. I think there can be no group of men in Canada better qualified to report on a matter of that kind than the inspectors who have been dealing with it over a long term of years. They must be experts in connection with the business itself; otherwise they are not competent to fill the positions they hold.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But is it not a fact that their long association has created a certain attitude of mind?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not found that. The men are new to me. It is only two and a half years since I first became associated with them, and I have found them very fair in their treatment of the whole matter and that they have much the same view as those who are making the complaints. The methods that might be followed are not yet sufficiently apparent because of the newness of the present methods of handling live stock, and those studying the matter have not yet crystallized fully the changes that might be made into regulations to meet the new situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To what extent is it different from what has hitherto prevailed?


James Garfield Gardiner: A man comes in with a truckload of live stock; he goes to the stockyard, looks around and sees what is happening there. He makes up his mind whether the price is satisfactory to him, and, if not, he drives over and sells his stock to the packing plant. It was not so simple when the live stock all came in by trainload and the cars were unloaded at the stock-yards. The packer then had to go to the stock-yards and look for his live stock in any considerable volume. But to-day perhaps more than fifty per cent of the stock are being taken directly to the packing plant without going to the stock-yard at all. New regulations will have to be evolved. The two major factors involved are the commission men in the stock-yards and the large packers operating their own plants.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is alleged that the packers operate together and have a common price.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the other hand, it is alleged that the truckers themselves are at the moment one of the most disturbing factors in the whole trade. These things have all to be worked out and methods of marketing adjusted to the new conditions. Again I say I think it requires more than just a board sitting for a few weeks to inquire into the matter. It requires men who have been closely associated with the inspection of the yards and of the packing plants, watching what is going on day by day, and finally working out plans to deal with the situation as it develops.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How are you going to deal with the contention that there is no competition, which I gather is one of the main difficulties?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is considerable competition. There were some figures quoted two days ago with regard to the activities of certain companies which would lead one to believe that perhaps one company handles the greater part of the business. The percentages of bacon exports contributed by the various packers for the period January 1 to April 30, 1938, are as follow:
Per cent
Canada Packers	 29-05
Swift	 22-04
Bums	 13-83
Thirteen other	concerns	 35-08
I would judge that, when they are as near as that in the proportions they supply to the export trade, there is some competition in
4002	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
purchasing as among those companies. That represents sixteen different companies. The three larger ones, of course, handle the greater proportion, but all the others are in competition with them in buying hogs. There probably would be more competition if there were a hundred concerns, but I do not know that this country could support so many.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister give similar figures for the two preceding years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not them here. I am informed though, that this is fairly representative of that period of time.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: That covers export figures only?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a variation in percentages, but they have been one, two and three, in that order, for some time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would judge so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To my certain knowledge that is so as regards those three.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special

To provide for feed and fodder relief in the dried-out areas and to provide for direct relief in the dried-out areas for the months of April, May and June, 1938, $2,000,000.
Mr. PERLEY:: In the latter end of March- I believe it was on March 31-we were discussing items Nos. 469 and 470, which amounted to over $20,000,000. The minister was anxious to get them through before the end of the fiscal year. A number of questions were asked, because details were wanted, and the minister promised that on some further item in the estimates, on a later occasion, he would supply those details. I do not propose to ask the minister for a great many particulars to-night. I am not objecting at all to the amount of this vote, because I believe it is required to finish up the relief work and to carry on certain projects with respect to rehabilitation. I refer as well to items Nos. 479 and 480. I think we should have certain details. There has been some criticism with respect to the way in which relief has been carried out generally. I want to state again distinctly to-night that I am not in favour of the way in which it has been administered.
I believe it should have been handled by a commission, non-political, non-partisan and independent, specially set up for the purpose. The system which was adopted lends itself to certain criticism. Unquestionably there have been abuses, and various complaints have been made. We have a great deal of evidence of misconduct on the part of the inspectors and officials administering this relief. 
When we were discussing this item, I think it was on May 25, the leader of the opposition asked for a number of details with respect to the importation of grains.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the answers for all those.


George Halsey Perley: I am just referring to the fact that we were quite in order in asking the other night for that information. While I was out west during the recent provincial campaign, I was approached by certain parties. They gave me evidence, which I believe is quite authentic, that some of the inspectors misconducted themselves in the way in which they inspected grain and in the way in which they secured feed and fodder. I have here a list, provided by the minister, of the number of inspectors, their fields of operation, their salaries and their expense accounts. When that return was brought down I had letters written to me by several parties complaining of the action of those inspectors. I have under my hand what I consider is authentic and reliable information to the effect that a certain inspector, G. Andrews, of Crav en, Saskatchewan, was sent to Manitoba and to Minnesota, and it is alleged that his brother went down also to Manitoba, that a young farmer in that district went down with a baler, and that they worked together. It is alleged that one of the Andrews secured straw from the farmers, straw which was a gift, and that it was baled and sold to the government. The Andrews brothers conduct, I understand, a garage business in the town of Craven. They may have some land. As I say, it is alleged that they secured this straw and sold it to the government. It is alleged also that one of the Andrews brothers got five cars, free freight, and sold the greater part.
I would not expect the minister to have at hand to-night all the information with respect to this one inspector, who, I may say, is one of many against whom charges have been made. What I suggest is that the minister should have an investigation made into the operations and the conduct of some of these inspectors; that this investigation should be made by a commission or in some way which will enable the evidence to be taken under oath, and that if there has been misconduct of that kind, which may be described as fraud and graft, the minister in order to protect himself should investigate it. I should like to know the amount of straw and hay inspected by G. Andrews, whether either Tom Andrews or G. Andrews sold straw to the government; the amounts, the prices, where the straw was nurehased, and other details.
JUNE 17, 193S	4003
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
I would also ask if all the feed and fodder which were secured prior to the item covered by the vote we are now considering-we go back to items Nos. 469 and 470-have been paid for. A little later, when we receive this information, wre may ask for a few more details. There is a great deal of information for which we should have asked had we been considering these estimates back in March; but three months have passed; the greater part of this material has been distributed, and, appreciating that three months afterwards is rather late, I do not propose to hold up the vote for any length of time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the information which was asked for by the leader of the opposition and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle:
1.	What quantity of hay and fodder did we import into Canada from the United States?
Answer: Approximately 111,000 tons.
2.	What price per ton did we pay for it?
Answer: Some 4,300 tons were purchased at
a laid down cost which did not exceed $16 per ton; the balance was purchased at prices ranging from $8.50 per ton to $5.50 per ton, depending on grade and source of supply.
3.	What number of bushels of oats and other grains did we import from the United States?
Answer: 936,000 bushels of oats.
4.	What number of bushels of wheat did we import from the United States?
Answer: None.
5.	What were the prices paid per bushel for oats and wheat?
Answer: Oats were purchased from 46 cents to 471 cents per bushel of 34 pounds, Canadian measure. This price included duty of 9 cents per bushel, excise tax of 3 per cent and freight to the Canadian boundary. No wheat was purchased.
6.	What was the cost of transport from the United States to Canada paid on feed and fodder ?
Answer: Fodder, $817,531.84 from point of origin; grain, $51,074.61 from boundary.
7.	What customs duty was paid on grains imported from the United States?
Answer: 9 cents per bushel on oats.
8.	What amount of all hay and grain remains unpaid for?
Answer: Fodder, $44,894.12; grain, $109,342.80.
9.	How much was paid to each of the railway companies, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National?
Answer: Canadian Pacific, $1,950,454.10; Canadian National, $867,615.53.
10.	From what source were feed and fodder obtained for the months April, May and June?
Answer: There was no winter feeding program in effect during that time.
It might be well to read this note:
Re No. 10-seeding supplies of grain and fodder came from the same source as the winter feed requirements.
That is, much of the feed was purchased during the winter months and was charged eventually by the government to the seed account, and the payments were arranged through the bank loans that were covered by guarantee here.
11.	How many applications were made by farmers to ship their stock to winter feeding grounds and how many permits were granted?
Answer: There were a total of 2,193 applications received and 2,083 approved. There were 1,359 freight certificates issued covering the movement of 1,828 carloads of stock.
Those are the answers to the questions which were asked the other day. With regard to the matter of Andrews, who was one of the inspectors, George Andrews was the inspector, and Tom Andrews is alleged to have been purchasing feed in Manitoba to be sold in Saskatchewan. I can only say that complaints were made with regard to the activities of one Andrews. These complaints were made by a certain dealer in the town of Assiniboia, who had been purchasing feed, both hay and straw, from Manitoba for distribution in Saskatchewan, and he did purchase some feed from Andrews. He complained to the department, thinking that the individual from whom he purchased the feed was the same man who was inspector for the department. I had the matter investigated, and I found that it was the brother who was selling feed from Manitoba and who was operating from the town of Manitou in that province. But George Andrews was acting as inspector for the government in the state of Minnesota in connection with supplies to be shipped in to be given to farmers in the drought area of Saskatchewan. As far as I could ascertain there was no relationship between the two brothers so far as any activities associated with this government were concerned. I am not certain that the two brothers were not working together prior to the time one was appointed by the government to carry on certain inspection work in the state of Minnesota, but the inspector had no connection whatever with the activities of his brother with respect to either feed or fodder sold in Saskatchewan.
As regards costs of inspection, we had in our employ thirty-six men whose duty it was to grade hay. These were employed at S125 a month, and the total cost to the government in the way of salaries has been $22,828.98 to March 31. The cost of keeping these men in the field has been $44,251.14. That makes a total cost of hay grading of $67,080.12. These men have graded 398,737 tons of fodder, which works out at seventeen cents a ton for grading hay. That is the actual cost. I may say that there were some criticisms in connection with
4004	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
the activities of these inspectors. I heard some of them during the time I was in Saskatchewan, but I did not hear any criticisms that could be taken very seriously. One criticism for example, which was made on a number of occasions, and made without full knowledge, was that one of these inspectors was attending gatherings of a concern with which she was associated-this happened to be a lady inspector. She was visiting the homes of people on relief and was paid $125 a month, and the criticism was that she was attending the functions of a certain lodge of which she happens to be the president, the president for this whole continent, which indicates a type of woman who in all probability would do this kind of work properly. I wish to say to hon. members who were making that criticism in the Saskatchewan election, that every time this lady was away from her duties she had leave of absence and was away without pay. The criticism is, therefore, not in accordance with the facts. It is possible that the return brought down in the house may have lent itself to that type of criticism, because the answer is that R. E. Gleiser of Estevan, Saskatchewan, received $125 monthly, her expense account being $1,425.58, and that the length of time she had been employed had been twelve months. That is to say, the period over which her employment extended was twelve months, but she had leave of absence occasionally, whenever she was away from her duties, and she was away without pay.


George Halsey Perley: What amount of straw
was purchased from Tom Andrews? The minister states that Andrews was gathering straw, or that straw was given to the government; that the government paid for the baling and that the baled straw was shipped.


James Garfield Gardiner: The fodder into which investigation was made was not supplied to the government at all. The fodder regarding which we made those investigations as a result of complaints was sold to a dealer in the town of Assiniboia by Mr. Andrews, but it had no connection with the government's activities. A great deal of feed and fodder has been sold in Saskatchewan to those who could not secure it but were in a position to buy it. The complaint that came to us with regard to the condition of the fodder supplied by Mr. Andrews related to fodder with which we had' nothing to do. It wras sold by Andrews to an individual in Saskatchewan, and we simply indicated to that individual when he complained' that if he had any claim against Andrews he would have to proceed in the courts in the ordinary way.
[Mr. Gardiner.)


George Halsey Perley: Did they buy any straw
or hay from Tom Andrews?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to say; it was all bought by the government of Saskatchewan.


George Halsey Perley: Could the minister give
us any details with resepet to the five cars shipped into Craven by Tom Andrews? He was entitled to freight on only two cars. If he had been a farmer-of course I believe he has some land'-


James Garfield Gardiner: Tom Andrews lives at
Craven. I do not know whether he had any hay or straw shipped to Craven, but I assume that, like many others in that district, he was short of feed1 and fodder, because practically every farmer in the Craven district was short.


Mr. QUELCH:: Why is the government
providing for relief in the dried-out areas only to the end of June? If the farmer is not in a position to support himself in June, I cannot see how he will be any better off in July and August, because there will be no return from the crops in that time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only say we
hope that furnishing relief in the drought area will come to an end some time, and the time for it to come to an end is when there is a crop in sight. What we have been doing in the drought area for a number of years is guaranteeing to pay the accounts of farmers in places of business throughout the drought area. The system under which this kind of thing is done is that vouchers are issued through the municipality, those vouchers are taken by the merchants in the towns as cash, and they are finally cashed with the government. This works out that the merchant is running a credit of from sixty to ninety days, with payment of his accounts assured. We have been doing that for a number of years, during the whole drought period. We think, when the time comes that we again have crops, or crops are in sight, business should be carried on throughout that area as it was in normal times. We are hopeful that this year, by July in any case, we can be fairly sure that we are going to have a crop generally over that area. And as soon as that is assured we think the government should get out of the business of supplying relief in that area. I think that would be the wish of the house and of the country in general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With reference to the lady inspector to whom the minister referred, what is the amount of salary she has received, and for what period of time?

Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder


James Garfield Gardiner: I have only the rate
per month; I have not the exact time she served the department. This is the second year she has been employed); on each occasion when she has been away from her duties she has had leave of absence, and that, I judge, takes in probably two or three months a year; maybe more.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The sessional paper from which the minister quoted refers to her having been occupied for twelve months of that year, which looks as though she has been paid for every month of the twelve, although it does not say so.


James Garfield Gardiner: That	simply means
that the period of her employment during that year was twelve months. If she was given leave of absence from her duties, it was without pay. But we did not lay her off every time she went away and reappoint her when she came back.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was she giving full time
while she was employed at $125 a month and expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes,	she would be
giving practically full time. There might be some days when she was giving twenty hours and other days when she was giving only five or six. The duties she was engaged in were of this type. Complaints would come about the bedding people had in a certain community; she would go there and inspect the homes, whether in winter or in summer, and converse with the mother in the home, find out what the condition was and report that to the office. In other cases we would have reports that people were getting more supplies than they ought; she would again go to the home and investigate. Miss Gleiser is the type of woman who drives her own car, who can look after herself in any line of business as well as any man, and because she is of that type we gave her this job, asked her to do it. She will drive long hours; she will work in the winter just as diligently as any man, drive her car in as bad weather as any man; and I think she did the work efficiently.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Are we to understand
from the reply to the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) that relief in the drought area will not be cut off until the crop is definitely assured, whether that be the 1st, the 15th or the end of July?


James Garfield Gardiner: Similar provision was
made last year. Provision was made for direct relief and feed and fodder. But by June 19 we were assured that there was not going to be a crop; an order in council was
immediately passed extending the period, and it was twice extended following that, running through to March 31 of this year. If the same condition were to develop again, the same thing would be done. But we are already past the period at which we knew, last year, there was going to be a crop failure, and the promise at present is for as good a crop as we have had in the west in an average year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The reason
I asked whether that lady gave full time is this. I know the lady in question and her capacity for hard work, but I understand she was at the same time operating a creamery. In spite of one's capacity for hard work, it is difficult to operate a creamery and carry on duties for the government at the same time. It seems to me that in selecting people for this work it should be possible to find people who are not otherwise engaged and who could give their full time and full attention. I am not saying the lady neglected her work; I have no reason to do so. If the minister is satisfied, it is he who was hiring her. But it seems to me that in employing people for this work, especially in these times when so many are out of work, it should hardly be necessary to employ one who is handling an enterprising business, as she was.


Mr GARDINER:: I know she has operated a creamery for the past ten or fifteen years, and is also the head official of one of the largest women's organizations on this continent, which would suggest that she can take care of at least one or two jobs. But I think it will be found that as far as the operation of the creamery during the last year is concerned, she has had persons employed to run the creamery; she has not been running it herself during the greater part of the last two years. But the main reason she was employed in this work was that we desired to have one woman inspecting the homes where this relief was being dealt out. I think any hon. member will realize that when it comes to inspecting bedding and clothing and children when complaints come in, a woman can do that much better than a man. I repeat that I do not know of any other woman in Saskatchewan who was prepared and also had the experience enabling her to face the hardships involved in doing that kind of work under the climatic conditions prevailing in Saskatchewan. If there is anyone else, I should be pleased to have her name suggested, but personally I do not know of anyone. For that reason we employed Miss Gleiser to do the work.
'1006	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What price was charged to the farmers for the oats they received? The minister said the price at the border was forty-seven cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: They were not charged anything for them; the oats were given to them free. This government paid the cost.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Did not the farmers sign notes for certain amounts?


Mr GARDINER:: I assume the hon. member is speaking of the oats that were bought for feed and general purposes. These were given to the farmers in the drought areas.


Victor Quelch: In Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: In Alberta as well as Saskatchewan. Anyone who was able to pay purchased them from the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: At what
price?


James Garfield Gardiner: The price charged would be the price stated here, less nine cents in those cases. I do not know how much was sold. A request was made to have the duty on oats removed; but it is as broad as it is long; the government was paying the whole bill, so the duty was paid at the boundary and went into the treasury of Canada. Then, when we charged it back to the province, whether it was Alberta or Saskatchewan, we charged it less the nine cents, which means that the nine cents came into the treasury but was not charged up to the province, so the province really got the oats less the amount of the duty, and was in a position to sell the oats to the farmers on that basis.


George Halsey Perley: That was in the one hundred per cent areas only?


James Garfield Gardiner: That would apply to any area where the government handled it; but if an individual imported the oats himself, he had to pay the duty.
Mr. PERLEY': In the marginal areas, where the municipalities distributed the feed and fodder, they were charged the duty?


James Garfield Gardiner: I w'ould doubt very much if any of the United States oats were brought in by the municipalities. Wherever there were any distributed, I would think the provincial government provided them to the municipalities at the rate I have mentioned; but I think most of the oats distributed by municipalities direct would be purchased either in Manitoba or Alberta.


George Halsey Perley: In answer to question No. 8, concerning the amount of hay and grain 
which remained unpaid for, the minister replied: For fodder, $44,894.12; for grain, $109,342.80. Will those amounts be paid out of this vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, they might be paid out of this vote. This is to cover any distribution that was made between April 1 and July 1. It is just possible that portions of these amounts may come out of this vote, or they may come out of the vote we passed earlier.


George Halsey Perley: Question No. 11 refers to applications to ship live stock to winter feeding quarters. I might just remind the committee that when we were discussing the previous item, before these estimates were brought down, I suggested that certain compensation should be given the farmers for the losses they had sustained in connection with horses shipped to winter feeding grounds. On that occasion the minister did not give me very much encouragement. However, during the Saskatchewan campaign the question of compensation was taken up by certain inspectors who went around and took claims from different farmers. Individual settlements were supposed to be made; in any case the claims were received, and -the farmers were told they would be given attention.
In that connection all I want to say is that I had made the suggestion before even the minister went west; but if -the government are proposing to give compensation, they should have announced that general policy so that those who had sustained losses would have been able to make claims at the proper time. I objected very much to the inspectors going the rounds, visiting farmers, asking them if they had lost any horses, if all their horses had been returned or, if not, how many had not been brought back, and then taking claims and practically assuring these men that they would be compensated. While I was speaking at one meeting I mentioned that I had suggested that compensation should be paid. One farmer held up his hand and said, "I got mine to-day."


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I may shorten the discussion if I tell my hon. friend that this is the first time I have ever heard of it. The matter has never been referred to us, and if any compensation is being paid that is being done by the provincial government. I did not even hear about it when I was out there.


George Halsey Perley: Apparently there are a few things the minister did not hear about, then, because one farmer said he had made his claim that day after an inspector had visited him.

Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder


James Garfield Gardiner: If the province desired to do that, it is quite all right, but that has nothing to do with us.


George Halsey Perley: Will any part of this or any other vote of the federal government be used to pay any part of that compensation? Surely the responsibility is on this government as well as the provincial government, since the rules and regulations governing these shipments were approved by this government.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that I should wait until the submission is made, if it is to be made, and then give consideration to all the facts. To date there has been no submission to us at all, nor have we been asked any questions about it. If the provincial government are undertaking to do it, I assume they are doing it on their own responsibility.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Is it proposed to apportion this amount according to the area of dried-out land in Alberta and Saskatchewan?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; it is not apportioned according to the area within Saskatchewan or Alberta; if it is used, it will be used in accordance with the needs of any areas in either province. No doubt part of it will be used. Whether or not it will be all used is something I have not sufficient information as yet to be able to say.


Victor Quelch: There is another situation I have in mind in regard to relief. I have in mind the area around Berry Creek, for example. Originally there was about one farmer for every half section in that district, and they were chiefly engaged in grain farming. Then, owing to continued drought, a large number moved out; that area was taken over by the special areas board, and five sections of land were apportioned to each farmer remaining. They were allowed to carry something like three head of stock per quarter section. Last year, owing to the shortage of feed, this government passed regulations under which in order to get feed they had to cut down their stock to three or four head per family. Those people now have very little land in grain, so that even if there is a good crop this year they will not benefit. All they have to depend upon are a few head of stock. I should like to know what provision will be made for them. Would it be possible for a loan of some kind to be given them to allow them to increase their stock? It has not been thought desirable that the land should be cultivated, because it is very light and 51952-254
will only blow away. They have been encouraged to go into stock, but at the present time they have only a few head, and will not be able to make a living for themselves and their families.


James Garfield Gardiner: The area around Hanna was one in connection with which we had considerable discussion during last winter. I think on an earlier occasion I explained to the house one of the reasons for all that discussion. We had made a survey of Alberta and had satisfied ourselves that there were at least forty-two municipalities in that province in connection with which we could assume one hundred per cent responsibility last winter. Representatives of the government of Alberta came to Ottawa to interview us regarding the matter. We made our suggestion to them as to what we thought ought to be done; but they suggested that a considerably larger number of municipalities, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty or sixty-five should be taken in. We did not agree with that and we compromised finally on fifty-two. The condition was that we were to take in some of the municipalities surrounding Hanna, particularly north of that town, some west and some east. There was always a difference of opinion between us as to whether some of those should come in. Most of our difficulty arose in that area. We afterwards found that some people kept more cattle than were covered by the regulations. They did it believing they had sufficient feed to carry those cattle through the winter. There was a very heavy snowfall during last winter at which time some of these people found they were not able to keep the number of stock for which they thought they had sufficient feed. I understand they made an arrangement with the provincial government, and the government here made a loan to the provincial government with which to carry through an arrangement by which feed was given to the farmers in that particular area. We are now in position to say that the greater part of the cattle that are necessary in that area were carried through; at least we heard no more complaints in the matter. I do not know that any necessities exist beyond what have been taken care of. The necessities did exist over the whole area from Alberta right through to the Manitoba boundary in Saskatchewan. Because of the discussion that has taken place, I think I should place on the record the figures with regard to the number of persons to whom feed and fodder was supplied in the two provinces.

4008	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
The particulars are as follows:
Feed and Fodder Relief 1937-38
Funds made available	Saskatchewan
Dominion area	 $10,175,000
Provincial area	 1,000,000*

*Plus loans amounting to $d,242,000.
Alberta $ 925,000 100,000

Expenditure (including stocks on hand at March 31)
Dominion area	
Provincial area	
Excluding loans.
Number relief recipients
Dominion area	
Provincial area	
Number livestock fed Horses
Dominion area.. Provincial area.. Cattle
Dominion area.. Provincial area.. Sheep
Dominion area.. Provincial area.. Swine
Dominion area.. Provincial area.. Poultry
Dominion area.. Provincial area..
$9,693,187 )	$610,240
998,916*)
$10,692,103	$610,240
43,887	3,874
25,748	437
69,635	4,311
274,618
121,044
132,588
64,761
1,022
73,974
37,051
1,695,245
73,871
Net purchases (excluding stocks on hand March
Wheat
Dominion area.
Provincial area Oats
Dominion area.
Provincial area Barley
Dominion area.
Provincial area Rye
Dominion area.
Provincial area Corn
Dominion area.
Provincial area Shorts
Dominion area.
Provincial area Fodder
Dominion area.
Provincial area Freight, grain
Dominion area.
Provincial area Freight, fodder
Dominion area.
Provincial area
Saskatchewan	Alberta
Amount Bushels 1,057,600 142,700'	Value $1,247,500 170,300	Amount Bushels 1,760 98	Value $ 1.893 774,104,700 1,861,400	2.006.500 914,760	420.694 39,252	190.700 16,6471,400,000 264,500	765.610 149,050	42,914.	25,0227,600 1,000	7,900 1,000	74,300 715	68,150 460	2,126	1.261Tons 335,000 43,000	2,181,000 335,000	Tons 19,720 1,017	171,941 9.325453,400 158,800	1.868.000 288,000	

Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
It will be noted that there were 69,635 relief recipients in Saskatchewan and 4,311 in Alberta. I believe these figures give a fair idea of the necessities of the two provinces. It must be understood that the dominion was giving assistance in the two provinces because of drought. Assistance was not given under these expenditures because of the necessities for unemployment relief. The lack of feed and fodder would indicate that drought was responsible for the difficulties facing these farmers. Perhaps I should define just what is covered by dominion area and provincial area. Dominion area is that area in which the drought was so bad that the federal government decided to assume one hundred per cent responsibility. The provincial area is still in the drought area. People are inclined to designate the area which we were taking care of as the drought area and not consider the other as being in that category, but the provincial area was also part of the drought area. It will be noted that we have no figures for Alberta covering the number of live stock fed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the number
of townships in the dominion area and the number in the provincial area?


James Garfield Gardiner: The dominion area
covered 170 municipalities in Saskatchewan and fifty-two municipalities in Alberta. The provincial area covered all the remainder of the province in which assistance would be required.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of any kind?


James Garfield Gardiner: Of any kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Other than unemployment?


James Garfield Gardiner: Due to drought, the
lack of feed and fodder. It will be noted that there are no figures given for rye and corn in connection with Alberta and for shorts in connection with Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statement covers
feed and fodder. What about human food purchased by the dominion government? I hesitate to ask the minister to read it; it might be put on Hansard so far as I am concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a similar statement here dealing with food.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister say
what items it covers so that I shall know if it covers what I am concerned about?


James Garfield Gardiner: It covers direct relief
-food, fuel, clothing and, where necessary, shelter. It is all lumped in the one group; the items are not separated. But the figures are given separately for rural and urban areas. The statement also shows the expenditure on cheese, dried beans, fish, apples and vegetables. The total purchases of these commodities are given, and the statement also shows the expenditure on the reestablishment of settlers. The statement follows:
Drought Area Direct Relief, 1937/38-Saskatchewan Period September 1-March 31 Direct Relief: "Food, fuel, clothing and, where necessary, shelter"
Area (No. of Municipalities and L.I.D.'s) Population of Drought Area
Rural	
Urban	
Relief Recipients (peak number)
Heads of families	
Dependents	
Individual cases	
Total Expenditure Drought Area	
Dept, of Labour Expenditures
Drought area April 1-August 31.. .. Non-drought area, April 1-March 31..
Total Direct Relief Assistance to Province
Saskatchewan		Alberta
170		52
233,243		66,996
55,965		20,928
289,208		87,924
41,100		4,300
151,600		18,700
7,300		750
200,000		23,750
$ 8,999,999 72	$	589,920 18$ 1,916,682 11	$	165,000 002,760,000 00	1,530,000 00$13,676,681 83	$	1,695,000 00
31952-254J
4010	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
Drought Area Direct Relief, 1937/38-Saskatchewan Period September 1-March 31 Direct Relief: "Food, fuel, clothing and, where necessary, shelter"-Concluded
Special Distribution of Foodstuffs to Saskatchewan and Alberta
Total expenditure	
Commodities (values F.O.B. shipping point)
Cheese	53	ears	
Dried beans 35 cars	
Fish	101	cars	
Apples 283 cars	
Vegetables 375 ears	
Re-establishment of Settlers
Expenditure	
Families aided (as at Dec. 31/37)

160,000 00	$	75,000 00 (est.)
3,018	1,124


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it must be apparent to anyone who has followed this discussion with any degree of care that we have here a problem of considerable magnitude. We have the dominion government exercising jurisdiction over a large area, and we have Saskatchewan-Alberta seems to have had a very small area affected-exercising jurisdiction over what has been called the provincial area. That creates at once a conflict of interest. It must be apparent t-o anyone who has received correspondence that the whole problem of relief in Saskatchewan has been very much complicated by reason of the fact that the dominion government is administering relief on its own responsibility in a given area, and the province is administering it in another area. We did suggest, and I still suggest, that this matter, if it is to be continued, should be dealt with only by a commission.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I just interject that the administration is carried on by the province over the whole area. The dominion is not administering relief anywhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should have put it in this way. The dominion acquires the food, feed, .fodder and supplies in a given area, and the province does it in another area.


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The dominion bought direct.


James Garfield Gardiner: We bought cheese and
beans and food of that type direct and distributed it to the whole area that was covered by the one hundred per cent federal responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I was making. We purchased cheese, dried beans, fish, apples and vegetables. The dominion government went out and purchased these

supplies. We then transported them to Saskatchewan and distributed them, as the minister says, over given areas. On the other hand, we had the province dealing with the situation in the manner indicated by the minister. I submit that in both cases we were dealing with the same taxpayers' money. I submit further-and I do not think this can be questioned-that we have exercised no effective control over the province in connection with this money. That is, while the accounts are audited, there is nothing that prevents the most reckless extravagance on the part of the province because, as the minister very properly says: "The province did this, not the dominion." My contention as to the necessity for a commission was predicated entirely upon that fact.
I have received innumerable letters; but in. view of the fact that it is said that the people have approved this method, I am not going to take the time to argue the matter. It may be said that at the election forty-six per cent of the electors expressed themselves as being in favour of this method. The Saskatoon Phoenix-Star wrote an editorial in which it very properly pointed out that the protest vote in Saskatchewan was larger than the vote the government secured. The editor called it that-"the protest vote"-and he gave the causes for it. It may be said, and is said, "Why waste time talking about this? Saskatchewan has given its verdict; the government is returned, and that is the end of it." We will say that under our democracy that is the end of it, and that we must accept it, except to do one thing. I think the minister will agree with me that when one collecting body, namely, the parliament of Canada, is responsible for the acquisition of the revenue, and another taxing power is spending it, a very difficult situation arises. When we were in office the present Prime Minister spent a very great

Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
deal of time in reading from learned treatises upon that point, and pointing out how injurious it was to the body politic that it should be continued. We, however, did not discontinue it for reasons that at that moment seemed good. But we did believe that in Saskatchewan, having regard to the very serious character of the situation there, a commission could do the best work possible. The minister disagrees with that. He made that perfectly clear as soon as he came into office because he dispensed with the services of the commission, as he pointed out in this house. Assuming that he is right as to that, I do submit and I wish to put it on Hansard as a matter of record, in the iight of all the complaints, that the matter should be dealt with by a commission.
The minister says that some of the com-olaints are ill-founded. I believe that may be so, but I shall give just one illustration. It is of a blacksmith who was kept so very busy that he was working fifteen hours a day to get his work done; yet he was receiving relief in that community, and he continued to receive relief. The minister very properly says to me: "I have nothing to dio with that, Mr. Bennett, because that matter is dealt with by the province of Saskatchewan, and they assure me that everything is being properly done." But I ask, have we any right to take the money which has been raised by this parliament, and which was referred to yesterday by the minister as being a very large sum indeed, then place it in the hands of other people for expenditure and exercise over it only that control which is involved in being certain that the audit is correct-that the goods are as shown on the invoices, and that there is evidence of delivery of the goods to the amount for which payment is sought? I think not.
I hope, indeed I do more than that, I agree with the very earnest hope expressed by the minister that we shall not have to do this again. But who knows? I do not; for last year when I was west there was promise of a crop, and then a month later there was no promise of a crop. I think there is promise of a better crop this year. I have not been there this spring, but that is what I have been told. We all earnestly hope that there will be a crop. But assume there is not; we have again the responsibility. I urge upon the minister the necessity of considering whether it is not our duty to the people of Canada to set up to deal with this matter some tribunal that will obviate our having to say that this is not in our jurisdiction, and, e converso, for the provinces to say that it is not in theirs. All the money comes from here.
It must be remembered that Saskatchewan has been enabled to carry on its business by reason of the fact that we have provided it with funds. Saskatchewan has not defaulted on its bonds and the insurance companies and investors have received their interest because we have provided the province with the money with which to pay the interest. In Alberta we did not do that, and only one half of the interest on the bonds is covered by the coupons paid. These are facts. I suggest that the time has come when we should consider the possibility of having to face this situation again, and if we have to face it we should realize that we are making a rather heavy call upon the taxpayers of this country, to put up millions of dollars for three purposes:	(1) unemployment relief,
which in Saskatchewan is less, having regard to its agricultural population, than it might otherwise be; (2) relief for drought conditions; and (3) general governmental purposes. Those three make a very large call upon the resources of this dominion. They are subdivided with respect to (2) into very well marked divisions. In one of them we exercise complete and sole control; in the other the provinces exercise complete and sole control.
There should be some body set up-I care not what it may be called-that will be responsible for the administration; for the point to keep in mind is that the government of Saskatchewan is not raising this money by taxation; what it is doing is disposing of the money of Canada which is appropriated by this parliament to them for the purpose- broadly-of relief. Under those circumstances, as the Prime Minister used to point out with great clarity, you cannot expect the same measure of care to be exercised in the disposition of money thus acquired as would be exercised were it to arise from the taxation of the people themselves by the distributing power. I make this suggestion to the minister in the light of what he has pointed out a moment ago, namely that we still have to pay large sums of money. As far as I can see, even if Saskatchewan has a crop we cannot for some time be entirely relieved of responsibility. Is that not correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, it should not run very far beyond the first of July.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very glad to hear the minister say that.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is, if the crop is in sight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must say I am very glad to hear the minister say that, because I
4012	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Feed and Fodder
feared they were so denuded of everything after these many years of drought that until there could be a realization in money, we would have to continue to make contributions to enable them to live, because of lack of purchasing power of any kind, or of credit.


James Garfield Gardiner: We shall have to continue it to some of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These will be matters
largely controlled by the provinces, not by us. I take it that this will be so. The minister will therefore, I think, see the force of what I suggest, namely the desirability of our devising a plan or scheme which will enable us, to exercise more effective control, not necessa rily administrative so far as distribution is; concerned, but with respect to possible abuses in connection with it which are bound to arise where you have any body distributing money or supplies or food or fodder or shelter or clothing, where the responsibility for raising the money is not upon the taxpayers of the province affected. In view of the fact that the electors of Saskatchewan, at least to the extent of forty-six per cent of the population, which under the conditions that prevail constitutes the return of the administration of the day with a minority of the votes, have expressed themselves as being entirely satisfied with the manner in which the distribution of relief has taken place, that must be accepted as an answer-not a bad answer-to any complaint which may be made. But I think it is time that we should carefully and calmly review the situation and, now that the election is past, free from animosities and bitternesses which may have arisen, determine whether or not it is possible to contemplate, with respect to relief, not in Saskatchewan only but in any of the provinces where the federal power is finding the money, that there should be an administration which can effect a closer relationship between the expenditure of money and the results obtained from that expenditure.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are only one or two remarks I should like to make. I would not like the impression to remain that, in cases such as that recited, of the blacksmith who was very busy and drawing relief all the time, we take no responsibility. Wherever a case of that kind was reported to us, we insisted on an investigation and, where the facts were found to warrant it, a prosecution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but we are not
the people to whom reDorts would be made.
[Mr. Bennett.1


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course we had inspectors out who were checking this work in all parts of the province.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Is it not a fact that
there have been quite a number of prosecutions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; there have been
quite a number of prosecutions. I do not know whether in this case there has been a prosecution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has not been yet.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been cases,
and there will be others in which prosecutions are made. But we do take responsibility in that matter.
One other comment I should like to make is that in so far as we have been able to investigate the whole matter of the administrative cost of relief over the whole area, we have found that the closer to the individuals concerned the administration of relief has been handled, the lower the cost has been. The places where we have been able to check indicate that clearly. Take, for example, in Saskatchewan the L.I.D. areas. The municipal department has the same control over the whole area as a municipal council has over a municipality.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, the local improvement districts.


James Garfield Gardiner: Districts that have
not been organized into municipalities, and where the municipal department carries on the activities just as though it were a municipal council. Where the provincial department have been doing that work, at a greater distance from the individuals concerned, the costs have been higher than they have been in the districts where the municipalities have done it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ah, but generally speaking these are unsettled districts.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not in the sense in which the right hon. gentleman speaks. You can find a municipality alongside a local improvement district. They have not been organized 'because they are a little less thickly populated, but one of the chief reasons is that in recent years the people of those areas have found it less costly to operate in that way than to form those areas into municipalities. But when it comes to distributing relief it has been found less costly to have the municipal council do it than even to have an official of the provincial department do it. I think it would be less costly still to have the municipality do it than to have it done by an

Supply-Agriculture-Resettlement
official of this government, because of the great distance we are away from the activities in which we are interested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes. Of course we could not do it.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can judge only from the experiences we have had, and that has been our experience.
Some reference was made to the fact that the 'bond interest has been paid in Saskatchewan largely because of assistance from this government, and that the bond interest in Alberta was not paid because they had not received assistance. I should not like the impression to go out that the reason the bond interest in Alberta was not paid was that they had not received assistance. As a matter of fact, they made a definite decision that they would pay only half the interest whether they received assistance or not. That decision was made without reference to this government, and they have had a great deal of assistance since making that decision. But Saskatchewan never so decided. They said that they would pay the interest if possible, and they have continued to do so.
With regard to the suggestion that the people have voted and that there has been an expression of opinion, which has been a protest expression, I would point out that the protest was much smaller in the area we have been discussing, that is, the area where the dominion government have provided funds and the administration has been carried on by the province, than it was in the other area where there was perhaps less necessity for assistance to be given. I wanted to make that comment because it has a bearing on the question.


George Halsey Perley: What is the percentage cost of distribution?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not in a position to give the cost of distribution. Does the hon. member mean the cost of administration?


George Halsey Perley: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: That has been paid by the province, and we have not assisted in that at all. We have, therefore, no accounting of that.


George Halsey Perley: If there were any way of arriving at it, the minister would see that the cost, so far as the public is concerned, is greater under the present system than under the relief commission. Under the relief commission it was in the neighbourhood of 2i per cent. As I remember, the matter was discussed on different occasions, and it was proved, we thought conclusively, that the cost
under the relief commission was much lower than it has been under this system. I endorse what the leader of the opposition has said. If we have to continue this, we should have a commission set up, because the present system has lent itself to a multiplicity of inspectors being appointed. Any members who happened to be in Saskatchewan during the campaign know that inspectors were very numerous. In fact, in one constituency in the northern part they were so numerous that it was thought the inspectors should wear a white ribbon in the lapel of their coat so that they would not be asking one another to vote Liberal.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That was
reported to have happened in the Wolseley district.


George Halsey Perley: It happened in my hon.
friend's district. They were numerous there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide assistance to the provinces for resettlement, $365,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: A short explanation will be all that is necessary.


James Garfield Gardiner: This amount provides
for the continuation of a service that has been given for a number of years in New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. The settlers who were moved north in the western provinces or moved into some of the newer areas in New Brunswick under the scheme started in 1932 came under a three-way provision whereby the municipality provided one-third, the province one-third, and the dominion one-third. There has been some difficulty in having them established, and we have been providing an amount on a fifty-fifty basis.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been the net
result of it? I know what it was prior to three years ago, but what is the general position now?


James Garfield Gardiner: The net result is that by spending this money to assist in breaking up land a great number of these people have been taken off relief and made self-sustaining.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the number?
I should like to have it on the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have the Saskatchewan figures here:
1.	Total expenditures.
Answer: $346,415.59 to December 31, 1937.
2.	Total number of families assisted in one or more ways.
Answer: 3,018.

Supply-Agriculture-Resettlement
3. Number of families given each kind of
assistance listed on Schedule A.
Answer:
Horses, oxen and harness	 644
Milk cows, brood sows and poultry. 483 Freight on live stock and settlers
effects	 135
Breaking	 451
Moving settlers and dependents-
Families	 276
Dependents	1,104
Building and fencing materials.. .. 2,029
Miscellaneous hardware	 495
Farm implements, machinery and
repairs	1,933
4. Total expenditure on each kind of assistance.
Answer:
Work stock	$102,116	88Milk cows, brood sows, poultry	
8,363	78
Freight on live stock and
effects	 6,353	04
Feed and petroleum for
breaking	
1,368	24Feed for winter	maintenance	119	79Moving settlers and dependents	
1,326	04Building and fencing materials	
26,296	81Implements and	repairs..	..	87,922	67Miscellaneous hardware supplies	
981	50Clearing and breaking land..	59,916	04Construction of	drains..	..	51,650	80Total	$346,415 595.	Number of acres of land cleared.
Answer: 33,227 acres.
6.	Number of acres of land broken.
Answer: 28,597 acres.
7.	Quantities and values of main materials and supplies issued such as timber, other building materials, fertilizer, seed, feed and fodder, farm implements and machinery (value only), miscellaneous hardware and small tools (value only).
Answer:
Lumber, approximately 750,000 feet.
Shingles, approximately 3 million.
Other building material, approximately $5,000.
Seed-nil.
Feed and fodder-$119.79.
For other items see answer to question 4. moved in Saskatchewan; after they had been there for three or four years the greater number of them were still on relief, and the relief was costing more than it did where they had been brought from.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some of them wanted to go back.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; some of them did go back. But since this policy has been in operation, the tendency is for them to become established and get off relief. I think an answer to a question here will give an idea of the extent to which that is true: Number of settlers receiving assistance this year who were also assisted in one previous year, 1,424; number who were assisted in two previous years, nil; number assisted in three or more previous years, nil.	'


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is rather good.


James Garfield Gardiner: The percentage of
settlers receiving assistance in 1937 who may be expected to be self-sustaining in 1938 is about 30 per cent. They figure that in about three years they will work them all off.


Mr. BROOKS:: How much of that money was expended in the different provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures are:
Amounts available:
New Brunswick	$ 50,000
Saskatchewan	 160.000
Alberta	 75.000
British Columbia	 15,000
Amounts expended:
New Brunswick	$ 17.909
Saskatchewan	 160,000
Alberta	 6,472
British Columbia	 6,142
Saskatchewan is the only province which spent the amount that was made available.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Was that amount of $17,000 in New Brunswick for the relief of British settlers expended on the same basis as the money expended in Saskatchewan?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the minister say that the results indicated fair success in the movement of these people in these provinces? I am rather curious about the matter because it was regarded as a very undesirable thing to do; but it was urgently pressed, as the minister will remember, by some people, and I notice that several thousand were moved in Saskatchewan. I do not think there were many in New Brunswick or British Columbia. Would the minister say that in his opinion the results suggest that the effort has been fairly worth while?


James Garfield Gardiner: As I remember, there were between 7,000 and 8,000 of these families


James Garfield Gardiner: It was spent on the
same basis, under a similar agreement ; I think it was in almost identical terms.


Victor Quelch: I have received several
complaints regarding free freight being cut off on March 31. This is under an agreement between the dominion and provincial governments and the railways. The farmers complain that it is difficult to get their effects into the towns by that date on account of the condition of the roads. Last year around March 31 there was a blizzard raging, and several farmers were not able to get their effects loaded on that date, and so were refused the cheap rate.

Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation


James Garfield Gardiner: We have had some
complaints about matt-ers of that kind, but that is because our agreements run out on March 31. We have always been able to make arrangements with the railways to carry on.


Victor Quelch: And you will agree to
carry them on?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and water storage, $3,500,000.
George Halsey Perley: The minister stated the
other evening it would be under this item that he would give some information in respect to the community pastures and the amount of stock in each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will not
be able to finish this item to-night. He will probably save himself and the committee a little effort if he rises now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unless there is considerable information required, I can give the list of pastures and perhaps let it go at that. Would it suit the purpose if I have this printed in Hansard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would give us an opportunity to read it, without the minister having to read it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The statement is as
follows:
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act List of Community Pastures Completed to March 31, 1938
Name-Headquarters
Coalfields-Bienfait	
Estevan-Cambria-Hitchcock.. ..
Laurier-Radville	
The Gap No. 1-Hardy	
The Gap No. 2-Hardy	
Brokenshell No. 1-Yellow Grass Brokenshell No. 2-Clearfield. . .
Excel No. 1-Ormiston	
Excel No. 2-Ormiston	
Rudy-Wingello	
Usborne-Venn	
Dundurn-Dundurn	
Montrose-Donavon	
Mariposa Nc. 1-Kerrobert.. .. Mariposa No. 2-Kerrobert.. .. Park-Langham	
Total	
	Potential	
	carrying	Construction
Acreage	capacity	cost6,500	200	$ 6.062 836,400	180- 200	6,772 2824,960	1,200	18.208 455,440	200	10.518 516,720	250- 300	9.808 0920,480	1,000-1,200	12,972 648,160	100	8,283 636.880	300	4.984 2510,560	200	4.672 557.360	150- 200	8,360 9212,160	800	10,969 4920,800	600- 800	15.658 0611,680	300- 400	9,076 177,320	150- 2001	13,209 5914,720	350- 500f	5,760	400	10,842 96175,900	6,280-7,100	$150,400 42


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in connection with this matter that I wish to discuss with the minister some questions arising out of the work which has been undertaken. The act was passed in 1935 just before the late government left office. At that time it was not contemplated that it would involve expenditure of such large sums. At the moment it is placing in the hands of the minister the direction of the expenditure of practically $3,500,000. Last year we spent substantial sums, and without seeing the details there are certain matters which I should like to discuss but cannot. One of them has to do not with the pastures but with the question of damming streams and creating pools in various parts of the west. I do not recall the exact word; I think they manufactured a word that describes it-


James Garfield Gardiner: Dug-outs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will that be covered by the information which is supplied.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not by this table, but I have the information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would also produce that so that we may have it on Hansard for Monday. It will expedite the passage of his estimates, because that will enable us to speak about one of the projects which I think can fairly be discussed. The minister might tell us the present method of operation.


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be impossible to give a list of the dug-outs, where they are located; that is, there are hundreds of them, but I can give the numbers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there any way of
giving the location without too much trouble? It is that phase I was going to discuss.


James Garfield Gardiner: This map will give some idea. Every dot there is a dug-out.
4016	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Farm Rehabilitation


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ever since I saw red
last evening it has been difficult to see at that distance.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sending the map over to my right hon. friend.


Victor Quelch: There is certain information I should like to have in regard to the Bartman dam. Will that be handed down? I should like to know how much was paid to the Poole Construction Company last fall or up to date on the building of the Bartman dam, and who was responsible for rebuilding it? Is the company responsible, or the government? The dam was washed out this spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: The Bartman dam is
on East Berry creek in Alberta. There was storage for irrigation of approximately 700 acres of land in order to ensure a supply of winter feed. It was an earth dam with outlet pipe and spillway channel, estimated cost
S25,000.	Tenders were invited from the following :
E. O'Connor, Medicine Hat:
Poole Construction Co.. Ltd., Edmonton;
J. Millar, Western Construction Co., Edmonton ;
Special Municipal Areas Board, Edmonton;
W. B. Ramsay, Regina;
Gibbs Brothers, Lumsden, Saskatchewan;
Kearns & Mamoser, Shaunavon, Saskatchewan.
Tenders were received from the following only:
Special municipal areas board, $19,155.60;
Poole Construction Co., $19,332.50.


Richard Bedford Bennett: AVas that for just one
dam?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; the estimated cost was 825,000. The amount paid to the contractor in connection with the construction of this project, covering work done for the months of October and November, totals SIO.237,132. The balance due on contract will have to be paid during the fiscal year 1938-39. It is not all paid.


Victor Quelch: Are they going to rebuild? The dam was washed out this spring because the spillway was not completed. I was wondering if they were responsible for the reconstruction of the dam.


James Garfield Gardiner: They will not be
responsible for the rebuilding of it without any further payment. I telegraphed to Regina to get the facts with regard to the present position, and have them in a telegram dated June 15. The full report is in the mail, on the way east, but the telegram reads:
Not possible to complete dam before freeze-up. Dam thirty-four feet high. On account of powder dry earth impossible to make dam

completely watertight. In March contractor instructed to cut emergency spillway on wing of dam to avoid break. This and every other precaution taken to avoid break. Because of exceptionally heavy snow fall in Berry creek drainage basin greatest spring floods that have ever occurred poured into reservoir. Earth fill settled sufficient for water to over top dam washing out gap one hundred and fifteen feet long including sluice gate structure. Estimated total for complete dam forty thousand cubic yards. Estimated amount washed out approximately ten thousand cubic yards.
In other words, approximately one-quarter of the dam was washed out.


Victor Quelch: Are they responsible for
rebuilding it?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think not. Probably
we shall have to call for tenders for rebuilding it.


Victor Quelch: Will that be done this
year?


James Garfield Gardiner: AVe expect to have it
done this year.


Victor Quelch: I believe this dam will
serve a very useful purpose, but will it not be possible to build one or two storage dams above it? That dam will not hold enough water to irrigate the whole area down below in the event of a very diy year. If we had one or two storage dams above that, no doubt we would be able to get enough water to carry through a dry year, which is the rule in that area. It is unusual to have the amount of water they had this spring.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not able to say
whether provision should be made for another dam above that one. So far as I know, at the moment there is no survey in connection with one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Looking at the dams that are located on the sheet of paper-


James Garfield Gardiner: Those are dug-outs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then looking at those
dug-outs located on the sheet of paper which the minister sent over to me, I would say it would be somewhat difficult to escape a duck pond in any part of that area, if you could attach importance to them in that sense.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



MINISTER OF MINES AND RESOURCES


Richard Bedford Bennett: To-day one of our number (Mr. Crerar) has attained another birthday. Full of years and honours he has just come into the

Hon. T. A. Crerar-Birthday Greetings
chamber from reading the messages of congratulation that have come to him from all parts of the world, on the fact that to-day he h3S attained the age of sixty-two. I know he will not regard it as a favour that I should indicate the number of his years; but if he continues to stagger like Atlas under the load he bears, of a department that contains all the mines, resources, parks, forests and Indians, to say nothing of the undetermined question as to whether or not the Eskimos are Indians, it is quite clear that we cannot expect to celebrate more than twenty-five more such anniversaries.
With the hon. gentleman at all times are the best wishes and the good will of all those who have been privileged to be associated with him. He holds very erroneous opinions with great tenacity; and he holds, not with tenacity but with very great ease, the friendship and good will of many people in various parts of this country who are not unmindful of the fact that while oil and water do not mix, it is fitting that the sole representative in this chamber of the union government should, on this, his birthday, sit1 side by side with his right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I wish the hon. minister well.
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice); I desire to join very heartily with my right hon. friend in expressing congratulations to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I am sorry he is getting older. He is getting to be an old man, I understand; in point of fact he is three months older than I am. In regard to the remembrance of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), I think it is true that the Minister of Mines and Resources made a mistake during his lifetime, but I must pay him a tribute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has atoned for it.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East); I remember when he was Minister of Agriculture in that union government, facing us poor fellows who were on the other side; I remember having to deliver a speech, which I made as strong as possible, against that nefarious government. The man who was smiling and beaming, facing me at the time I made my speech, was the then Minister of Agriculture; he was lost in his surroundings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Coming events cast their shadows before.


Ernest Lapointe: So I am pleased indeed to pay him this tribute. He has a fine heart and a sound mind, and he is never very long in his mistakes; he always recovers from them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is why we have such hope for him.


Ernest Lapointe: On behalf of the members on this side, I thank the right hon. gentleman for this generous tribute to my colleague.
Mr. CRERAR; Mr. Chairman, I observe that the clock is almost on the stroke of eleven, but certainly I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing to my friend-as I hope I may describe the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am honoured.


Mr. CRERAR:: -and to my colleague the Minister of Justice my thanks for their appreciative words. I think I have known the leader of the opposition for a greater number of years than I have known even the Minister of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes; I was on the platform with the hon. gentleman for the union government, although I was not a candidate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If my right hon. friend will search his memory a little more closely, I think he will find that he was not on the platform with me in 1917, but at any rate we were fighting on the same side at that time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I was on the platform with the hon. gentleman at Calgary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Minister of Justice has alluded to my earlier appearance in this house, and to the speech he made on one occasion. I was really so enamoured of the very pleasant personality of the minister, even when he was in opposition, that I could not resist smiling across the gangway at him.
I do wish to express my thanks to the members of the house who are still here at this late hour for the very kind way in which they have received the altogether too generous felicitations of my colleague and the right hon. leader of the opposition. Sixty-two years is getting well along in the allotted span, but I hope I may have still a few years of useful service before me. During the next year or two, at any rate, which will constitute the term of this parliament, I hope I may have an opportunity to acquire wisdom from both *the leader of the opposition and the Minister of Justice.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
4018	COMMONS
Unemployment-Vancouver Siluation
Monday, June 20, 1938