Mr. HANSON:: X. What was the total number of naturalization certificates granted in the Dominion of Canada in the years 1928 to 1938, inclusive, showing each year separately?
2.	How many of the persons to whom such certificates were granted during that period were of oriental origin, showing each year separately ?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.
1929
1931
1933
1935
1937
7,223
7,344
11,171
10,897
17,333
17,136
16,719
16,566
24,389
25,330
21,924
Total
2.
1928,
1929,
1930,
1931, 1932 1933,
1935
1937
176,032
45
62
2
20
52
Total
3024
Question as Order for Return



HARRINGTON EAST, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. HEON:: 1.	Has a new postmaster been appointed for the post office at Harrington East, county of Argenteuil, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, who has been appointed, and on whose recommendation?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Roderick McTavish, recommended by L. L. Legault, K.C.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. JACOBS:: , 1'Why is the annuity branch administered by the Department of Labour?
2.	What is the present premium rate on government annuities?
3.	Is the present rate based wholly on the mortality table or was the interest rate a guiding factor as well?
4.	Did the minister obtain from the Superintendent of insurance or any fellow of the institute of actuaries an opinion as to the adequacy of the present rate on government annuities?
5.	Is there a yearly deficit on annuities already sold?
6.	If the annuities branch has been operated 1!L Uie past at a deficit, will the present rates offset that deficit?
7.	Are Canadian government annuities held by citizens of other countries who are not livin'' in Canada?
8.	What is the maximum amount of benefit under a single annuity? Of the total number of annuities sold in the past three years what percentage of that number was for the maximum amount?
9.	Is a record kept of the class of person who buys government annuities?
10.	Can a purchaser of a government annuity pay only a small amount such as $10, and then alter a length of years, by paying all the premiums before retiring age, receive his annuity?
1L Are the expenses, and deficits, if any, of the annuities branch met out of the consolidated revenue ibnd ? If so, what amounts were paid m 193a, 1936 and 1937: (a) for expenses; (b) for deficits?
12. Does the government borrow the funds ol the annuities branch? If so, at what rate ol interest?
.	* Afe ike funds of the annuities branch
invested in securities? If so, what is the nature ol these securities?
14. Are agents appointed by the government to sell annuities? If so, how are such agents paid? If by commission, at what rate? What would the annual payment to each of these agents amount to?


Mr. ROGERS:: Tabled herewith.
tion of privilege. In an editorial published yesterday on the subject of the national defence estimates, the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit attributed to me and to all my dissenting colleagues, without exception, unjust and humiliating motives.
We have never even thought of taking advantage of any means of evasion whatever.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues from St. Maurice-Laflfeche (Mr. Crete), of Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Gariepy), of Champlain (Mr. Brunelle), of Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Wilfrid Lacroix), of Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), of Quebec West (Mr. Charles Parent), of Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe) and of Lake St. John (Mr. Sylvestre), I protest against this article. I wish to state once more in this house that our views regarding the increase in the military estimates are the same this year as last.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday on the orders of the day the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) asked for certain information with regard to the Canadian Wheat board. I desire to say to the house that the government, in accordance with the recommendation of the Turgeon commission, has decided to continue the wheat board for the crop season of 1938-39. The matter of price will be dealt with when the general wheat situation becomes clearer, and well in advance of the crop year.



PRIVILEGE-MR. WALSH NEWSPAPER REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS ON BILL NO. 4, TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I should like to direct the attention of the house to remarks that I made on Tuesday evening when speaking on Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code. I said:
It is for that reason that I am prepared to support the bill.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. DUBOIS On the orders of the day:


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet-Yamaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a ques-

The following statement appears on page 1 of the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, May 18:
W. A. Walsh, Montreal Conservative, condemned the bill.

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
I draw this statement to the attention of the house in order that the opinion expressed there will not be regarded as the opinion I expressed in the house.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: They 'had to protect the hon. gentleman.

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



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, $594,135.
Mr. PERLEY:: Would the minister explain the increase in this vote?


Mr. GARDINER:: There are two items
of increase:	Permanent salaries, $13,876, and
temporary salaries, $18,362, making an increase on account of salaries of $32,238.


Mr. HAYHURST:: How many greenhouses at the central experimental farm are used for disease surveys and research work?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two in
cereals, two in botany, one in horticulture and one in forage crops.


William Allen Walsh: Are there many people employed at the experimental farm who are not on the experimental staff but are classified as temporary employees, and have been there for a considerable number of years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the exact
figure, but there are very few who have been temporary over a considerable number of years.


William Allen Walsh: I was informed that quite
a number of exceptionally well qualified men are on what is called the temporary staff. They are doing good work and have been there. I will not say a considerable number of years, but quite a number of years, and I was wondering what the chances were of their being made permanent in order to get the benefits of that classification.


James Garfield Gardiner: Most of them were
student labourers who were taken on at the end of their courses. They are now reclassified under the reorganization, and will have a better opportunity of becoming permanent under the new set-up.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Driving along Carling
avenue I noticed an immense building being erected on the experimental farm. I should like to know why that building was erected, what was the necessity for it and what department it is for.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is being erected by the Department of Public Works for the storing of records of the different departments. It has nothing to do with the operation of the experimental farm.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I notice that there
is an increase in this and the next item totalling $121,000. It is my opinion that there is a tremendous overhead in operating the experimental farm and the branch farms and stations.


James Garfield Gardiner: That might perhaps
be better discussed under the next item. The one before us deals with the central experimental farm only.


Mr. HYNDMAN:: The seasonal labourers
at the central experimental farm, who are mostly farmers' sons, receive from twenty-eight to thirty-four cents an hour, while the labourers employed by and under the Public Works department receive forty-five cents an hour. What is the reason for the difference in pay?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main explanation is that the labour employed on the farm is agricultural labour. On our farms generally across the country we try to regulate the pay so that it will be somewhat in conformity with the general rate of pay prevailing for that type of labour. The Public Works department have what under their classification are called labourers but they are of a little different type from those we employ for general field work on the farm. There is also in connection with the Public Works classification some provision with which I am not fully familiar which has to do with the granting of holidays, and which works in with the rate of pay.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: The seasonal worker at the farm, that is the farmer's son, has to work in the summer time fifty-eight hours a week, and in the winter fifty-three hours, whereas those employed under the Public Works department work only forty-four hours a week, or an eight-hour day. I should like to know why this distinction is made between these classes of labour.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason for it, I suppose, is largely one of custom and practice. In connection with artisans, for example, there is an eight-hour day, and speaking generally we adhere to that as a government. But there are no set hours for agricultural labour, and I think most of us realize that it would be difficult to operate a farm on an eight-hour basis. The farm is operated on a ten-hour basis.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Branch Farms
Branch farms and stations and illustration stations, $1,365,692.
George Halsey Perley: How many of these stations are now in operation?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are 26 experimental farms and stations, and in addition we have 9 substations and 194 illustration stations.


George Halsey Perley: Does the farm of Doctor Saeger Wheeler that was taken over at Rosthern come in this list?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. My information is that that farm is not included in the figures I have just given.


George Halsey Perley: Under what branch of the department is it operated? I thought it was taken over as a substation.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Wheeler, of course, was a very prominent worker in the selection of seed and in the showing of wheat at exhibitions. He cooperated with the department until he reached the age of superannuation, and then he went off automatically. The question whether he should be further continued is still under consideration.


George Halsey Perley: I have had letters from several persons in that district, also resolutions passed, I think, by the Prince Albert board of trade, asking me to make representations that Doctor Wheeler be continued in the service. I understand that when his farm was taken over as a demonstration farm he was employed as a superintendent at a salary, I think, of $2,200, until he reached the age of seventy. He reached that age last year, I understand, and I am informed by the Prince Albert board of trade that he was superannuated or given a pension of seven-fiftieths of his salary. They think that Doctor Wheeler is quite capable of still carrying on this work; he is very active, and has certainly made an important contribution to agriculture in the development of pure seed, as the minister has just stated. I have been asked to make representations on his behalf that he be allowed to carry on that work at the farm for another few years. He was one of the pioneer settlers; he has certainly made a valuable contribution to agriculture, and I am very glad to make these representations on his behalf. A statement from the minister as to the work Doctor Wheeler is actually carrying on, and whether the suggestion will be considered, would I think be very welcome at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: The department have not had the farm of Seager Wheeler rented. He has been carrying on experiments on his own farm, which I believe is located just across 
the road from our experimental branch there, and I think for seven years he has been paid a salary by the department to carry on his activities on his own farm and be available at all times for advisory purposes to our station across the road. Until he reached the age of seventy that pay was continued. When he reached the age of seventy the matter of superannuation was considered. The general policy is not to continue men beyond the age of seventy, but representations have been made by the board of trade of Prince Albert and others that we should reconsider the matter. We have it under consideration at the moment, but no further decision has been reached. At present he is superannuated.


William Hayhurst: I notice that there are three branch laboratories in the prairie provinces which are concerned largely with the diseases of cereals. Where are the three located?


James Garfield Gardiner: That comes under the next item, science services. They are at Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Edmonton.


Mr. PELLETIER:: There is a sub-experimental station at Beaver Lodge, Alberta, and from time to time there has been a great deal of agitation to make it into a full-fledged station. The Minister of Agriculture last summer made a tour of the Peace River and has first-hand information concerning the Beaver Lodge substation. Perhaps he is in a position to tell the committee what the government intends to do so far as the establishment of a station in the Peace River country is concerned. That substation has been operated for a great many years by one who is considered to be fully capable of performing his duties. I understand that he is well known to the minister. Apart from that there are the claims of the people of the Peace River country for a full-fledged station; and since the minister made a tour last summer and acquainted himself with the conditions, he may be in a position now to make a statement concerning this matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did visit this station last summer and found that very valuable work was being carried on there. At the moment I am not in a position to state what the future policy will be with regard to it. I shall foe in a much better position to discuss it when the supplementaries are down. Any provision which is made for such an establishment will have been determined at that time.
I should much prefer to have the discussion deferred until we have the supplementaries down, and if there is an amount for that purpose in the supplementaries we can discuss

Supply-Agriculture-Branch Farms
it from that point of view. But there is an amount in the general estimates for the enlargement of the work that is being done at Beaver Lodge.


René-Antoine Pelletier: That is quite satisfactory. I am quite willing to await the supplementary estimates, provided of course that the minister agrees with me as to the need and desirability of establishing a station in the Peace River country.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no question about the need for a station in that vicinity.


Mr. MALLETTE (Translation):: I desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and of the committee to a question of great importance to the farmers, especially the horticulturists, of the district of Montreal which, as you know, includes the county of Jacques Cartier. I have received from the district agronomist a letter from which I quote the following paragraph:
The horticulturists of the counties of Jacques Cartier, Laval, Two Mountains, Terrebonne and L'Assomption would like to see the farm at L'Assomption establish a substation either on the island of Montreal or on Jesus island in order to conduct the experiments required by the horticulturists of the district. We understand that the soil of the experimental farm at L'Assomption is not in all respects similar to that of the farms of most of the above mentioned horticulturists and that it would therefore be desirable for that experimental farm to rent a property on which to conduct its experiments, as the Lennoxville farm does at its substation in the county of Chateauguay.
It is sometimes forgotten in various sections of the country, Mr. Chairman, that Quebec also is an agricultural province. In order to prove that it is, I shall read into the record certain figures published by the Canadian Liberal Monthly and taken from reports of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics:
The following table indicates the value of farm production, by provinces, for the years 1933 to 1937 inclusive.
Gross Value of Agricultural Production in Canada
Province	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937Prince Edward Island.	. . $ 12,731,000	$ 12,997,000	$ 13,259,000	$ 15,765,000	$ 12,870,000.. 24,920,000	26,512,000	27,264,000	29,039,000	27,932,000. . 20,880,000	24,867,000	25,402,000	30,408,000	26,517,000Quebec	.. 138,892,000	182,095,000	175,074,000	189,970,000	191,510,000.. 280,814,000	304,733,000	315,256,000	360,329,000	357,201,000.. 57,996,000	71,318,000	59,368,000	77,659,000	121,253,000.. 113,726,000	132,162,000	161,273,000	185,532,000	91,902,000.. 121,576,000	151,440,000	138,481,000	149,000,000	177,488,000British Columbia.. ..	.. 33,075,000	36,713,000	37,054,000	41,869,000	45,025,000Canada	.. $804,610,000	$942,837,000	$952,431,000	$1,079,571,000	$1,051,698,000
Agricultural wealth in the various provinces, in 1937, is indicated by the following table. Current Value of Farm Capital, by Provinces and Items
Prince Edward Island.
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	; .. [DOT] [DOT]
British Columbia.. ..
Total-Canada	
Land and buildings $	42,920,000
91.084.000
77.061.000
684.131.000
1,072,847,000
238.901.000
797.795.000
517.003.000
113.239.000

Implements
and
machinery $ 6,142,000
7,990,000
10.030.000
73.489.000
118.501.000
39.967.000
125.382.000
86.284.000
10.669.000

Live stock $ 8,285,000
15.453.000
16.363.000
117.025.000
200.677.000
52.436.000
91.579.000
85.072.000
22.258.000

Total
$	57,347,000
114.527.000
103.454.000
874.645.000
1.392.025.000
331.304.000
1.014.756.000
688.359.000
146.166.000

May I ask the minister to be kind enough to take this matter under consideration?
Shortly, it is this. I have been asked by the horticulturists of my county whether the minister's department would consent to extend the work of the experimental farm at L'Assomption, in the region of the island of Montreal, for the benefit of the horticulturists in that section.


James Garfield Gardiner: There has been a separate establishment in the black muck area, in the vicinity of Montreal. Some experimental work is being done there. The question whether we should go further with that work is still under consideration. I do not know that I can say any more than that at the moment.

Supply-Agriculture-Branch Farms


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: The matter is under consideration?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Thank you.


George Halsey Perley: I think there are one or two substations or illustration stations in the southern half of Saskatchewan, in what are commonly spoken of as the dried-out areas. I understand that some experiments are being conducted there with respect to controlling soil drifting. Could the minister give us any report on the results of those experiments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Quite a number of stations have been established throughout the drought area in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta for the purpose of experimenting with ways and means of controlling soil drifting. At some of them, depending on the nature of the district, the idea being promoted is that of strip farming. At others it is the planting of certain types of grasses, or in some cases it is rye in strips two or three feet apart, in order to try to hold the soil and prevent drifting, with the object of getting it regrassed-with the idea not of refarming it but of finding some way of holding and tying it down so that it will not be blowing over on to the next neighbour's land. Then there are other activities in connection with the ridging of the soil, so to speak, in order to gather a moisture supply and hold it. In addition to that, during the last winter at some of these stations they have been ridging the snow, with the idea that, with the drifting that goes on continuously in the west, and the snow always being so light that it sifts along like sand, a ridge of it can be gathered to the extent of two or three feet of snow upon a piece of land. All that is being done to conserve moisture and improve moisture conditions, which in itself tends to hold soil down and prevent drifting. There are activities in other lines, but these are the main ones, and we are getting very good results from them.


William Hayhurst: Yesterday we were complimenting the officials of the Department of Agriculture upon the splendid work which is being done at the central experimental farm in collaboration with other experimental farms in the development of rust resistant wheat. Is this research work done mostly in Ottawa, so far as the development of rust spores and that kind of thing is concerned?


James Garfield Gardiner: About half the work
was done at Ottawa, the other half being divided among other places. Some was done in the laboratory at Winnipeg and a certain

amount of work was done at the experimental farm at Indian Head. Some work was also done by the university of Saskatchewan, and at branch farms in western Canada certain experimental work was carried on in regard to production and the following up of the crop during the season.


Mr. HOWARD:: I wish to say a word
on this vote because the experimental farm at Lennoxville comes under it. I have been through the detailed expenditures of the farm there, and the justification for that farm is the service it can render to the community. They want a certain amount of money. In the supplementary estimates the minister might include another $5,000 for the Lennoxville farm in order to carry further some work that is needed in that section. T would refer particularly to the breeding of horses. We have now one breed, Clydesdale, and there is a growing feeling that Belgians should be included; and if this 85,000 could be brought down in the supplementary estimates for experimental farms and added to the budget of the Lennoxville farm, which by the way is rendering excellent service to the community, it would be of considerable benefit to all the people there.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is, I believe,
about $4,000 of an increase included in the general estimates for the Lennoxville farm. I cannot say at the moment what, if anything, wdll be in the supplementaries. They will probably be before the house in a few days.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: May I express approbation of the work done on the experimental farms and offer a word of encouragement to the minister to go forward, extending the activities of these farms.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science services administration, $25,435.
William Hayhurst: I understand that rust
work is carried on at Winnipeg. Have they proper greenhouse facilities?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are greenhouse
facilities at Winnipeg, but it is a question whether they are as extensive as they ought to be. We could always use increased space, but within the estimates that we have seen fit to bring before the house we have made provision for all the space we can just now.


Mr. CHURCH:: I have not asked the minister any questions in connection with his estimates, but under this item of science services, which is the most important one I see in the whole of the estimates for agriculture, I would ask him what he is doing

Supply-Agriculture-Science Services
for planned agricultural development for the next twenty-five years. After reading all that has been said, I cannot see that the minister has taken any steps to avail himself of the great opening in England to-day not only for new storage facilities underground, but for marketing, and other features of supplying the mother country with food in days of stress and strain. In the second place, I should like to see under this scientific department a closer cooperation than there has been between agriculture and industry. Last year I said:
I would like to see a maximum production of farm products, and would also like to see a close cooperation between agricultural and industrial producers; for the great and extensive needs of agriculture must be supplied. Prosperous industry depends upon a prosperous agriculture, and the Conservative party has always been associated with the development of agriculture. It is one industry which has not rallied to communist propaganda. I should like to see agriculture in Canada developed by a comprehensive plan, and one which would be adapted to Canada's situation. That could be done by the collaboration of the provincial representatives of agricultural departments with people concerned with industry, and in that way the whole rural population of Ontario would be lifted to a higher collective life. It could be done, not by ruining anybody but by merging single interests into one united national endeavour to develop agriculture in all its forms. In that way we would lift our country to a higher economic and social plane. Every individual should be engaged in this work.
I do not believe that there has been much development in the scientific field of agriculture. The British Minister of Agriculture has had an elaborate inquiry made into this very important question, .because agriculture is failing to-day. In this connection I wish to read one or two paragraphs from an article that I came across recently. They apply to Canada's position at the present time. Canada should be supplying the mother country and collaborating with her in the scientific development of agriculture. This article is headed Waste Not, Want Not, and appears in the May issue of the great National Review. It deals with agriculture in the dominions and indicates how the dominions can help the mother country not only at the present time but in times of war and stress. Referring to Canada's scientific development of farming the writer says:
In the Dominion of Canada the fisheries are a declining factor, consequent on the application of a maximum of mechanical aids and a minimum of human power. The prairies in the central regions are losing their fertility in an endeavour to supply wheat for exportation with a maximum of machine power, and a minimum of man power; and the same sequence applies to timber or mineral productions. Over eighty per cent of Canada's exportations are basic raw materials or primary products, and the whole
population of this vast extent of the earth's surface is only in the neighbourhood of 11,000,000.
The point which I wish to make clear is that during the last decade, since machinery in the dominion has been employed in geometrical progression towards the destruction of primary natural resources for export, the country has failed to increase in man power. Not only is this the case, but the problem of unemployment is probably as acute in Canada as elsewhere. The same reasoning holds to a more or less degree when applied to other parts of the British Empire from which countries, dominated by industrialism or relentless machine economy, derive their supplies of raw materials. . . .
Despite the Ottawa agreements the outer industrialized world derives infinitely more of its supplies of raw materials from the British Empire than does the United Kingdom. The avowed policy of Japan, Germany, or other countries which clamour for primary products is dictated solely by interests of industrialization or machine economy, and could not fail to have a further sterilizing effect on the growth of British dominions and colonies in population power.
The truth is that the mechanisms begin to exhaust the world's stock of raw materials, and most of the troubles in modern countries under the aegis of machine economy result from a gradually widening deficit of this supply of primary products. . . .
Scientific pundits tell us that they can create a thousand articles out of cow's milk, and india-rubber out of lime, and coal. But, fundamentally they cannot make something out of nothing, and that great metaphysical problem remains. In reality the scientist creates nothing; all he does is to transform one material substance into another; and a spider in the corner can do that without mathematical formulae, test tubes, or extraneous primary products. The scientifically minded, who sport the cap and bells of modern thought in most countries, assume that their transformations of man's natural environment into a state of artificial mechanical flux, wherein man will ultimately find no abiding place, must continue uncontrolled and unchecked. They constantly reiterate that this is progress, and the millenium is around the corner; but to my mind it is not progress which denudes the world's surface and at the same time tends to extinguish human personality and human fecundity. It is not progress which leaves vast areas of the world's surface destitute of natural resources and barren of inhabitants, condemns millions of people to wallow in the misery of forced unemployment, or flings them into the trough of modern war as cannon fodder.
As has been said in that article, " Waste not, Want Not" is not only true in England, but has a special application to the Canadian prairies. I have a number of the reports. I do not wish to be unfair to the minister, but he ought to do something to relieve this situation. Many farmers are going to the United States. For example, we have farms around the city of Toronto; scientific agriculture should not apply only to the prairies; there should be equality of treatment in connection with all these estimates. The minister should consider the suburban areas



Supply-Agriculture-Science Services
of Canada scientifically and in every other way. My hon. friends from the west urge a great many problems upon the house; but they forget all about the suburban worker, the truck farmer and many other classes, and transportation which would lower the cost of living. These are very important features. I hope that during the recess the minister will collaborate with the British scientists I have named and with the British government to see what coordination there can be between Canada and the mother country. Do hon. members know that at Easter in 1918 the mother country had only two days' supply of food? She has to import 80 per cent of her food and 100 per cent of her raw material. If a crisis came again, as in 1914, she could be starved out, because she has 3,000 fewer ships to-day than she had in 1914.


James Garfield Gardiner: One of the chief ideas we had in mind in sending to London this year a man with some scientific as well as practical knowledge of Canadian agriculture, and one who was himself born in England and had his earliest education there, was to take care of such a situation which has been mentioned. We felt that a man with that experience in different parts' of Canada, the United States, and Great Britain, and with a scientific and technical knowledge of agriculture as well, would be in a position to do just such things as it has been stated should be done.
Much of the scientific work in relation to agricultural production is carried on in cooperation with such institutions as agricultural colleges, and the provincial departments of agriculture. Outside of the drought area work the distribution of funds expended for these purposes can properly be said to have been made fairly across Canada. In fact it will be found that most of those expenditures were made in the central part of Canada. That is only natural because much of the fruit and vegetable growing and work having to do with the kind of agriculture particularly concerned is carried on in that section of Canada.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: While I appreciate that a very excellent work is being done in the experiments carried on at these experimental stations and the central experimental farm, I still fear that we are building up a great white elephant requiring ever-increasing expenditure, and that agriculture is not deriving benefit in proportion to the amount being spent. Our expenditures are far too great for the benefits we receive, great as those benefits have been. This work could be done in such a way as to benefit the
[Mr. Church.)
farmers, without being so elaborate and expensive. No one can examine into the experimental stations and the central experimental farm or the agricultural colleges without being struck by the fact that there is a great deal of unnecessary expenditure from which agriculture derives no benefit.


John Horne Blackmore: I am inclined to think that if the words just spoken by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) are true it is not because the work which is being done by the experimental farms is not valuable, but because of a trip-up somewhere else in our national economy, as a result of which our farm people are unable to derive benefit from the findings of agricultural research. I am sympathetic with the view of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I believe we are neglecting altogether too much the consistent development of our agricultural productive power. I fear it is falling into decay. I said something about that the other night, and I do not wish to over-elaborate it; but what might happen should we be subjected to a grave international crisis, with our agricultural productive plant more or less depleted, has been cause for great concern to me. I do not wish now to make any suggestions as to practical steps to be taken, but I feel that the question we were discussing to some extent yesterday afternoon, that of stabilizing prices, making it possible for the farmer to produce, with a fair assurance of profit, swine, butter, eggs and other products, would be a very proper one upon which to centre our attention. I do not wish to say too much about this, but we may come to the point where it will be found altogether in the national interest to subsidize some agricultural industries, either by direct subsidy or by some sort of arrangement with the railways for a decrease in freight rates, or in some other manner to make sure that our agricultural productive plant shall be maintained. The articles read by the hon. member for Broadview indicate that there is growing alarm throughout the empire concerning this question. I commend the minister for his activities. In my judgment he has carried on his work this year with a high degree of efficiency and vision. I wish to assure him that he will receive no opposition from our part of the house when he undertakes to enlarge the activities of his department and go forward in strengthening Canada agriculturally.


Mr. BAKER:: As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson) has said, there appears to be an enormous amount of money being spent, and I accept his point of view as an experienced farmer that it is not produc-

Supply-Agriculture-Science Services
ing adequate results. I notice that the total expenditure under the head of agriculture for the year 1936-37 was 31,117,000, and this year it is up to 39,160,000. Is that just because the treasury is receiving more money? Is it not true that much of this work is being duplicated in the different provinces? It is all the money of the public, just the same. I think the hon. member's point is well taken, that there is a good deal of money needlessly spent and without result. From a business point of view there should be much greater economy in this respect on the part of the federal government and the provincial governments as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: The figures given by the hon. member in regard to the expenditure are not the correct ones. He compares the estimates of last year and this year, but the expenditure last year was 39,266,476 on the two items we have been considering in the general estimates, as will be seen at the bottom of page 5. The estimated total this year is 39,160,532, which is smaller than the total expenditure of last year, but as yet of course we have not dealt with the supplementary estimates for this year. It is possible that there may be a slightly larger expenditure this year when the supplementaries are brought down, but there will not be anything like the increase which has been indicated.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: May I ask the minister to explain the increase of 319,396 under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: This is the new branch of the department; that is, we have taken the science services of the different branches and put them all under one head, and of course there is a new administration set-up in connection with that, only part of which existed previously, which accounts for some of this increase. This year permanent salaries amount to 310,280, as against 34,959 last year. Temporary salaries amount to 34,155 this year as against $1,080 last year. In those two items there is an increase of 38,396. Then there are several new items: supplies, 3500; printing and stationery, $2,000; travelling expenses, $3,000 and miscellaneous, $500. Those are all new. There is also provision for cooperative investigations, amounting to $5,000; that is new as well. These are the new services in the branch which has been set up.


Mr. DUFFUS:: Last evening I intimated that if a comparison of the expenditures of the Department of Agriculture with those of the other departments were made, serious discrepancies might be disclosed. Yesterday we listened to a very well prepared speech by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) which I think should stand him in good stead
at the forthcoming national convention of his party. Criticism was levelled at the Department of Agriculture and the minister at present responsible for its administration. It will be recalled that the hon. member for Greenwood recommended that the standard of Canadian live stock be raised by direct assistance to the farmers; that new and permanent markets for Canadian products be found, and that farming be made more profitable. I submit that the department is positively taking steps in that direction. Having been connected with farming either directly or indirectly all my life it is my opinion that this government, and the present Department of Agriculture, have done more to promote the interests of agriculture in a practical, scientific manner than any other department or government since confederation. The policies of agricultural trade expansion and general assistance to agriculture have been most effective during the past three years. The great increase in exports of agricultural products to the United States, to European countries and to Great Britain has in large measure restored the confidence of the Canadian farmer. Improvements in breeding, feeding, housing and the marketing of Canadian bacon hogs have been greatly facilitated by the information which has been placed at their disposal. The instructions and advice that have been given in connection with dairy products have increased the quality and quantity as well as the price. The development of seed grain and its distribution to areas for which it is best adapted has been promoted in a very excellent manner. Inspection, grading, packing and shipping facilities in respect of farm products have resulted in great improvement during the last few years. Dairy herds and soils have been more extensively tested, and I am most grateful to the officials of the department and to the minister for the work that has been and is being done in the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this house.
I am not intimating or suggesting that everything that is necessary has been done. I do submit, however, that commensurate with economic conditions and the available staff, rapid progress has been made in almost every direction. In conclusion I desire to give credit where credit is due.


Mr. BROOKS:: I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Duffus); it is very interesting to learn that the department is operating so successfully in his part of the country, but I do not think we in the maritime provinces have been blessed with the same benefits.

Supply-Agriculture-Bacteriology
I should like to ask a question in connection with the potato crop of the maritime provinces. As the minister knows, we have been having great difficulty in marketing our potatoes during the last few years, and those interested in the industry have been looking for other outlets. One of the outlets that I understood was being experimented with was the possibility of using potatoes for the production of industrial alcohol, which I think would come under this item. I should like to ask the minister what success his department has had in the production of industrial alcohol from potatoes; if it is of any economic value to the farmers, and whether or not these experiments are being carried on at the present time.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is an experiment being carried on in connection with the production of alcohol from potatoes, but as yet it has not been determined that alcohol can be produced commercially in that way; that is, in a way that would permit its being used to advantage as against other kinds of alcohol, or, if it is to be used for fuel, in such a way that it could be used as against other types of fuel.
The main service that has been given by this branch has 'been in connection with the study and treatment of diseases of the potatoes of the maritime provinces and other similar crops. Other services are given as well, such as issuing certificates on seed, which have made possible the marketing of the crop of that area. There has been an inspection service furnished also, which assists- in marketing the crop in the central part of Canada. As far as this particular vote is concerned the investigation into the production of alcohol from potatoes, as well as the treatment of diseases, is being carried on just as actively as anywhere else.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then the idea has not been abandoned that it may be of value at some time?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, the idea has not been abandoned, but we have not yet reached a point where we can report it as commercially possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Animal and poultry pathology, $147,405.
Thomas Alfred Thompson: The items "temporary assistance" and "wages" seem to occur frequently in every department. What is meant by temporary assistance and wages?-because salaries are included in the preceding item.


James Garfield Gardiner: Temporary service is required in every branch of the agricultural

service, as it is in all other departments. We have temporary service due to the fact that persons have been taken on and have not yet completed the six months' probationary period before they become permanent. Then there is another class of temporary service where people are only seasonal employees. There are also those on wages who are engaged from time to time in connection with our different operations.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Are those appointments all patronage appointments?


James Garfield Gardiner: The temporary and permanent appointments are made under the Civil Service Act. Those who receive wages are taken on from day to day.


Mr. BARBER:: Are the activities under this item confined to Ottawa or do they extend right across the country?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are two laboratories in British Columbia and one at Calgary where this work is carried on. Then we have work being carried on at Ottawa.


Harry James Barber: Would that be the one at
Agassiz?


James Garfield Gardiner: One is at the farm and the other is at Milner.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bacteriology, $39,670.
Harry James Barber: I understand that there have been some activities under this vote in connection with the dairy industry of British Columbia.


James Garfield Gardiner: The activities include the study of problems arising in the processing of milk, in the manufacture of butter, cheese, ice cream, condensed milk, dehydrated milk, casein, milk sugar, fermented milks and by-products, and bacteriological, chemical and other research work for the purpose of establishing sound principles of manufacture in the dairy industry. The group confers with and advises dairymen and managers of dairies and milk product factories in regard to new problems requiring scientific treatment. It is also called upon to ascertain and develop the most appropriate methods to be applied in the making of high grade and uniform dairy products and to investigate and apply remedial measures to new defects which arise from time to time in manufactured products.
Work has been carried on in British Columbia particularly with regard to wood taint and surface deterioration in the storage of butter. The matter of wood taint and surface deterioration in connection with the storage of export butter has become a problem

Supply-Agriculture-Entomology
of serious economic importance to the Canadian butter industry and studies have been and are still being undertaken to determine ways and means of overcoming these defects. The moisture content of boxes, the type of wood, the length of storage period, the temperature of storage and the methods of packing have been studied. In addition, the possible methods of treating the interior of butter boxes has been studied and new types of aluminum oil wrapper for storage butter are being investigated further.


Harry James Barber: They have not arrived at a solution of that particular problem?


James Garfield Gardiner: The proper type of box lining is considered a solution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Entomology, $463,121.
George Halsey Perley: A considerable annual
expenditure is made under this item. I am not finding any fault with the work done by the department in an endeavour to control the infestation of grasshoppers, cutworms and so on. I think money spent in this connection is well spent. What proportion of this vote will be expended in Saskatchewan, and how many senior and junior entomologists will be located there? Perhaps the minister could give us some information as to the possibilities of infestation of cutworms and grasshoppers. There is a possibility that there will be an influx of political grasshoppers into Saskatchewan in the next two or three weeks, and I understand that these are more dangerous to the people than some of the bugs that have troubled us in previous years.
I do not expect that the minister will give us the amount of money to be expended in controlling this latter grasshopper pest, because I realize that he may be one of the principal grasshoppers in that province. However, all jokes aside, I think that this is an important work being carried on under this branch.


James Garfield Gardiner: The expenditures under this item in Saskatchewan are:
Saskatoon
Field crop insects, $26,210.
Indian Head Forest insects, $7,278.
There will be other expenditures made in connection with field crops, such as:
Alberta, $20,939.
British Columbia Vernon
Field crop insects, $5,875.
Fruit insects, $7,865.
Forest insects, $14,179.
Kamloops, $11,600.
Agassiz, $5,475.
Victoria, $4,855.
Some of the investigations to be carried on outside Saskatchewan will be beneficial to that province. It is feared that this year the infestation of grasshoppers will be more widespread-I am speaking now of the variety that really hop-than in previous years. There is also the possibility that the same may be said with reference to the cutworm. During the early part of the season this year in the southwestern part of the province there seemed to be great danger of prevalence of the cutworm. I do not know whether the scientists will agree with me, but it has been my practical experience that in the years when you have considerable rainfall the grasshopper does not make the same inroads as in other years. That is also more or less true of the cutworm, although not to the same extent. I suppose we shall have to wait for developments to see whether either insect will make greater inroads this year.


Mr. STIRLING:: To what extent does
the dominion government assist in the control of grasshoppers?


James Garfield Gardiner: We provide those
who have the scientific knowledge to advise, but the real cost is carried by the provinces.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We have had very few pests, human or otherwise, in my province-


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: From or in?
Mr. BROOIvS: Both. But the cutworm has been committing ravages in the province in the last few years, and I would ask what the prospects are for the present year, whether the^ cutworm has been pretty well controlled or is likely to be bothersome again this year?


Mr. SPENCE:: I am not getting on my feet, Mr. Chairman, to condemn the entomological branch, because they are doing a splendid service, but I do condemn the increase I see in the ten items on this page of approximately 8300,000.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: The total is
down $100,000.


James Houston Spence: There may be decreases in other items which I did not deduct, but in the ten items there is an increase of about $300,000. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Thompson) has made some observations this afternoon to which I think the department and this house should give serious consideration. He is a farmer of repute, who has made a success of farming, and he also knows something about business, and men of his type are very scarce in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!

Supply-Agriculture-Entomology


James Houston Spence: Oh, yes. I think the rural members of this house, generally speaking, would vote to give the Minister of Agriculture the clock on the tower of this building if he asked for it, and then tell him he had not asked for enough and vote to give him more. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) asked for the stabilizing of prices, but it is impossible to stabilize the prices of perishable articles. It cannot be done. That is just bunk.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) wants.


James Houston Spence: I do not care what the hon. member for Greenwood says. I have had some experience in this business, and the hon. member for Lethbridge has had very little.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what you think.


James Houston Spence: My hon. friend may have had experience in other lines. It is a shame that we are wasting so much money on experimental farms. I think it would be no substantial loss to the country if we had no experimental farms at all, particularly the central experimental farm at Ottawa. If you had smaller farms spread all over the country they would give the public greater service, but here you have this great, big expensive farm at Ottawa, and only a few years ago, when the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was Minister of Agriculture, we bought the old Booth farm to add to the central experimental farm-


The CHAIRMAN:: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but we have passed the items for experimental farms.


James Houston Spence: I apologize, Mr. Chairman; I was trying to accomplish something worth while, but if I am not permitted to talk a line of good sense I will sit down.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks), there was a severe outbreak of the cutworm in a certain section of New Brunswick last year. A small infestation developed during 1937, but substantially no crop was destroyed in the greater part of the area infested. An annual survey is made of the abundance and life history and cultural conditions which make for outbreaks of this insect, and this helps in curbing it.


Mr. SENN:: Two or three years ago a new kind of insect appeared that infested apples. It was called the apple maggot, and for a while there was grave danger that it would interfere with our export market because the regulations against infected apples going into the United Kingdom were very strict. I
tMr. Spenoe.1
wonder what progress has been made in eliminating that pest. It appeared in certain sections of Ontario as well as in Nova Scotia.


James Garfield Gardiner: The maggot is in
existence. An attempt has been made to get it under control, and while its prevalence has been considerably decreased it has not been completely wiped out.


Mark Cecil Senn: It threatened to make very serious trouble for our apples in the British market. Another insect which infected peaches appeared in the Niagara peninsula two or three years ago, and its ravages threatened for a short time to be very destructive. I wonder if the minister could say to what extent that pest is being controlled.


James Garfield Gardiner: The oriental peach moth has been creating some trouble, but there is a parasite which has pretty well cleaned it up. The shipment of our apples to Great Britain is protected against infestation of maggots through our inspection system. A very close check is kept of all apples that go out of a district which is infected with the maggot.


Mr. GRAYDON:: What progress has been made in controlling the warble fly? It is of considerable importance in our section of the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a very inexpensive liquid which will destroy it. It can be purchased and is being used by those who are desirous of destroying the warble.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: What cooperation is there between provincial governments and the federal department in connection with these scientific services?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is very close cooperation between the officials of the federal department and any officials provincially employed in agricultural colleges, schools and elsewhere; but the greater part of the expense of this service is carried by the federal department.


Harry James Barber: Yesterday I mentioned an investigation into the destruction caused by the pea moth, and the minister said he would give me some information when we reached this item. I wish he would tell the committee something about the activities of his department in the lower mainland of British Columbia, and what results have been obtained in controlling the pea moth.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have a memorandum here on the pea moth:
The pea moth continues to be of serious import in the pea-growing areas of Gaspe, Quebec, and the lower Fraser valley, British Columbia. In both areas, however, the pest was at somewhat less than its usual abundance,

Supply-Agriculture-Entomology
the loss in Gaspe for the whole district being about one per cent, and in the most severely infested districts approximately ten per cent, with many growers, however, being unable to continue the growing of peas for market.
The same is substantially true in the lower Fraser Valley where in large districts dried pea growing has practically stopped due to the infestations in the past. An entirely satisfactory control has not yet been worked out, though certain cultural operations and oil emulsion sprays in British Columbia and the selection of sites for the pea plantings in the Gaspe country indicate that the infestations can be very materially, if not entirely eliminated, thus effecting a saving of many thousands of dollars to the industry.
That is a short review of what has taken place. There has not been any great progress made in meeting the infestation.


Mr. STEWART:: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Practically all of that
increase in temporary staff is due to the infestation of sawfly in the lumbering areas. In cooperation with the lumber industry, we are attempting to meet that infestation. Most of the additional expenditure for temporary employment is for that purpose.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, hasn't anything
been done in that direction in the past?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, something has been done in the past, but the infestation is growing more widespread and more difficult to handle, and we think a real attack should be made on it.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: I should
like to mention the very valuable services of the entomological station at Fredericton, New Brunswick. Our city is particularly noted for the elm shade trees along the streets. A pest attacked those trees, particularly last year, and Mr. Balch, the head entomologist at Fredericton, from his research was able to show what would eradicate it. His advice has been taken by the city, and it is expected that as a result the trees will be saved. Not only shade trees but the forest trees are being cared for through the advice and information given by the departmental officers at Fredericton.
Have arrangements been made for improving the building occupied by the entomological branch at Fredericton? It is located on the campus of the university of New Brunswick.
A mistake from an architectural standpoint was made in an addition to it, and situated as it is, that mistake should be corrected. It would not cost very much. The matter has been taken up with the department, but no progress has been made. I am sure that it would be in the interests of the department to see that that mistake is corrected.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can only say that there is no amount in these estimates to take care of any improvement at Fredericton, but the matter is under consideration, and when the supplementaries are down we shall be in a better position to discuss it.


Mr. BARRY:: What steps have been taken in the province of New Brunswick for the control or elimination of the sawfly. The minister a moment ago made some mention of the matter; I wonder if his statement could be made more complete?


James Garfield Gardiner: The headquarters of the forest insect investigation work is at Ottawa, but there is a branch laboratory at Fredericton which takes charge of that work in New Brunswick and the Gaspe peninsula. The headquarters for the parasite work is at Belleville. There has been imported into Canada a parasite which destroys the sawfly, and this year 70,000,000 of these parasites were distributed. The Belleville plant not only has imported the parasite but multiplies them there, and distribution is made to different places, including New Brunswick.


Grote Stirling: What can the minister report with regard to the infestation by other insects than sawfly affecting the other conifers -the tamarack in the west, and the spruce and the red pine?


James Garfield Gardiner: The two chief parasites are the larch sawfly, which is being dealt with through a parasite in much the same way as the other sawfly-and I understand that a distribution of that parasite has been made in British Columbia to deal with the larch saw-fly-and the bark beetle. There is a method available of dealing with the bark beetle, and anyone communicating with the branches concerned can get information in that regard.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister gather that the infestation is growing rapidly? Is it sweeping up through the north, or what do the surveys indicate?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have . no definite report on that. We are not in a position to say whether or not it is extending northward.


George Halsey Perley: This is the last item of the minister's estimates, and I know that he will be pleased, perhaps for more reasons than

Supply-Agriculture-Entomology
one, that he is through. I think he will agree that we have more or less facilitated the passage of his estimates. This is, I believe, only the fifth day they have been before the house. I can remember occasions under the previous government when they were held up for many days.
Under one or two items the question of relief was discussed, and the minister stated that Doctor Stapleford's report was in his hands and would be distributed.


James Garfield Gardiner: No-just by way of correction-I did not say it would be distributed. I said it is in my hands; the question of distribution has not yet been discussed.


George Halsey Perley: If it is at all possible, will the minister make a copy of that report available to at least the members who are interested? Would he also have tabled the order in council, if one was passed, appointing Doctor Stapleford? Also will he state whether any sittings were held outside the city of Regina, and was any evidence taken under oath?


James Garfield Gardiner: An order in council was passed-I do not have it here with me- appointing Doctor Stapleford. I do not know that there were any sittings. He was appointed not as a commissioner to investigate but simply to gather the information necessary and get opinions from organizations as to the administration of relief and as to what the best methods might be.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suppose the order in council would include a statement of his duties?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mark Cecil Senn: Why not table it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The other matter with regard to the report has not yet been submitted to council and I cannot say whether it will :be distributed or not. As to the discussion of any other matters having to do with relief, that will naturally come under the supplementary estimates, which have yet to be considered.


George Halsey Perley: Could we have the order in council tabled?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes; I will * have it tabled.


William Hayhurst: I congratulate the
minister upon the general work that has been done by the Department of Agriculture, but there is one matter regarding which I should like to have some information. I refer to the white grub, which affects the wheat of western
[Mr. Perley.l
Canada. If the department has a pamphlet on the subject I should like to know what it is. Could it be sent to the farmers who are directly interested in this particular insect infestation?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department have publications dealing with the insect referred to and information may be obtained by application to the publicity and extension branch of the Department of Agriculture, Ottawa.


William Hayhurst: What is it called?


James Garfield Gardiner: It deals with that insect. I do not know the name.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Canadian travel bureau service-to assist in promoting tourist business in Canada, $250,000.
Mr. GREEN:: Can the minister give a brief description of the work done by the travel bureau? What is the size of the staff?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: The amount asked for is to provide for the administration of the Canadian travel bureau for the fiscal year 1938-39. Further extension of Canada's tourist business is an essential part of the work of national development and indicates a clear way in which Canada can largely increase its national revenue. Practically every country is now recognizing the tourist traffic as a main item of trade, and the matter of attracting tourist travel has become a highly competitive business, with the governments of various countries either directly or indirectly carrying on tourist promotional work. Of this amount of $250,000 approximately $185,000 will be utilized for direct advertising in newspapers and magazines. Of this amount approximately $165,000 will be spent in advertising in United States papers and periodicals. The United States is the country from which Canada draws by far the greater number of its tourists, and approximately ninety-five per cent of the tourist expenditure in Canada is by tourists from the United States. That country is, however, the object of aggressive tourist propaganda by every other leading tourist country; consequently if Canada is to extend its present tourist travel from that country, or even to hold it, it is necessary that the stimulation of interest in the recreational attractions of the dominion be strenuously continued. During 1937 the bureau carried advertisements amounting to 302 insertions in sixty-three newspapers in the larger cities and 127 insertions in fifty magazines, most of them with nation-wide circulation.

Supply-Transport-Travel Bureau
During the year 1937 the bureau received a total of 75,196 inquiries as compared with 52,668 received in 1936, an increase of 42-7 per cent. Of these 75,196 inquiries 66,207, or 88 per cent, were the result of direct advertising.
This year we are devoting about $25,000 to the initiation of a campaign in the British isles, and we are already receiving very satisfactory returns therefrom. The campaign is carried out under the supervision of Canada House and under the immediate supervision of the Hon. Vincent Massey, high commissioner. This is a new departure, and if the results after the tourist season warrant, we may ask the house next year for an increase in the vote. To-day, we regard the effort in Great Britain as largely experimental.
The bureau has nine of a permanent staff, and during the tourist season, the rush season, we have a temporary staff of nine more.


Howard Charles Green: I take it from what the minister has just said, and also from the report of the department, that the work of the bureau is largely publicity, advertising, publications and work of that sort. I wonder whether the minister has read that portion of the report of the national employment commission, the Purvis commission, dealing with the tourist business. We have had so many repoi'ts this year that perhaps he has not read that particular one, but I would call his attention to a suggestion contained on page 10 of the Purvis report. Referring to the tourist trade the report states:
Because the trade benefits all the people of Canada, and because tourists visit Canada, not provinces of Canada, and tour at will across provincial boundaries, the commission is of the opinion that the dominion government might be well advised to bring about a coordinated national effort to stimulate the tourist trade.
In other words, that the dominion might give national leadership in building up the tourist business. The report goes on:
To this end the commisison recommends that the dominion government set up a national advisory tourist committee, representative of all the provinces, to advise governmental and other interested bodies respecting policies and administration of such phases of the tourist trade as come within their respective jurisdictions or as may be deemed wise to be brought under dominion jurisdiction, such advisory committee to be composed of a minister from each provincial government, a limited number of citizens interested in developing Canada's resources as attractions, representatives of the Canadian Association of Tourist and Publicity Bureaux, together with one or more ministers of the dominion government.
That seems like a reasonable suggestion. Has anything along that line been done by the government? I take it action would come under the Canadian travel bureau.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of this vote,
which was initiated in 1934, is exactly that described by the hon. gentleman. It was never its purpose to do all the travel advertising of the dominion. It has been set up for the purpose of coordinating the work of other agencies. Each province spends a considerable appropriation for the same purpose, each of our railways has appropriations much larger than this, and our steamship companies also have appropriations. The purpose of this vote is to coordinate the efforts of all agencies in the dominion seeking to develop the tourist trade, and to this work the dominion bureau is largely confined. The bureau directs the advertising; usually an advertisement from the dominion bureau is accompanied by one or more of other Canadian advertisements, either of provinces or of the railways. The purpose of including the federal advertising is that if the other advertisement does not meet a particular need it is apparent to anyone reading the advertising that there is a central agency at Ottawa from which information about any part of the dominion may be obtained. The principal work of the dominion bureau is to act as a clearing house. Provinces which receive inquiries relating to districts beyond their own areas forward them to the dominion bureau.
It is my own opinion after closely observing the situation that tourist development as far as advertising goes is highly technical work. The director of our branch works with directors of other agencies. It is an association of technical men, and it is my opinion that the situation could not be greatly improved by adding to that group men who have only a general knowledge of the subject, as suggested in the Purvis report.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time there is no such thing as a national advisory tourist committee. Would it not help if some such committee were set up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At every dominion-provincial conference the ministers concerned with tourist traffic discuss the matter. I have attended two such conferences, and I think they meet the need. I doubt very much whether duplicating as a dominion affair the travel bureaux found in every city in Canada would be much help. I should not be disposed to take the initiative in setting up the sort of organization my friend suggests.


Howard Charles Green: There is a further suggestion in this Purvis commission report, which I think could be worked on by the travel bureau.

Supply-Transport-Travel Bureau
At page 10 it says:
The commission submits that the following matters should be explored and advised upon-
National tourist highways;
Retail articles attractive to tourists on which import duties should be adjusted to reduce the sale price;
Souvenirs, in order that they may be symbolic of the products, history or art of the dominion;
Handicrafts, in order that the native crafts and skills may be taught, demonstrated, and their products exhibited so as to stimulate their production and sale;
Historic forts and sites, their restoration and marking;
Sports and competitive sports projects;
Accommodation improvement.
These suggestions are made by what we all admit was a very representative commission. It seems to me the travel bureau might well investigate these different suggestions and thus give a lead to the tourist bodies across Canada. [DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every detail of that work is carried on under the proper department of government. For example, our national parks provide for the sale of Canadian products for tourists visiting the parks. The government is assisting in the construction of highways, has done so for many years and will probably continue to do so. I see no purpose in putting any of that work under the direction of a tourist bureau, which is formed for an entirely different purpose, that of directing travellers to the attractions of Canada. The creation of the attractions is being adequately taken care of by the proper department of government.


Howard Charles Green: My idea is that the Canadian travel bureau should head up the development of the tourist business right across Canada. This report states that the value of the tourist business to Canada is over 1300,000,000 a year. Perhaps the minister will not dispute that figure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that he give these recommendations serious consideration. In the report of the bureau itself for the fiscal year 1936-37, at page 112 of the annual report of the Department of Transport, we find this statement:
Particularly interesting were the large number of inquiries regarding a trip across Canada, and a small folder descriptive of the trans-Canada highway trip was issued to provide information on this subject.
I have the folder on the trans-Canada highway trip. It bears the name of the minister and the deputy minister, but the automobile trip includes 250 miles by boat across lake Superior from Sault Ste. Marie to Fort William, and another 90 miles by rail

in British Columbia where the Big Bend highway should be and is not. I have asked two ministers already what the present position is with regard to the trans-Canada highway, where gaps are still uncompleted. Could the minister give the committee that information?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My friend has given it himself. There is an uncompleted part between Schreiber and somewhere in the Michipicoten area, about 250 miles in extent.


Howard Charles Green: That is the 250 miles mentioned in this pamphlet, the water trip between Sault Ste. Marie and Fort William. That does not refer to the uncompleted portion of the highway.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The uncompleted portion is
less than 250 miles-about 100 miles. I think work is proceeding at both ends to join in the middle. In the Big Bend section in British Columbia there is a gap, but work is being done there, divided, I think, between the Department of Natural Resources and the British Columbia government.


Howard Charles Green: When is it expected that
the uncompleted part in northern Ontario will be finished? Is any definite effort being made to close it up quickly? It seems to me that both this government and the previous government have been very slow about getting the trans-Canada highw'ay completed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows,
the provinces have control of the highways, and allocate the funds, their own and the contribution of this government, as they see fit. I think both provinces are making an effort to close the gaps, and we are assisting them to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister indicate
when it is expected that the gap in northern Ontario will be closed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not in a position to
say that at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: This tourist vote has been
the same for several years, and the industry is becoming increasingly important. Is the minister satisfied that the vote is large enough?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We should like at least a
million dollars; I am sure my staff could spend it very well. Since the tourist vote was inaugurated the tourist business has about trebled, so we think excellent results are being obtained with the present vote.


Howard Charles Green: Surely you are not taking
credit for all that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My director claims credit
for every new tourist coming in.

Supply-Transport-Pensions


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Of the funds contributed by the dominion government is any amount earmarked for any particular highway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All funds of that kind are
spent under an agreement between the dominion and the provinces. An agreement is made each season, and the funds are allocated to different projects.


William Hayhurst: When does the minister expect the road to be finished between Jasper and lake Louise? That will be one of the finest scenic highways on the North American continent. Thousands of tourists anticipate taking a motor trip through that country as soon as it is finished.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work on that road is
under the Department of Mines and Resources, the estimates of which will be brought down shortly, and the minister of that department can give a better answer than I. But I know it is expected that it will be finished.


Joseph James Duffus: Do the provinces contribute to the development or maintenance of our national parks?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the national parks. The federal parks are the sole property of the federal government, and all expenditures are made by this government. There are, however, some provincial parks where the opposite is true; all expenditures are made by the provinces. The federal parks are maintained by the federal government.


Mr. LAWSON:: What are the functions and duties of the official listed as an investigator in the travel bureau?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our department is constantly extending its list of tourist potentialities, and the investigator visits new roads that have been opened up or new sports resorts and places of that kind in order to collect information which may be sent out by the bureau in pamphlets or otherwise to tourists, and generally acts as a sort of development man for the industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-Railway employees provident fund-
To supplement pension allowances under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees provident fund Act so as to make the minimum payment during the period January 1, 1938 to March 31, 1939, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $26,300.
William Allen Walsh: This item has particular reference, I presume, to certain railways that were taken over with this obligation attached?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This dates back to legislation passed in 1907. At that time the minimum pension of the Prince Edward Island Railway was $20 a month, and it was decided that owing to an increase in the cost of living the minimum should be brought up to $30 a month. At that time parliament undertook to provide the difference between the $20 and the $30. This fund is now closed and is declining slowly. It will disappear possibly in the course of another fifteen years.


James Earl Lawson: What about the item
labelled with an S, government employees' compensation; what does that relate to? I notice a very substantial increase there. If it is statutory there would not be an increase of $30,000 in one year, would there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That does not belong to this item.


James Earl Lawson: I thought it was part of the same item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to explain it. This item applies to all employees of the federal government. We do not insure directly under the various provincial workmen's compensation acts, but we do treat our employees just as the provinces treat other employees who are insured under those funds.


James Earl Lawson: That is in case of injury?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, in case of injury to a dominion government employee. The reason ' for the increase is that the national harbours were brought into this fund last year, adding a considerable number of employees who previously had not come under this provision. Up to that time each harbour took care of its own employees, but now that is administered by this fund.


James Earl Lawson: This would not relate to all departments, would it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, we administer this fund for all dominion government employees.


William Allen Walsh: And the insurance is carried in recognized insurance companies?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman; there is no insurance. If a case occurs it is settled under the laws of the particular province applying to workmen's compensation; we pay on that basis. The dominion government pays the money out of the consolidated revenue fund.


William Allen Walsh: Then it does not represent premiums?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James Earl Lawson: You are your own insurers?
Supply-Transport-Car Ferry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. FINN:: Might I ask what classes of employees of the harbours board come under this pension fund?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any employees who would come under the provincial acts. I think in some provinces it is employees getting up to $2,400 a year, while in others I believe the limit is $1,800 a year. It covers all employees of the dominion government while in the employ of the government, subject to such limitations as each province may determine.


Robert Emmett Finn: Not necessarily civil servants?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, any employee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian National Railways-
Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals -capital	construction and improvements,
William Allen Walsh: In the railway committee I discussed a matter pertaining to the Prince Edward Island ferry. At present I understand that there are two ferries there. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two ferry boats.


William Allen Walsh: And do those two boats operate the year round, or are both operated only in the summer time and only one in the winter time, or what is the service given?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Heretofore the newer boat has performed the service except during the periods of lay-up. The older boat has been used to take over while the other boat was being dry docked, as it must be each year, and also as a stand-by in case of accident. However, due to the increase in the tourist business arrangements have been made this year to put on a second boat to supplement the services of the newer boat during the tourist season. The purpose of this item, which was passed by the special committee on railways, is to take care of the necessary alterations to enable the older boat to handle motor cars efficiently.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What was the capital cost of each of these boats?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the exact cost here, but the new boat cost about $2,700,000, and from that I should say the other boat cost about $700,000.


William Allen Walsh: The service in the summer time is provided by the regular operation of two ferries, with one standing by in case of accident to either of those boats. Is that

it? I presume that is in June, July, August and probably September, but during the remainder of the year there is only one ferry actually operating. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are two boats and up to the present only one has been in service at one time. The distance is only nine miles and of course this one boat makes a considerable number of trips per day in the ordinary course. However, it was found at the peak of the tourist travel last year that there were quite serious delays in handling the automobile traffic, so commencing this year both boats will be in service during the tourist rush. As I say, we are fitting up the older boat so that it will have conveniences for handling automobiles equal to those on the new boat.


William Allen Walsh: No doubt the minister is just as familiar as I am with the terms under which Prince Edward Island entered confederation. The word " efficient " was used in the contract under which they came into confederation, and they were also guaranteed continuous communication with the Intercolonial railway and the railway system of the dominion. It appears to me that during the greater part of the year there is no efficient service provided, and there certainly is not the continuous communication that was promised. I feel that we in this parliament are obligated by the contract entered into between the fathers of confederation and those representing the island. It may be that the service given to-day compares favourably with what was promised in 1873; but we have gone ahead considerably, and I do not think the connections between the island and the mainland are of that degree of efficiency and provide that continuity of communication which was contemplated when Prince Edward Island entered confederation.
I understand that in certain seasons, if you leave Montreal on the train that leaves around the noon hour, you are likely to have a wait of twenty hours at Sackville before you can make ferry connections to the island. That information was given to me by a gentleman who should know the conditions existing. He lives on the island and is actively associated with the board of trade in Charlottetown. He did not intend that this information should have any political significance. I do not want to discuss this item at any length, but I do want to lay this suggestion before the minister. I have not had as much time as I should like to have had to digest the information. It came in the mail only the day before yesterday, but it looks as though a serious effort should be made to live up to our contract to

Sup-ply-Transport-Steamships
provide ways and means of making the means of communication to and from the island more readily available.
The population of the island is shrinking, and I sometimes wonder if this is not due to our neglect of the opportunities to be found there. It is only an island, but it is one of the provinces of this dominion. I do not' like to make comparisons between provinces because I remember what a certain author said about comparisons, but I do feel that the people of Prince Edward Island have put up with conditions that the people of other provinces would not put up with. It may be that they feel they have had to do this because their population is shrinking and they have not the voice in the affairs of the dominion that other provinces have. I know, if the hon. members from the island were present, they would associate themselves with me when I make the suggestion that we should do something. It would not cost a great deal of money to provide better travel facilities between the island and the mainland.
In the railway committee I suggested that the railway connections should be speeded up in order to assist tourist traffic and industry in general. The island has no great number of industries, but it is a rich farming country. I believe its farming population could be increased if conditions were more favourable. I also believe we could stop the shrinkage in the population and perhaps bring about an increase. I do not criticize the department or the minister; I am simply doing my duty to the island that was the cradle of confederation. I think we owe this to the island from the historic and economic point of view. I agree that the ferry service from the cape to the island could be quite good if the railway company would do its share and cooperate a little more in connecting with the ferries. But that is only in the summer months. For eight months in the year travel is made difficult through lack of proper facilities to get to and from the island and to make the proper connections with the railways. I leave this suggestion with the minister in the hope that it will receive the consideration it deserves. I feel sure the minister knows it deserves consideration. I do not want my remarks to be taken merely as criticisms directed at the department or the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited-Advances to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, repayable on demand with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may
determine and to be applied in payment of capital expenditure in connection with vessels under the company's control during the year ending December 31, 1938, $24,000.
Howard Charles Green: Is this West Indies service operated at a profit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It shows quite a considerable operating profit. It pays its interest to the public and this year returned $180,000 to the government to apply on old deficits.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total indebtedness to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total capital invested is $10,954,000.


John Horne Blackmore: Why the decrease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: These are capital items, and they are rather misleading in that they come out of the earnings of the steamships. No money can be appropriated for capital purposes, either by the railroad or by the steamship company, without a vote of parliament. This item represents additional capital funds that the steamship company has applied for to be used during the current year. It represents money to be spent in improving the boats.


John Horne Blackmore: Is it intended to
extend this service, that is, to add more boats and extend their activities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been a suggestion to that end. This is a profitable service at the present time, but no plans have been formulated to put on additional boats.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that this is in the nature of a loan made each year to the steamships for carrying on their business during the year. Was the full amount of the loan made last year repaid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is more or less a permission to spend money for capital purposes. The steamship company have the money out of earnings; we simply appropriate it to capital as we do on the railways, and neither the railways nor the steamship company can spend their money for capital purposes without a vote of parliament. It is really a loan from the government, but they pay the money back to us, or it adds to their indebtedness to the government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wanted to know to what extent similar repayments were made last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They paid us $87,000 in cash last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On an advance of how much?
Supply-Transport


Clarence Decatur Howe: We appropriated 898,500, but it runs in my mind that they did not spend the full amount. This was all gone into in committee when we had the officers there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My recollection is that they balanced up pretty well last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; I think they paid us more money than we gave them.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: The consolidated profit and loss account shows a loss of 8481,000, and I understood the minister to say there was a profit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a balance payable to the dominion after paying interest to the public. I did not say there was a profit including interest . to the government, but last year was the first year they were able to take care of all their obligations, outside interest to the government, and pay some money to the government on account of interest.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: They should make a profit on operation, including interest owing to the government. It really is a loss on account of operation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The interest due the government is largely interest on accumulated deficits; in other words, it is interest on money that they lost. Only a small part of it is interest on government funds that went into the purchase of the line. The line was purchased from a bond issue which was sold to the public and is still an obligation of the company, which they are taking care of; but in the earlier years considerable deficits were piled up, and the interest due the government is, in part, interest on money borrowed from the government to pay operating losses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport - departmental administration, $373,124.
Howard Charles Green: The details of this item are on pages 208 and 209 of the estimates, and include 830,000 odd for miscellaneous expenses. What are covered by miscellaneous expenses?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The miscellaneous item is to provide for any special investigations or examinations that may be required in connection with matters administered by the department, also legal expenses and expenses of arbitration proceedings and for the advice and assistance of experts, damages, and for general expenses not otherwise provided for. We have in this department the administration of steamships, and occasionally special investigations are required or unexpected legal expenses incurred,

for which payment must be made. This general item covers these expenses. Included in this vote is 810,000 to be paid to the Canadian National Railways for expert services in connection with the reorganization of the filing systems of the department. We had three filing systems to consolidate. All were different systems, and some were very old, so we brought in experts from the Canadian National Railways who are revising the entire system.


Howard Charles Green: Since the minister took
over the department, has any investigation been made into the advisability of removing Ripple rock in Seymour narrows between Vancouver island and the mainland of British Columbia? For many years there has been an agitation to have the top of that rock cut down because it is quite a menace to navigation, but so far the work has not been done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Our officers have investigated the situation, and as far back as eight or nine years ago a recommendation was made to the Public Works department that they put it on their list of projects. Nothing has been done about it recently.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible
to have it done this year? What cost is involved?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Around half a million dollars, I believe. I cannot say whether anything will be done this year or not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service-Canals-Operation and maintenance, $2,177,450.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the reason for
the increase ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase is due in part
to the restoration of the salary deduction, 832,708.39; statutory increases, 815,125; staff increases, one stenographer at SI,380, two bridge men at 8755.75 each, one bridge man of $604.00; total staff increases, 83,496.10. Then there are certain contracts and agreements entered into for the improvement of roads, usually in cooperation with the towns. There is an item of 825,255 for roads on canal properties. There is a decrease of staff amounting to $6,048, and a decrease due to the payment of the minimum salary, where those at the maximum salary are being replaced, of 86,205; decrease in amount required for temporary assistance, 89,212; decrease in materials and supplies, S19.499; sundry decreases amounting to $943; making total decreases of $41,900, and a net increase of $34,675.

Supply-Transport-Canals


Grote Stirling: The principal item is
the Welland canal and the Sault Ste. Marie canal ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The St. Lawrence canal is
also quite expensive. Then there are the Cornwall, Soulanges and Lachine canals; St. Peter's canal in Nova Scotia, the Welland and Trent canals in Ontario. The expense is less on the smaller canals.


Grote Stirling: There is also the Rideau.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Is there any revenue
from the canals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a revenue of one
million dollars odd from the Welland canal from the sale of water rights and the lease of certain canal property. That is the main item of revenue. There are no tolls.


Mr. McNEVIN:: Do I understand that
the dredging operations at Bobcaygeon are to be continued this summer?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is to be continued this summer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is some revenue from the Rideau canal, is there not, some tolls or fees?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is the water power on the Rideau and also on the Trent. There are no tolls.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No lockage charges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-Improvements, $347,200.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice that recently some additional power development was contemplated at Kingston Mills or near there. Could the minister give any information in connection with that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A small individual lease had fallen into disuse, and it was leased to the Gananoque Light and Power company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the extent of water power under the old lease which has fallen into disuse?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Thirty-five horse power.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Only thirty-five horse
power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A very small lease.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is that all the additional power that has been turned over to this company?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The new lease provided for about two hundred horse power, and it was made possible by turning in an old contract where the water was not used very efficiently; we were able to develop about two hundred horse power, which we sold to the Gananoque company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have any additional works been undertaken by the department in order to provide this increased water power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. The development is to be entirely by the company. We simply sold the water rights.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the nature of the work that the company is doing? They are constructing a power house, I know.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are building a new dam and power house; that is incorporating the power house in the new dam.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And where is the new dam to be constructed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: About two hundred feet below the government spillway at Upper Brewers' Mills.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is there a development of power at that site?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The old development was at Brewers' Mills, I understand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The thirty-five horse
power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The thirty-five horse power. They are going below that to put in a dam which will develop two hundred horse power.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At that point?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just below the old location.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Substantially the same point. What is the rental of that power?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in the vicinity of S500 per annum. It is about $2.50 per horse power for the water rights.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And what is the length of the lease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Approximately twenty-one
years. It parallels another lease that the Gananoque Power Company have.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not want to seem to be asking too many questions; perhaps the reason I am asking so many is that I did not make a complete statement and ask the minister these things all at once. How does that rate compare per horse power with the average rate on the same canal?

Supply-Transport-Canals


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the standard rate for all new water powers on the canal. There are some very old leases with lower rates, but this is exactly the standard rate which has been charged for water powers since the canal water rates were put on a uniform basis.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think a survey by the department and a revision of the rates took place some years ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: About when were the survey and the revision of rates made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Approximately fifteen years ago.


Grote Stirling: Why is item No. 399 kept separate from item No. 398? Is this capital expenditure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Canal improvements; that is capital. It is not treated as capital, of course, in the government books, but it means that it is spent in improving the canal system. Of course the government books treat as capital only capital which has a direct return to the government, interest bearing capital. But this is a capital vote.


William George Clark: What is the meaning of the item " contributions "?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a considerable number of highways on canal property, and these highways are often used by municipalities in which the property lies. For a number of years the department has followed the policy of making arrangements with the towns, usually along the line of putting the highway in fair shape and then turning all its obligation over to the town. Similarly, with regard to bridges on public highways, we contribute in the case of a new bridge the cost of the draw span, that is the cost of the work incidental to the canal, and usually the province or possibly the town builds the abutment of the bridge with the help of the contribution we make on account of the movable span.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What would the deficit be on the canals of Canada in a year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think our upkeep cost is about 81,000,000 a year. The cost of operating and extras runs to about 82,500,000 a year. Our revenues are about $1,000,000 a year.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Has the minister any idea upon which canals the deficits occur? How much, for instance, would the deficit be in the case of the Welland or the Sault canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course the hon. member can get the figures quite easily from the report of the department. We show separately the
[Mr. Stewart.1
cost of operating each canal and the revenue from each canal. I shall be glad to give the hon. member the figures, though it may take a little time. They are in the report of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: How is that particular vote to be apportioned between the different canals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ontario, St. Lawrence canals: For the Cornwall canal, $7,000. Quebec canals: For the Carillon and Grenville canals, $4,800, plus 83,000; for the Chambly canal, $4,500 and $2,300 and $3,100; for the Soulanges canal, $12,000. For the Rideau canal the amount is $16,000. For the Trent canal the amount is $46,000, and for the Welland canal, $248,500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was made aware, in years gone by, of some grievances in connection with the Rideau system owing to the operation of the power plant at Kingston Mills. The contention was made that the operation of this plant had the effect of lowering the level in some of the other reaches to the detriment of navigation and of cottage and other owners along the Rideau system. I assume that attention has been paid to these complaints, because the department must have been made aware of them, and I should like to know what action has been taken, if any, to remedy these real or alleged grievances. Are any complaints of that kind coming in under existing conditions? The idea was that the party having the lease of the power development at Kingston Mills, which of course is fed from the higher reaches, was really getting more water than he was entitled to under his lease, with the effect that I have suggested. Of course, the right of navigation is superior; it is the first right, and the department has, I assume, to maintain a level sufficient for navigation. But will these grievances remain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am told that in the low water season the power company can obtain practically no water at all. We do our best to maintain navigation levels, but the shortage is due to evaporation. The power company are now building two storage dams off our property altogether in branch streams, and it is expected that when they are finished they will be able to regulate the levels there so that there will always be water available for power purposes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Another matter I wish to bring up in connection with the Rideau canal system is the condition of a bridge over the canal at Newboro. I corresponded with the minister about the matter. The difficulty arises in this way. There is a provincial high-

Supply-Transport-Electric Power
way leading from Westport to Newboro and on to Brockville, and during the winter there was the usual demand that the highway be kept clear of snow and ploughed. The provincial department does that work, but this bridge was not of sufficient capacity to permit of the passage of a snow plough over it, the result being that on the five or six mile stretch of road from the canal to Westport the road was not ploughed. There was some correspondence about the matter and letters appeared in the press. I should like to know what position the department has taken towards the improvement or the reconstruction of this bridge. Its capacity is extremely limited in any event; it is narrow. In my opinion it is inadequate for the traffic of these times on the provincial highway and it should be improved. What is the rule or regulation or policy of the department when an improvement of that sort is required on a provincial highway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The matter came up some three years ago, I am told, and at that time we offered to pay the cost of replacing the present bridge with a stronger structure. We consulted the Department of Justice as to what our obligations were and agreed to make a contribution in keeping with the views of that department regarding our obligations. That offer still holds.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The effect would be that the new span would be ample for carrying all modern traffic, including the snow plough?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that would be paid by this government to the provincial government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The provincial government, of course, can build as wide a span as they like, but our contribution is limited to our obligation, which is to maintain an adequate bridge of the present width. We offered to make that contribution to the province.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The dominion then would pay the whole cost of the span required for modern traffic?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. This occurs very frequently. Whenever a new bridge is built, obligations of the dominion arise, and that is the practice which was decided on years ago by the department in consultation with the Department of Justice. We have a policy in all these matters and are applying it in this instance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On what basis would
the department determine the obligation of 51952-193
the dominion at this time when a new bridge is needed, the old one being entirely inadequate for modem traffic?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are willing to replace
the present bridge with a bridge adequate for present needs. We limit the cost to the width of the present bridge, the Department of Justice having advised us that our obligation does not go beyond that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses in connection with St. Lawrence ship channel surveys and investigations, $3,000.
Mr. MacNICOL:: How is that survey
proceeding?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Nothing new is being done,
but we are making continuous records of flow information in that section. Of coures, it is the section that would be involved in the St. Lawrence seaway if we were proceeding with that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: East of Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Upriver, between Montreal
and Kingston.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the carrying out of flow measurements and other expenses connected with the department's supervision and control over the hydro-electric power development of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited, $5,000.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This is to cover the cost
of administering the dominion government agreement with the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company, Limited.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why do the Beauharnois company not pay the expense themselves? They get the water.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is provided for by order
in council P.C. 504 of March 1, 1932. Section 21 provides:
The minister or his authorized representative shall at all times be empowered:
1.	to have free access to the works of the company;
2.	to control the operation of the compensating or regulating sluices wherever situated;
3.	to measure the discharge of the various sluices, turbines, penstocks or other water passages forming part of the company's works;
4.	to control the opening and closing of gates in the control dams, and;
5.	to adjust the flow of water in the interests of navigation.


Grote Stirling: The canal remains entirely a private work; the dominion government has no say about it?

3046	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ownership of the canal is vested in the dominion government. It was built privately, but under an agreement which provided that the ownership should pass to the dominion government when it was constructed.


Grote Stirling: Then the government is responsible for the maintenance?	'


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the power company is under obligation to maintain it, but the canal property is vested in the crown. The operation is by the Beauharnois company, except that we keep a man there to supervise the operation in the interests of navigation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What salary is paid that man? In the list of expenses, page 218 of the estimates, I note: Temporary assistance, 81,000; travelling expenses, $2,300; materials and supplies, $700; and sundries, $1,000. Why do the Beauharnois company not pay all that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This man simply goes down to check the operations of the company. It is the travelling expenses of men from Ottawa who go there to see that the canal is being operated as we desire, and for various other purposes. It does not cover the actual operation of the canal in any way, but is to check the company's operations and issue instructions to make sure that the regulations of the dominion are carried out.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How many times a year does he inspect?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every three or four weeks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The travelling expenses are pretty high, $2,300 for twelve trips a year to Beauharnois.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board - Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures during the calendar year 1938 on any or all of the following accounts:
(a)	Retirement of maturing debentures-
Halifax, $1,700,000.
Saint John, $60,256.94.
Quebec, $400,000.-Total, $2,160,256.94.
(b)	Reconstruction and capital expenditures
(revote $36,000)-
Saint John, $130,000.
Chicoutimi, $12,000.
Quebec, $365,500.
Trois Rivieres, $160,000.
Generally unforeseen, $100,000 - Total, $767,500.
Total, $2,927,756.94.
Howard Charles Green: How are the items set out in subparagraph (a), retirement of maturing debentures, handled? Is it a case of the dominion paying off private bondholders and so assuming the liability?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, this represents financing carried out some four or five years ago. As these bonds mature they are taken up by the dominion government and carried as a loan to the national harbours board by the government instead of by the public. This item includes $1,700,000 for Halifax, five year debentures series "M" and "D" for the cold storage plant bought in 1933 by the then government; for Saint John, $27,756, five and a quarter per cent debentures and $32,500 six per cent debentures issued originally by the city of Saint John. When the harbour commissioners took over the property they assumed liability for these bonds. The bonds mature this year and the indebtedness is being transferred to the crown. Also included in this item are $400,000 four per cent debentures issued by the Quebec harbour commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: Do the different bonds carry different rates of interest?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: When the government takes over the indebtedness, does it continue to charge those rates to the respective harbours, or a standard rate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An agreed rate of three and a half per cent is charged on all new loans to the national harbours board.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the government
receive any real return in money; if so how much?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All the national harbours
except one show an operating .profit. I might give a little statement of what has been accomplished in the two years.
The principle of central control of Canada's national harbours has now been in effect considerably over two years. At first the administration was under a temporary board, but since October 1, 1936, the permanent board appointed pursuant to the provisions of the National Harbours Board Act has been in charge.
Without going into details of the many steps taken by the board to improve the position of our national harbours both from the point of view of efficiency and dispatch and from the financial standpoint, I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to a few figures indicating the substantial and gratifying progress which has been made thus far.
Taking each of the harbours that have been administered under the new system throughout the past two years, and comparing the results in 1937 with the situation in 1935,

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
the last year the harbours were under the administration of local commissions, we find as follows:
At Halifax an operating deficit of $3,915 in 1935 has been turned into an operating surplus of 5152,268 in 1937. At Saint John the operating surplus in 1935 stood at $50,094. In 1937 the operating surplus had increased to $195,650, an increase of $145,556. At Chicoutimi an operating deficit of $7,073 in 1935 has been turned into an operating surplus of $7,389 in 1937. At Quebec the operating deficit in 1935 stood at $315,284. Last year the operating deficit was $124,554, an improvement of $190,730. At Three Rivers an operating surplus of $45,239 in 1935 became in 1937 an operating surplus of $154,286, being an increase of $109,047 in operating surplus. At Montreal, leaving out the Jacques Cartier bridge, the operating surplus in 1935 was $1,637,803; in 1937 it was $2,240,550, or an increase of $602,747. At Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal, the operating surplus in 1935 was $202,259; in 1937 it was $339,235, representing an increase of $136,976 in operating surplus. At Vancouver the operating surplus in 1935 was $800,490; in 1937 it was $927,818, representing an increase of $127,328. The Second Narrows bridge, Vancouver, showed in 1935 an operating surplus of $42,085; in 1937 an operating surplus of $102,288, representing an improvement of S60,203. In each of the above cases substantial savings in operating and maintenance expenditures contributed materially to the improved showing.
Speaking generally, the result of two years' operation under the principle of national central control of national harbours may be stated thus: In 1935, the last year the harbours were under the administration of local commissions, aggregate operating revenues stood at $7,427,454.77. In 1937 the aggregate operating revenues were $8,262,221.63, an increase of $834,767, or 11 per cent. During the same period operating and maintenance expenditures were reduced from $4,975,755.52 to $4,268,675.25, a decrease of $707,080, or 14 per cent. In other words, while the business of the ports increased by 11 per cent, operating expenses were cut by 14 per cent. In 1935 the aggregate operating income of the harbours of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver was $2,451,699, and in 1937 it was $3,993,546, being an improvement of $1,541,847, or 63 per cent in the net position.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is in the net operating position?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the net operating position; in other words our net improved from $2,451,699 in 1935 to $3,993,546 last year. This increase reflects only the relative operating position. Notwithstanding this improvement, when proper allowance is made for depreciation, and interest is charged on capital, there still remains a net income deficit, as shown by the accounts of the board for 1937, of five and a half million dollars. I might say that this deficit is after charging proper depreciation at the several ports and also charging the interest due the public and the government on loans from both sources.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister deserves credit for the improvement in the net operating position. It would be very fine if he could suggest to the committee some way of improving the total, real position in view of the loss resulting from depreciation and interest. Surely there must be some way to overcome that deficit of five and a half million dollars. If that could be done in some way, I should say there would be a real, marked improvement all along the line.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, if my hon. friend is a constant reader of the Montreal Gazette or the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph, he will find that steps have been taken recently to do that very thing.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a matter of fact, I have not had time to read the press at all during the last few days.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had a readjustment of rates this spring which, I think, will help considerably.


Robert Emmett Finn: What is the operating cost of the centralized board at Ottawa?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The head office expense,
including engineering supervision from head office, amounted last year to $130,909.


Robert Emmett Finn: That is the centralized cost of operation, is it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the cost of the head office; that is head office expense, including salaries, $89,060; travelling expenses, $7,010; advertising, $2,026 and office expenses, chiefly engineering, $13,891.59. Then the treasury office-that is the finance department, who handle the accounting-charged back to the harbours board $18,920.27 as their cost of accounting services to the national harbours board.


Robert Emmett Finn: What was the operating cost of the harbour boards during the last year they operated?
3048	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: All harbour boards?


Robert Emmett Finn: Yes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Howard Charles Green: This afternoon the minister dealt with operating and maintenance expenses, which I take it are expenditures made in making repairs, improvements to wharves and so on. I wonder if he could give us the picture of the administration expenses? For instance, I notice that the administration expenses for Vancouver show an increase in 1937 over 1936 when there was actually a decrease in the business done. It would appear that there has been some carelessness there or that would not be the situation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no actual increase in the total. There has been a reclassification of expenditures, and I think my hon. friend will find that certain work which was formerly charged to maintenance is now charged to operation. If he will compare the total of the three items last year, he will have an accurate comparison. The new classification which applied throughout 1938 has somewhat changed the break-down of the three items.


Howard Charles Green: On page 57 of the national harbours board report for 1936 is shown the operating expenses. Administration expenses of
S106.000	odd are shown, and operation and maintenance, $612,000 odd. The same division is made on page 80 of the report for 1937. The administration expenses for that year are $119,000 odd, or an increase of about $13,000. I should like to have the administration expenses for previous years because I believe they are considerably higher under the national harbours board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difference lies chiefly in the charge-back of head office expenses. In 1936 the port was operated by three civil servants and their expenses were charged direct to the department. In 1937 we got things on a permanent basis, and that portion of the head office expenses applicable to Vancouver were charged to that port. The fact that it was a transition year accounts for the increase.


Howard Charles Green: What are the administration expenses for 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have prepared a statement in answer to a question asked by the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Finn) just as six o'clock was called, and perhaps it will answer

my hon. friend's question. Before the committee rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Halifax inquired as to the comparison of present head office expenses of the national harbours board with the amounts formerly expended by the separate commissions. Prior to 1936 the salaries of the various commissions aggregated $73,000 annually. In addition, the commissioners received automobile allowance of an additional $15,000, making a total of $88,000. The comparative figure under the present board is $30,000 for salaries, a saving of $58,000. Further substantial economies are shown in entertainment expenses of commissioners and staff, which in 1935 were over $18,000, as compared with $1,500 in 1936, a saving of $16,500. Travelling expenses of the commissioners and staff, which in 1935 were $24,000, compare with $7,000 for the board and staff in 1937. In addition to this, there will be a small amount of travelling expenses for the staffs at the harbours, of which I have no record at the moment.
Other economies which might foe mentioned are the entire elimination of residence telephones at public expense, which in 1935 cost $2,200; advertising and printing reduced from $52,500 in 1935 to $14,600 in 1936; charitable donations and contributions $24,000 in 1935, which have now been eliminated. These items -and they are all representative of the economies made by the board-which have now been eliminated or reduced, aggregate $185,000, made up of $88,000 for commissioners' salaries and automobile allowances, $16,500 reduction in entertainment expenses, $17,000 reduction in travelling expenses of board and staff, $2,200 saving in residence telephones, $38,000 in advertising, etc., and $24,000 for donations. As the total head office expenses in 1937 were $130,000, including central engineering and central accounting services, it will be seen that the whole expense of the board and its headquarters staff can be met out of the savings which I have enumerated above, and leave a substantial margin of $50,000.


Howard Charles Green: Could the minister not give us the administration expenses of the port of Vancouver during those years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1934 the total current expenses were $703,137; in 1935, $736,554; in 1936, $718,997; and in 1937, $708,830.


Howard Charles Green: That must be the operating expense.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the total operating expense. It is difficult to give the administration expense. As I say, there is a different classification. There was no break-down at that time comparable with the present break-

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
down, and I do not know how we can break down the figures to give my hon. friend the information he desires. I am giving him the total operating expenses, which would be comparable.


Howard Charles Green: They are really not comparable. It may merely mean that there is less work being done about the harbour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I can give the revenues of the harbour which would be an indication of the work done.


Howard Charles Green: Not necessarily.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think so.


Howard Charles Green: How is the headquarters expense in Ottawa apportioned among the harbours? How much is charged to each harbour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The division is made according to the revenue and expenditure.


Howard Charles Green: What was apportioned last year to Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We budgeted last year for $28,000, but the actual amount was somewhat less. We budgeted for 20 per cent of the gross.


Howard Charles Green: That was charged to Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Charged to Vancouver.


Howard Charles Green: How is this net income deficit of $5,000,000 odd charged to the different harbours?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a separate accounting for each harbour. The figure the hon. member has is the total for all harbours.


Howard Charles Green: What was the deficit for each harbour?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The net income deficit for Halifax was $603,837; Saint John, $849,132; Chicoutimi, $208,416; Quebec, $1,485,361; Three Rivers, $92,008; Montreal, $1,066,514; Vancouver, $471,289.


Howard Charles Green: Vancouver is paying its way far better than any of the others.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: It always did.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Its figures in red are smaller anyway.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the committee, and especially to the minister, about the port of Montreal? As we all know, the port of Montreal is of vital interest to the whole Dominion of Canada.
It reflects the trade of our country to a marked degree, and anything that is done by the Department of Transport or the new harbours board affecting the port of Montreal affects naturally the whole dominion.
There have been oertain changes made in the port of Montreal in regard to rates and fees, and I want to refer particularly to the changes recently made in connection with grain shipments through the port of Montreal. As the minister is aware, for over fifty years it has been the custom at the port of Montreal, and I assume also at the port of Quebec, although as to the latter port I am saying only what I believe to be the case, to levy certain charges for lifting the grain from the canal boats into the elevator and certain charges for delivering the grain out of the elevator into the ocean boats, the charges being split between the two boats concerned. In the early history of these ports, particularly the port of Montreal, this charge was half a cent a bushel, and at that time it was equally divided between the lake boats and the ocean boats. To-day, of course, on account of the increased costs, the charge per bushel has also increased, so that we have a total charge of $10.25 per 1,000 bushels. This $10.25 is apportioned between the lake boat and the ocean boat as follows: $6.25 per 1,000 bushels is payable by the lake boat when the grain is unloaded, and $4 per 1,000 bushels is payable by the ocean boat when the grain is delivered to it.
In addition to the service which the elevator performs of unloading the grain from the lake boat and delivering it to the ocean boat, it stores the grain free of charge for a period of ten days. After that, there is a charge of so much per bushel according to a rate schedule in operation at the present time. The service of loading and unloading has apparently worked very satisfactorily in the ports of Montreal and Quebec over a period of fifty years. The method of apportioning the charge for this service and the method of collecting it have been very satisfactory. As far as I understand the situation, there have been no complaints from the grain trade, no complaints from the owners or operators of the lake boats, and no complaints from the ocean boats, most of which are in the category of tramps.
But there has been a change made quite recently, and the change amounts to this:	As
far as the lake boats are concerned they proceed in the usual way and pay their $6.25 per
1,000	bushels. But so far as the ocean boats are concerned the method of collection has been changed. The collection is now made a charge on the owner of the grain, a charge
3050	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
of S4 per 1,000 bushels. Previously this charge had been levied against the ocean boat taking possession of the grain, and was collected from that source. I want to emphasize again that apparently there had been no complaints, and no reason was advanced for making this change from a practice which had been in operation for over fifty years and had proved satisfactory to all parties concerned.
I mentioned that this change was made rather suddenly. I understand that an order in council, P.C. 721, was passed on April 5, 1938, and published in the Canada Gazette of April 9, 1938, cancelling the previous order in council, P.C. 2162, dated August 27, 1936. The main effect of that cancellation was to make that charge of $4 per 1,000 bushels collectable against the owner of the grain rather than against the boat which was receiving the grain. The method of collecting does not matter very much, so far as the port of Montreal is concerned, as long as the charge or fee is collected; at least I would assume that would be satisfactory to all parties concerned.
But the main effect, so far as the grain brokers are concerned, is this, that the S4 is now charged against the grain. There has been no corresponding reduction in the freight rates of the ocean vessels taking possession of this grain. As most hon. members realize, a grain broker in selling grain operates on a very small margin, and this charge of $4 per 1,000 bushels, which the broker himself now has to pay and charge against the grain, means the complete wiping out of his prospective profit, and means in some instances an actual deficit so far as his transaction is concerned.
We are all aware of the fact that the grain exporter does not sell wheat or com, or whatever other grain it might be, overnight. He is busily concerned during the winter months and during the early spring months in getting the grain, in securing orders for grain, in making his arrangements with the lake boats to carry his grain from the lake ports to the port of Montreal, and in arranging with oceangoing boats, principally tramps, for the carrying of the grain from Montreal to its destination. He makes his commitments well in advance, and most grain brokers have made their commitments up to the end of the season of navigation in the port of Montreal. This charge is sprung upon them, and in making it the harbours board have worked an injustice not only on the grain brokers who are concerned with this trade, but on the port of Montreal itself, as I shall point out a little later. They have also worked a hard-
IMr. Walsh.]
ship on the people in western Canada who produce this grain. A levy of $4 per 1,000 bushels amounts to a considerable sum, and is quite an appreciable amount as far as the western farmer, the grain broker, or anyone else connected with the production or shipment of grain, is concerned.


Mr. LEADER:: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the extra charge of $4 per
1.000	bushels would be placed on the grain grower and not the broker? Will not the grain grower ultimately pay the charge?


William Allen Walsh: That is what he will do. That is the point of my criticism, and I am glad that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie has helped me to emphasize it. This year it will be borne by the grain broker; next year and each following year it will be borne by the western farmer. It is natural to expect that. The result will be $4 per
1.000	bushels less for the western farmer. One might not object so strenuously to that, because we hope and expect that there will be an increase in the production of grain this year and that the price will be a reasonable one, were someone in Canada getting the benefit of that $4, but who gets it? Not Canadian steamships. Tramps and tramp owners, ships belonging for the most part to foreign firms, are getting the benefit. The presumption, of course, was that this sum would be handed back by the owners of the tramp steamers in the form of lessened freight rates, but do you find owners of tramp steamers which come into the port of Montreal offering to give a rebate or to reduce the rates they think they can get for carrying grain from Montreal to a foreign port? They are not built that way. Anyone who has had experience in dealing with owners of tramp vessels, particularly ocean-going tramps, knows they are a very difficult body to do business with. It is impossible to collect back from them in the way of reduced freight rates this $4 per 1,000 bushels, which this year must be borne by the grain trade but next year will be borne by the farmers of western Canada. I emphasize this particular condition so that those who represent western constituencies will realize the importance of the grain trade to the port of Montreal and what a tremendous difference will result from any shifting of the burden of taxation in this way; for, after all, the $4 per 1,000 bushels will be in the nature of an additional tax on grain produced in western Canada.
As regards the port of Montreal, all who have had anything to do with the shipping of grain understand that the export of grain is a business which is highly sensitive. It requires

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
very little change in rates .to take away from one port the volume which is passing through that port and transfer it to another. I can see this taking place. The grain, instead of being directed through the port of Montreal, wall be forwarded through a United States port where there will be a difference sufficient to give the grain broker a better break as far as price is concerned. That is what we in Montreal are nervous about. Naturally we are jealous of our port. It is not a natural harbour; it is a harbour which has been built up at tremendous expense to this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear I


William Allen Walsh: It is a harbour which has to be maintained at tremendous expense to this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear I


William Allen Walsh: It represents a huge investment so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, and no one appreciates that fact more than do the members for the Montreal district. We realize the amount of money which has been sunk into the St. Lawrence channel to make the port of Montreal possible. At one time it was a natural port; but as vessels increased in size it became necessary, in order to keep Montreal on the map, to increase the depth of the channel so as to bring these larger vessels up to the port of Montreal. That reacts, of course, to the advantage of Canada. We have one of the largest seaports in the world. At one time it ranked either fourth or fifth among the world's ports. We want to maintain our prestige in this respect. But if the Department of Transport are going to interfere constantly with the course of business through that harbour, they will gradually create a condition under which tramps and other steamers will not make that a port of call; for no longer will it be profitable for them to come to Montreal with cargoes in order to take up other cargoes. I emphasize that point because I feel that the action taken by the national harbours board was quite unjustifiable; it has provoked a condition which is wholly unnecessary. It is difficult enough to obtain business under any circumstances, and it should be the duty of the board to facilitate business and not to place any impediment in the way of developing it.
I mentioned that the grain trade in particular is a highly sensitive business. It reacts very quickly to changes in conditions. I intend to point that out later to the Minister of Transport, under another item, but I draw attention to it at this time in order to lead
up to another point. We do not want to lose any trade from the port of Montreal, even to any other Canadian port.


An hon. MEMBER:: A little selfish!


William Allen Walsh: A little selfish, but we have such a tremendous investment there that we cannot afford to jeopardize the port.


Mr. POTTIER:: Who is "we"?


William Allen Walsh: But I am afraid, in fact I am led to believe that there will be less trade going through the port of Montreal this year as a result of the action, which is both unnecessary and unjustifiable, of the national harbours board. United States ports are going to get the benefit of what Montreal will lose. That is a consequence we should do our best to avoid. I do not suppose the Minister of Transport had any idea of diverting trade from the port of Montreal to any of its United States competitors; but as surely as he allows the board to do what they have done, he is in accord with their apparent policy, through enforcing this new regulation, of allowing trade to be diverted.
In order to show that there has 'been a realization of what might happen, the order in council which was put through and which it was assumed, would be made operative at once, will not be made effective until November 13. As a result of negotiation; as a result of placing the parties concerned in that predicament, the conditions that prevailed last year will continue more or less until November 13 of this year. After November 13 the conditions I have outlined will become effective. The effect will be that a custom known to those who use the port of Montreal as one which has been established for over fifty years will be broken. I grant you it is not a matter of law; but any custom which has been established for a period of fifty years has the force of law behind it, and I say that this particular custom of the port of Montreal, in existence for all that time, will be broken. After November 13, for about two weeks in this season, the change in levying the charge on ocean-going vessels in connection with wheat is going to go into effect. This change will then foe known as the custom of the port of Montreal. That is where the danger lies-the effect on the port of Montreal towards the close of this season and during the next season and every season to come.
In conclusion, I would ask the minister why this change was made and who asked for it. Was the grain trade consulted by the national harbours board when the change was made?

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
Am I to assume that the change was made under pressure from the ocean boats in their complaint against the increase in port dues? I would point out in passing that the national harbours board increased the charge in the different harbours under their jurisdiction byincreasing wharfage dues, port dues and harbour dues. In some instances tramps loading grain will be assessed from $250 to $300 more than was paid during the previous season. If they are relieved of the necessity of paying $4 per 1,000 bushels, it means a saving to them of something in the neighbourhood of $1,000 per season per trip. In other words, the harbour dues were increased, and then I assume there was a vigorous protest and the suggestion that they would cease to use the harbour of Montreal, with the result that this other change was made, which will not only relieve the tramp of these extra dues, as far as the harbour is concerned, dues which would have amounted to between $250 and $300, but will give him an additional amount in the neighbourhood of $1,000 per season per trip.
It occurred to me to ask the minister whether that increase in wharfage dues at the port of Montreal had anything to do with the change in the assessment against the loading of ocean vessels leaving the port of Montreal, which used to be assessed at $4 per
1,000	bushels against ocean vessels and paid by them, and which is now to be assessed against the grain itself.
I leave these questions with the minister with the request that he make some reply in order that I may have an understanding of exactly what actuated this sudden change, which will react disastrously upon the port of Montreal and upon the shippers of grain from that port.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have listened to a most extraordinary speech. Not one single fact stated is true, unfortunately. My hon. friend has taken-


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I do not like to do so, but I did not expect any member of the house to suggest that I was trying to mislead the committee or even one member of the committee by any misstatement of facts or any misplaced figures.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I withdraw the statement; I did not intend to say it in that way. I intended to say that not one statement which my hon. friend made was in accordance with the facts, and I shall now proceed to give him the facts. As a matter of fact, certain changes were made in the tariffs of Montreal and all the other eastern ports. All the

port charges in eastern Canada are now on a parity, with one slight exception. The change was made after months of consultation with every interest affected. The best rate-making ability we could find was brought to bear upon the problem, and now that the new charges are in operation every user of the port will say that we have a far more satisfactory system than previously. The order in council to which my hon. friend referred was carried out to the full, and not the slightest change has been made in it.
Let us refer to the situation which, he declares, has caused the brokers tremendous losses and will cost the farmers of western Canada untold millions. We hear from some people, when it suits their purpose, that the charge is assessed against the western farmers when it is taken off the boats; or, when it suits their purpose to put it the other way, if it is not taken off the boats it is still charged against the western farmers. It works both ways.


George Halsey Perley: The farmer always pays.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; but he pays double according to who says it. The reason for the change is this. The National Harbours Board Act contains the following provision in section 15:
15. (1) The board may levy such rates and tolls as are fixed by by-law and may, with the approval of the minister, commute any rates or tolls so fixed on such terms and conditions and for such sums of money as the board deems expedient.
The next subsection is the pertinent one:
(2) The rates and tolls on goods landed or transhipped in or shipped from any harbour under the jurisdiction of the board shall be paid by the consignee, shipper, owner or agent of such goods, and goods shall not be removed from the harbour until such rates or tolls are fully paid or security for payment accepted by the board.
That subsection represents the only basis on which tolls can be collected. From whom can they be collected? They can be collected from the consignee, the shipper, the owner or the agent; that is all. The act does not say anything about being able to collect from the vessel.


William Allen Walsh: That is the change which
went into effect this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is not a change that
went into effect this year. This is the National Harbours Board Act, assented to on June 23, 1936. What happened? The board has no legal right to assess charges other than as provided in the act. The old tariff in Montreal provided for payment of an elevation charge of $6.25 per 1,000 bushels by the

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
vessel unloaded. It also provided for a loading charge on export grain payable by the vessel loaded; on domestic grain payable by the shipper. The board had no right under its act to assess the charges against a vessel. Therefore, liability for the charges was changed to accord with the act. The charge of $6.25 per 1,000 bushels for unloading, elevating and weighing grain from vessels is now payable on unloading. The charge for delivering grain to vessels, $4 per 1,000 bushels, is now payable on shipment. That is the change my hon. friend has been speaking about so eloquently. It was carefully explained to the grain trade, months in advance, that it was necessary to make the change in order to avoid using a tariff which we could not legally enforce under the National Harbours Board Act.
What about all these losses? There has been no change whatever in the practice. The act does not require a change in the practice. The lake boat that brings the grain down is still paying S6.25 per 1,000 bushels when it reaches Montreal. The tramp steamer or passenger liner or whatever boat takes the grain out is still paying $4 per
1,000	bushels when it takes that grain aboard. So all this injury to the brokers of which we have been told just did not happen. It is recognized by all that considerable notice must be given before a change of that kind can be put into effect. Naturally, when next season's rates come out, the $4 per 1,000 bushels charge which is now added to the ocean freight rate will be deducted from that rate, and the new tramp rates published next year will be ex loading charges, just as today they are marked "plus four-tenths of a cent per bushel."
I have heard my hon. friend the exMinister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) argue that all the charges go back to the farmer. One is asked to believe that savings never go back to the farmer. That is about as ridiculous a statement as one can imagine. What is the change? There is no change, and there will be no change except this, that in future Montreal will be just as other ports in every part of the world except the St. Lawrence river have always been. They have always charged the elevation charges against the grain. Where is the elevation charged in Winnipeg; where is it charged in Fort William, Halifax, Saint John, Vancouver? Always against the grain. In Montreal there was a situation that everyone has objected to ever since I heard of the port of Montreal. Compare the ocean rate to Montreal with the rate to New York. Why was the rate to Montreal higher than
to New York? We have heard various explanations, but the truth is it was because there was a charge of $4 per 1,000 bushels in that rate which represented a payment to the elevator by the boat for the elevation of the grain. There was a differential between the rates to Saint John and Halifax and the rate to Montreal for the same reason, that in the old days the boat rate to Montreal included an amount of $4 per 1,000 bushels for elevation of grain. Next year we shall have a rate structure which places Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers and Sorel on a parity with the rest of the world as far as ocean rates are concerned, and then we shall see whether the port of Montreal has been discriminated against as compared with other ports. If the grain is shipped out of New York, who pays for the elevation? The owner of the grain. If it is shipped out of Baltimore, who pays it? If it is shipped out of any other port in the whole, wide world, who pays it? The owner of the grain.
We are told that this has caused a great diversion of grain through United States ports. What are the facts? The bookings on the St. Lawrence river to date of American corn from Chicago amount to about 80,000,000 bushels, a movement we have not seen in this country since 1928. How much of that is being diverted to New York?


William Allen Walsh: Later I am going to ask the minister why there was such a huge shipment of grain, com in particular, through the port of Quebec during this last season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall tell the hon. membei that too. He made his speech; now suppose he lets me make mine.
What about package freight? True, we have raised the rates on some classes of package freight, and lowered them on others. For instance, the wharfage charge on an automobile in Montreal was S5.50. In Saint John the wharfage charge on the same automobile was $2.75, and in Halifax, thirty cents. Surely one was too high or the other too low. It was the same automobile loaded into the same boat. In that case we worked out the rate at $3 per automobile for all the ports. I could give other examples. I could tell of rates which were considerably higher in Halifax than in Montreal, for no reason that we could discover. Those rates were examined, the background looked into, and they were adjusted. There were extraordinary differences between different ports on the river St. Lawrence, differences of 100 or 150 per cent in wharfage charges on the same commodity.
3054	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
To-day a shipper can deal with any of our Atlantic or St. Lawrence ports on an equal basis.
A rate structure is a very difficult thing to alter. We have been working on this problem since this national harbours board was formed. Last February we sent out proposed tariffs to the trade and invited comment. Meetings were held, two I think in each port; every interest affected met together with the board and their views were examined, written briefs were invited, and in the latter part of March we brought down our final tariff. As a result of the hearings and discussions the tariffs were revised. We based our tariffs on the best information available and then submitted them to the port users and invited their representations. In many instances, as a result of representations, the rate was adjusted. To-day in the ports of eastern Canada we have a sound tariff, which will stand analysis.
As for loss of business, the St. Lawrence ports have now been open for business about a month. I have yet to learn of one pound of freight that has been diverted from any of those ports as a result of the new tariffs. I do not know of a single ship that has been diverted from the St. Lawrence ports. I have before me the figures to the end of April; that is, for the first two weeks of the season. In that time cargo tonnage at Montreal increased 126,757 tons or about 25 per cent over a similar period last year, which was a very good year.
I was asked why the harbour of Quebec is handling United States grain, and I shall tell my hon. friend. Naturally, when it became apparent that there was going to be a European demand for American com at the opening of navigation, exporters began to worry about congestion on the St. Lawrence. As they came to us we took up actively with them the use of the port of Quebec, which for a number of years had not been used as it should have been. We asked them to give us the reasons why Quebec should not be used to the extent the other ports were used, and they pointed out to us the difficulty of using a port where grain, is shipped by tramps only as against a port handling both liners and tramps. The disability resolved itself into this, that in assembling grain to fill a tramp cargo storage rates accumulate which never could accumulate in a liner and tramp port. Of course it is understood that the ten days of free storage is availed of, so that as grain is shipped out it is applied on the older billings, and that in a port such as Montreal practically no storage is collected during the

operating season. The turn-over is rapid, and it is owing to some lack of vigilance on the part of the handler of the grain, as a rule, if any of his grain becomes liable for storage charges.
We recognized this disability at Quebec and took up the matter with the board of grain commissioners, requesting permission to publish a tariff for Quebec which would abolish the storage charge on full cargoes of export grain moving from that port until August 31 of this year. We first inquired as to the practice of other elevators handling tramp cargoes exclusively, and found that they _ had been forced to adopt the same practice; that is, not to accumulate storage against grain moving in that way in the active season. Of course this has nothing to do with winter storage. The result is that we have one or perhaps two customers using the port of Quebec. They feel that by so doing they will avoid the congestion which they expect along the river. We are glad to have the business distributed in this way for the same reason, since congestion has rather far-reaching results. We believe we have a much improved situation on the river this year over any that has obtained for two or three decades.
I do not know that I have covered all the points raised by my hon. friend. If I have not, I hope he will repeat his question.


William Allen Walsh: After listening to the minister and very carefully analyzing what he has said, I do not think there is anything whatever in his remarks to bear out what he said at the very 'beginning of his speech.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just to correct that statement, let me run over the points my hon. friend raised. In the first place he said that a rate of $4 per 1,000 bushels was assessed against the broker, against the grain. That is not true; it is not a fact, as I have pointed out. The boats are still paying that charge. My hon. friend then said this meant that grain was being diverted through the United States. As a matter of fact, exactly the opposite is happening; as far as I can find out all the United States grain moving at this time is going through Canadian ports, and I think that situation will largely obtain until this movement is over. Further, my hon. friend said we had published an order in council and then had not put it into effect. The order in council went into effect the day it was published; it is still in effect. The shipping companies have agreed that the tariff would not come into operation this year, so there would be no embarrassment in connection with existing contracts, and that when

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
the new rates are published by the Tramp Shipping Federation, as they are once a year, this rate will be published ex elevation at St. Lawrence river ports. I think those were the only statements my hon. friend made, and I think they are all wrong.


William Allen Walsh: The minister has suggested only two points, and one is in connection with this $4 rate that, for a period of over fifty years, was charged against and paid by the ocean carrier. Under this new regulation, the order in council amending by-law No. 85, dated April 5, 1938, and put into the hands of the grain trade in Montreal on April 12, that charge is levied no longer against the boat but against the owner of the grain. It was only after a considerable amount of negotiation that they got the owners of the boats, and in particular the tramps, to defer the action they proposed to take. In other words, they proposed, when this order in council was put into effect, to take full advantage of it and allow the grain owner to pay the $4 per 1,000 bushels.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend makes a dogmatic statement, that the tramps and liners proposed to do something. How does he know they proposed to do it?


William Allen Walsh: No; after negotiation they did not. I have the details here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The details the hon. member got were from the editorial column of the Montreal Gazette, and they are not correct.


William Allen Walsh: I have not even seen an editorial in the Gazette bearing on this matter;
I want the minister to accept that statement as the truth and the whole truth. I have not obtained my information from that source, though I can say this-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I accept the hon. member's apology.


William Allen Walsh: I can say this, that I would far rather accept detailed statements found in the editorial columns of the Gazette than statements coming from very many sources quoted from time to time in this house. I want to emphasize this point again: It would have been discrimination against the port of Montreal and eventually discrimination against the grain growers of western Canada if this rate had been put into effect. Action was deferred until a certain date. Then, after further protests, it was further deferred until November 13 of this year. The season does not close until December 1. The minister made the statement that this rate of $4 per 1,000 bushels would not be collected from the grain during this season; yet the agreement with the grain brokers and shipowners of Montreal expires November 13, and the rate goes into effect after that date. I think the minister will agree that my information is correct in this instance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was determined that there was absolutely no contract outstanding beyond November 13. If any shipper wishes to have the steamer pay his elevation after November 13, all he has to do is write it into the charter.


William Allen Walsh: I know the grain brokers of Montreal will be happy to have the intimation from the minister that there will be no change in the assessment of that $4 per 1,000 bushels during the course of the current shipping season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not bother to convey that information because I do not think they would value my hon. friend's information on that point. I never saw a man with less background for work of this kind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, now-


William Allen Walsh: They have a high regard for the Minister of Transport. If the Minister of Transport considers that I have no background for a discussion of this kind, I am sorry he has formed such an opinion. On many occasions I could have made the same suggestion, but I would not do it. I have a high regard for the Minister of Transport and I hope he has the same for me. If his attitude is the condition which must prevail in this committee; if we must carry on debates in that frame of mind, I am not unwilling to carry on in that way. I am willing to take my share of abuse along with any other member of this house.


Mr. ANDERSON:: There is no necessity for abuse.


William Allen Walsh: The minister has suggested that no grain was diverted. I grant that there has been none diverted yet because of the arrangements that have been made, but there will be if something is not done to adjust them. I still want to emphasize this fact: Why was it necessary to make this change in a custom that had prevailed for fifty years? This had worked satisfactorily, but suddenly there is a diversion of this S4 charge from the ship to the grain owner. Why not leave things in status quo when they have been working so satisfactorily? The minister suggests that next year the rates on tramp steamers carrying grain will be lowered to cover this charge of $4 per 1,000 bushels. Why not leave matters alone when things are going along satisfactorily? Why make a change? When nothing is to be gained, why

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
break a custom that has prevailed in this port for many years? If we were to have increased revenues as a result of this change, then I would say, make it, but there is nothing being accomplished this year except disturbance. I do not think the Minister of Transport should countenance a change of this kind simply for the sake of making a change. Changes are not always good; some are bad. I consider that this change is unnecessary. I believe it will work out to the detriment of the port of Montreal. The minister suggested that the harbour commission had no legal right to collect this $4 per
1,000	bushels from the ocean boats. They collect $6.25 per 1,000 bushels from the lake boats.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me correct that. They collect only as long as the lake boats agree to pay it. We collect from the parties named in the act, the consignee, the shipper, owner or agent. If some one else pays it, that is simply a matter of arrangement among the parties concerned.


William Allen Walsh: When a lake boat brings down grain they quote the grain broker a rate from the lake port delivered into the elevator at Montreal. That freight rate includes this S6.25 per 1,000 bushels. That has always been done, and it is still being done. That has been the custom for fifty or sixty years, and no change is being made. Apparently it is considered legal for the harbour commission to collect that $6.25.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend
would like to have the facts. Exactly the same change was made in connection with inbound grain as was made in connection with outbound. I shall read the charges again as I think the hon. member should have them in his mind. The old tariff stated that the charge for unloading grain from vessel was payable by the vessel unloaded. That is the charge of $6.25 to which the hon. member is referring. The new tariff states that the charge for unloading grain from vessel is payable on unloading. It does not say by whom it is payable; it simply says it is payable on unloading. The change in connection with outbound grain is exactly the same. The old tariff states that charges in connection with export grain are payable by the vessel unloaded and charges in connection with domestic grain are payable by the shipper. The new tariff states that the charges are payable on loading. It does not say by whom they are payable, any more than in connection with inbound grain. The situation to-day is that the boats pay the inbound charges because they quote a rate

to a shipper or make a charter party which includes the cost of unloading at Montreal. If the charter party includes elevator charges, they will be paid by the ship just the same, but our security for the charge must, under the act, be the grain.


William Allen Walsh: I can only go back to the
statement made by the minister, that it is not legal to do it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not legal to do what?


William Allen Walsh: When the grain is unloaded from a lake vessel into the elevator the Montreal harbour commission makes out a bill against the owner or the agent of the vessel, not against the owner of the grain. But in the case of an ocean vessel, the bill for unloading goes, not to the owner or the agent of the vessel but to the person who has the grain in the elevator. Apparently that is the only difference between the minister and myself, despite my lack of background.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I correct that? The
account goes to the owner or agent of the grain. We do not care who pays for it because everyone's money looks the same. The owner or the agent of the grain is billed in connection with incoming and outgoing grain.


William Allen Walsh: I have seen a bill which
was sent to the owner of the vessel. When wheat is delivered from a lake boat into the elevator the bill is not made out in the name of the owner of the grain; it is made out in the name of the owner or agent of the vessel and collected as such.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The explanation is that the
owner or agent of the grain has arranged a charter for the lake vessel which includes elevation and has asked the elevator to bill the lake boat as a matter of convenience. But if the lake boat does not pay, the owner of the grain will find a bill in his hands in short order. He is the responsible party under the National Harbours Board Act. There is nothing in the act that states that we can hold a boat responsible for elevation or other charges.


William Allen Walsh: We shall let that point go.
I am perfectly satisfied as to the actual conditions. I believe that the point raised by the grain brokers of Montreal and other points and those interested in the port is well taken. It is unfortunate that all this trouble should have been caused merely for the sake of a bookkeeping entry. After all, that is what it amounts to. In one case one source is held responsible and in another

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
case, another source is held responsible for the payment of the bill. This custom has existed for fifty years. The minister quoted in connection with the port of Montreal certain figures which showed an increase in freight movement during the first two weeks in April. Naturally those figures speak for themselves, but he must remember that in the early part of April last season there was very little grain shipped through the port of Montreal. The increase shown is not a real increase.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let me correct that. As a matter of fact shipments of grain in the first two weeks of last year were quite heavy, and there is very little difference between the grain shipments of the first two weeks of this season and the shipments of the first two weeks of last season. The increase is almost wholly in other commodities


William Allen Walsh: Has the minister the figures on that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have them in my office. I do not know that I have them here. I get a daily statement, and I am quoting from that. I saw it only this morning, and I think my hon. friend should know the figures because he is making these dogmatic statements.


William Allen Walsh: I am inclined to make dogmatic statements, but the minister is not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have the figures before me.


William Allen Walsh: The minister has access to the figures and I have not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why make statements if you have not the figures?


William Allen Walsh: I am giving the minister
the information which I have received, which I believe to 'be correct, and it is for others to judge which is the correct information. The minister is in a better position to get the figures than I am. I can get only certain figures, and I am giving them. I cannot agree with the minister; I am sorry I cannot.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He cannot agree, but has he seen the figures?


William Allen Walsh: I have sufficient figures here to show me that this differential of $4-


James Earl Lawson: What are the minister's
figures? He is a responsible minister of the crown.


Clarence Decatur Howe: For the first two weeks of the shipping season, 26,759 tons or about 25 per cent, until the end of April. So there is a very slight difference, and I am making a statement which I can verify. This happens to be the statement of May 16.


James Earl Lawson: We were dealing with the first two weeks of April in 1937 and 1938.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I shall be glad to put that on Hansard this evening.


William Allen Walsh: Would the minister explain in just a few words why, and at whose instigation or suggestion, this change was made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have tried to explain-


William Allen Walsh: Just in a very few words.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The very few words are these: Under the old tariff, had a ship refused to pay the charges, we were out our money because we had no legal right to make a ship responsible for the payment of elevation charges. The agent, owner or consignee of the grain are the only people from whom we can legally collect. Why put in the tariff something that you cannot enforce? Why say that a man is responsible for charges when you have no legal right to make him responsible?


William Allen Walsh: Why have you not a legal right to make him responsible when that was the practice which prevailed over a long period of years ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are working under the act passed in 1936, and the Department of Justice advises that we have not the legal right to make the ship responsible. We asked for an opinion from the department when we discovered the discrepancy in tariffs, and we were told that we had no legal right to collect from the boat owners if they did not pay of their own free will.


William Allen Walsh: You can refuse clearance to a boat if it refuses to pay.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We cannot collect by legal methods a charge illegally made. You cannot do a thing indirectly, legally, that you cannot do directly.


Harry Leader: I am not sure that I have this straight yet. This $4 was formerly charged against the boat owners, illegally, the minister says, and that is why the change was made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Correct.


Harry Leader: And now it will be a charge against the owners of the grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Harry Leader: What I am concerned about is the farmers of the west. Does the minister not think this charge will be levied against the farmer's grain when he sells it to the broker? Does he really not think so?

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: How many speeches has the hon. member made in his life in which he suggested that all charges, including freight, were made against the farmer?


Harry Leader: Quite so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we take the S6.25 off the boat carrying the grain down, naturally the freight will be S6.25 less. It is freight plus elevation; that is the way in which rates are quoted and charters are made. Similarly you can look up the rates published by the tramp shipping administration committee in London, and you will find the rate quoted for St. Lawrence ports is the freight rate plus $4 per 1,000 bushels elevation. If it is quoted the other way, these charges will not be included. It will be a flat charge as it always has been from Saint John and Halifax, and if you compare the rates from Saint John and Halifax, you will find that they vary by exactly that four-tenths of a cent per bushel. My hon. friend knows something about grain handling and how rates are charged at country elevators and at Fort William and Vancouver, and he knows that the elevation charges are always assessed against the grain.


Harry Leader: I am not clear yet. This $4 that was formerly charged against the boat owners will now be charged against the owner of the grain, who in the first place will be the farmer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The farmer does not own any grain in Montreal harbour. Of course, my hon. friend may say that all the charges follow the grain, and that is absolutely true.


Harry Leader: I was prompted to ask my question because of an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, which is in pretty close touch with matters of this kind, and I am just giving the committee the effect of that editorial on me. It warned members of parliament to watch when this matter came up in the house, and to get the assurance that this S4 charge would not be levied back against the farmers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You have that assurance now.


William Allen Walsh: I am glad that my hon. friend was in the house, and I had hoped there would be more western members who would realize my point of view. The minister says that next year this $4 will be seen in a reduction of the freight charges charged by tramp steamers coming into the port of Montreal. On what authority does he make that statement? Has he definite information from the association which fixes the freight rates for tramp steamers plying between different ports, that the freight rate next year 
is going to be reduced S4 from the freight rate charged this year to the port of Montreal? Because if he has not that definite information from the association, the charge will still be there; if it is not taken off the freight rate somebody will have to pay it, and the only person left to pay it is unfortunately the one who supplies the goods that are going to be transported. If the minister can give us a definite statement from the association which controls the freight rates for tramp steamers that they are going to make that reduction, I feel sure that the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) and members from other parts of western Canada will then be in a position to assure the growers of wheat that they need not be nervous about this $4 charge; that it is going to be taken off the freight rate, and that, therefore, it is just a matter of shifting the charge from the freight rate to the owner; that it appears in one column to be taken off another column in the way of reduced freight rates. I should like the minister to give us a definite assurance that he is absolutely certain that this is going to be done.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The rates next year, I am told -and I have every reason to believe it- will be quoted ex-elevation, just as they are quoted to-day with elevation.


William Allen Walsh: They will be $4 less than the actual freight rate this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, now-


William Allen Walsh: I am sincere, but if the minister cannot understand a proper question-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member wants me to promise him that rates will be the same or less next year. The differential as between the Atlantic rate and the St. Lawrence river ports rates will be wiped out because the St. Lawrence river ports will no longer carry elevation. The hon. member wants me to say that the rates on tramp tonnage will be the same next year as this year?


William Allen Walsh: No. I want the minister to say that the actual freight rate which tramp steamers are going to charge will be S4 less than the actual freight rate is this year. The minister made a statement to the effect that this was going to be done.
Mr. HOWE; What is the hon. member asking me to say? That the rate a year from now will be S4 per 1,000 bushels less than it is to-day? Is that true?


William Allen Walsh: Yes.

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, now, has the hon. member any reason to suppose that next yeat freight rates may not be half what they are this year, or double what they are this year, because very often there is a 50 to 75 per cent variation between seasons.


William Allen Walsh: That is not the point. The point the minister made was that I was creating the impression that the western farmer was going to have to pay $4 more, and the minister made the statement that he would not, because the S4 would be off the freight bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


William Allen Walsh: And I asked him where his authority was for that. He makes the statement that you cannot guarantee freight rates for next year. I grant that. That is why I doubt whether these tramp steamers will reduce the freight rate next year, despite the statement of the Minister of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: It might be beneficial if we were to go over to the balmy air of the Pacific for a few minutes. I should like to ask the minister what is the present trend with regard to wheat shipments through the port of Vancouver. I believe that almost none of the 1937 crop has been shipped out that way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was a certain amount. The situation was disturbed about a year ago or perhaps longer by the abnormally high freight rates. As my hon. friend knows, freight rates soared about 100 per cent on everything, on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. The effect was felt more on the Pacific than on the Atlantic, because the normal rates on the Pacific are higher, and when they double the effect is felt more out there. I am happy to say freights are back to normal or what was considered normal before that increase took place, and as far as anyone can judge we can expect a very large movement of grain through Vancouver this winter, as was usual years ago. At least we think there is no reason why the division of the crop as between movement east and movement west will not apply this year as it applied in other years.


Howard Charles Green: What portion of the 1937 crop was carried through the port of Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The 1937 shipments were
23,749,000	bushels. In 1936 they were 64,000,000 bushels; in 1935 46,000.000 bushels; in 1934, 51,000,000 bushels; in 1933, 68,000,000 bushels; but of course a very large part of the reason for that difference is that last
year Saskatchewan had very little wheat to export, and Alberta also had a very small crop. Manitoba, on the other hand, had a good' crop. That would account for some little discrepancy as between the east and the west.


Howard Charles Green: Of course we on the Pacific coast have always felt that, with the line of division running north and south pretty well through Swift Current or Moose Jaw, the quantity of grain shipped through Vancouver should not have decreased so much in the last two years, whereas the amount shipped through Montreal has increased. The figures for Vancouver for 1937, as the minister said, are about
23,700,000	bushels, whereas in 1936 they wore 64,000,000 bushels, and yet we find that for Montreal the figures were 92,600,000 bushels in 1937 and 87,000,000 bushels in 1936. It may be just a coincidence, but those are the years in which the national harbours board has been in charge of our harbours. I do not suppose we can blame them for all the difficulty, but I suggest to the minister that the fact has some significance. Our problems are those of a Pacific port. Ours is the port farthest removed from Ottawa, and I do not believe that sufficient attention is being paid to its future. The members of the board, living here in Ottawa, are not in a position to be in contact with developments on the coast. I suggest to the minister, as I have done at two previous sessions, that there should be a local honorary advisory committee set up in Vancouver, whose main job would be to think of the future of the port and to tackle such a problem as the one which is before us now, namely the reasons why shipments of wheat through Vancouver are falling off, while shipments through the eastern ports are increasing. It may be that the national harbours board could do a great deal to remedy that situation. I ask the minister whether he will not give serious consideration to setting up such a local committee to help the board here in considering the peculiar problems that face us on the Pacific coast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As regards local advisory boards, a year ago the Canadian chamber of commerce met in Vancouver; one of the resolutions-I received notice of it-was that the chamber should recommend that local advisory boards be established at the principal national ports. The fate of that resolution was very interesting. It never got outside the resolutions committee. The Vancouver members were unanimously against it, according to what I was told-and I made a little analysis because I was rather surprised-Montreal could not carry it by a majority of the
3060	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
delegates, and outside those two cities there was no interest in the matter so far as the chamber of commerce was concerned. So I believe that the hon. member who asks for a local advisory board will find that the interests most directly concerned with the subject are definitely against the proposal.
As for shipments of wheat through Vancouver, naturally in a poor crop year-and conditions before that were somewhat confused on account of large carry-overs-all ports suffered. The figures my hon. friend looked at relating to Montreal shipments last year were increased to the extent of about 25,000,000 bushels by reason of Argentine and South African corn moving into the United States, which, of course, distorts the picture of the ordinary movement. Montreal and every other St. Lawrence port suffered just as the port of Vancouver did because of the short crop. This year, I believe, there will be movement enough for everybody. I anticipate an excellent grain year in all our national ports.


Howard Charles Green: For instance, in this vote
no provision whatever is made for capital expenditures at the port of Vancouver. There may be an explanation for that, but it seems strange that other ports which are not doing the business-except the port of Montreal- are all having capital expenditures made, while there is nothing for Vancouver.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Howard Charles Green: The chairman of the
national harbours board has just returned from Vancouver, and I believe that while he was there the request was made to him that the board build a fish dock on False Creek, the city to lease a site and operate the dock after it had been built by the national harbours board. As the minister knows, the situation in that part of the harbour is very bad. Something should be done about it at once; there is one development in which the board could help.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The chairman of the harbours board states that no definite proposal 
was made to him in that regard. Our only interest in False Creek is in the matter of navigation, and Granville island. The part of the harbour he refers to is wholly owned either by the city of Vancouver or by the province of British Columbia. The Canadian Pacific railway also has some holdings. The board has no property in that section of the harbour.


Howard Charles Green: Would the board consider
the erection of a fish dock there? After all, it would serve the fishing fleet and it is very badly needed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We shall give it very careful consideration after we receive a proposal from the owners of the property.


Howard Charles Green: There are two other difficulties that have occasioned a great deal of trouble in connection with the harbour. One is the lack of police protection. Thousands of dollars worth of goods have been stolen on the harbour front, and probably a good deal of harbour board property has been taken in that way too. The other point is the lack of fire protection. We have yet no fire-boat in the harbour. I raised that point last year. We are still unprotected. What is being done in regard to these two problems?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The city and the harbour
board have been in conference for a considerable time over that problem and have arrived at a settlement which both regard as satisfactory. Part of the settlement is that the city shall assume full responsibility for police and fire protection as it does for any other taxpayer of Vancouver.


Mr. ISNOR:: Coming from the Pacific to the Atlantic for a moment, when I listened to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) telling us about the wonderful harbour at Montreal and also admitting that there were millions of dollars sunk in that harbour, I was reminded of an item I saw in Seaports for the month of March, written by a travelling	reporter-Activities of a Shipping
Reporter, by Austin F. Cross. That writer was asked the question: "What do you do in winter "? and the thought passed through my mind, What does Montreal do in winter? I can assure the hon. member for Mount Royal that while the harbour of Montreal was covered with twenty-four inches of ice, ice did not prevent the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) from sailing from Halifax overseas, nor did it prevent the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) sailing from Halifax overseas, nor the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) from going

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
on his recent trip. I would say, therefore, that notwithstanding the glowing description of the port of Montreal, we have in the extreme eastern part of Canada the port of Halifax which is open all the year round. In fact, the harbour is so well known; its advantages are so outstanding, that it does not require a speech in this house to place it where it rightly belongs as the outstanding port of the dominion.
May I now say a few words in regard to the general policy of the national harbours board? The committee will remember that I took strong exception to and was critical of the policy inaugurating a national harbours board under the present system. I took the view that we in the east and the people in the extreme west would not profit to the same extent as would the ports in central Canada. I am inclined to think, looking at the matter from a broad point of view rather than simply from the standpoint of the port of Halifax or of any particular section, that the policy adopted has been a sound one. I say that in all fairness because of my opposition in the past. As a business man I cannot help realizing that the national harbours board under the administration of the present minister has made an exceptionally creditable showing in the past year. When one realizes that the revenue for 1937 amounted to $8,262,221 as compared with $8,030,600 in 1936, or an increase of $231,621, showing an increase of three per cent as a revenue producer, and when one realizes further that the expenditures in connection with operations showed a decrease of $226,038, or five per cent, one must admit that it is a sound business policy. That is what the average business man is anxious to do-increase his revenue and at the same time decrease his overhead or operating expenditures-and for that reason I say that the national harbours board has made a creditable showing.
Before leaving the port of Montreal I would remind the hon. member for Mount Royal that, if he were sailing to Glasgow, he would have to travel 2.693 miles from Montreal, whereas if he took the ocean limited and sailed from the well known harbour of Halifax, the distance would be 2,407 miles; or making the comparison with Liverpool, from Montreal to Liverpool it would be 2,966 miles, and from Halifax to Liverpool, 2,485 miles. I would call that mileage to the attention of the Minister of Transport. Halifax is the eastern terminal of the Canadian National Railways, and he, as Minister of Transport, should bear in mind that the greater the amount of traffic that goes over the Canadian National railway system, the greater the revenue to that system;
more than that, employees all along the line would benefit.
At the same time I call his attention to the question of the shipment of cattle from Halifax. Last evening we were considering the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, and at that time the question of cattle came up. We have in Halifax sheds which will take care of 1,000 head of cattle, and once again the question of transportation comes into the picture. I suggest to the minister that he bear that in mind and try to divert some of the cattle shipments through the port of Halifax. May I also remind him of the cold storage warehouse with 1,000,000 cubic feet of storage space, completely fitted with freezing, storing and packing equipment and with ample rail connections. I believe the minister is familiar with these features of the port of Halifax. I simply remind him that we have at Halifax all the necessary facilities to handle shipments of cattle and grain from the west as well as package goods for export.
May I refer also to the showing of the port of Halifax in regard to tonnage last year. I regret to learn that Vancouver did not enjoy the prosperity that we did. I am more modest than the hon. member for Mount Royal; I do not say Halifax is the best port in the world, I just say it is one of the best. I was happy to note the increase in revenue last year; not only was there an increase in revenue but there was a drop in the cost of operation. The revenues of the port last year showed a net increase of about 13 per cent over 1936. I was glad the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) mentioned a fish pier. I believe the minister would be well advised to look into the possibilities of the construction of fish piers on both Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It would be an advantage to us in Halifax and to the whole of Nova Scotia if we had not only a fish pier but a public fish market. It would bring fish buyers from the New England states and lead to an increase in the sale and production of fish.
I did not intend to make a speech on these questions. I had some questions to ask the minister on various items as they came up; but when the hon. member for Mount Royal painted such a glowing picture of Montreal, I could not resist drawing his attention to the fact that we have an all year round port on the Atlantic as compared with his six months port in central Canada. With a greater degree of cooperation by the national harbours board, travelling from one part of Canada to another and adjusting matters which may arise from time to time, and cooperation between the harbours board, the province of



Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
Nova Scotia, the city of Halifax and the board of trade, I believe we shall not only continue the amount of shipping out of Halifax but enjoy a large increase in tonnage, particularly of package goods which, after all, is what we are after.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: For fear the committee may think there are only three ports in Canada, namely, Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax, I should like to say a word regarding the port of Saint John. The people of Saint John have been rather disappointed in recent years that the construction of the piers on the west side has not gone ahead a little faster. When the docks were burnt a few years ago, it was understood that new docks would (be built before this. But since 1935, when this government came into power, there has been, with the exception of possibly some $25,000 or $30,000, no money spent outside the contracts which had been let before that time. Some hon. members remind me that there was an acclamation in Saint John. In that connection may I say the opposition party in that constituency felt that it might be good business for the port of Saint John to allow a government supporter to go in by acclamation in the hope that something would be done in that port during the present year. But nothing has been done. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) expressing his approval, which, however, I think is not joined in by all the people of Halifax, of the amount of freight which the port of Halifax has been handling. I have seen editorials in some of the Halifax newspapers complaining bitterly that that port had been neglected, particularly with reference to wheat, during the last few years. I should like to give some figures as to the export of Canadian wheat from the different maritime ports and the port of New York. For 1937 the figures are:
Bushels
Saint John	East	
150,715Saint John	West	
9,618,809Halifax	
1,623,931New York	
17,297,192
That is to say, New York is exporting about one and two-third times as much Canadian grain as the ports of Halifax and Saint John combined. This seems to be very poor business for our Canadian ports. The people of Saint John feel that the facilities of that port should be increased so that we can get some of this business which is going through New York. I have the figures for January, 1938, for the export of grain. They are as follows:
Bushels
West Saint John	 2,115,668
Halifax	 47,994
New York	 1,309,315
There is not much cause for rejoicing on the part of the people of Halifax in those figures. For January New York exported 1,309,315 bushels of Canadian wheat in comparison with 47,994 bushels from Halifax. For February, 1938, the figures were:
Bushels
West Saint John	 1,746,285
Halifax	 16,040
New York	 1,782,423
Surely some of this grain which now goes to New York might be sent through our Canadian ports.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Will the hon. member give the total tonnage?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am giving the bushels of grain. Grain is not shipped by tonnage as far as I know.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I asked for the total tonnage of shipments that went through the two ports.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am discussing grain. The people of Halifax are very much interested in this question. I saw a cartoon in a Halifax paper showing cobwebs growing over the elevators in that city, and over the railway from Moncton to Halifax, indicating lack of business for that port.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I still say the tonnage was
greater in 1937 than in 1936.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Would it affect the tonnage of other freight to ship more grain through Halifax? Will the hon. member not agree with me that the port of Halifax should be receiving more grain shipments than it is, some of the grain shipped through New York?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Absolutely.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to point out
also that frost-proof sheds are very necessary at the port of Saint John. We are trying to expand our export of potatoes from New Brunswick, and in order to facilitate that movement we must have frost-proof sheds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We thought of that before
my hon. friend did, and if he will look at the estimate under discussion he will see an appropriation for that purpose.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Thinking of it does not
build the sheds.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Providing the money does.

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I refer to shed No. 8
which I understand is not to be frost-proof, although particularly requested by the mayor of Saint John. If that statement is not correct, the minister may correct it. I do not think there is anything further I have to say, but I do hope the minister will look after the interests of Saint John, which may not be the greatest port in the world but which is one of the finest ports in Canada.


Mr. McIVOR:: We have been hearing
about single ports and single places in Canada, but at the head of the lakes we have two ports that will compare favourably with the best in Canada. We have the biggest elevators and the best grain handling equipment in the world. I should like to tell the hon. member for Vancouver South why Manitoba grain was not shipped by the Pacific coast last year. It is a shorter haul by way of Fort William, and it is a safer route.


Howard Charles Green: If I may correct the hon.
gentleman, we do not expect Manitoba wheat, but we do expect Peace river wheat, Alberta wheat and part of the Saskatchewan wheat.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: There was very little wheat west of Manitoba; that was the reason. A few moments ago I heard an hon. member say, "Vote Liberal and get action." I should like to tell the committee that if there is one department of the government from which we have had action, and honest action, it is the Department of Transport; judging by the spirit of the minister to-night we are going to get plenty of action and it is going to be straight. I should like to say, for the two ports at the head of the lakes, that we feel we are in the safest possible hands; the minister is a business man, an honest man, a brainy man and a good man, and we are proud of him.


George Halsey Perley: The short statement just made by the hon. member for Fort William was interesting, but I was very much surprised that he did not make a stronger plea for the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: It is not necessary.


George Halsey Perley: I have been listening to this discussion concerning the different ports and the different rates, the elevation rates, freight rates and ocean rates. I believe this question could be easily solved if the minister would give consideration to the idea-and it will not be long until he will have to give consideration to it-of deepening our waterways and having ocean going vessels go right through to these ports at the head of the
51952-19tJ
lakes. Then we shall get away from this difficulty as between the ports. That is what will come about; we shall have one good port and we shall know who is absorbing all the rates between the prairie farmer and Liverpool. I have been connected with wheat for quite a while, both producing it and handling it in elevators, and I have always found that the farmer absorbs all the rates, elevation, freight, handling, ocean rates and so on, from the day the wheat leaves his farm until it reaches Liverpool. So I was surprised that the hon. member for Fort William did not make a plea of that kind for his ports.


Mr. NEILL:: A few hours ago the minister gave a statement of the revenue deficiencies of the various ports in Canada. I was wondering how the port of Albemi showed up in that regard. I think there should be a surplus there, not a deficiency. Has the minister any of the figures for last year at hand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry to say that the port of Albemi does not come under this item, and I have not the figures here. There is no possible way to have a deficit at a port which is administered under the Harbours and Piers Act. We go on the principle of no money, no pay; in other words, the expenses can be paid only out of the revenue. The port of Albemi has shown quite a considerable increase in revenue, and I think, when I give the hon. member the financial statement in regard to that port, he will find it very satisfactory.


Alan Webster Neill: That may be due to the fact that we have no harbour board there. We have a competent harbour master and a good superintendent, and the result appears to be no trouble, no graft and a profit.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: I have listened to everybody talking about ports all over this country. I notice that the port of Montreal had a total of some sixteen million tons, and I was interested to hear the minister say he was partial to that port. Then he. said the port of Vancouver had a total of some 6,-
900,000	tons, and again he said he was interested in and partial to that port. We in Toronto are rather jealous; we had a total of 3,700,000 tons. In fact, Toronto is the third largest port in Canada. We have always had great consideration from the minister, and I know he likes to come to Toronto. We do not trouble him very much; but when we do come to the minister and want something for the port of Toronto, I hope he will always remember-and the house will always remember-that Toronto is the third largest port in Canada, and that the little we do want from time to time we expect to get.
3064	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


William Allen Walsh: I would not care to create
the impression that I deprecated the growth or development of any port in Canada. I hope the trade and commerce of our country are going to increase to such an extent that every port on the eastern and western borders will receive a satisfactory share of the commerce that is carried on. But I should like the minister to tell the committee the agreed rate for lifting from lake boats into the elevator and from the elevator into ocean boats, at the port of Quebec, that is to be paid by the Dreyfus Company during this current season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The tariff for the port of
Quebec is exactly the same as for all St. Lawrence ports. The amount that Dreyfus and any other customer of the port of Quebec is paying is S10.25 per 1,000 bushels. It is exactly the same in Montreal, Three Rivers and Sorel.


William Allen Walsh: Then there is absolutely no truth in the statement which appeared in the Montreal press that this company had received a special concession for shipping an agreed amount of grain-that is com, I understand- through the port of Quebec during this season, supposed to be a difference between -SI0.25 and the $1.25 per 1,000 bushels? There is absolutely no truth in the statement that appeared in the press some few weeks ago, leading one to believe that those special arrangements had been made to persuade this company to ship through the port of Quebec this season?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No truth in it whatever.
I ask my hon. friend if he objects to seeing a little movement of grain through Quebec.


William Allen Walsh: Absolutely not.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why so much talk about it?


William Allen Walsh: I am not talking about it;
I am asking for information.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member made the
statement earlier that Quebec was getting an undue proportion.


William Allen Walsh: The minister will understand in a few minutes why I ask for this information. He realizes that at the beginning of the season the water rate to Quebec from lake ports was five cents a bushel. This was increased to 51 cents a bushel, and then to six cents a bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What rate is my hon. friend talking about?


William Allen Walsh: On grain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From where to where?
(Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).]


William Allen Walsh: From lake ports to the
city of Quebec. The rate was increased from five to 51 cents, and then from 5j to six cents. I understand that was as a result of certain arrangements made by the Department of Transport in order that this Dreyfus Company could move grain through the port of Quebec at a special rate which they could not obtain through other ports on the St. Lawrence. The minister has suggested that this is not so, but the fact is that we had this increase in the rate on grain from lake ports to the port of Quebec. I was wondering if there was any significance in the increase made since the season opened.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a minister of the crown
I told my hon. friend that the rate for Quebec was $10.25, which is exactly the same as the rate for Montreal. Is he prepared to accept that? He seemed to doubt it in his last statement.


William Allen Walsh: I accept it. When an hon. member makes a statement in this house I accept it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: When the rates first came out there was a half cent differential in the rates published for Quebec and Montreal. We took vigorous steps to have that differential removed. We took the position that for many years the river ports of Montreal, Quebec, Sorel and Three Rivers had been quoted uniform rail and water rates. The water rates are not controlled to the same extent as the rail rates, because there is no rate making authority. We took prompt and vigorous action to have the differential removed, and in a short time we succeeded in our efforts. As a matter of fact, no grain moved at the higher rate. The differential was removed as quickly as it had been set up. The rail companies took joint action, but not to the extent of publishing a tariff. They threatened to take action in the same way and put a half cent differential against Quebec, but we threatened to apply to the board of railway commissioners and they changed their minds. We did exactly for the port of Quebec what we are prepared to do for any other port; we did everything to preserve its parity with competing ports.


William Allen Walsh: Had not arrangements been made in the interim to transfer this grain from the Georgian bay ports to the elevators at Quebec by rail at much reduced rates in order to meet that increase by the lake carriers? I am referring to an article that appeared in one of the Montreal papers, I think about two or three weeks ago.

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot answer everything that comes out in the Montreal papers. I did not realize they were so unreliable. I can say that we had made no arrangement about rail rates. We did intervene, as I have indicated, to put a stop to the proposed differential in the water and rail rates as between Quebec and Montreal. I believe in taking that step we acted in the best interesits of transportation in this country.


William Allen Walsh: I am sorry that everybody and every source are unreliable except the minister. However, I must take my information where I can get it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only difference is that when I make a statement I must be responsible for it.


William Allen Walsh: I try to be responsible for any statement I make. I am seeking information. My curiosity was aroused when I read that report and heard these matters discussed by those who are interested in this particular differential. Let me ask ithe minister one further question. As he knows, in the port of Montreal and at other ports on the St. Lawrence grain is stored free of charge for ten days, after which storage is charged. Is tha/t condition to prevail in the elevators of the city of Quebec, or have arrangements been made to give free storage for longer than the ten days usually allowed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I feel something like a squirrel in a cage when I answer these questions. I gave an elaborate statement in connection with that situation in which I said that a special tariff had been filed at the beginning of the season to apply until August 31, which provided that during that period there should be no accumulation of storage against full cargoes of export grain at Quebec. We understand that the same practice has been in effect at Sorel and at Three Rivers. The reason for this is that shipment by tramps usually necessitates payment of storage charges which is generally avoided in a port where both liners and tramps are loaded. The position is this. We do accrue that storage at the port of Montreal for periods longer than ten days, but we do not accrue it at Quebec for the period which I have stated. That is provided for in the tariff approved by the board of grain commissioners, and it is available to any one who cares to ship through the port of Quebec.


William Allen Walsh: The minister will appreciate my inquiry in this respect after what was reported in the papers. The people interested in the port placed a great deal of reliance on the statement that was made when the
national harbours board was created. This statement was that the harbours board had stated on innumerable occasions that their intention was to stabilize charges through the different ports and make them uniform. I am glad to have that statement confirmed by the 'minister. I am glad to hear him say that this is the basis upon which the national harbours board are working. I know the people interested in the port of Montreal and in other ports on the St. Lawrence will be glad to have a denial of any rumours and a confirmation of the arrangement that was entered into when the national harbours board was put in charge of the national harbours of the Dominion of Canada. I feel quite certain that, as a result of the discussion to-night, the atmosphere in and around the port of Montreal will be to some extent clarified. I feel all will realize that the Department of Transport is making a serious effort to adjust satisfactorily any differences that might exist and is not attempting to create traffic in one port to the detriment of another. The minister knows as well as I do how these rumours get about and how disquieting they are upon the public. He realizes that if anything is done to create traffic through a particular port by giving special advantages, it will upset the whole scheme and there will be general dissatisfaction and mistrust in connection with the national harbours board. The minister has not given me credit for very much to-night, but I think he will at least give me credit for having supported the bill which set up this national harbours board. At that time I 'made only two suggestions: First, that there should be an advisory committee made up of representatives from the maritimes, the St. Lawrence and the west; or, failing that, that the port managers be given wide authority to work under certain general rules and regulations and not be considered' as merely glorified office boys. These were the only two stipulations I made; and I agree with what the minister is doing. I am glad that the national harbours board is working out so satisfactorily, judging by the statement of the minister, but I hope something will be done so that the cities where the harbours are situated will have more direct contact with the harbours board so that these ports can develop. At the present time there does not seem to be any rivalry between ports, and- the result is that a few ports seem to get the bulk of the business that passes through eastern or western ports. I know the feeling in my own city is that they would like to have more direct contact with the board, and that feeling must be much
3066	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
stronger in Halifax, Vancouver and Saint John, because Montreal is much closer to the centre of things than these distant ports. I know of cases, however, that come up in Montreal, as the minister well knows, where decisions have to be arrived at almost overnight or otherwise there would be a loss, and I hope that the port managers will be given more latitude or that an advisory committee will be given authority to be consulted in these various areas instead of having everything decided in the city of Ottawa.


William Hayhurst: I should like to correct one or two misstatements that have been made. One would think, listening to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), that all the wheat producers of western Canada were in Manitoba, whereas the fact is that Alberta last year produced as much wheat and coarse grains as all the rest of Canada put together.
While we have no seaports in Alberta, we have airports, which are the ports of the future. Listening to the discussion, I came to the conclusion that each member was speaking for his own particular port and considered it the best port in Canada, but the minister realizes that what we really need in the interests of Canada as a whole is the development of our best harbours, wherever they may be, for the shipment of our commodities. Some people talk of the survival of the fittest, and they think the fittest should be considered to be this harbour or that, whereas the survival of the fittest should mean that those ports should survive which give the best service, and I commend to the minister those which are giving the best service to the country.


Joseph James Duffus: We have heard considerable criticism about the amount of Canadian grain that is going through United States ports. Can the minister give some idea of the amount of United States grain going through Canadian ports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no uniformity about the thing because it varies with marketing conditions and a number of other factors. For a number of years more United States grain went through Montreal than Canadian grain through New York, and that is likely to be repeated this year. On the other hand, in the winter months the liner demand for wheat for ballast results in a low rate being quoted which attracts some Canadian grain to the port of New York. That has always been and always will be the case. It is dictated by the situation at the moment, and I do not think there is any particular patent on it. But it has been a very unusual
fJ.tr. Walsh.]
year when Canada has not exported far more United States grain than the United States has exported Canadian grain.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the vote listed under item No. 436, paragraph Ob)? How are these amounts to foe spent? For example, I might mention the item of $130,000 for Saint John and that of $365,000 for Quebec.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The roadway in the rear of berths Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, requires an expenditure of $46,000, and frost-proofing shed No. 13 requires $84,000. The roadway is to serve the new berths.


Howard Charles Green: Is the item of $100,000 for " generally unforeseen " available to be spent in any port?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; that is a floating fund to take care of business requirements which develop between times. It is available for any port.


Howard Charles Green: The whole $767,000 will be added to the indebtedness of the national harbours board?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total indebtedness to the government and to private individuals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The total interest bearing indebtedness of all ports to the government is $148,244,183.83.


Howard Charles Green: How much is owing to private individuals as distinguished from the amount owing to the dominion government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is, in addition, indebtedness to the public amounting to $23,218,994.76, including the Jacques Cartier bridge.


Howard Charles Green: Is the same rate of interest, which I understood the minister to say is 3i per cent, charged on all indebtedness to the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the rate of interest has varied depending upon the cost of money at the time the loan was made. Current loans are at 3i per cent, but some are as high as 5 per cent.


Howard Charles Green: Seeing that the indebtedness is all owing to the dominion government, would it not be as well to charge the same rate of interest, 3i per cent, on the whole amount? It seems a little unfair that some ports should be paying more than that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The loans were made in accordance with the statutes, and the statutes

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
specify the rate. But we are studying that situation, and it is part of our program to get it adjusted and possibly make changes in the capital structure.


Howard Charles Green: Are the net income deficits added each year to the total indebtedness of the respective ports, and interest charged on the whole amount?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; we do not capitalize deficits. The deficit is always charged up to the treasury.


Howard Charles Green: And paid out of consolidated revenue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Mr. MacNEIL:: I should like to inquire further about the fire protection problem in Vancouver. The inference to be drawn from the minister's remarks was that the present arrangements there were satisfactory, but as a matter of fact it has been impressed upon me that by reason of recent experience there is considerable apprehension that valuable property may be endangered. There have been several hair-ibreadth escapes from serious conflagrations. Do I understand that the harbours board does not consider it necessary that additional fire protection should be provided? After all, however efficient a city fire department may be, they cannot protect shipping adequately unless facilities are provided for fighting the fire from the waterfront itself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As I said before, an agreement was made between the mayor and city council of Vancouver and the national harbours board by which there was a division of responsibility. In that agreement, which was a mutual one apparently advantageous to both, the city assumed full responsibility for fire and police protection of harbour property in return for the right of taxation of crown leaseholds.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In view of the statement
made by the hon. member for Royal-I know he would want to be fair-as he gave certain figures, I should like to put on Hansard a statement showing the total quantity of water-borne cargo tonnage landed from and loaded into vessels at the harbour of Halifax during the calendar years 1936 and 1937: 1936, 2,140,458 tons; 1937, 2,376,200 tons; or an increase in 1937 over the year 1936 of 235,742 tons.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have been an interested and a patient listener to the minister's statements in connection with the cost of moving grain in and out of the harbour of Montreal, and the conclusion I have come to, with which I think the minister will agree, is that it costs just as much to move a given quantity of grain into the harbour and out of the harbour under the new rates as it did under the old. They are just the same.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly the same.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the argument is
whether it shall be paid in one way or in the other, but the net result is that the cost to some person, whether it be the farmer, the purchaser, or the vendor, is the same.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly the same.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There has been superimposed both upon the harbour of Montreal and over it, the Jacques Cartier bridge. The minister stated that there was an operating surplus. I take it that there is an over-all deficit.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the amount of
the over-all deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The deficit over-all for the year 1936 was $745,935, and that is after crediting $300,000, paid half by the province and half by the city. The year 1937 is a trifle better; the over-all deficit was $693,479.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister says there is an over-all deficit after crediting a contribution made by the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. That contribution is because of the deficit in the first instance, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: By agreement when the
bridge was built, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But the real deficit, then, is the amount of the two items?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount of the net deficit plus the amount of the two contributions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The sum of $993,000 in 1937.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Practically a million dollars in 1937.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is what I thought. How does the amount of that deficit compare with the deficit the year before? Is it improving?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Improving a little. Traffic
is better.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was there any contribution direct or indirect towards the main-

Supply-Transport-Harbours Board
tenance of the bridge that is not included in the operating expenses? Was there some contribution for the relief of unemployment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not since 1935, I think. I believe there was some painting done in 1934-35.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: By way of contribution?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. Nothing made since.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans and investments-Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures during the calendar year 1938 on any or all of the following accounts (revote $268,100):
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Montreal, $1,297,500.
Less amount to be expended from replacement fund, $367,700-Total, $929,800.
Howard Charles Green: What is this to be spent for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For Montreal harbour:
Reconditioning downstream side of
Alexandra pier	$ 535,000
Windmill Point wharf, upper end of
basin	*	
50,000Sawtooth wharf No. 1, sections 30,	31	190,000Raising wharf at sections 46-49..	..	300,000Dredging, drilling and blasting (revote $42,000)	
69,600
Water service to wharf, sections 56,
57, 58	   4,500
Driveway to wharf, sections 56-58
(partly revote)	 2,500
Provision of water gauge (partly revote)	 4,800
Completion of No. 5 extension (revote)	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	50,000
Provision of double track at shed, No.
5 extension, and paving		[DOT][DOT]	6,600
Provision of provisory surfacing of
Sutherland pier	 6,500
Completion of Imperial Oil wharf
(revote $68,000)	 78,000
Total	 $1,297,500
Total revote, $268,100.
Less amount to be expended from
replacement fund	 $ 367,700
Net total	 $ 929,800
Mr. 'GREEN: Are any of the supplies for these ports purchased by the harbours board? During the Easter recess I had a complaint about seals for freight cars, of which a great number are used, being purchased in the United States. A seal which was brought into my office had stamped on it "Made in US.A." That may have been just a lone instance, but is there not a policy of the board that all supplies shall be purchased in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, entirely. I think the harbours board would not buy seals. It must have been-


Howard Charles Green: Freight car seals.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -freight car 6eals, possibly from ex-American lines. But I think the harbours board would not be a purchaser of freight car seals.


Howard Charles Green: New seals used in sealing up freight cars.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I am not mistaken, they would be supplied by the railroad. In any event, all harbours board material and supplies are purchases of Canadian origin.


Grote Stirling: Why is item No. 439 separated from item No. 436, and would the minister explain how it comes about that nearly a million dollars of last year's vote was not required?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That arises from a difference in the treatment of public accounts. Certain hafbour assets are carried in the public accounts as active assets, and certain others are carried as inactive assets. The ports of Montreal and Vancouver are carried on the public accounts as active assets because over a period of years they have been able nearly to pay the interest. The other ports are carried as inactive assets because they have not been able to pay more than a small portion of the interest, or none at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Services to veterans and dependents-Grant to the last post fund, $75,000.
Charles Grant MacNeil: How is this apportioned to the provinces?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: It is not apportioned.


Howard Charles Green: What check is made by the department on the operations of the committees that deal with the last post fund?


Charles Gavan Power: An auditor's report is
received.


Howard Charles Green: Last summer I attended a funeral arranged for out of the fund, and it seemed to me that the intent of the founders of the fund was not properly carried out. There were two returned men buried at once, one from my own battalion and one from the inland water transport, which looked in the first place as if someone was trying to do it on the cheap. Though there was an organ in the undertaking parlour, one of the best undertaking parlours in Vancouver, there was no music at all and the whole procedure made one wonder whether somebody was trying to save money at the expense of these unfortun-

Supply-Pensions and National Health
ate men who died in such tragic circumstances. The department should check carefully the spending of this money.


Charles Gavan Power: The trustees in British Columbia are:	President, Colonel St. J.
Montizambert; Rev. C. C. Owen; R. F. C. Letson; honorary treasurer, Major R. H. Tupper; secretary-treasurer, V. J. Lewis. The amount paid for a funeral must not exceed $100-$50 for the funeral, $25 for the grave including opening and closing; and the cost of placing of a marker on the grave. That is standard from one end of the country to the other.


Howard Charles Green: The men whose names the minister has mentioned are among the very best in the city. I do not think they knew anything about this.


Charles Gavan Power: It is their duty.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that some check should be made, because people get careless as time goes on. It is time there was a close check-up on the way in which these services are conducted.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to bring my hon. friend's complaint to the attention of Colonel Montizambert and Mr. Lewis, if he desires. I do not know the gentlemen.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department not an official who could take the matter up in Vancouver instead of making a cold complaint to the trustees? I do not want any complaint made to them in that way.


Charles Gavan Power: There are no representatives of the department on the board of trustees at Vancouver. We have a representative of our department on the board at headquarters.


Howard Charles Green: But could not some official from the Department of Pensions and National Health in Vancouver do it?


Charles Gavan Power: Who could do it better than the minister? I shall be glad to send a copy of Hansard to Colonel Montizambert.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sheltered employment, $72,560.
Howard Charles Green: Before the minister takes up this vote, can he tell us whether it is the intention to bring in amendments to the Pension Act this session?


Charles Gavan Power: That has nothing to do with this vote.


Howard Charles Green: But some suggestions were made with regard to doing away with crown appeals and wiping out the deadline for applications for pension by men who served in actual theatres of war, and for dealing with
nerve cases and widows' pensions. Is it intended to amend the act this session?


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that the hon.
member endeavour to stick as closely as he can to the vote. He will admit that we have given the widest latitude in all this discussion ever since we started this session. I have no objection to telling him that the matter is still under consideration-


Howard Charles Green: That is all I want to know.


Charles Gavan Power: -but I think we should stick as closely as we can to the votes if
we hope to get through some time this session.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister tell us
something about this particular vote?


Charles Gavan Power: This is the "vetcraft"
vote. We have vetcraft shops at Montreal and Toronto. This is for accommodation and equipment and other expenses; for provision for sheltered employment for returned soldiers in vetcraft workshops; for cost of transportation for blinded or totally disabled pensioners requiring the services of an escort; for payments to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind for the training of and services rendered to the blind, and payment to the Red Cross which operates the factory at Victoria, also salaries of instructors, and wages of operatives.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How many men are
given employment under this plan?


Charles Gavan Power: There are about 124 employees at the present time.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What are the rates of
pay?


Charles Gavan Power: Thirty-three cents an hour.


James Earl Lawson: Are there 124 men in all
Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: Altogether, yes.


James Earl Lawson: I thought there were a
great many more.


Charles Gavan Power: No.


Charles Grant MacNeil: In connection with the
national institute for the blind, how many men are provided for and on what terms?


Charles Gavan Power: The department pays the
Canadian National Institute for the Blind a proportionate amount of the cost involved in the after care of the blind. This is for the maintenance of the library and radio services, expenditure, etc. Accounts are submitted monthly amounting to $300 or S400.


Howard Charles Green: There is no intention of
taking care of any unemployed veterans?


Charles Gavan Power: Not under vetcraft.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3070	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
Pensions branch-Pensions branch administration, $837,262.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain
the increase?


Charles Gavan Power: Offhand I would say that
it is due largely to the restoration of the five per cent deduction and the annual increases. The five per cent deduction accounts for $25,000 odd, and there is $7,525 for salary increases.	.


Howard Charles Green: In the details given on page 151 of the estimates there is listed one registrar of correspondence at $3,720 a year. What are his duties?


Charles Gavan Power: He has charge of the
central registry.


James Earl Lawson: Is the increase in respect
of pension commissioners the same statutory increase, or is there an additional commissioner?


Charles Gavan Power: There is no additional
commissioner; there has been a decrease in the number of commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Direct payments to veterans and dependents -Hospital and other allowances, $1,075,000.
Howard Charles Green: What is the explanation of the decrease?


Charles Gavan Power: To some extent a decrease in hospital strength, although I think the hospital strength is about the same. It runs about 2,400 in (the winter, 2,200 in the summer. Possibly the pensioners who in former years went on pay and allowances are either stabilized on pension or do not return to hospital. Our hospital population is becoming more and more veterans' care, and different classes which do not carry pay and allowances. The decrease may be in part due also to the fact that generals, colonels and other officers of high rank no longer receive the pay of their rank, as they did before I came into office.
Mr. GREEN; The reduction on that account would not amount to very much.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, seven or eight hundred dollars a month was a lot of money to pay to one man. They are not getting it now.


Howard Charles Green: What is the present position in regard to giving dental treatment? That is becoming a serious matter. It was specifically referred to in the report of the veterans' assistance commission. Apparently a great deal of hardship is suffered by veterans through lack of dental treatment.


Charles Gavan Power: That does not properly come under this item. The question of dental

treatment would come under item No. 223, care of patients, which will not be taken up to-night. But, generally speaking, we give dental care when the disability from which the man is suffering is in some way related to his teeth. We have extended that considerably in the last three or four years. We give all kinds of dental treatment to anyone who happens to be in our hospitals, whatever dental treatment is required. There has been some difficulty, which still exists, with respect to dentures and matters of that kind when the pensioner or patient does not reside in a locality where we have a hospital or a contract hospital or a salaried medical officer of the department. I am endeavouring to place more salaried dental officers in different districts more or less remote from the large centres, so that it will be possible to extend dental treatment to those who require it, even though the dental condition is not directly connected with the disability from which the patient is suffering.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be possible to have this work done by local dentists? Is it necessary that there be a departmental dentist in each case?


Charles Gavan Power: Frankly, it is rather difficult to check up. We do a good deal of it; but the hon. member will realize that there is no treatment which can rim the expense up more, sometimes without much justification, no other treatment which is harder to control than dental treatment; and if we gave it indiscriminately throughout the country, it might get out of control. But we are studying the matter and hope to find a more satisfactory system.


Howard Charles Green: Then we hear complaints about regulations being too strict. For instance, we hear that if a man has a couple of teeith left, he cannot get a plate. The situation may not be as bad as that, but we hear of restrictions that are much too severe. Can the minister tell us what they are?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to give more detail on that vote. I have a statement on the whole dental situation; but I left it with my other documents relating to treatment, because my hon. friend requested that I do not discuss treatment to-night.


Charles Grant MacNeil: There has been considerable alarm among ex-service men with regard to substantial reductions in this item and the item, care of patients. I would appreciate it if either on this vote or the other the minister would give a general picture of the situation. It was reported that for March, 1936, the cost of hospital treatment was $2,760,866; and for

Supply-Pensions and National Health
March, 1937, it was $2,732,087, a decrease of $28,778. For hospital allowances the figure for March, 1936, was $1,315,347, while for March, 1937, it was $1,083,919, a decrease of $231,427. Hospital admissions in March, 1936, were 10,411 and 9,486 for March, 1937, a decrease of 925. The minister will remember that in the proceedings of the special committee in 1936 certain stated questions were submitted to the officers of the department regarding P.C. 91, asking for assurance that there would be no restriction under that order in council as compared with the one previously1 in force. Would the minister, either now or under another vote, tell the committee whether there has been any transfer from class 1 to other classes, thereby reducing the number of men eligible for allowances as class 1 patients?


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend will notice that this year the estimates are set out in a different way. In other years the two items, care of patients, and hospital and other allowances, were bulked. The total amount provided in the estimates for these two items was in excess of the actual expenditures incurred for these activities during the past fiscal year. There was an unexpended balance in the vote. I have a comparison here. For 1936-37 the actual expenditures were:
Hospital and other allowances.. $1,083,919
Care of patients	 2,989,446

In the 1938-39 estimates, vote No. 221, which we are now considering, the figures are:
Hospital and other allowances.. $1,075,000
Care of patients, vote 223	 3,045,287

An increase of approximately $50,000 for the two votes put together.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the minister the figures of hospital admissions during the last year?


Charles Gavan Power: I have that somewhere, under care of patients. But the average is about 2,400. It ran to about 2,580 during last winter and is gradually coming down; I suppose it will reach about 2500 to 2,300 during the summer.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has there been any substantial transfer from class 1 to other classes under P.C. 91? Are the figures available of those who have been admitted under the various classifications?


Charles Gavan Power: As far as I can get those figures. I shall bring them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What attention is given to returned soldiers who die suddenly, away from the hospital? I know of a returned
soldier who 'had a job in northern Ontario; he left his place of employment, had to walk some twenty-four miles to the station. About halfway there was a stopping place where he stopped overnight. Next day he started for the station. He had been subject to fainting spells and falling, as the hospital records show; apparently he had one of these spells on the way to the station that day and was frozen to death before he was found. After the post mortem, however, the doctors said he had died as a result of being frozen to death. Personally I do not believe that; the doctors may have been right; but since the man was troubled with fainting spells he might have had one at that time, and not being able to get up again he froze to death. I want to know under what item I should bring this matter up.


Charles Gavan Power: I think it might be properly discussed under the item relating to pensions, since I take it my hon. friend proposes to make claim for a pension on behalf of the widow of the ex-soldier who died under those circumstances. As the hon. member knows, the Canadian pension commission has full authority and jurisdiction, without regard to the minister or anyone in this house, to judge whether or not the widow would be entitled to pension.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have always found them very satisfactory.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I commend my hon. friend to the pension commission, where I have no doubt he will get satisfaction.


Charles Grant MacNeil: On the question of class 1 allowances I wish to refer to a matter which was referred to previously. Order in council P.C. 91 definitely includes a disability resulting from aggravation while on service. No distinction is made; that principle has been accepted. I think on previous occasions the assurance has been given that there would be no restriction under P.C. 91 as compared with the previous order in council regulating government medical treatment. A number of cases have been brought to my attention recently of men who have been denied class 1 treatment and have not secured the allowances, because the disability resulted from aggravation on service. I shall not take up the time of the committee at the moment to refer to a case cited previously, No. 103431-


Charles Gavan Power: Is that a Halifax case?


Charles Grant MacNeil: No; a Seattle case, in which the departmental medical authority definitely stated that since the condition
3072	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
antedated enlistment, and as it was aggravated only to a very slight degree as a result of service, the man should not be entitled to class 1 treatment. I should like some assurance from the minister that no distinction is made in regard to aggravation cases.


Charles Gavan Power: I think we offered to bring that man back to Canada, but he would not be hospitalized in Canada. Is that the case?


Charles Grant MacNeil: No. If the minister will permit me, the department offered to have this man treated in the outdoor department in Seattle, and the United States veterans' administration replied on January 5 of this year that they had no facilities available for outdoor treatment for such a severe degree of disability. That was dealt with in connection with other matters, but I am asking for some assurance that no discrimination will be made in reference to aggravation cases in regard to pay and allowances, and treatment as a class 1 patient.


Charles Gavan Power: I am informed, and I have some recollection of it, that the man eventually did get his treatment, did he not?


Charles Grant MacNeil: He got an increased
pension instead.


Charles Gavan Power: I can reiterate my assurance that when P.C. 91 was passed there was no intention to restrict in any way the rights which ex-soldiers had previously enjoyed, and whenever any case like that is brought to my attention I do the best I can to rectify the difficulty.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Is there any
arrangement with the imperial government for giving allowances to imperial ex-soldiers under this item?


Charles Gavan Power: As my hon. friend knows, the imperial ministry of pensions have an office in Canada, at Ottawa, and they make arrangements with their own men. Whatever arrangements are made are as between the ex-imperial soldier and the British ministry of pensions.
Item agreed' to.
Services to veterans and dependents-Employers liability compensation, $40,000.


Howard Charles Green: How much of this vote was
spent last year?


Charles Gavan Power: We expended everything but S2.60.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the department given consideration to extending the benefits of this
[Mr. MacNeil.J
compensation? Several recommendations have been made in regard to widening the scope of this regulation.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to criticize any of my commissions, but when they made those recommendations I do not think they understood what this was about.


Howard Charles Green: The minister should have instructed them better.


Charles Gavan Power: I tried to, but still they did not understand. They seemed to think this was a form of group insurance. Frankly, as I have already stated, I do not believe very much good is done ex-service men by means of this $40,000. We pay the claims that are made on account of injuries to ex-soldiers who have been injured in industrial employment. It applies only to those who receive a 25 per cent pension or more. The recommendation, as I understood it, was that this should apply to all ex-soldiers; but under the present set-up of workmen's compensation boards throughout the whole country, as I have already said in the house, the industries are largely insured by industries, and no employer is going to take a new man into his employ simply because he has the assurance that compensation in case of injury will be paid by the government of Canada. The only people who seem to profit by it are the provincial workmen's compensation boards, who are only too glad to make claims on us. We pay the provinces; we have never done anything else. On various occasions I have said I would like to drop this vote; but for some unknown reason there is always a row about it, and it is hardly worth while. We simply give that much money to the provinces. I would say, I think, without fear of contradiction, that in the last ten years not one man has obtained employment on account of this provision.


Howard Charles Green: Would any man lose employment if it was cancelled?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think so. It has been urged that perhaps some of the railways, such as the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National, might dismiss a man who had more than a 25 per cent disability if his industrial compensation was not covered by this item. That might be so, but I doubt it very much. I do not think the railways would do that.


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

Radio Broadcasting
Friday, May 20, 1938