Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to
table a copy of the joint report of the International Boundary Commission upon the survey and demarcation of the boundary be-
tween Canada and the United States from the gulf of Georgia to the northwesternmost point of lake of the Woods, together with the atlas containing 59 joint maps to accompany the report.



PETITION

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the house a petition protesting against the "padlock law," signed by some fifty thousand people, together with resolutions from someone hundred and eighty different organizations.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Has the government made any contribution towards the cost of building a retaining wall or dock at or near Gatineau Point, Quebec?
2.	Why was the project undertaken, and under the authority of what statute?
3.	How much has been spent yearly since 1935 on this project?
4.	Was the work given out by contract?
5.	Were tenders called? If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	No contribution made, but the federal government constructed the following works: (a) A protection wall on the bank of the Ottawa river at Gatineau Point village, (b) A protection work on the Gatineau river above Gatineau Point village.
2.	To protect the bank along the highway from erosion, (a) Under item No. 75 Public Works Construction Act 1934, and continued under item No. 9 Supplementary Public Works Construction Act 1935; (b) under item No. 75 Public Works Construction Act 1934.
3.	1934-35	(a) construction, $10,742;	(b)
construction, $4,987. 1935-36 (a) construction, $13,873.26. 1936-37 (a) repairs, $162.97; (b) repairs, $599.75.
4.	Yes.
5.	Local tenders invited and the following received: (a) Rodolphe Moreau, $12,257.50 revised to $10,437; Rene Beaudry, $12,702.75; Ed, Brunet, $13,117.50; Boucher Freres, $13,284.50; Antonio Patry, $13,315. (b) Rodolphe Moreau, $4,990.75; Hector Fortin, $5,895; Rene Lavigueur, $6,028.

Canadian War Memorials


CANADIAN WAR MEMORIALS
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, after the
great war, parliament felt it desirable and fitting that the service and sacrifice of Canada's forces in the war should be commemorated by the erection of appropriate memorials on the fields of battle. With this end in view, the government established, by an order in council of September 2, 1920, the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission, consisting of the following members:
Major-General the Hon. S. C. Mewburn.
Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux.
Lt. General Sir R. E. W. Turner.
Lt. Col. R. W. Leonard.
Hon. J. G. Turriff
General Mewburn was designated chairman of the commission, and Colonel H. C. Osborne was appointed secretary. To this body, the task was entrusted of clearing war-torn ground, of planting trees and beds of flowers, of selecting the designs for the different memorials, and, generally, of supervising their construction. For more than a decade and a half the commission has carried on its labours with public-spirited enterprise. Under its auspices eight memorials, comprising the entire group as contemplated at the outset, have been brought to completion. Of these, three are located in Belgium-Passchendaele, St. Julien and "Hill 62," or, as it became known, "Sanctuary Wood." The other five are located in France, at Dury, Bourlon Wood, Courcelette, Le Quesnel, and at Vimy Ridge. In addition, plaques have been placed in the City Hall at Mons and St. Nazaire.
Only three members of the commission, General Mewburn, Hon. Senator Lemieux, and General Richard Turner, together with Colonel Osborne, the secretary, lived to see the completion of all the memorials. Since that time Senator Lemieux has also passed away.
To those who have been privileged to view the memorials, no word of explanation will be required with respect to the resolution now before the house. The members of the commission, serving entirely without remuneration, gave unstintingly of their time and energies to a task which called for the most careful and patient effort. It will be agreed, I believe, that their endeavours merit the recognition of parliament.
Of exceptional significance is the great memorial on Vimy Ridge, of which Mr. Walter S. Allward, of Toronto, is the designer and architect.
Hon. members who were in the house in 1923 will recall a resolution which was passed during the session of that year-a resolution which I had the honour of introducing- expressing the gratitude of the Canadian parliament to the French republic for the gift of 250 acres of land on Vimy Ridge. This gracious act on the part of France ensured that the monument, which Canada proposed to erect on that historic site, might stand on Canadian soil.
The efforts of the Canadian Legion, over a period of two years, in organizing the visit of eight thousand pilgrims to Vimy Ridge for the unveiling of the memorial on July 26, 1936, and the ceremonies incidental thereto, will still be present to the minds of hon. members, and will long be remembered by the Canadian people.
The Vimy memorial fulfils a twofold purpose. It commemorates the valour of our countrymen throughout the long years of the war, and the sacrifice of those who gave their lives in the conflict. It constitutes, in particular, a memorial of the heroic endeavours of the Canadian troops, and of their British and French brothers-in-arms, who fought upon the ridge at Vimy. On the monument are inscribed the names of Canadian soldiers who lie in unknown graves in France.	*
The monument at Vimy has been described as. perhaps, the most beautiful and striking of the memorials of the great war. Mr. Allward has given unsparingly of his artistic genius to interpret and commemorate the spirit and ideals of those who bore arms for Canada in the war. In the memorial he has achieved for the dominion, as for himself, a place of high distinction in the realm of sculpture. Not only has he given to the world a great work of art; he has caught, in an impressive manner, and preserved for our own and succeeding generations, the true significance of Canada's participation in the war. It is most appropriate, therefore, that an expression should be given by the parliament of Canada of its appreciation of Mr. Allward's services, an appreciation which will be shared by the people of Canada generally.
Accordingly, I desire to move, seconded by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett):
That this house desires to record its thanks to the members of the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission, who served without remuneration over a period of years, and whose endeavours ensured the erection in France and Belgium of appropriate memorials of the valour and sacrifice of Canada's forces in the great war;
And, that this house desires particularly to express its appreciation of the services of Mr. Walter S. Allward, who, as the designer and
Canadian War Memorials

architect of the memorial at Yimy, has given to the world, a work of art of outstanding beauty and character. Through the years to come the Vimy memorial will remain the symbol of Canada's efforts in the war, and its tribute to those who, on the field of battle, sought to preserve the free institutions of mankind.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I regard it, Mr. Speaker, as a great privilege to associate myself with the right hon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the motion that you have just read. I do not propose to do more than state my entire agreement with the sentiments that have been so eloquently expressed by the Prime Minister, because at this time it would be out of place to make any extended observations.
The truth is that honouring the memory of the dead is a matter of very great importance. One of our own great Canadian statesmen, Joseph Howe, in stanzas which I think will live as long as his memory is preserved, has indicated why we should remember the glorious dead. To do so fittingly when our beloved dead rest in far distant lands was an extremely difficult task. When the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission was set up they cooperated closely with the British commission headed by General Sir Fabian Ware; and anyone who has visited the battlefields will agree, I think, that the work done has been magnificently conceived and certainly executed in a manner worthy of the highest praise.
Rich and poor, high and low, whatever may have been their place in civil life, find exactly the same memorial in these great cemeteries in France and Flanders. It is fitting that it should be so, because these crosses not only commemorate the valour of our immortal dead but tell the tale of sacrifice forever associated with the cross. I cannot do more than express deep regret that there remain but two, if my memory serves me rightly, of the original members of that commission which was appointed only a few years ago. It is a singular commentary on the brevity of human life.
The conception of this great memorial at Vimy Ridge was that of Mr. Allward of Toronto. The competition, I believe, was open to the world. The problem was how to interpret in stone the genius of a people and to commemorate at once the valour of brave men who gave their lives as a sacrifice for their country. I think it can be said of this memorial that it does interpret the genius of the Canadian people, and every Canadian who looks upon it will be filled with justifiable pride. Let us hope that in future years Canadians of those days will look upon that ridge and read the names of the men who

perished and were buried in nameless graves, but marked for all time on the base of that great monument.
War is a hateful thing, and yet I sometimes feel that however hateful we may think it the fact remains that it has developed those great qualities in men of which we are so proud and of which we speak so often in praise and in recognition of their bravery, their courage, and their sacrifice. All these high qualities are exemplified in war, and the horrors of war. I repeat, I sometimes wonder why it is that in no field of history do we find such evidence of the great qualities of mankind as we find in the tales of their heroism, devotion and sacrifice in time of war, whether it be the Spartans at Thermopylae, or those who died on Vimy Ridge. Yet in our great memorial we have a magnificent work of art, some compensation for the disfiguring results of war.
So I regard it as a privilege to join with the Prime Minister in commending the efforts of the Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission and in congratulating them upon the splendid service they have rendered to this country, and upon the fitting character and beauty of the memorials they have builded in various parts of France and Flanders, and that future generations may know that this Canadian parliament had a proper realization also of the splendid work done by Mr. Allward, sculptor and artist, in so fittingly interpreting the loyalty, courage and devotion of those who died on Vimy Ridge that we might live.
Mr. J. II. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge): There are before the minds of men to-day several things of priceless value. Perhaps the first of these is democracy. Following that are peace, prosperity and virtue. In order to achieve in the highest degree, and to preserve for the generations yet to come, these precious things, there are in my opinion two great necessities. The first of these is the unity and greatness of the British Empire. The second is the unity and greatness of Canada as part of that empire. The men whose memory we to-day are holding in reverence gave freely for democracy, peace, prosperity and virtue, for the unity and greatness of the British Empire, and for the unity and greatness of Canada. It has been truthfully said, "They served till death. Why not we "?
I have always been thrilled by the words which I understand have been placed on a great memorial to them. With those words I should like to close:
Their name liveth for evermore.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Radio Broadcasting

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). Possibly it has already been drawn to his attention, but I refer to the very unsatisfactory condition of the lighting across the back row of this chamber. Will he look into the matter and have it remedied before the next session of parliament?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) :: The question was brought to my
attention a few days ago by His Honour the .Speaker, and I have asked the officers of my department to look into the matter and try to improve the lighting on that side of the house. I am under the impression that it has been better on this side since improvement has been made. The reason for preference was that the conditions on this side of the house were brought to my attention first.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Possibly there is more *need of light on that side!


FARMERS' CREDITORS
[Stage Direction]
iREQUEST OF UNITED FARMERS OF MANITOBA FOR EXTENSION OF TERM OF OPERATION OF ARRANGEMENT ACT
On the orders of the day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Last evening when the Farm

ers' Creditors Arrangement Act was under discussion in the house the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) asked me if my attention had been drawn to the fact that the United Farmers of Manitoba had asked for an extension on the term of operation of the act, and had opposed the amendment offered in another place. I replied that as far as my memory went I had not received any -such representation. I find on inquiry that a representation did come in on Tuesday from the secretary of the United Farmers of Manitoba to the effect that his organization was opposed to the termination of the act as proposed in the amendment. Owing to my absence until yesterday afternoon it was not drawn to my attention until yesterday evening after I had spoken in the chamber. I desire to make this explanation in fairness to the hon. member for Portage la Prairie.


CANADIAN TUNNELLING COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MATTHEW MacLEAN (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). In view of new and recent evidence submitted to the minister in reference to special pay to members of tunnelling company, is he now in a position to make a statement to the house in connection with this matter?


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: In view of additional evidence which has recently come to light the whole question is being reinvestigated by the department.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 52 respecting radio in Canada.
He said: The senate has made a number of amendments to Bill No. 52, none of which seriously change the purpose of the bill. There are several amendments to the definitions, and one or two new definitions. I think if anything these definitions have been improved by the changes.
Clause 5, which provided that the governor in council had power to exempt receiving stations in automobiles owned by bona fide tourists in Canada, has been changed by the senate, so that the act itself provides for exemption of such radios in automobiles of tourists, with the proviso that the minister may, *when public welfare requires, suspend the operation of that clause.
Then the penalty clause has been divided into two parts, one part applying to private receiving stations, that is covering the operations of the ordinary listener, who has one or more radios installed in his home and uses them legitimately, but has not paid his licence fee. In that case the penalty is a maximum fine of $25 on summary conviction. The provision covering illegal use of receiving or transmitting sets has been made a separate clause, which provides a penalty of $50 on summary conviction and $500 on indictment.
Judges Act
[Stage Direction]
I think that covers the changes, and I have no hesitation in moving concurrence in the amendment.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 145, to assist the construction of houses.
He said:	The amendments made by the
Senate to this bill are of a grammatical nature and do not affect any of the essential principles of the legislation. I accordingly move concurrence.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) :: I desire to withdraw this resolution. It was introduced for the purpose of remedying a situation, but having conferred with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) who is an honorary life president of the Canadian Bar Association, apart from his other official capacities, I have come to the conclusion that it is better not to proceed with it. But I desire to say that I feel some responsibility in respect of the situation which exists, and I shall try to find some other way of remedying it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a very strong opinion about this matter, and I congratulate the Minister of Justice upon having withdrawn the resolution. I hold the view, which I have expressed in this house frequently, that any member of the legal profession appointed to the bench is assumed to be an expert in law, that it is one of the implied conditions of his appointment that his fitness shall be a continuing fitness, and if for physical or other reasons he is no longer able to maintain his fitness as an expert he should retire. The Judges Act provides that he may retire and receive financial consideration as therein provided. During my term of office we introduced a measure, providing for the retirement of judges who had attained the age of seventy-five years or more, but it was defeated in the

senate. Subsequently I was approached and told that if I so desired certain members of the bench would retire if we would enact legislation providing them with their full salaries. I declined to entertain the proposal, which was submitted to me by members of the profession, some of whom I think felt that they might be likely successors to the positions thus vacated. I took the view, which I still hold, that that was a very improper proposal. I took the view that for the judges of this country to suggest to the government of the day that if they were given their full pay they would retire and make way for someone else was something so scandalous as not to be entertained by any self-respecting government in Canada. I took that view then and I still hold it very strongly, and I congratulate the minister upon not having yielded to that sort of proposal. I was going to call it a threat, but it is worse than that. It is worse than a suggestion. It is-


Mr. POWER:: Blackmail.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that is a word one always hesitates to use, but it comes so close as nearly to express it. I therefore compliment ' the minister, as I say, for withdrawing this resolution; but I should remind him also that there appears to be ample provision in the statute as it now stands to deal with the situation. When it becomes known from the observations made by the minister that he does not propose, even for the purpose of creating an opportunity to appoint fifteen new judges, to yield to the suggestion made and ask the taxpayers to provide full compensation for judges retiring at seventy-five, probably they will take the hint and vacate positions which their very proposals indicate they themselves realize they are no longer able efficiently to fill and the duties of which they are no longer able effectively to discharge; I repeat that there is an implied condition in their contract of service that when that state of affairs is reached they will retire and vacate their office. If they do not do so, this parliament is powerful enough to see that they do.
Resolution withdrawn.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Electricity and gas inspection service, including administration of the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, $259,890.
Richard Bedford Bennett: You get all this money back, I take it?


Mr. EULER:: Yes, that pays for itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Exhibitions and fairs, $438,720.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the reason for the
increase?


William Daum Euler: It is because of the exhibition proposed to be held next year in New York.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that include Glasgow?


William Daum Euler: Yes, and Glasgow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Precious Metals Marking Act, $12,900!
Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you get the money back for this service?


William Daum Euler: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom and Europe, $56,920.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here it seems to me we have great duplication. We have the estimates of the Department of Agriculture that deal with this matter; we have these estimates, and we have the commercial intelligence service, the vote for which has been just increased by $10,000. Could nothing be done to prevent this duplication? Could there not be a central bureau that would issue the publicity that is necessary in connection with these matters?


William Daum Euler: Mr. Chairman, I think the criticism of the leader of the opposition is justified. I may say that the government has under consideration the coordination of these services, and a committee has been appointed to deal with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Publicity and advertising in the United Kingdom and Europe, $356,580.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this expenditure come within the statement the minister just made? I ask that because the Department of Agriculture has given us the story as to what it was going to do in connection with advertising. We now have this enormous sum, and we have the money for advertising purposes which in days gone by was dealt with by the high commissioner. In the aggregate they amount to a substantial sum of money. I have always thought that we should be able to put in one document Canada's case for her products in the markets of the world. It would be issued by the government of Canada, and we should not bother so much about what department does it. If what the minister has said respecting the other items may be applied to this
one, which amounts to some $356,000, obviously the matter should rest there until the government has had an opportunity to see what can be done to bring about what I regard as essential and what I believe the people of Canada regard as imperative in connection with the expenditure of money for advertising purposes. As the minister once said, what we are endeavouring to do is not advertising of departments but advertising of the products of Canada. We are trying to place the Canadian position, not that of any department, before those who would be the large customers of our country.


William Daum Euler: It is the hope of the various departments to coordinate all these services.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Including this item?


William Daum Euler: Yes. I can make no definite promise as to what will come out of this, but it is the hope of the government that the work can be coordinated.


Mr. PERLEY:: I notice the item provides for an expenditure in connection with an advertising campaign put on by the wheat board. I have in my hand a folder which was distributed-


William Daum Euler: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member unnecessarily, but I would point out that that has nothing to do with the item.


George Halsey Perley: Then what item would it come under?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that it comes under any item, because it is an expenditure which was undertaken by the wheat board itself. It does not enter into our vote at all.


George Halsey Perley: It was a campaign of advertising which was put on; surely some department of government had something to do with it.


William Daum Euler: The wheat board has done it out of its own funds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And without legal
authority, I may say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Weights and measures inspection service, $439,325.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We get the money back in this case.


William Daum Euler: Yes, we more than get it back; there is a surplus.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: What prosecutions have there been during the year under this branch?

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission


William Daum Euler: A total of 239.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What was the result of the prosecutions?


William Daum Euler: There were 144 prosecutions for short weight, 89 for the use of unjust scales, and 6 under other sections. There were 213 convictions, and 10 dismissals. Eight cases were withdrawn and there are 8 pending.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of the royal grain inquiry commission including, authority for payment of honorarium to Doctor T. W. Grindley, secretary, $15,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What has been the total cost of the commission to date?


William Daum Euler: The vote of last year was not all expended, but it is estimated that the total amount will be in the neighbourhood of $100,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It looks as though it
would be somewhat larger than that.


William Daum Euler: I think not.


George Halsey Perley: The money we are now asked to vote is to cover the final payment in connection with the expenses of the commission. I regret to say that although the commission was set up two years and two months ago to make the inquiry, the report was not brought down until late this session. It was tabled on May 9, and since then we should have had an opportunity to discuss it. A discussion of this matter should not have been left until the last hours of a five months session. Certainly this was an important commission, and hon. members should have had an opportunity to discuss its findings.
The origin of the inquiry, the report of which covers some 259 pages, is set out at page 11 of the report. I quote:
The origin of the inquiry is to be found in a report of a special committee of the House of Commons concurred in by the house on June 17, 1936. This report, after dealing with tlie matters which had been specifically referred to the committee, concluded with the following recommendation:
"The committee further gave general consideration to the whole problem of the production and marketing of Canadian wheat and other facts pertaining to the wheat problem. Because of the gravity of this problem, and because your committee has neither the time nor the facilities to make a comprehensive survey of the situation, we recommend the appointment by the government of a royal commission to make a complete survey of the production, grading and distribution of Canadian grain, including the methods of marketing."

And then under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are set out the various methods of marketing. I claim that that is not the real origin of the commission. The final report of the special committee, which was tabled on June 11, 1936, a day or two before the close of the session, is a short one, and sets out the names of the witnesses who were heard. We find there were only three, namely Mr. Darby, Mr. Fowler and Mr. Murray. The order of reference of the special committee was to inquire into Mr. Murray's action on December 13, 1935, to see whether or not the charge that he had protected shorts was correct. The second paragraph of the report is in these words:
While there was a short interest in the Winnipeg wheat market in December of 1935, no evidence was produced that would warrant the conclusion that speculative short interests were protected by the board in that month. As the committee finds it impracticable to obtain conclusive evidence on this point, we recommend that this matter be referred for further investigation to the royal commission, the appointment of which is recommended in this report.
There was the origin of the commission- because the committee could not agree. When we heard the evidence of Messrs. Darby, Fowler and Murray, certain members of the committee asked that further witnesses be produced. We were refused. We asked that certain documents be produced, and were refused. It was then in a meeting in camera that the question of the general marketing of grain was considered. No witnesses were heard with respect to that matter, and the question of coarse grains came before the committee only through general discussion. It was decided that at some future time towards the end of the sittings of the committee there might be a discussion of that question, but that discussion was never had.
For these reasons I claim that the committee did not discuss or give any general consideration to the marketing of wheat or wheat products, other than in a meeting in camera. I must point out, however, that that meeting in camera was held after the committee had decided that we were to refer the matter to the royal commission. That is the first order of reference. I have the order of reference before me, but it is not necessary to read it to the committee. I have the statement here which was made by myself with respect to certain documents in the form of offers and acceptances that I had asked to have produced. Request was made also for the names of certain witnesses, but these were all refused when the committee was meeting in camera.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
There have been seventeen grain inquiries during the last thirty odd years, the last four being the most important. On May 1, 1923, a royal commission was appointed headed by Mr. Justice Turgeon, two other gentlemen being associated with him. This commission took evidence in 1924 and reported in January, 1925. They took nearly two years to make their investigation. Then the Stamp commission was appointed by order in council dated April 10, 1931, and reported nineteen days later on April 29. I might say that Sir Josiah Stamp acted without remuneration and this inquiry was carried on at very little cost. I have his report before me.
Then the present Turgeon commission was appointed. It was decided on May 4 that it should be set up and the commission was appointed by order in council dated June 17, 1936. Evidence was taken in 1937 and the report was made more than two years after the commission was appointed. I claim that the cost of this commission was an unnecessary and useless expenditure. The review of the period prior to 1930 set out in this report is similar to the review contained in the report of the Turgeon commission which sat from 1923 to 1925, and the review of the Stamp commission. These summaries are all very similar, and all that was necessary to be done was to review the period since 1930, when the pools began to find themselves in more or less difficulty. In 1929 and 1930 the. provincial governments were called upon to implement certain guarantees which they had made. They could not do this, and the federal government was brought into the picture. They took over the carry-over, and then finally in 1932 Mr. McFarland was called upon to carry on what were generally spoken of as stabilization operations. These operations resulted in an increase in the price of cash wheat from 42 cents, which was the lowest in many years, to 86 cents.
This present report gives credit to Mr. McFarland for the service that he rendered to the country and to western Canada in particular. The report states distinctly that these stabilization operations meant a great deal to the farmers of western Canada and that they received considerably more for their wheat than they would have received if the operations had not been carried out. That was something that we all knew in 1935 when a committee was appointed to consider the wheat board act. Mr. Mclvor appeared before the committee and he was asked the results up to that time of the operations carried out by Mr. McFarland. He told the committee that the farmers of western Canada had been able to sell 1,700,060.000
bushels of wheat during the four year period at a price that he considered to be ten cents a bushel more than they would have received if these operations had not been carried on
This report sets out to the people of Canada the real service that Mr. McFarland rendered. I ask hon. members who were members of the house from 1930 to 1935 to recall the many occasions upon which the Hon. Mr. Ralston, who was seated in this immediate vicinity, attacked the government and Mr. McFarland. The government was charged with providing Mr. McFarland with funds to speculate and gamble in the wheat market. Let me remind hon. members that Mr. McFarland had to go on the market day after day to buy millions of bushels of wheat in order to maintain the price. He did this at a time when he knew the big interests were making raids on the market. On July 21, 1933. he was forced to buy
15,000,000 bushels of wheat. Compare what Mr. McFarland was up against with the action taken by Mr. Murray. On December, 13, 1935, 22,000,000 bushels of cash and option wheat were sold when it was known that prices were likely to increase. During July, 1937, Mr. Murray sold 62,000,000 bushels of wheat, not more than half of which went into export.
Following the change in government in 1935 there was a change in the personnel of the wheat board. Mr. McFarland and one of his associates were let out. Mr. Mclvor was retained, and Mr. Murray was appointed chairman. From the very outset of their appointment this board started to pursue what is commonly spoken of as a fire-sale policy. Marketing conditions in other parts of the world at that time indicated that there would be an increase in price in the month of December, yet, as I said a moment ago, on December 13 that board, under the chairmanship of Mr. Murray, sold 22.000,000 bushels of wheat. Apparently that sale was made under an agreement that had been made on December 11 with a committee of the grain exchange.
Early in 1936 charges were made in the house in connection with that transaction. It was stated that a considerable part of that sale had been made for the purpose of protecting the short interests. It is stated on page 205 of this report that in 1935, when Mr. Murray took over from the McFarland board, there was a total of 177,682,000 bushels in short options. From the commencement of the appointment of the new board Mr. Murray carried on his fire-sale policy, which led to certain charges being made in this house. The main reason for those charges

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
was an article that appeared in a Wall Street journal. I have in my hand a copy of that article, but I do not propose to read it all. It refers to the transaction of December 13, to this extraordinary action on the part of the wheat board. It says:
The Canadian grain board showed its cooperation with exporters, particularly the small ones that had made definite price contracts over night, by allowing them to take in their hedges at one-qnarter cent over the market's close. Had this not been done, the small shippers would have been in a plight, for Winnipeg wheat futures opened up the permissible three cents limit on the following day. Thus exporters who had sold wheat overnight would have been hard pressed to cover their hedges.
Then comes this important paragraph:
As yet no Canadian government, irrespective of its political complexion, has recognized any obligation to succor the grain trading interests. The action of the Murray board, accordingly, constitutes an interesting precedent which is scheduled to be the subject of an important airing at the session to come.
I therefore claim that the leader of the opposition and myself were justified in making the charges that we did on the thirteenth of February, I think it was, and which resulted in a committee being set up. I have already referred to the order of reference to that committee. Mr. Murray was called before this committee and examined, and finally the committee, not being able to find conclusive evidence in either direction as to whether he had or had not taken certain measures, decided to refer the matter to a royal commission.
I want now to refer to some of the evidence given by Mr. Murray before the commission, and to show that from the very first, after he accepted the chairmanship of the board, he pursued a dictatorship policy not only in the selling of wheat, where he apparently did just as he pleased, but in other matters as well. I quote from page 9191 of the evidence, where Mr. Murray was being examined by Mr. MacPherson, counsel for the pool:
Q. As	a matter	of	fact	you	never	had
occasion as chief commissioner to confer with the advisory committee at all?
That is the advisory committee to the board which the act provided for, and which was done away with when Mr. Murray accepted the position.


William Daum Euler: It was not obligatory.


George Halsey Perley: The question was:
Q. As	a matter	of	fact	you	never	had
occasion as chief commissioner to confer with the advisory committee at all?
A. No.

Q. Was that your recommendation, or was that, again, a matter of governmental policy?
A. I stated that I would not accept the position of chief commissioner with any advisory board.
Q. So that your appointment was really contingent on the determination of this committee's life?
A. As far as I was concerned.
Q. And consequently you were appointed chief commissioner and the advisory committee as provided in the act ceased to exist?
A. Yes. The government had the choice, of course.
Q. Oh yes, I am not questioning that. That was during pleasure.
A. No, but I mean they had the choice of getting some one else for chief commissioner and keeping the advisory committee.
Then comes this last question:
Q. Yes. They had the choice of either taking you without the committee or getting somebody else with the committee?
A. Yes.
Q. I am submitting this, that you as a matter of principle refused to act as chief commissioner of the wheat board with the advisory committee as provided for in the act?
A. Yes.
I make this comment, Mr. Chairman, that had the advisory committee been there, Mr. Murray never would have sold the 22,000,000 bushels on the morning of the thirteenth when the market price of Argentine wheat had also gone up that same morning. That is proof that Mr. Murray dictated terms, and I believe that all the time he was operating he proved himself to be a dictator.
I could quote further from his evidence, if I desire to take the time, to show that he was also very inconsistent. I should not like to refer to him in the terms in which he referred to some hon. members of this house, but I could cite evidence to prove that he was in a similar position himself. In fact he stated on page 162 of the 1936 evidence, on April 28, "that the agreement that was made with the exchange was purely a verbal one." I myself had asked him whether there was any written statement or agreement, and he said no, it was purely a verbal one.
At page 259 of that evidence, on May 1, the leader of the opposition read into the evidence the agreement that had been made with the members of the exchange. In answer to the leader of the opposition Mr. Murray admitted that the agreement was made on the twelfth, and he stated that the suggestion came from the members of the Winnipeg grain committee. The concluding part of the paragraph reads:
The board agrees with the suggestion made by the exchange.
On page 196 of this report, in answer to questions put to him by Mr. Ralston, Mr. Murray admitted that he himself had made

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
the approach and been the first to suggest that there should be a meeting with the members of the exchange, and further that he was the only member of the board who was present at that meeting when the agreement was made. Reference is made on page 196 to the meeting with the exchange and that Mr. Murray was the only member of the board to meet with the members of the grain exchange.
At page 198 of the report Mr. Murray refers to the fact that the board knew what was likely to take place in connection with the Argentine government. They had known, for several days before, of the action of the Argentine government, and they knew also on the morning of the thirteenth what action the Argentine government had taken, and they expected the increase-there is no question about that.
I should like to remind the committee at this point that what are known as the Big Three, that is Dreyfus and Company, Bunge and Company and the Continental were operating very extensively in the Argentine. Bunge and Dreyfus controlled practically all the wheat at that time before it was taken over at the price fixed by the Argentine government. Is it not fair to assume, then, that they would know what was likely to take place when the government of the Argentine was taking over the wheat and setting the price? It is only reasonable to suppose that they would know. They had acquainted their branch office in Winnipeg with the fact that word had come from the New York office, and no doubt their representatives in Winnipeg knew of it. I myself have seen a letter-I do not propose to give the name right now-written by the manager of a large United States firm, complaining that they were not being tipped off like some of the other large firms, and stating that they knew certain gentlemen had been dispatched from New York to Winnipeg to negotiate with their firm there and to acquaint many of the Winnipeg firms with what was likely to take place. All sorts of evidence could have been produced to show that they knew.
On page 197 of this report Mr. Murray was giving evidence and he admitted to Mr. Ralston that the agreement made with the exchange was new and quite unprecedented; that there was no precedent for it at all. Here is the evidence:
Q. Was an arrangement of this kind new as far as you know in the history of the grain trade?
A. Yes, it -was new as far as the government was concerned.
Then he goes on to say:
In so far as it was an arrangement entered into with all people who were interested in the grain business.
There was no precedent for such an arrangement. In my opinion, if they had called certain witnesses, they could have proved that there was knowledge of what was going on. When the question was before the committee Mr. Murray was the only witness heard, and we asked for proof of sale so far as the grain firms were concerned, but no evidence was produced before the committee.
I believe the minister will recall that he himself asked me whether all the evidence I had asked for as to proof of sale had been produced, and I said no. I said that the offers and acceptances, which were the main proof of sale, had not been presented to the committee. He must remember that.
Then we had the auditors' report-I have it here-which definitely states that in their search of the records they were unable to find proof of sale of 703,000 bushels. With respect to several hundred thousand bushels there was never any proof of sale, and it was delivered by the board to the grain people. The auditors' report is conclusive proof also that wheat was delivered without real proof of sale. What I am about to say is, I think, important. It is this. When Mr. Murray was being examined with regard to this transaction, as will be seen in the evidence, they only asked him two or three questions. First, they asked him whether he knew that there was a short interest in the market, and his reply was that he was not concerned whether there was or not. They asked him whether he knew, when he made the sales, that he was protecting the short interest, and his reply to Mr. Ralston, on page 190 and page 200 of the report, was that he did not know. Those were practically all the questions asked him-that is, pertinent questions.
Then Mr. Mclvor was called. He was an accomplice in the crime, so to speak, and he was asked similar questions. He was asked, "Did you know there was a shortage?" And his answer was, "No." Then they asked him, "Did you know they were protecting the shorts?" And his answer was, "No." The other witness was Dean Shaw, that innocent chap from Saskatchewan. He was called in and asked the same questions. These three witnesses were all asked the same questions, and their answers were, "No." I contend that, though they did not have any more witnesses than the wheat committee had, we got just as far. We had Mr. Murray and we asked him these questions, and we had more proof of the fact that he knew that there was a short interest than Mr. Ralston apparently was able to bring out. I would remind the



Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
committee of the attitude of Hon. J. L. Ralston when he was accusing Mr. McFarland. When he was in opposition he tried to hang Mr. McFarland, so to speak. He tried to pin certain charges upon him. Here we have him, this hangman, in a different role. He has three prisoners before him and you can almost see the hangman's rope under his gown and the noose sticking out. But on this occasion, speaking to the prisoner, he says: "Did you think when you were clubbing this fellow that you were murdering him?" What would you expect the prisoner to say in reply? He asked Mr. Murray, charged with protecting shorts, "Did you think that you were protecting shorts when you sold the wheat?" What would anyone expect Mr. Murray to say? It was the biggest farce ever perpetrated on the people of Canada, and the people are asked to pay for it.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is strong
language.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, but it is a fact. They should have called the members of the large grain companies whom we had asked to have before the committee, and there should have been a proper accounting of the books to trace the sales. If they had done that they would have got somewhere. But simply to call these three men and ask them the questions I have indicated was certainly a farce.
There were other questions that were referred to the commission but I do not think it is necessary to take up much time discussing them. There was the Saskatchewan oat deal. The problem was definite: who was responsible for the loss? This report sets aside for all time any difficulty in that connection inasmuch as it places responsibility for the loss of $163,000 upon the government of Saskatchewan during the time that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was premier. The evidence shows that they were speculating. They bought eight millions of options, two millions more than it was estimated that they would require, and they knew it; and they paid Gordon Brown $4,500 to manage this operation in which they took a loss of the sum I have stated, $163,000.
The question of a barley comer was referred to the commission, but I will not discuss that. The statement in the report is not correct that barley advanced only 10 cents in the month of December, because it advanced 29 cents. As regards the Saskatchewan oat deal, it might have been interesting to call the Minister of Agriculture, because he knew more about it than any other man, and his evidence might have thrown some light on the subject. 
There is a certain recommendation with regard to the continuance of the -board, and the recommendation is also made that small pools be set up. Well, we know what happened to the small pools, and we know what happened to the main pool. When there is competition with the strong interests, the recommendation of small pools is ridiculous because they could not operate at all.
I suggest that the inquiry should have been more thorough than it was. When the committee was set up we asked that a thorough investigation be made, and on March 30, 1937, dealing with the matter in the house, I myself asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he would see to it that the inquiry made should be full and complete. The right hon. leader of the opposition also made certain statements along that line, and we had a reply from the minister that he would endeavour to put the ease before the commission and let us know what happened. I have certain correspondence here, too long to read in its entirety, but it is so important that I feel justified in reading some of it. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was good enough to say to me on March 30 last year that he would endeavour to see that the inquiry was as thorough as possible and that the case was placed before the commissioner, which was done. I asked for this correspondence at the opening of this session, and it was tabled, so it is all on the record.
The first letter is from the deputy minister to Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Royal Grain Inquiry Commission, and dated April 5, 1937, as follows:
Dear Judge Turgeon:
Mr. Euler has asked me to forward to you the enclosed copy of Hansard for Tuesday, March 30, commencing on page 254 of which you will find the discussion that took place in the house with reference to an item "Expenses of the Royal Grain Inquiry Commission" in our supplementary estimates for 1936-37.
You will observe the remarks by Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle) and by the Rt. Hon. Mr. Bennett in regard to the oats deal by the Saskatchewan government in 1935, a reference to the corner on barley and a direct inquiry by the Rt. Hon. Mr. Bennett as to whether the commission would investigate the grain and elevator companies that acquired stocks of grain at the lake ports and their profits. Mr. Euler stated that he would bring these comments to your attention.
Will you kindly let me know, for the information of the minister, whether or not these matters have been or are likely to be dealt with by the commission and if not, your views in that connection?
There is a lengthy reply addressed to the deputy minister, dated April 16. There are some important paragraphs. It acknowledges

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
receipt of the letter of April 5 and enclosed copy of Hansard, and states that the delay in reply was due to the fact that the letter was sent to Vancouver and had to be returned to Edmonton. It states that the commission is authorized to inquire into and report on-
All transactions since the year 1930 pertaining to the handling of grain for relief and seeding purposes in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta under the dominion government guarantee, or otherwise.
And continues:
It is anticipated that evidence will be taken on this phase of the inquiry when the commission sits in Regina, probably early in May.
Secondly, there has been some reference in the evidence already taken to what Mr. Perley mentioned as a "corner on barley."
They say they are going to take evidence with respect to that when they get to Winnipeg. The reply continues:
Thirdly, I am not quite clear regarding the nature and scope of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett's proposal that we should investigate the "grain and elevator companies that acquired stocks of grain at the lake ports and their profits as was done in the case of the textile companies and ascertain what happened in connection with the rest of the crop that was sold in connection with which there was a loss of $15,000,000, though there appears now to have been a profit of $8,000,000."
Then he says Mr. Bennett expressed the view that the commission should-
"investigate the various grain companies that acquired from the grain board, presided over by Mr. Murray, the wheat that was at the lake ports and should ascertain who owned that wheat, the visible supply 'in Canada at the present time."
And following Hon. Mr. Euler's question: "Any particular time?" Rt. Hon. Mr. Bennett replied:
"At this time, before the opening of navigation. The commission should ascertain who owns the wheat and should investigate the accounts, showing the profits with respect to these transactions."
Then a further paragraph:
The proposal quoted appears to involve following through the grain and futures disposed of by the board and ascertaining what amount of such grain now constitutes part of the present visible supply in Canada and by whom it is owned, and the financial result of the transactions so far as the purchasers from the board are concerned. It is not considered that such an inquiry is contemplated by P.C. 1577.
But quite apart from the order in council it would appear that such an inquiry would he altogether impracticable as it would involve an attempt to trace through and segregate the ultimate results of individual transactions respecting parcels of wheat or futures which, up to July 31,	1936, aggregated upwards of
100,000,000 bushels and covered, even up to that date, a period of about 200 trading days.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that he has exhausted his time.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to finish this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This will serve as an interruption, and the hon. gentleman may go ahead.


George Halsey Perley: Thank you.
In addition to segregating the transactions in these parcels from purchases by the individuals concerned from other sources, there is the factor that in following through to ascertain the financial result to the purchaser the wheat covered by the $15,000,000 and $8,000,000 referred to would have to be distinguished in the purchaser's accounts from 1935-36 crop wheat purchased from the board, and it seems apparent that this could not be done. An attempt to follow through specific transactions in futures would seem to be even more futile.
Then it winds up:
For the reasons given above such an inquiry is not contemplated, any more than it is contemplated that the financial results to purchasers from the pools or the central selling agency would be gone into. Without, of course, prejudicing the matter, it would rather seem as if the transactions might be more logically appraised by conditions existing and reasonably to be forecast at the time of the transactions than by post hoc developments.
Now there is a statement by Judge Tur-geon himself that he did not propose to make a thorough investigation.
I have numerous other letters here. That letter was acknowledged; the minister suggested to Judge Turgeon that he would like to refer the letters to Mr. Bennett and myself, and he got consent to do so. The letter directed to myself, dated April 22, 1937 reads as follows:
I am directed by the minister to forward you herewith for your information copies of correspondence between Mr. Justice Turgeon and myself, relating to questions asked in the House of Commons on March 30 last by the right hon. Mr. Bennett and yourself with respect to certain phases of the inquiry.
Attached is a copy of my letter of April 5 to Judge Turgeon, and copy of his reply, which is dated April 16. The right hon. Mr. Bennett has also been provided with copies of this correspondence.
That is from the deputy minister. I have the answer that the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett made to a similar letter addressed to himself dated April 26, in which he said:
I am wholly dissatisfied with the answer made by Judge Turgeon and you may so inform him. If he could deal with the balance sheets of the textile companies as he has he certainly could deal with the balance sheets of the elevator and other grain companies so as to show what, if any, profit -was made by them through the acquisition of grain from the wheat board, assuming that the grain so

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
acquired has since been disposed of. No one was suggesting that he should investigate the handling of 'the 100,000,000 bushels of grain, and I doubt if anyone knows that more clearly than he does himself. I merely suggested that he apply the same principles in dealing with the grain companies as he did in dealing with the textile companies. There was a large quantity of grain owned by grain companies east of Fort William over the winter season of 1937. When was it bought, from whom, and what profit was made on it? Those questions really cover what I had in mind when I was speaking in the house.
I have the correspondence that took place between Colonel Ralston and myself. I replied to that letter setting out what I intended when I asked that the inquiry be thorough. My letter was also referred to Colonel Ralston, and I have here a two-hundred word lettergram from Colonel Ralston. The final words are:
If there are further matters which you think are within scope of commission and are not already being covered, would you kindly write giving definite particulars of what you have in mind.
In reply I sent a five page letter, which I am not going to take time to read, but which I can summarize in this way: I said I thought the inquiry should be thorough; that they should proceed along the lines that had been followed in connection with the textile commission, where Judge Turgeon was also commissioner. I cited what the implement committee had done in connection with sending auditors to the head offices of the implement companies in order to audit their books and bring the statements back to the committee. I also told Mr. Ralston that from my experience with him on two important committees of this house he was beginning to know the grain business pretty well; that he had the ability and that, if he so desired, he could assist the judge in making this a thorough inquiry. In reply I received a statement from the auditors. Colonel Ralston stated that Price Waterhouse and Company had audited certain books of the exchange. They made reference to certain paragraphs in letters from myself and the leader of the opposition, as well as the books of certain firms. Rut really there were no official audits made. They went and asked these companies to show them their books and accounts, and finally stated to the committee that they did not think a further audit was necessary, that it would require quite a period of time and that it would involve following through the different accounts. Then they made the statement, in regard to the sixty-two million bushel transaction that I have cited in July, in order to show how difficult it would be

to trace those sales, that during the month of July there had been 640,000,000 bushels traded in. In other words, the whole crop had been bought and sold three times during that month.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think there is proof conclusive that they never intended to make this a thorough inquiry. Certainly they did not examine the members of the exchange as we desired. In one of my letters I suggested that they might examine the books of the "big three," to see what influence they had on the market, and also that their transactions might be traced.
Now I desire to take just a little time to deal with the recommendations and suggestions that have been made. As I stated a moment ago the commission recommended that small pools be set up to carry on and that the wheat board stand by. When they made the recommendation concerning the wheat board I say that' was an admission of failure, as far as the Winnipeg Grain Exchange was concerned. Let me say here that Mr. Richardson, Mr. Sydney Smith, Mr. Milner, and others who gave evidence before the committee in 1935, suggested that somebody should stand by with a basket to take up the slack in case of an emergency, as Mr. McFarland had done. Now the commission recommends that the board stand by, for this season at least, in case of an emergency. Then the recommendation is made that there be some supervision of the grain exchange. Practically all the witnesses agreed on that. At page 9242 of the evidence Mr. Murray said there should foe some machinery for supervision, similar to that recommended by the Stamp commission. Mr. Paul Mehl, senior agricultural economist, at page 11211 of the evidence, said at Chicago that exchange selfgovernment did not meet the situation in the United States, and that there should be some control. Mr. Darby, secretary of the grain exchange, speaking for the exchange, said that supervision such as the Stamp commission recommended would be good. Mr. Taggart, a farmer from Gull Lake, Saskatchewan, said there should be some supervision of the exchange to prevent raids on the futures market. Mr. Mathieson, speaking of Chicago, said Chicago was no more difficult to trade in than Winnipeg, yet Chicago had supervision. Mr. McFarland, dealing with the type of supervision suggested by the previous witnesses, at page 7626 stated that he did not think it would be of any use whatever, that a supervisor of that kind would be like a guest in the clearing house.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
With regard to the need for supervision, evidence was given of raids, by the "big three" in particular, on the Winnipeg exchange. The Stamp commission took evidence with respect to the amount of trading carried on during a given period, and also with respect to raids made from time to time on the market. In that evidence an interesting fact was brought out. They took the year 1929, which was considered an average crop year, when we had
304.000.	000 bushels of wheat in western Canada. They found that during that year there had been 7,200,000,000 bushels of wheat traded in. The period taken was from May 1, 1929, to March 31, 1930. Taking that as including some three hundred trading days, there was an average of about 24,000,000 bushels traded in each day. The crop, as I have said, totalled
304.000.	000 bushels. That year the pools handled 121,000,000 bushels which did not need to be hedged and did not go through the market. There were 50,000,000 bushels retained for seed, so the hedgeable grain from that crop amounted to only 133,000,000 bushels. The carry-over from the previous year was
91.000.	000 bushels, of which a certain amount was controlled by the pools, leaving only 43,000,000 bushels available for hedging purposes. This gave a total of 176,000,000 bushels of wheat available for hedging during that period in 1929, but the grain exchange traded in 7,-
200,000,000 bushels. In other words they bought and sold the crop forty-one times.
I just want to ask any hon. member of this house in his right senses, particularly any farmer member, if he thinks it is necessary to have an organization that will buy and sell a crop forty-one times in order to market
176.000.	000 bushels of cash grain. I do not think it is necessary, and I think they were wise when they suggested some supervision and control.
Now I want to refer to the question of speculation and the cost of hedging, in connection with which a number of witnesses were examined. Sir Robert Robson appeared before the Stamp commission and said that as a result of speculators losing money gambling in wheat in Chicago, he thought the people in England got their grain much cheaper. Mr. Sydney Smith referred to speculating on the Winnipeg market. He said, "I think the great majority was held by farmers. Farmers are speculators, merchants are speculators;" everybody was speculating. I do not think that should be permitted.
Then there were numerous other witnesses who gave evidence as to what speculation costs Canada. Mr. Poloway, of the Dauphin district made a statement to the effect that the farmers of his district in the year 1929-30
had lost $970,000. We have the informed and the uninformed public among the witnesses who were examined. Mr. Murray himself said that Canada was only looking in its own backyard. Mr. Darby answered the question as to who would be competent speculators. He stated they would be the members of the Winnipeg exchange, and stated that the uninformed public were the farmers, stenographers and clerks.
Mr. Dowler gave evidence that they had to have these speculators in the market in order to set an average or proper price representing the value of wheat. I say you cannot have a fair market or a fair price when you have a market of speculators who, as has been shown by the evidence-and I should like to quote it further-are not competent judges. How is it possible that a price registration which depends upon an unknown volume of unintelligent speculators can be said to record as accurate an estimate of present values as can be achieved, as was suggested by Mr. Dowler of the exchange?
I have much evidence before me as to what would happen if the Winnipeg market closed. Mr. David Muir of Glasgow stated that he would see no difficulty if the futures market closed. Mr. Stoik of Antwerp, a broker, when asked what difference it would make to his purchases of Canadian wheat, could not see that it would .make any difference; that it would be just one less to deal with. Snodgrass of Glasgow said that if the Winnipeg market disappeared and the futures market were to close, he could, get along quite well without it. Mr. Bracey, an English buyer for the Scottish Wholesale Cooperative at Liverpool, said this would be a good procedure, and that the advantage would be to the producer.
There were many others whose statements I could give if I had the time. I submit the price of our wheat on the Liverpool market must ultimately prove to be a better basic bargaining start than the futures market. I should have liked to have time to deal with some other aspects of the matter. I should like to tell what the farmers who came before the commission said, when they stated their case. However, I do not wish to take too much time along that line.
I have some evidence before me in the report with respect to the operations of the "big three." I have evidence from a British witness who said that the "big three" had driven the small man out of the Liverpool market. I submit therefore that a business which is so important to the national life of Canada as is the marketing of wheat; which has been the subject of seventeen royal grain

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
inquiries in thirty-seven years; which is carried on under rules and regulations of an exchange subject to the control of nobody outside; which does not know the volume of hedging transactions as distinct from speculation carried on in its trading room; which does not know who operates on its market, or if there are any large manipulative traders; which refuses to divulge the volume of business conducted on its premises, and which is subject to outside investigation only by royal commission with respect to the conduct of its affairs-any such business must be a proper subject for strict and full governmental supervision.
I say the supervision recommended in the commission report does not go far enough. I regret at this session the minister is not even going to move concurrence in the report, or take action with respect to it to implement some of the suggestions made therein. I therefore make the following recommendations:
1.	That a national grain board be put into force to operate under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and that all coarse grains be brought under the operation of the act. I would even go so far as to suggest that the act be enlarged to take in all grain products.
2.	That grain merchants and elevator companies operate as at present, doing a general grain business on the open market.
3.	That there be supervision by a board of the operations of the exchange and the Winnipeg Grain Clearing house, in the following manner:
Said board to be a branch of the board of grain commissioners, and to be composed of three members-the chairman of the board of grain commissioners to be the chairman- and two other members, one of whom would be appointed by the producers and one by the grain dealers. This branch of the grain commissioners would have full control and operate the clearing house. They would license all members, grant a line of credit for trading purposes, set rates of commissions and clearing charges, and have control of the amount of future trades that could be cleared in proportion to the amount of actual cash grain handled by each individual trader.
In conclusion I submit that the grain act should be amended, and that the wheat board act should be put into full force and carried out at once. I protest against the failure of the Turgeon commission to bring out the facts with respect to trading through the Winnipeg clearing association, although we had asked that that be done.

We are now being asked to vote a sum to meet the further costs of the commission which was set up more than two years ago and headed by Judge Turgeon, who receives a judge's allowance of $9,000 a year and $35 per day for living and travelling expenses. The commission retained Mr. Ralston at $200 a day and expenses, and paid an assistant $50 per day, and $10 per day for expenses. They had a very expensive staff. May I point out further that that is not the whole cost of the commission so far as the people of Canada are concerned. We know that the commission was followed by nineteen other counsel, four or five of whom were leading men such as Mr. Brockington, Mr. Pitblado and Mr. MacPherson. Certainly someone has to pay for that, and the payment will fall on the people of Canada.
After taking evidence in 1937 the commission filed a report on May 9 of this year. I say we should have had the report before us in time to deal with it properly at this session. The commission began their sittings in Ottawa, and then moved to Fort Wiliam, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, then returning to the Atlantic seaboard. They went overseas and sat in London, Liverpool, Antwerp and other places. They sat and sat and sat and sat for almost two years. Who would not sit and and sit if he were getting $200 a day and expenses to tour Great Britain, the continent and all of Canada?
All this was at great expense to the pools. The pools had to send their representatives. What is the value of the report? What value can there be attached to a report on which no action is taken-a report I am inclined to believe that the wheat committee of this government reviewed and sent back a time or two.


William Daum Euler: What is that?


George Halsey Perley: I believe the wheat committee reviewed the report before it was printed and before it was tabled, and reported it back to be revised.


William Daum Euler: Absolutely untrue.


George Halsey Perley: I have anticipated the minister's statement. But reports we have received would lead us to believe that. I am led to believe that from the comments by members of the Winnipeg grain exchange the morning the report was tabled in the house, comments which lead us to believe that someone there knew something about it. However, that is something that possibly cannot be proved.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission


William Daum Euler: There are other things that cannot be proved also.


George Halsey Perley: We are facing an emergency and we should have a statement from the minister before this vote passes as to what he proposes to do this fall. The pool representatives have been down here negotiating with the government. We have a crop in prospect but we are facing an emergency. We want the wheat board. We want a fixed minimum price of from 87 to 90 cents. We want participation certificates, and we want the personnel of the board changed so that it will have the confidence of the producers. We want an advisory committee set up. That was the one protection the farmer had, when he had four representatives on the committee. Why should fourteen or fifteen Liberal members of this house be going back to Saskatchewan with a promise in their vest pockets of a wheat board? Reports have been going around that these fourteen or fifteen members swallowed this promise and agreed to vote for the budget. They were given the promise that they were going to have a wheat board, and they are taking back that promise. We should have a statement made right here so that we will know what is to happen. The farmers have a right to know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I should take exception at once to what the hon. member has said about any promise having been made to western members with respect to a wheat board. Nothing of the kind was ever suggested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The western members made the promise.


George Halsey Perley: I was led to believe that there was quite an interesting caucus held. If the reports I received were right-they may not be-but the western members understood that they were going to have a wheat board and they promised that they would come into this house and vote for the budget if they got a wheat board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apart from the impropriety of referring to what takes place in a party caucus, may I say to my hon. friend-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Personal and private
letters are no longer private.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The subject was never discussed in a Liberal caucus. That is the answer to what my hon. friend has said.


George Halsey Perley: Some of the Liberal members may have gained the wrong impression, because they have said they are going to have a wheat board.


William Daum Euler: The announcement was made by myself that there would be a wheat board, and it was said that the price would be fixed later on. That statement was made weeks ago.


George Halsey Perley: I should like the minister to substantiate that by stating that we are going to have a real board functioning under the act. I want him to tell us that we are to have a minimum price, that we are to have participation certificates. If we are not going to have a wheat board, I think the pools should know so that they will have an opportunity of organizing.


William Daum Euler: The pools will not operate if there is a wheat board. There is going to be a wheat board. They knew that, and my hon. friend knew that.


George Halsey Perley: I regret very much that we have not had an opportunity to discuss the 1936-37 report of the wheat board, signed on January 6, 1938. The time has been much too short.


William Daum Euler: You will have another
opportunity if you want it.


George Halsey Perley: In conclusion let me say again that the money spent on this report is absolutely wasted. We knew most of what is contained in the report long before they ever began to take evidence.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I do not know
whether I agree with what has been said by the hon. member who just sat down (Mr. Perley) as I did not hear much of it. I heard a few words like "McFarland," "carryover," "shorts and longs" and "overages," but I did not hear anything about "fire sale."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The evidence of that is here also.


William Richard Motherwell: We must use every shining hour, yea minute if we are to get out of here this afternoon. I am going to talk until one o'clock as a sort of cocktail before lunch. I do not take them myself, but I know some other hon. members appreciate them. As I understand it, there are two items before the committee, Nos. 372 and 373. I want to say a word or two on item No. 375. There are four items here that are identical and intertwined, one with the other, and I think they should be considered as one. I have my dope arranged in that way and I do not want to disarrange it. The chairman has assured me that I can make any reference to grain I desire under vote 372.
Transport Commission

The first item refers particularly to the' royal grain commission, and I think I can say what I think of that commission in two words, yes two letters, I think it is "N.G," but must as I go along give my reasons for so thinking. We all remember the remarkable unanimity there was in committee of the whole when the Wheat Board Act of 1935 was under discussion, and when it received its third reading. I think it would have been a good thing if that unanimity had continued. This matter has been ushered into the realm of politics by the order in council objected to. Why is so much being said about this problem now? It is due to the fact that while the present government was joint father of the wheat board act, it has committed infanticide or at least has mutilated the foster child to such a degree that it might as well be dead. This act is simply an ornament on our statute books.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an ornamental
statute.


William Richard Motherwell: I know some hon. members want a fairly good cocktail. This act received unanimous support at that time and I think every effort should be made to continue that feeling of unanimity. Certainly things should not have been changed to such an extent without the consent of this parliament. I should like to quote from a speech made by my right hon. leader at Calgary on September 30, 1935.


Frederick George Sanderson: One o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: The cocktail is not worth a rap-too small.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Progress reported.



TRANSPORT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 31, to establish a board of transport commissioners for Canada, with authority in respect of transport by railways, ships and aircraft.
He said: This bill has been returned with its tail-feathers rather clipped. It is not the bill which this chamber adopted; still, there is something left.

In the interpretation clause several changes have been made. Two further definitions have been added. Waste paper loaded as full ship's cargo has been put in the list for exemption from regulation. To that there is no particular objection.
The changes are principally in part I, in relation to transport by water.
As a subsection of section 3 the following has been included:
(2) It shall be the duty of the board to perform the functions vested in the board by this act and by the Railway Act with the object of coordinating and harmonizing the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by railways, ships and aircraft, and the board shall give to this act and to the Railway Act such fair interpretation as will best attain the object aforesaid.
That is not material. However, section 5 has been changed by practically eliminating the convenience and necessity provision. It is provided that any boat that can indicate that at any time within the last ten years it has been engaged in carrying any item of package freight will be entitled to a certificate of convenience and necessity under the grandfather clause. Some forty boats are actually and exclusively engaged in package freight, and some 150 other boats are now eligible to engage in it, so that the certificate of convenience and necessity will not have any particular meaning with these amendments added.
Then an amendment has been added which exempts from the operation of the act shipping between the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast. I think that that is unfortunate, because by putting this traffic outside the scope of the act, it does not enable those engaged in it to protest agreed charges which may affect the traffic of the ships in that service.
However, the bill has been reported with those changes. Aside from those I have mentioned there are, I believe, no material changes. As I have said, in my opinion it is not as good a bill as went to the senate, but after a good deal of consideration I have decided to ask the concurrence of the house in the senate amendments.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
To provide for expenses of the royal grain inquiry commission, including authority for payment of honorarium to Dr. T. W. Grindley, secretary, $15,000.

Supply-Trade-Gram Commission
William Richard Motherwell: When the committee rose for lunch I was about to read the report of a speech made at Swift Current by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). But I think I will defer that for a moment, and deal with what, I believe, should come before that, namely, the ill-fated order in council with the worse than ill-fated rider thereon-*


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear. Without
authority of law.


William Richard Motherwell: -which not only
sterilizes the bill but caponizes it also. I pronounced "caponizing" with a long "a"; but no matter whether you use the long "a" or the short "a", it and "sterilizing" mean the same thing to the bill, because they render it innocuous.
It has been the most distressing experience of my whole life that a Liberal government should do this. Would to the Most High that it had been the Tories who had been responsible for it, or yon strange people in the corner. I could have put up with it, not easily, but at least without agony. What has come over the government? Wait till I read this fatal abuse of executive power. Well, it is too long to read it all.
Remember first that when this order in council was launched across the prairie it created such consternation and resentment that I have never seen the like of it. What was that about? Because an order in council had been passed which thwarted the will of this parliament-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: -and nullified it, -passed by a Liberal government, no less.


An hon. MEMBER:: No more!


William Richard Motherwell: I have not the
patience to read the blamed thing. We have on our files 174 bills passed this year, or which will soon have been passed, by this house. If the executive can pass this kind of order in council and get away with it, not one of the bills which passed this year is safe from the dexterity of similar orders in council passed here by an expert hand. Why have these 174 bills been passed? What do we gather here for? Might we not just as well have a Mussolini and be through with it? Why this assembly at all? I have been down in the West Indies for a time recovering from one of this kind of fights. Down there the governor, of course, is boss. But surely in Canada the days of governor bosses have gone and we have something like democracy.
I do not know where to start, reading for most convenience, but I will quote the following :
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated August 27, 1936, from the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, stating that under clause A of section 8 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, provision is made that it shall be the duty of the Canadian wheat board, established under the said act, to fix the price to be paid to the producers of wheat delivered to the board as by the said act provided, subject to the approval of the governor general in council:
That the Canadian wheat board, established under the said act, has fixed a price of eighty-seven and one-half cents (87i cents) per bushel for wheat graded as No. 1 Northern at Fort William, as a basis price for wheat for the 1936-37 crop year, effective from August 1, 1936, delivered to the board as provided by the said act, the price of other grades of wheat to be fixed by the board on the basis of the price for No. 1 Northern wheat delivered at Fort William as aforesaid;
Then for some strange reason it makes reference to the appointment of the royal grain commission. I do not think that it is necessary to read that; the committee will take it for granted. The appointment of a commission! The very thing that should have warned the government against meddling in this matter. And then the government take this important part-grain marketing- away from the commission and decide it themselves, when the problem is sub judice. I think, after all, I had better read it:
That the Honourable William Ferdinand Alphonse Turgeon of Regina, Sask., a judge of the court of appeal of Saskatchewan, was appointed a commissioner under part I of the Inquiries Act, being chapter 99 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, to inquire into and to report upon the subject of the production, buying, selling, holding, storing, transporting and exporting of Canadian grains and grain products, and other questions incident to such matters, and in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing terms, to inquire into and to report upon:
The methods now or heretofore employed in marketing Canadian grains abroad, including government grain boards, cooperative or pool marketing, price stabilization measures and the open market or competitive method; and the effect of these various methods upon markets;
The measures which should be taken to retain and to extend the marketing throughout the world of Canadian wheat and other grains and their products.
The minister, therefore, recommends that the recommendations of the Canadian wheat board be not approved unconditionally but that approval be given only in the event of the closing market price for wheat dropping below ninety cents per bushel for wheat graded as No. 1 Northern at Fort William, in which event a price of 87i cents per bushel as recommended by the board shall be approved, and this order in council be regarded as approving the same.
444S

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
That is the rider that did the trick; that is the rider that defies parliament; and in my estimation it will be very bad for the authors thereof. The order in council last year was different; it left out the reference to the royal commission. Let me tell you the consternation with which this action was received throughout the prairies. I first heard about it on a Saturday night and I refused to believe it. I thought it was some fool report across the wires such as we sometimes get, some mistake; and it was not until Monday morning that I discovered when I went to deliver my wheat to the pool elevator for the board that I could not do it, after working hard with others to get this method of marketing satisfactorily established. I was not on the special committee, but outside I was helping to get the bill through in order that we might have a piece of legislation about which there would be no controversy. I am familiar enough with law to know that if you get all parties behind an act you are well away with the administration of it; but if the people are split in two, one-half bucking the other, then you will have difficulty in administering your law. The matter should have been left as it was until this parliament could make any change deemed necessary. It should not have been done by order in council or any such reprehensible method. It should, I repeat, have been done by this parliament and not otherwise. I have no language to describe the horror of the people, especially the Liberals. We were used to hearing these things about the Tories governing by order in council, and whatever the Tories do is always wrong anyhow-we are always safe, so it is averred, in that assumption. But regardless of politics, right across those stricken prairies, like a bolt from the blue went roars of indignation that can almost be heard to-day. I am trying to reverberate them a little. You do not need to be told about the popular indignation in the prairies, and I cannot adequately describe it.
Dozens and possibly hundreds of telegrams and letters were sent to the ministry. I myself sent three of them, and in those telegrams I left nothing unsaid. It would have cost the same to send a wishy-washy telegram or letter as to send a good one and the good one went. In addition to these messages all the municipal organizations, all the agricultural societies, within and throughout the prairies, the provincial government of Saskatchewan in session assembled, and the province of Manitoba -all these various bodies made representations against the emasculated wheat board. The province of Saskatchewan two years in succes-

sion passed resolutions on the question asking for a wheat board, and I believe that they had in mind not a sterilized but a real one. They did not designate. The province of Manitoba said that they wanted a real, live wheat board, one that would not hibernate twelve months in the year. Notwithstanding all this, in this democratic country, the government stood obdurate. We all like the idea that once a man has put his hand to the plough he should not turn back; but when you have put your hand to a plough with crooked handles the quicker one turns back the better and easier is the turning.
With such an order in council as that, look at the danger and likelihood there was in appointing a royal commission which would in all probability take its cue from that order. And that is what they did, and that is the kind of report we got. It was the will of the government expressed there in that order in council. Let me say a word about the appointment of the commissioner. A good many foolish people talk about the vast amount of money spent for the commissioner and his counsel, but if we had got value the price was not too high; if, on the other hand, we have not got value, then the money was wasted. I do not think it was fair to commissioner Turgeon to appoint him as sole commissioner. Ever since the first chairman of a royal grain commission was appointed, Judge Sinclair of Perth in the county of Lanark- my birthplace, by the way-ever since he was appointed to the first grain commission in 1898 or 1899, I forget which, there have never been fewer than three commissioners investigating these many sided grain problems until the last one of 1936. And even with the united efforts of all these we have never yet had a grain act that the grain mixers at the head of the lakes and elsewhere could not drive a coach and four through if they were any kind of teamsters at all. I do not think any living man alone can do justice to an inquiry of this nature with such extensive ramifications. I repeat. I do not think it was fair to Mr. Justice Turgeon. There was much to be inquired into about the technique of terminal elevators. I wonder if Justice Turgeon or any of his counsel were ever in a terminal elevator. They certainly got as far away as they could from the depredations that I am going to speak about presently; trying to investigate an elevator at the head of the lakes from Vancouver is a new stunt to me. That is all I will say about the commissioner, except to repeat that no man living can properly investigate a great

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
question like the grain trade with the doors of inquiry wide open, as expressed in the order in council.
And what about the counsel? Who says aught against the ability of Colonel Ralston? Not I. But I have a little to say about the propriety of both the giving of it and of his taking it. It is not considered good form- I may be getting on legal ground with which I am not too familiar-but the very last act of Colonel Ralston as reported in the proceedings of the special committee of 1935 on the Canada Grain Board Act was to move an amendment to the bill as section 10, namely:
The operations of the board shall not extend beyond the 15th day of August 1936 except for the purpose of sale and realization of assets, collections, payments, and generally for the winding up of the affairs and business of the board, unless on or before the first day of July 1936 the operation of this act be extended by order of the governor in council for one year from the date first mentioned in this section, in which event such operations with the exception above mentioned shall terminate on August 15, 1937, unless further extended by parliament.
That was Colonel Ralston's view. Anyone who has expressed himself so freely and publicly surely should not have -been appointed counsel on the commission. If Colonel Ralston or any hon. member here present had been summoned to act on a jury, and had said as much about the subject before the jury as Colonel Ralston did about this, the other side would have challenged his right to sit on the jury. There is not a lawyer in this chamber who does not know that. Of course the claim may be made that this royal commission is not the same as a court. But it had all the frills and all the authority of a court. This order in council was passed when the question was sub judice before that court, and the government grabbed off a maximum chunk of it and decided it themselves pending the report of the commission. We have never heard the like in the history of Canada. If I am to hear and see much more like that I am not caring when I pass out. The disgrace to our country! Colonel Ralston is one of the finest men that you can meet in a day's journey, but this is not the place for him. His price is not of so much concern, the $200 a day, but it is the getting the whole thing in the hands of the government: one commissioner, one master counsel, and presto! you can get any kind of report you like. That is what happened anyhow.
Now that is something like the kind of indignation that was aroused when this whole distressing incident was first noised abroad. The Prime Minister is, I feel sure, averse to all this-and I want to say incidentally that I
do not lay one iota of this at the door of the Prime Minister. But he cannot avoid his responsibility. He has some mighty bad advisers or rather a bad adviser around him in regard to the grain business. This is generally known to be true, but opinions may differ as to who constitutes a good adviser. This is from a press despatch report of a speech delivered by the Prime Minister at Calgary on September 30, 1935:
Farmers were just as much entitled to fixed prices for their products as labour was to fixed minimum wages. Mr. King said he believed in fixing these levels for the purpose of maintaining standards of living. But everything that was done for labour should be done equally for the farmer.
The Liberal members of parliament were responsible for the fixed minimum price for wheat.
And that was so. There was no fixed minimum price in the original wheat board bill. I do not want to disparage what the right hon. leader of the opposition did. He was the father of the bill, very much approved by the godfather, the present Prime Minister, who amended it, and incidentally crucified it later by his government.
Mr. Bennett did not propose this when he brought in his wheat board bill. Mr. Bennett could have settled the wheat question earlier had he not wanted to make an election issue, but there was no issue as the bill received the support of all parties.
If that is the description of that bill- and it was a true description-I think I have to absolve my right hon. friend the then Prime Minister of Canada from wanting to make an issue of it. He wrestled with himself there that last day in 1935-oh, it was like dragging a cat by the tail to get him to do what he did. play the game; but he did play it. And he got a bill that committed this house, unanimously supported- even by Colonel Ralston-and if the government wanted harmony at this critical time surely it was not by murdering this bill in this horrible fashion that this desired end would be attained. I have pleaded with the government on this thing for the last two years, but they would not listen. Now I am forced to do what I am doing. I have been asked since the luncheon recess when I would be through. I do not know. "Well, don't you know that his excellency is going to sail on Monday?" I haven't anything to do with when his excellency sails. Let him sail. My duty is to my constituents and to the people of Canada; and without any disrespect whatever, and although I would love to meet the wishes of his excellency, it shall not be at the expense or neglect of the people of Canada or of my constituents.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that I do not think his excellency's name should be brought into this discussion. As regards influencing the proceedings of parliament, no desire was expressed by his excellency with respect to his sailing or not sailing, nor was a word said by myself to the hon. member or to anyone else in regard to his speaking.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, you wanted
to get that into Hansard, did you?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I wanted
to have the record correct.


William Richard Motherwell: Well I cannot hear what the hon. gentleman says. There was a colleague who lent me his ears the other day, but he and many others are not here to-day. Hon. members can guess why.
Now I have some simple notes here, but I never could follow notes. I am just going to follow the gleam. Here is the wheat board act. There were two little touches put to it by the senate afterwards, but they do not amount to a hill of beans, so we can take this as the act. I have it all marked and I know where to turn to anything; however it is getting so nearly worn out that it is not as easy as I thought. Here on the back of it are the notes I took at one meeting of mine in 1935. Here we have bill 98. passed in 1935, which in section 3 declares:
There shall be a board-
There was no "if" or "but" about it.
-to be known as The Canadian Wheat Board, which shall consist of three members appointed by the governor in council.
There are a good many important things in this bill, but these are the salient features:
7. The board shall undertake the marketing of wheat in interprovincial and export trade and for such purposes shall have all the powers of a corporation and without limitation upon such powers the following:
Surely anybody can understand that. You do not need to be an expert; you do not need to be the Minister of Justice. You hardly need to know anything at all to know what that means. Then it goes on;
(a)	to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof;
(b)	to buy and sell wheat: Provided that no wheat shall be purchased by the board except from the producers thereof;
Is that not plain enough? If words mean anything at all, that board should have functioned continuously until parliament said no; not until somebody in the cabinet said no. I am sorry I was brought up such a stubborn Liberal, with the conceptions I have about democracy.


Mr. THOMPSON:: You were brought up in Lanark.


William Richard Motherwell: I see the hon. member for Lanark smiling. I am not providing this entertainment for my hon. friend; it is at a heavy cost to me. I remember my father talking about William Lyon Mackenzie, that great- man who challenged everything that was wrong at that time, including, to use his historian's very words, " the abuse of executive power." What a come-down that his grandson should exercise himself in the direction of abuse, great abuse, of executive .power. It is time this tendency to fascism was stopped. You do not need to go to Montreal for communists and that kind of truck. I suppose I should not have said "truck," but what I have said I have said. I tell you, when you get a government interfering in such an important matter as this, then you have a grave abuse of executive power and we must see that we get rid of that abuse. We must get rid of it, or how can we talk about unity? Is this not the way to get disunity? I suppose we should get a little practice against the Mussolini men, against fascists, before we have to go to a real war, but we do not want to start it here. If we do not we had better beware what we do.
I am not going to read the rest of this bill; it is so plain that "a wayfaring man, though he be a fool, need not err therein." Then, as though to make sure there would be no doubt about it, look at (g):
. . . generally to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the intent and meaning of this act.
Mark that. That was just for fear some of us were too stupid .to understand that the intent and meaning must be the guiding principle of the government that administered this measure. Is there anyone within sound of my voice who thought this bill could be crucified after a few months by an order in council? During the discussions in committee or elsewhere did anyone suggest, "Oh, well, the government can slip over an order in council"? Will anybody who thought that was in anybody's mind please stand up now and let us see what he looks like? No one stands up; then none have I offended.
Now let us go further:
8. It shall be the duty of the board:
(a)	to fix a price to be paid to the producers for wheat delivered to the board as by this act provided, subject to the approval of the governor in council;
(b)	to sell and dispose of from time to time all wheat which the board may acquire, for such price as it may consider reasonable, with the object of promoting the sale and use of Canadian wheat in world markets;

Supply

Trade-Grain Commission
Oh, I think you know it all, but down in (j) I find this:
. . . to offer continuously wheat for sale in the markets of the world through the established channels: Provided that the board may, if in its opinion any existing agencies are not operating satisfactorily, take such steps as it deems expedient to establish, utilize and employ its own or other marketing agencies or channels;
I am sure the right hon. leader of the opposition will correct me if I am wrong when I interpret that to mean that it was put in to see that no one else ever held wheat off the market in the same manner that it was thought to have been held off by the pool and the grain trade generally in the fall of 1929. Who will say that they did not all hold it off? And I never heard a soul say at that time they were wrong. They just guessed wrong; that was all. This provision, I take it, is put in to make sure that whoever is administering .this act will always remain in the market with their wheat, both buying and selling. I do not hear the leader of the opposition challenge that interpretation. I know that is what this provision was put in for. As I say, I was outside the committee, but I was constantly advised as to what was going on, and I helped a little bit at long range.
There are three provisions for the exercise of executive power in this bill. Sections 9, 10 and 11 provide for a compulsory wheat board if any government in power wants to have one. That power is granted in the bill. They also have the right to approve of a price for wheat as recommended by the board, or to modify that price. But the modification of the price was always thought to mean up or down, not laterally, as was done. Then there is another executive power found in section 14:
The governor in council may approve of the provisions of this act being made applicable to oats, barley, rye or flax produced in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, if the board recommends that such approval be given, whereupon the provisions of this act shall mutatis mutandis-
Whatever that means; I think it means "in the same manner." They might just as well have said so, but the lawyers always like to put in something classical.
-apply to such kind of grain as they apply to wheat.
That power in two instances out of three has not been exercised. Well, when this parliament defined three executive powers that could be exercised, am I not justified in coming to the conclusion that this was all they were supposed to exercise? If they were meant to
kill the bill by stealth, parliament would have told them to steal up on it some dark night and put it out of business, but there is nothing like that here. I do not think there is anything like that in any act, but that is what has been done, while only one of these three provisions for the exercise of executive power has been taken advantage of, but with a bad twist in it.
There is the wheat board bill. I cannot imagine this order in council of the 90 cents a bushel racket being passed in total disregard of the plain language of that act, without its being referred to the Minister of Justice. I do not see him in his seat. I guess he is busy with the padlock law, and with those gentry away up near the foothills. But I do not see why he should confine his attention to them. Let him come here and give his reasons, which he must have given to his colleagues. I was in council long enough to know the procedure. If a minister of justice were passed up by the government you would soon be minus a minister of justice. No doubt the Minister of Justice passed upon this order in council. I do not know that he did; it may be that the rest of the cabinet turned around and did it without him. But they did not formerly do it in that way, in my day.
I will talk through you, Mr. Chairman, to my good old eastern Liberal friends. I was bom in Ontario, and I could not help loving it, even if I tried not to. It is pretty hard to ride through it these June days and see the beauties of its landscape without loving it, even if one were not born here. I have the affiliations. the attractions of birth place, the traditions, the memories of neighbours, and the story of old Ontario dating back to the early eighties and far beyond engraved clearly on my heart. But, oh, it makes me feel sad when I realize the way some of my eastern friends look at this matter. "If we have a wheat board for the west, everyone will be wanting a wheat board'-a board for onions, potatoes, cabbages, cheese and butter, etc. They will be clamouring from the Atlantic to the Pacific for boards, the same as the prairie farmers have."
That sounds logical and natural, superficially. That is the argument the Minister of Justice used on the second reading of the wheat board bill. I have too much truck on my desk to keep track of it. Read Hansard and see this, Messrs. Ministers, for yourselves! He spoke along those lines; I may not have the exact farm products mentioned, but that was the sense of it. That is the reason given why he wanted an emergent and very temporary board,-because everyone would be wanting one.
Now, let me answer that. During the war there were only two farm products which were

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
held down in price by the authorities of that day. One of them was wheat and the other was cheese. Those prices were held down officially. The price of cheese was held down to twenty-five cents a pound when there was no question that it would have soared sky high beyond that. I would say to members from the east:	Instead of shutting up your hearts
against the wheat board, which is admittedly for the west, why not claim your right for a cheese or live stock board? As I have said, during the great war you made sacrifices when the price of cheese was held down. Why not do now as I am doing? Why not claim the right to a board either for your cheese as an animal product, or for the animals themselves? That could easily be adjusted. Instead of wounding us in the west who in all conscience, need this in our business, why not claim your right, for reasons I shall show in a minute, to some assistance in the live stock industry or the live stock products industry, whichever you like?
That is a matter for yourselves. May I remind the government, and all members assembled here, that when the attempt was made to take the Crowsnest Pass rates from the west I pleaded with some of my maritime friends who are not here to-day that instead of trying to take that rate from us, something which had been obtained honestly and deliberately from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, they should get a little Crowsnest rate for the maritime provinces themselves. That is the way to do it, as I see it. If we are to live happily together it will be done not by snatching what the other fellow has, but by claiming the privilege of something similar on the principle of compensating adjustments for some other part of Canada. We cannot raise a family in this or any country without practising some give and take in order to promote peace within that family. That is what we must do if we are to promote peace and harmony among the nine provinces of this confederated country.
Well, they got their little Crowsnest railway rate in the maritimes, via the Duncan report route, and I think they were pretty happy about it. That would be my solution. Now, what did we contribute in the west to the bread-basket of the allies during the war? I do not know the facts with respect to cheese, because I never followed them up, and of course the figures would not reach such immense proportions as ours. But I have in my hand an extract from the proceedings of the royal grain inquiry, and I must give it credit where it is due for having brought out this fact. The information I have was sent to me, upon applica-
tion, by Mr. T. W. Grindley, when I asked him to give me something I could use respecting the prices of wheat under the board of grain supervisors. I have not used this information in any public meetings, because I have not been in the best of shape recently. When one spends nearly forty years of one's lile fighting for just such things as I am fighting for to-day, it grinds the stamina down pretty much. I became sick in 1829 on account of it; but I do not want sympathy on that account from anybody. I merely recite the fact for those not in the know. However I cannot help-


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but


William Richard Motherwell: I want no mercy
at all. But do you think it is all right for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) to speak at such great length? I will stop right here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are in
committee, and if the hon. member will permit me I should hope he would regard these few words as giving him the opportunity to continue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I join in that.


William Richard Motherwell: That is nice. I
was not going to ask for it, because I am just not in the asking-for-favours-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mood.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, mood. But
you might as well let me have it off, anyway, because it is going to come off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He knows he can do
it, anyway.


William Richard Motherwell: This is one
time that the private members have a chance;
I hope more of them will exercise it. I have before me an extract from page 762 of the evidence given on December 8, 1936. I find on looking over it the heading "Price limit," and following that heading this paragraph:
Above all, national selling held the price steady-
This was a reference to the board of grain commissioners.
-under conditions when, had there been no price control, the price would have been forced to an intolerable figure.
Yes, it would have been forced to an intolerable figure. Then Mr. Brockingtoa, counsel for the elevator association, asked:
I take it that means that the price would have been forced upward to an intolerable figure ?

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
Here is Mr. Ralston's statement:
I think that is what is meant there in the report of the board. In other words, national selling did effect a price limit. It held the price steady when, had there been no price control, the price would have been forced to an intolerable figure.
That is not what Colonel Ralston, said in Regina hearings or elsewhere. I think I am justified in saying that I was so ill when giving evidence at Regina that I could not proofread my own statement, and it never was proofread. I would not recommend anyone to read what I said. As everyone knows, it is very difficult to take down a grain letter correctly, but it appeared to be particularly hard in this case. Colonel Ralston talked me out of the vast sum the western farmers contributed during the war, owing to held down prices, when I was giving evidence before him. There is the record. I have a copy in my office, and any hon. member can get a copy. He talked me out of it. But if I had had the following information then, I would have taken the fur off the colonel.	I did enter into an altercation
with him of which I was ashamed. That happened before the press and everyone else. I am not going to bottle up the information that I have until it ferments.
The average fixed price paid for wheat in 1916, 1917 and 1918 worked out at about $2.28 per bushel. Very little was purchased in 1916, but for convenience of estimation we will place the average price at S2.28. When you are dealing in hundreds of millions of bushels it does not make much difference. Here is another significant item. It states that about 350,000,000 bushels were sold in those years by the board of grain supervisors, for which the farmers got an approximate average of $2.28 per bushel. Put that figure down in your scribbling books. Many estimates have been made as to what the price would have gone to if there had been no board. It is stated here that it would have gone to an "intolerable" height. What is an intolerable height? It went as high as $4 at the Atlantic seaboard, which is about 12 cents per bushel more than at Fort William. Let anyone look up the press of that day and he will find that the farmers and others were prophesying that wheat would go to $5. However, the authorities got together and held the price down to an average of $2.28. I have here an estimate made by about as capable a man as anyone I know in that line of business, the late Dr. Magill. He was the secretary of the Winnipeg grain exchange, an authority whom I do not often quote. The following statement appears on page 197 of the proceedings of the
committee on agriculture and colonization which met in 1922:
We bad no information about the British buying, and I stated that if the United States and Great Britain were going to compete in our market for our hard red fife it would not surprise me to see our wheat anywhere from $3 to $5 per bushel.
It must be remembered that that statement was made under oath. I think that is as sound an authority as you can find. I have no doubt the price would have gone that high. A middle figure between $3 and $5 would be $4. By deducting $2.28 from $4 you arrive at the extra amount the farmers would have received had there been no board. That gives you $1.72 per bushel. Multiply that by 350,000,000 bushels sold, and you get a total of nearly $600,000,000. That is the amount the farmers of the west contributed to the breadbasket of the allies including Canada. I will not say they all knew what was going on, but I do say there was very little murmuring about making that contribution. The average price of $2.28 looked like a lot of money. I do not want to magnify this too much. There are the figures and there is my authority. When I put the top price at $4 I am down a little from what it actually might have been. There was great difficulty in obtaining wheat at that time from the Argentine and Russia which forced the allies to depend almost entirely upon North America for their supply. If there had been no control the price might have gone higher than any of these estimates, but it was held down.
Have you ever noticed how prompt governments are to act when they want to hold down farm prices? Without any prodding, without any urging, without any goad being used, they jump to keep prices down. That is what happened in connection with the wheat at that time, 1916, 1917 and 1918. When you want governments to hold up prices even a wee bit, when you want them to give you a wheat board, how reluctant they are to act I Reluctant is hardly the word to use; how determined they are not to do itl We hear a lot about the hardships of the farmers and the beneficence of governments in the matter of relief seed, etc. That will not do for me. I will not sell my independence even though I am fed, or even though my neighbours are fed. It may be all right to keep them alive like you would an ox so that you can get some work out of them, but that is not Christianity, it is not even decent. I appeal to this government, to my old companions and friends, not to continue snatching wheat boards from us by peculiar orders in council, but to go forward and do something Do not wait for weeks to pass before it is

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
put into effect. This order in council referred to was passed on August 27, 1936, twenty-seven days after it should have been passed as provided by law and then was no good. This is the time-almost the first of July-to set the price for the coming harvest. It should be set at 87i cents basis Fort William, with no cussed rider to it such as burdened the orders in council of two years ago and last year. Is it done? Will it be done? The answer was made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that in addition to what the Turgeon commission reported favourably on, we would have a board and a minimum fixed price. There was nothing in the Turgeon commission report, except by implication, that there would be a fixed minimum price. You have to read closely between the lines to see even that, so closely that the Minister of Trade and Commerce relieved the anxiety of the western people by telling them that there would be a fixed minimum price. Do you think that I have not now the right to urge that price? When is the minister going to set the price? If he uses the board and the people out west the way that they have been used since the 27th of August, 1936, what kind of price are we going to get? Are we as representatives going to disband from this house and run the chance of similar treatment this fall? Once bitten, not twice shy, but many more times shy. Do you think we should trust the government to do the right thing, not on the 27th of August, but now, or say a week from now, when we and they get away? Do you think we should complacently trust them after what they did in 1936? If you think that, then "I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel." They should not ask us to go abroad and take it for granted that they are going to do something in the way of a price which will be in any wise acceptable to the people. Why strain our confidence in that way ? Why not " come across"? Why do not the government adopt the recommendation of the wheat sub-committee? I do not think it is any breach of confidence- if anyone thinks it is I will not say what I intend to say-to mention that this was not in council. The subcommittee of the government-four gentlemen, all capable men-met one from Alberta and the Liberal members from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and without one dissenting voice the subcommittee was asked for a board and for a price such as I have suggested, and we wanted it before this house prorogued. They-the sub-committee were not very anxious about acquiescing in that request, but after they had reported to the cabinet they came back and seemed quite agreeable.
FMr. Motherwell.]


William Daum Euler: Came back where?


William Richard Motherwell: But that is as far as it has gone. It would look as though the ones who are most responsible are the remaining members of the cabinet other than the four members of the subcommittee. I cannot get at the bottom of that. I do not think we are going to be flim-flammed by that kind of treatment. The subcommittee will get away with it on the ground that they made a recommendation to full council, and the rest of them will get away with it in any way they can. They will be down here, anyway, where little sentiment for wheat boards prevails, so it will not make much difference to them politically. If I am exaggerating or going farther than I should, let anyone who likes cast a stone.
I have been identified with the subject-matter of this legislation since its inception and even during its pre-natal stage,-when the late Doctor Douglas introduced the matter in a private bill in 1898, and for ten years before that. I do not like to obtrude the "I"

that "I" did this and the other. You can imagine what I was like in those days, forty years younger than I am now. You may be sure that I was somewhere around when this Manitoba grain act subject was first discussed. We made' pretty good progress until 1912-I will not say until the Tories came in, though things just happened that way, but the Tories were not a bit worse than we have been since. Then that precious sample market business was ingeniously worked into the picture, and the farmers bit like so many pikes-hungry ones too. To their astonishment they found that wheat grade mixing was ingeniously worked in at the request of Doctor Magill to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of that day; that is 1917. Anyone who wishes can look at the records; I have not them here. That was done through a minister of trade and commerce-I hope he is listening to this-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is in heaven.


William Richard Motherwell: I mean the present Minister of Trade and Commerce-who interviewed the Minister of Justice and got a decision that authority for a sample market presupposed mixing. What the grain trade cannot do when it comes to driving through the Grain Act is not worth talking about. But I must not dwell too long on that. I may mention what the farmers contributed-if you like, what they sacrificed-at that time to the cause of the allies. Will you not now let us check out a little bit on that credit-

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
not the stuff that is talked about up in the country of high altitudes; this credit of ours is a real credit-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: So is ours,


William Richard Motherwell: -so that we may get through this crisis without being told daily that we are "bumming" on eastern Canada. I admit that eastern Canada is helping us generously. We have been helped by both church and state, and we acknowledge it freely, but we are not selling our birthright because of that, or our conceptions of what is proper in these matters.
How would it be, Mr. Chairman, if we should now take recess? There is too much ammunition here to keep track of; my desk is full of it; hon. members want to prorogue; his excellency wants to sail; what am I going to do? I am going to stand by with this ammunition as long as I can stand up and deliver. I am going to call it half time with the hope and expectation of delivering the remainder of it some time to-day.


William Daum Euler: It is not my intention to follow
into all the by-ways traversed by the two
previous speakers.
In the opening remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) I was surprised to hear him intimate that the appointment of the Turgeon commission was not the result of the meeting of our parliamentary committee or of anything that was said in this house with regard to certain charges against Mr. Murray. His further criticism was that there has not been sufficient time for the discussion of the wheat board and its activities. As hon. members know, the report was laid on the table the very day after Mr. Justice Turgeon delivered the first report to me; it was laid on the table even before it was printed. The printed report was laid on the table within two weeks afterwards. Therefore, at least so far as the government is concerned, there was no delay in presenting the report to members of the house. That it is not possible perhaps to give it full consideration is not the fault of the government, and it is because of the importance of the recommendations that are made in the report that the government finally decided not to bring in this session any legislation that would implement some of the recommendations made by the commissioner. There may be, and there has been, some criticism with regard to that, but I would ask the committee to accept it as the reason. It had been the intention of the government to bring in legislation amending the grain act to provide for supervision of the Winnipeg grain ex-51952-282
change; but, as I said before, for the reason that, the house being in session, we were not able to give the question full consideration, we finally decided, rightly or wrongly, that the whole matter should be left over until next session. Then possibly there will be a complete revision of the grain act, and whatever may arise out of the report may be incorporated in that act.
The hon, member for Qu'Appelle complained about the length of time taken by the commissioner in the investigation and the submission of the report. He made a comparison between Judge Turgeon and Sir Josiah Stamp. No proper comparison is possible, because, if I remember rightly, Sir Josiah Stamp reported on just one question, that dealing with futures on the Winnipeg grain exchange, and that required only a few weeks. The order of reference to Judge Turgeon was vastly wider than that. Not only did it necessitate inquiries in Winnipeg and in every grain centre in the west, but the commissioner had to proceed to Europe and Great Britain, and as a natural consequence the report was delayed. I might give as another reason, though it may not be accepted as a good one, the fact that Judge Turgeon was the commissioner in charge of the investigation into the textile industry. For those reasons the grain report was somewhat delayed.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle dealt with three or four definite points. In the first place he criticized the delay in bringing in the report, and second-I am not using language that is too strong-his criticism was a defamation of three estimable gentlemen who have served the country well. One of these gentlemen is Colonel Ralston, who, the committee will admit, was one of the most valuable and reputable members of this house. Another was Mr. Murray, former chairman of the wheat board. The hon. member also criticized Mr. Mclvor, the present chairman of the wheat board, a man who was associated with Mr. McFarland, and I believe my hon. friend had a great deal of confidence in Mr. McFarland whose name he mentioned to-day. He used these terms, which I took down, and he will correct me if I am wrong. I believe his reference to Mr. Murray was as a criminal, and he referred to Mr. Mclvor as an accomplice in crime.


George Halsey Perley: That is figurative language, and the hon. gentleman knows it.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that. In another instance he spoke of the hangman. I leave it to the judgment of the committee whether that is



Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
proper language to use, even in jest, of any reputable men who have served the country well. I was going to use strong terms in condemning the bon. member's language-


George Halsey Perley: Why does the minister not address bis remarks to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell)? He spoke more disparagingly of Mr. Ralston.


William Daum Euler: I am not at the moment replying to the hon. member for Melville. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle made reference to men who are not in this house to defend themselves, and I say to him that if he puts himself in a position where they can defend themselves, they will take very good care of him. The other point of his speech was a criticism of the report itself, and finally he gave advice to the government as to the policy that should be pursued in connection with the wheat board for the coming crop year.
I am not going to go into all the ramifications of the charges made. The original charges against Mr. Murray as chairman of the wheat board were made in this chamber, as a result of which a parliamentary committee was appointed, of which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) were members. I happened to be the chairman of that committee. These charges were investigated by that committee; the report which was made to this house was unanimous, and certainly there was in the report no condemnation of Mr. Murray or anyone else.


George Halsey Perley: It did not exonerate him at all.


William Daum Euler: In the report the recommendation was made that a royal commission should be appointed to look into the matter of these charges, and of the whole question of wheat and the policy with regard to wheat. Judge Turgeon was appointed as royal commissioner; he made his investigations, and I need only say in regard to the charges made in that committee that the house can do nothing other than accept the report of the commissioner, with regard to the charges against Mr. Murray, that he had protected the shorts on a certain day; I believe it was in December, 1935. I will read one paragraph from the commissioner's report:
In answer to the question arising out of paragraph 3 of the order in council, I find, on the whole of the evidence that the members of the board cannot be said to have protected speculative short interests in the Winnipeg wheat market in December, 1935. The board, in the exercise of its legitimate discretion, decided that it was advisable to sell. They sold without, of course, knowing what propor-

tion of their sales would fall to speculators and what proportion to others: and I cannot see how a knowledge that short speculators were buying should have deterred them from selling, if they had such knowledge.
This being my opinion, the second question as to the effect of any such protection does not call for an answer.


George Halsey Perley: How many witnesses were called to prove that?


William Daum Euler: I was not present and I do not know how many witnesses were called, but there is the fact that the commissioner reports that no blame rests upon Mr. Murray.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not denied that they were protected by what took place; but the *commissioner says that they did not intend to do it.


William Daum Euler: It is true the result might have been to the advantage of speculators, but it is an entirely different thing to say that the action of the chairman of the board was calculated to protect the shorts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every man is supposed to know the effects of his own acts.


William Daum Euler: Absolutely not. My right hon. friend might buy wheat to-day, thinking there would be an increase in price, and yet it might go down. The hon. member also described Mr. Murray as a dictator, and I refer to that particularly because, knowing Mr. Murray as I do, I consider it was a most unjust attack. It was intended also to be a reflection upon the government, that he dictated to the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he did. He said he must hire his own people, and you remember what he said about taking office at all.


William Daum Euler: The action taken with respect to the advisory committee was due to the policy of the government and not to the desire of Mr. Murray.


George Halsey Perley: What about Murray's evidence at page 191?


William Daum Euler: The hon. member made
another statement, that there was a fire sale; that after McFarland retired from the board and Murray took charge, a fire sale was put on to the detriment of the wheat producers. I say distinctly that the policy which was adopted by the wheat board of offering wheat for sale at all times was not only what was called for very definitely in the wheat board act, put through this house by the then government, led by the present leader of the opposition, but was the considered policy of this government. We believed that this was the right policy to follow. I admit that there

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
is room for difference of opinion on that. No doubt my hon. friends on the other side believe that the policy followed by Mr. McFarland in accumulating almost 300 million bushels of wheat and keeping the whole wheat situation in a state of uncertainty may have been the right one. But this government thought otherwise, and Mr. Murray in offering wheat for sale at all times followed definitely the policy and desire of this government, with the result that we got rid of the wheat surplus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And lost $11,000,000 on
his operations.


William Daum Euler: But at one time we would have lost about $75,000,000 if we had followed the policy of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the answer is he did not, and he made $25,000,000 out of McFarland's wheat.


George Halsey Perley: The agreement was made without the knowledge of the government and was cancelled without the knowledge of the government the moment Murray met with the committee of the grain exchange. That is the evidence.


William Daum Euler: I do not know whether such an agreement ever was made.


George Halsey Perley: Last year I asked for the return, showing whether the government knew of that agreement, and the answer was: No. I asked a second question: Did they know when it was cancelled? And it was cancelled without the authority of the government and was made without their authority.


William Daum Euler: Quite right, and in the
language of the street, "So what?'' Certainly the government did not dictate to Mr. Murray in regard to any of his acts. But Mr. Murray, generally speaking, was carrying out the policy of this government in offering wheat for sale at all times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read these documents.


William Daum Euler: And that is also the law laid down in the wheat board act.


George Halsey Perley: He has done a number of things the government did not know.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle criticises the recommendations made by Judge Turgeon. That, of course, is his privilege. One recommendation was that there should be legislation to provide for the supervision of the grain exchange at Winnipeg. I was a little surprised when my hon. friend read a great many opinions, including 51952-2824
that of Mr. McFarland by the way, and, I think, of Mr. Murray and a good many others, that the Winnipeg grain exchange should be supervised. But he followed that up with a statement, or certainly the implication, that the grain exchange ought to be abolished altogether. I do not see the consistency of the two statements. I do not know what my hon. friend wants. Does he want the grain exchange supervised or abolished?


George Halsey Perley: I said the grain exchange in the open market could continue with a board but under proper supervision.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I misunderstood my hon. friend.
Another suggestion made by the commissioner is that wheat should be sold through the pools, and that the government should encourage the organization of pools to handle the sale of wheat, and, he said in so many words that ultimately he believed the government should get out of the wheat business altogether. With that I entirely agree. He also said that for the coming year-it was more or less a negative recommendation-the wheat board might continue. That answers the question my hon. friend asked this morning, or what I am going to say will answer it and also answer the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). As a result of that recommendation the government announced some weeks ago through myself that there would be a wheat board to handle the crop for the coming crop year and that a price would be set at an appropriate date.


George Halsey Perley: And participating certificates issued?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the law
requires.


William Daum Euler: I think it is utterly impossible under the wheat board act to set a price without participation; I think that naturally follows. What that price may be, I am not prepared to state, because the government had not considered that question. That will be done in due course.
There was another recommendation which at the moment I do not regard as of great importance, that there should be a wheat institute to promote the sale of wheat in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. In regard to that the wheat board itself, in the last year and the year preceding, has been doing that work. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition intimated that he thought they were spending that ;money illegally. I am not in a position at the moment to say anything as to that except

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
that it never occurred to me that they had not a perfect right to do anything they could to promote the sale of wheat, which it was their job to sell. Now that the wheat board is going to continue for the coming crop year, there is no doubt at all, because I spoke to the chairman about it, that he will continue those efforts to promote the sale of wheat both in Great Britain and on the continent.
In conclusion, just a word in regard to the demands of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. He demanded that we promise him, I suppose, or the house, certain things.


George Halsey Perley: The farmers of western Canada.


William Daum Euler: That we promise that we would have a wheat board with a fixed price and with participation, knowing all the time that the government had already stated their intention to do that very thing. But I suppose that would read well in the headlines.


George Halsey Perley: I have not any more confidence in the government than has the hon. member for Melville.


William Daum Euler: I would not expect my hon. friend to have much confidence in anything. And as someone over here says, it is the first time he has ever followed the hon. member for Melville. He will probably follow him only when he feels in sympathy with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not follow the hon. member for Melville, the hon. member for Melville followed him.


William Daum Euler: Well, probably the two hon. gentlemen will follow each other; perhaps they are good mates. He also demanded that we declare the full policy of the government with regard to wheat board matters. He demands a price of 874 cents. Here he and his mate are not quite in agreement; the hon. member for Melville was satisfied with 85 cents. They will have to get together and decide what they want.
As to what the price is going to be, I am not making any promise, for the simple reason that the government has not yet decided what that price shall be. In due course the price will be announced.
I do not know that I can say anything more in regard to policy. It seems to me that nothing more should, at this time, be demanded of the government by the committee. The committee is assured; the farmers of western Canada are assured, that there is going to be a wheat board operating during the coming crop year. They are assured that there will be a fixed minimum

price. They are assured that there will be participation, because there must be if the wheat board act is continued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The act is not repealed or amended.


William Daum Euler: Quite so; that is why I say that. If we had intended to do away with participation, it would be necessary to amend the wheat board act, and we have no such intention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; you did it by order in council the last two years. That is the point.


William Daum Euler: In conclusion, the policy of the government for the coming year with regard to the wheat board act is as I have stated it, pending decision during the coming year as to a permanent policy.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to make a few brief comments. First, I would refer to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). I have often found myself in disagreement with him. Indeed, on more than one occasion ideas which I hold have been subjected to his ridicule. But I realize that it took a great deal of courage to do what he did this afternoon, after so many years in this house, with so many associations with his party, to rise in his place and criticise the government and inferentially the party of which he has been so long-I say it quite sincerely-a distinguished member. This afternoon the hon. member for Melville answered something that I think we found it rather difficult to answer; that is, the suggestion that the agitation in the fall of 1936 against the government's action in connection with the wheat board was the result of political opposition to the government and particularly of the activity of some of us connected with this group. I think the former Minister of Agriculture demonstrated clearly this afternoon that this dissatisfaction not only was felt by people politically opposed to the party represented by the government but was widespread in the ranks of all parties, and included government supporters in western Canada. I was glad to hear the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler).


William Daum Euler: That was nothing new.


Major James William Coldwell: We were anxious to know definitely that there would be a wheat board; that it would operate continuously; that there would be a set minimum price, and that there would be participation certificates

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
during the coming year. I think that announcement made so categorically this afternoon will be welcomed generally.


William Daum Euler: Does my hon. friend not know that I made the same announcement some three weeks ago? Perhaps my hon. friend was away in Saskatchewan at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not realize that it was made quite so specifically. In common with a number of gentlemen supporting the minister I was, as he says, away in Saskatchewan when he made that announcement in the house. But it having been made this afternoon in this manner, I think it is much more satisfactory than I realized from the previous announcement.
With regard to the minimum price, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Melville when he says that our producers are entitled to minimum prices for their products. As I have said so frequently in the house, if our producers must buy in a protected market then the prices they get ought to be protected also; and from the votes taken in the house on the budget and the subamendment a short time ago, I think we may take it for granted that the government intends to maintain at least a certain amount of tariff protection. With regard to the set price, the minister stated that two previous speakers who had mentioned fixed prices had differed in the price suggested, but at the risk of making confusion worse confounded I am going to differ also and suggest to the minister that the proper way to fix a price is to take the results of investigations which have been made into the costs of production over a period of years. If the government will do that, I think they will find that the university of Saskatchewan has made fairly exhaustive studies of average prices and has stated rightly or wrongly-I believe rightly- that the cost of producing and delivering a bushel of wheat at Fort William amounts on the average, to $1.03, which is the figure suggested by Professors Allan and Hope of that university. Therefore, I say our producers are entitled to that consideration.
There is not much left for me to say after the announcement of the minister and particularly after the speeches of the hon. member for Melville and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), but we shall hope that when the permanent policy is brought down it will place in statutory form, that cannot and will not be upset by government orders in council, a fair and just price for the western producer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to take up any of the time of the committee with reference to the general discussion which has taken place, but I do wish to deal immediately and precisely with the allegation that in passing the order in council that has been the subject of discussion this afternoon the government believed in any way whatever that it was nullifying in any particular any provision of the wheat board act. From what the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) has said, one would assume that the government had deliberately sought to undermine the effect of an act which had been passed by this parliament, that we had tried to do by order in council what the statute would not permit us to do.
Two questions came up for consideration at the time the matter was being discussed in council. The first was that of the legal power of the government to take action along the lines it did. In connection with that aspect of the matter legal advice was taken by the government from the Department of Justice, and from the advice given us I was perfectly satisfied at the time, as I believe all my colleagues were, that under the provisions of the act we had authority to pass the order in council we did.
The other question that came up for consideration was whether or not our action in naming the price to which wheat would have to fall before it would be purchased by the board would meet with the approval of the wheat board itself. The wheat board was consulted before the figure of 90 cents was finally agreed to by the governor in council, and they approved it. The order in council was not passed, as I have said, until after we had reason to believe that we had full legal authority for what we were doing and also until we believed we were acting in accordance with what the wheat board itself considered to be the wise and right thing to do. There may be debate as to whether or not our judgment in the matter was right or wrong. I submit, however, that the record of prices from the time the order in council was passed up to the present shows pretty conclusively that our judgment was sound in the course we took. With respect to the powers we had, I think I have only to read the sections of the act that are pertinent and leave it to hon. gentlemen who wish to take a fair and unbiased view of the situation to say whether or not we were in their opinion justified in the view we entertained as to our powers under the act. Section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which refers to the powers of the board, is as follows:


George Halsey Perley: On what authority did he dismiss the advisory committee for which there is provision in the act?


William Daum Euler: It says only that there may be an advisory committee.


George Halsey Perley: An advisory committee had been set up.


William Daum Euler: It was not obligatory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was set up, though.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot answer the question, because I have not that information in my mind at the moment.


William Daum Euler: I am not a lawyer, but I would say it would naturally follow that if it is within the authority of the government to set up a board or not to set up a board, then there surely ought to be power to nullify action which had been taken.


George Halsey Perley: It does not say " may."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to ask two questions, but before doing so may I express my admiration of the courage and fine independence of spirit indicated this afternoon by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell). Those of us from Saskatchewan who know about the fight he has put up for cooperative marketing to the advantage of the farmers of that province know how well he has shown his integrity this afternoon by carrying his views to their logical conclusion. As I heard him speak, I could not help thinking of what Tennyson made Ulysses say:
You and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil.
My only regret is that the great party to which the hon. member belongs could not see fit to keep pace with him.
The statement has been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and was made in Saskatchewan [DOT]repeatedly by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), that there would be a wheat board. Are we, from that, to understand definitely that the operation of the Wheat board will not be contingent upon any price level? The Prime Minister pointed out a moment ago that constitutionally the government had the power to pass the order in council. I am not concerned with the constitutional aspect of the matter, but I am concerned with the fact that the effect of that order in council was to make the wheat board inoperative.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
The minister says we are going to have a wheat board. We have a wheat board, but it is a wheat board which .cannot take delivery of wheat until the price hits 90 cents. Are we to have that kind of wheat board, one which will operate only when the price hits a certain level? Will it be operative to-day and not operative to-morrow, operative this week and not operative next week? Is the minister prepared to assure us it will be a wheat board which will take delivery of wheat, irrespective of the price level? That is my first question.
My second question is this: Is the minister prepared to give us the assurance that a fixed minimum price will be announced within a reasonable period before wheat is being placed on the market by the producers? The farmers ought to know now what the fixed price is going to be. When I was in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago wheat was leaving the elevators as seed wheat, under a federal government guarantee, and farmers were signing notes for SI.45 a bushel. On the other hand wheat was going into the elevator at 72 cents a bushel. I was in a municipal office and saw a man signing a note for wheat which had been supplied to him by a mortgage company. That note was for wheat at the rate of $1.70 a bushel. That man will .probably bring back three bushels for every bushel he received from the mortgage company. If prices continue at the average present level, he will bring back two bushels of wheat for every bushel received.
I say the farmers have a right to expect that long before they are drawing their wheat to the elevators they will know something about what the price will be. I would, therefore, ask the minister these questions: First, will the operations of the wheat board be contingent upon the price level on a particular day and, second, will farmers be given notice, within a reasonable period of time before wheat is being put on the market, as to what the fixed minimum price for wheat will be this fall?


William Daum Euler: I have already stated the government has not yet considered what the price should be. I would add that nothing in connection with the fixing of that price, or any modifying or restrictive price, has been considered.
With respect to the second question as to whether or not a decision will be made within a reasonable time as to the fixing of a price, the answer is in the affirmative. I might add that the decision with respect to the first question will also be made within a reasonable time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order that I might not misunderstand may I ask this: Do I understand the minister is not prepared to give the assurance that there will not be the same danger as before of an inoperative clause which will say that until the price hits a certain level the wheat board will not take delivery?


William Daum Euler: I cannot give any assurance, because the matter has not been discussed or decided upon by the government. That is my reason for saying I cannot give an assurance. It is a matter of policy, and I am not authorized to make statements with regard to policy. The matter has not been decided upon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In other words, when the minister says there will be a wheat board he means there will be a wheat board with qualifications.


William Daum Euler: No; I am not saying that at all. I am saying there will be a wheat board and a minimum price, and the other matter in connection with it, as to what the price shall be, is to be decided within a reasonable time. I think that is quite clear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I must differ with the minister; I do not think it is clear. It is clear there will be a wheat board and a fixed minimum price, but it is not clear that the wheat board will accept delivery of wheat.


William Daum Euler: No; that is not decided. My answer with regard to it is clear, that there will be a decision within a reasonable time.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said there would be participation certificates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in the statute; he cannot help saying it.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; it is statutory. But that is only if the board takes delivery.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: The inference which has been taken is this, that the participation certificate means that the farmer will be able to deliver to that board every day of the year, and will participate to the extent of the average price. That is the interpretation which has been and is being placed in western Canada upon the participation certificate. Now we learn that while it is statutory, there is no guarantee that the board will operate in the manner it is expected to operate by the farmers of the west.
4462	COMMONS
Supply-Trade-Grain Commission


William Daum Euler: It is statutory that if the board purchases wheat and sells it for a price higher than that at which it purchases, there will be participation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; when it buys it will give a participation certificate.


William Daum Euler: Yes, a participation certificate which will ensure that if the wheat is sold at a price higher than is paid for it, the producer will get the balance. Perhaps it may be difficult to satisfy all hon. members, but I do say that the decision with regard to price and everything connected with it will be made within a reasonable time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not
nullify the effect of the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did. Not a
single bushel of wheat was bought, or could be bought. That is what nullified the statute. Everybody knew that when they saw the order in council. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) put his finger on the [Mr. ColdwellJ
point at once. He told us that the minute he read the order in council he knew it would not work. Why? Because it fixed the price to which wheat was to fall or to which it was to rise before the statute became operative. Not a single bushel of wheat was bought by the board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the price
of wheat had fallen to 80 cents, would not the act have operated? '


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it had fallen to 50
cents it would have operated, but the point is that you imposed a condition which prevented it from operating.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no gainsaying
that. Everybody knew that. Ask the farmer; ask the boy who knows nothing about it. The hon. member for Melville said that he saw at once that the act was prevented from operating by the order in council. That operated pro tanto as a repeal of the act.


William Daum Euler: It would not necessarily
operate in that way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did.


William Daum Euler: Nobody could see that it
would.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Anybody could foresee
that it was intended to operate in that way.


William Daum Euler: It was to prevent farmers
from receiving prices at a ruinous point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To prevent them from
falling?


William Daum Euler: Yes, below 90 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the intention was
to prevent the board from buying a bushel of wheat, and it succeeded. It was intended to permit the grain trade to monopolize the business, as they did. Not a single bushel of wheat was bought by the wheat board. That is the answer. It is no good to be righteously indignant about this. The fact is that not one bushel of wheat was bought. The grain trade monopolized the business that was intended to be divided between private and public concerns. Read the debates in this parliament. Read the story of the debate that brought this wheat board into being. The story was simple. It was that the farmers of western Canada should have an alternate market; they were to have the public market or the private market. They could go to the wheat board, on the one hand, or to the private interests, on the other. But they were denied the right to go to the public board; they were driven to

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
the private grain trade. Every bushel of wheat sold by the farmers of western Canada since the expiration of the crop year in which the government came into office has passed through private hands.


William Daum Euler: They got a good price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The fact that they got a good price is not the answer. The answer is that they were deprived of their alternate market. There is another answer, which is a complete one. It is the one made by the bon. member for Melville-the farmers did not share in the profit.


William Daum Euler: They got the going price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; they got the going price, but the private interests made the profit that should have gone to the farmer under the participation certificates. That is the point exactly. That is the whole story. That is the point made to-day by the hon. member for Melville. He complains because this board has not functioned. It has not functioned because an order in council was passed that rendered it impossible for the board to function. It is admitted that this is so. There is no denial of it. The profit that went to the private interests is a profit that would have gone to the farmers of this country under the participation certificates. That is the whole story.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They did not do that the previous year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one says they did. I am talking about 1936-37 and 1937-38.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my right hon. friend say that there should have been a guarantee of a profit on the board's operations in 1936-37 when there might have been a loss as there was in 1935-36?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the minister
realizes that no one is talking about guarantees.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend is talking about profits that were denied to the farmers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nobody was talking about guarantees. I want to make that clear to the minister.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is no point in such a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There was no profit in 1935-36.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The farmers got 874 cents, and the country paid $11,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understood my right hon. friend to say there would be a profit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) has just said, that there was a profit. I say that profit did not go to the farmers of the country.
Mr. EUiLER: Does my right hon. friend think the theory of the act should be that there should be a profit guaranteed to the farmers by the Canadian government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not suggested that. I am not talking about the theory of the act; I am talking about the operation of the act. I am pointing out to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) that there was a great profit last year, but it did not go to the farmers. They would have derived the benefits of that profit had there been participation certificates.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend has no warrant for making such a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say they would have participated in the profits.


William Daum Euler: They got the market price.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They got the market price at which the wheat was hauled in, in the fall, but that is not the price which the ultimate consumer paid. The best answer is that there is a spread of 25 cents. What price is the farmer paying at the elevator for the seed wheat the wheat board took over? Under what authority did they take it? The farmers of Saskatchewan are paying $1.45 a bushel. At what did they take it from the wheat board? They took it at $1.24. By what authority? For what was the profit of 20 cents a bushel? What authority had they to do that? That is the figure given to me by the minister. He is the one who said that the wheat board sold at $1.45.


Mr. GARDINER:: The price that will be finally charged to the farmer has not yet been set.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister himself said that the price would be $1.45.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never made the statement that the price was set at $1.45. Read the record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has said that the price has not been set, so that settles that. I was basing my argument on the statement that the price was $1.45. There is no getting away from the fact that this act was intended *to be for the benefit of the farmers of west-

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
ern Canada. They complained of tariffs and this was to be the compensating adjustment. They were told that if there was a loss, the country would bear it. But the fact is that not a bushel of wheat has passed into the possession of the wheat board for two years. Why? Because the government passed an order in council that made it impossible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because the price of wheat was higher than the minimum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the government passed an order in council that said it would not operate until wheat fell to 90 cents. I ask the government if they will give me a fiat to test that order in council in a court of law? I will take the case myself. Let me test the validity of that order in council. Let us have it referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us find out whether the executive of this country has the right to pass an order in council that renders nugatory the provisions of a statute when there is no authority to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not what was done here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what was done. There cannot be any difference of opinion about that because not a single bushel of wheat passed into the elevators for the wheat board in 1936-37; not one bushel- which is the test. I know farmers who went to elevators and were willing to take the risk. They said, "We will take a chance," and they wanted to give their thousand bushels of wheat to the wheat board. They were not concerned about the price. That was not a matter of importance. They wanted a participation certificate, to share in that rise in price. Could they do it? That is the test. Farmer A goes to-day to Okotoks with 1,000 bushels of wheat, as he did last fall, and asks to put it in the elevator for the wheat board. He cannot do so. Why? Because the price of wheat is not as low as 90 cents. He was willing to take the chance. He wanted the alternate market; he wanted a participation certificate; he wanted the opportunity, believing as he did that wheat was going to rise in price, to share in that rise. Could he do so?


William Daum Euler: What chance would he possibly be taking under those circumstances?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was willing to take a chance by selling to the wheat board. He was bound then to get the very highest price at which the wheat was sold.


William Daum Euler: He was bound to get the
price at which it was ultimately sold. He was not taking a chance at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He would take a chance on making some money. He would take a chance of participating in a rising market.


William Daum Euler: Exactly. The chances were all in his favour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly.


William Daum Euler: He could not lose out, because the government would lose if the price went below 87i cents, and he must win if the price went above that. It was " Heads I win and tails you lose."


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the difference between giving it to the farmer and giving it to the gambler?


William Daum Euler: That is not the point at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In one year seven billion bushels were handled in the Winnipeg grain exchange. Does the hon. gentleman mean to tell me that he can justify that? That one fact convinced me more than all other arguments together that we must have control. I ask every reasonable man in this house whether he does not agree, when he is confronted with the evidence that seven billion bushels of wheat were 'bought and sold on the market in Winnipeg in one year when the crop was hedged to the extent of less than two hundred million bushels, and when the total crop amounted to about three hundred and five million bushels. I ask, apart from partisan feeling and political differences, whether any member of this committee thinks that-kind of thing can be justified.


Mr. THORSON:: What did the Stamp commission say about it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Stamp commission said it should be supervised.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No; on the matter of speculation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say that I wrote the question, because I was anxious to have the opinion upon it of that economist, a disinterested man. The simple question was whether or not the sale of futures was advantageous or otherwise to the farmer, and the answer was that it was, but that there should be supervision.


William Daum Euler: Was there? Was supervision provided for?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell the hon. gentleman. In the wheat board act we had a provision that would enable us to wipe that practice out altogether.


William Daum Euler: When was the Stamp report brought in?

Supply-Trade

Grain Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1932 or 1933.


William Daum Euler: And the wheat board did not come into existence for three years after that. What action was taken to provide for supervision in the interval?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not any.


William Daum Euler: Why?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why? Because we were controlling the market. Against the efforts of those who are now the government, we were controlling the market. That is the reason. And that is the reason why the whole grain exchange was arrayed against the then government. I could, with respect to that, unfold a tale which would amuse the hon. gentleman. I know what I am talking about. I know what their efforts were. I know who conducted them. I know the contributions made to the end that the government should be destroyed. They were quite within their rights, because they thought they were fighting for their lives. That control was the reason it was not necessary to do more than make this adjustment. That was done, and 205 million bushels of wheat passed into the hands of Murray at the lowest price of the year.


William Daum Euler: There was hardly a permanent arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And there was put through this house a measure which provided for a loss which, under the order in council, was only to be estimated when the .business was wound up. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said there was no chance of its ever being other than a loss; yet I find that he has received $8,000,000, and according to the report I have under my hand, out of that same wheat a profit was made which wiped out the loss of $8,000,000 that Murray made.


William Daum Euler: Not quite. There is still a loss of over $2,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I asked the minister, and he told me he could not give it to me.


William Daum Euler: The right hon. gentleman must remember-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I asked the minister if he could give me the amount. What does he mean now by saying it involves this sum of money, when he told me he could not give it to me until the adjustments were made?


William Daum Euler: I gave the right hon. gentleman absolutely everything I had.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does he mean now by saying there was a loss of $2,000,000?


William Daum Euler: I will give the right hon. gentleman the answer in a moment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He told me he could not give me the figures. I have under my hand the last report, up to June 18, and it shows that they still have some grain on hand. It shows the $11,000,000 as being paid out of the profits made by McFarland. It shows that $8,000,000 came to this government-


William Daum Euler: And $6,600,000 went back.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Went back where?


William Daum Euler: For the equalization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I hold in my hand a document containing a statement to June 18, 1938. It is the auditors' report. I turn to exhibit A, and here are the words of that document:
Funds on deposit with banks. .. $ 4,642,430 90 Funds transferred to dominion
government	 8,000,000	00
Due from No. 1 account re 1935
crop deficit	 11,858,104	18
Due from No. 3 account re 1936
crop deficit	
49,574	88Due from seed and feed account.	152,573	88Total	$24,702,683 84Less: Due on Saskatchewan government account	
50,570 00
Surplus on No. 2 account.. .. $24,652,113 84


James Garfield Gardiner: If I remember rightly, the $6,600,000 which was paid up on the 1936 crop was taken out of the consolidated fund. What the minister has just said is that if you wanted to get what would be the actual total regarding the whole wheat operation, that amount would still have to be taken into consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reading from the report of the Canadian wheat board. There is now on deposit with the banks $4,642,430.90. The dominion government have had $8,000,000 transferred to them, and they had a great deal more than that for quite a long time. But then it was transferred back. It was on deposit here, and given back, according to this report.


William Daum Euler: But this $6,600,000 never entered into the funds of the wheat board at all; it went out of the dominion treasury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is recouped, and more than recouped to the dominion treasury.


William Daum Euler: Not if you take the 1935 operations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have nothing to do with the 1935 operations. The dominion

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
government has already had $8,000,000. There is due from No. 1 account; that is, they have appropriated, $11,000,000 of McFarland's wheat money to pay the deficit of 1935, making a total of about $24,000,000. The $6,000,000 which was paid out of the dominion treasury, plus the $15,000,000, makes $21,000,000; the total is $24,000,000. That is the position. These auditors certify that this does not take into consideration the $6,000,000.


William Daum Euler: The wheat board auditors had nothing to do with the $6,600,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course they had not.


William Daum Euler: But the government had to pay it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is more, they made a profit. They have taken the $8,000,000-


William Daum Euler: The right hon. gentleman
has already put that in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I say they have
taken the $8,000,000 against the $6,000,000; they have got back the $15,000,000, and they have used it to pay the deficit of 1935. In other words, the compensating adjustment which we used to talk about to the farmers of western Canada, which was to be provided for, because they were to have the opportunity of an alternate market, which is now denied them, resulted in this terrible "burden" that was talked so much about. The auditors' report shows that McFarland had a surplus of $24,692,000. It shows also that quite a substantial part of it has not yet been disposed of. The minister informs me that it is in process of disposition, but he cannot give the exact figures until that process is complete. So that the Saskatchewan government has paid the wheat board $9,200,000 for wheat it has bought on account, and there has been delivered wheat for $8,983,299.10. This is according to exhibit No. 2. There is the result-a surplus of $24,692,000. That surplus is available to pay the $6,000,000. It is available also to pay the $15,000,000 which this country improperly paid, in order to make political capital, as a business man once said, probably the most discreditable operation that ever took place in parliament, in face of a written document which stated that payment should not be made until the ultimate liability was established. In the face of that, they paid it. Well, you add $6,000,000 and $15,000,000 and you get $21,000,000.


William Daum Euler: Do not forget the $11,000,000 loss in 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking about that; I am talking about McFarland's operations. Here are the documents that show a surplus in these operations of $24,000,000, there being still adjustments to be made-a surplus which pays the $6,000,000 and the $15,000,000, leaving something towards the payment of the $11,000,000. I do not know how much that will be. When we get down to the 1935 operations, I have not time this evening to go over these documents; but they will be here, and if I am not here then, somebody else will be who will take these sales and analyse them. When you look at the sales for 1935 and 1936 you will understand why there was a loss. All you have to do is take the weekly reports. The law required them to offer wheat for sale, but if you analyze these reports you will know why the term "fire sale" is used. There is no trouble about that. Read the reports; I have read them all. I have seen the sales for June, 1935; I have seen the sales on single days, and I know exactly what is meant by the term. That is the reason why the discussion has taken place as to the benefits that accrued bo certain interests. It is all very well for the commissioner to say that they did not intend to do it, but there are the documents and they speak for themselves. I ask any hon. gentleman to take the reports, which are given for every week in the year commencing in 1935, before this government came into office, and coming down to June 18, 1938, and to read those reports. If you will read them you will understand why there was a surplus of $24,000,000 on one account and why there was a loss of $11,000,000 on the other; for remember that during the crop period they were not selling McFarland wheat; they were bound not to, as a matter of fact; Mr. Murray made that clear before the committee.
If one did justice to this subject, one would deal with it methodically and carefully from beginning to end; but I realize that we are now at the end of the session and I do not propose to do more than state the propositions which I have put forward, which do not admit of denial. A farmer who desired to use the alternate market, having 1,000 bushels of wheat last fall, and to get the participation certificate, taking his chance, was denied that right by the passing of an order in council which renders nugatory the provisions of the wheat board act in that regard. I will ask any student of law whether or not any body given power to impose conditions can impose a condition that renders nugatory the operation of the statute under which they are given that power. That is the issue, shortly put. It is put in other

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
words by a layman, the hon. member for Melville, but I put it in this way to members of the committee who belong to the legal profession, and who know that the foundation of all our liberty lies in the fact that it is not competent for any body, in the exercise of a power conferred upon it, to impose a condition which prevents the exercise of the power for which it was created. That is elementary, and it is for that reason that I have objected to the orders in council of 1935 and 1936. When the minister says to the committee that the wheat board is to be made operative; that there is to be a wheat board, I tell him that there is a wheat board now. The statute has not been amended or repealed since we passed it in July, 1935; it still stands, and it can be prevented from operating only by an act of this parliament.
The hon. member for Melville has pointed out that Colonel Ralston at that time, on behalf of the opposition, endeavoured to have an amendment passed by which the act would lapse automatically. We objected; we said no. We said that parliament should act; that the government has no longer to pass a wheat board act because there is one on the statute books,


William Daum Euler: That is quite conceded. I did not intend to give the impression that the government could refuse to allow the board to act without repealing or modifying the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are at one there. There remains, then, but one thing to be done. The government should fix a price so as to express approval or disapproval of the recommendation made by the board, because the responsibility rests in the first place with the board. As I pointed out, away back in 1935 the board recommended a price far in excess of 874 cents, to which we would not agree, and finally after discussion and negotiation we reached 874 cents, which they recommended and the governor in council approved.


William Daum Euler: Very reluctantly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman was not a member of that administration.


William Daum Euler: I have heard it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not heard it from anybody within the government. The price of 874 cents was approved because an effort was made to have a higher price, which the government did not regard as reasonable under the then existing conditions. The government now have to do only two things: one, to secure the recommendation of the board; two, to approve. They need not approve the recommendation if they do not regard it as
satisfactory, but they cannot impose a condition which prevents the board from operating, and be within the law; for every farmer has a right to that alternate market which the order in council has denied him; and if he was willing to take his chance, waiting until the crop year ended, that he might have the value of his participation certificate determined, he should have been permitted so to do. The government prevented him from doing that. That is common ground, and it is for that reason I have suggested that the validity of the order in council should be referred to the supreme court. It cannot be litigated, but it should be referred to the supreme court, the simple question being: Can an order in council be passed that renders it impossible for a farmer to sell his wheat to the wheat board? That is the only question. This order in council prevents him from doing so. He was not bound to wait for 90 cents or 80 cents or 50 cents; if he wanted to, he could go and sell his wheat for 60 cents to the wheat board. Then he could get his participation certificate and wait until the end of the crop year. He might get 20 cents or 10 cents or nothing. But he judged, not the government; he determined, not the government; he was taking the chance of winning something on the increased price of wheat if there was one, and he took the chance of getting nothing if there was nothing.


William Daum Euler: He could not lose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He might, if wheat
dropped below 60 cents.


William Daum Euler: But he was to get 60 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could not get less than 60 cents, if that is what the hon. gentleman means. But he had a right to that alternate market, and that alternate market has been denied him. The essence of our whole effort in this house in July, 1935, was to provide the farmer of western Canada with an alternate market: private trade, public buyer- which? In the one case you take your money and say, "Good-bye, I am through"; in the other you take your money and your participation certificate, and you may get something or you may not.


William Daum Euler: Was it the intention of the government that the wheat board legislation should be of a permanent nature?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was intended that if circumstances made it requisite, it was there. That is the reason why in committee I pointed out that a provision which would automatically lapse was unsound; that conditions in this world are so uncertain that we should have it there, and that if the time came

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
when it was thought desirable to repeal it we could do so. But parliament would do it, not we.


William Daum Euler: But as long as it was there, it would have to be operated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite, until parliament repealed it.


William Daum Euler: But the intention in the first instance, I take it, was not that it was of a permanent nature. My right hon. friend said it would be there in case it were needed. So it necessarily follows that years might come when it would not be needed; then what becomes of the alternative market of which my right hon. friend speaks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as the statute remained on the statute books, it was to be operated. We declined to consider the proposal made in the committee or in this chamber to make possible its automatic lapsing, believing that parliament itself must consider all the circumstances before the statute should cease to be part of the machinery of this country for dealing with the wheat crop.


William Daum Euler: I was merely trying to establish what was in the mind of the then government. Was this alternative market, of which my right hon. friend speaks so highly, always to be preserved for the farmer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was for parliament to consider. In the light of the conditions that then prevailed, we believed the statute should be continued until parliament decided otherwise; that is the fair way to put it.


Mr. QUELCH:: At the first session of this parliament we in this corner moved a resolution urging the government to guarantee the farmers of western Canada a minimum price for wheat based on the cost of production. At this time we should like again to take the opportunity of urging on the government that they fix a price based on the cost of production of wheat. A little while ago the minister stated there would be a wheat board, there would be a fixed price and there would be participation. A little later he qualified that, saying that we might or might not have a wheat board in operation this fall; that is, the wheat board may be buying wheat or it may not. We may have a fixed price based on the cost of production, or again it may not be based on the cost of production. We may have participation, or on the other hand we may not have participation.


William Daum Euler: If the board buys wheat, you will have participation.
[Mr. Bennett.J


Victor Quelch: But you are not guaranteeing that you are going to buy wheat. In other words, the first statement really meant nothing. It means that there will be a fixed price, but there is no guarantee what the price will be, it may be only 20 cents a bushel. And there is no guarantee that the wheat board is going to operate. So we take this opportunity again to urge the government that the wheat board shall operate this fall, no matter what the price; that is, that the wheat board shall buy wheat irrespective of whether the market price falls below the fixed price; and, second, that the fixed price shall be definitely based on the cost of production.


Mr. McDONALD (Souris):: I urge upon
the government that when setting the price of wheat they do not forget durum wheat, because Manitoba farmers, and I believe many farmers in Saskatchewan, are very much concerned about the price they are likely to get for durum wheat.
I do not like the way in which the government handled wheat during the last two years, but I am sure the western farmers will be very much pleased to have the announcement made by the minister to-day. I know it was made before, but I believe it was more specific to-day. We know now that we are going to have a board and a minimum price, and that there will be participation certificates. When the government are setting that price I urge that they be not afraid to make it fairly high. I believe the government are afraid that we shall get a 400 million bushel wheat crop this year. The best thing that could happen to Canada to-day would be to get a wheat crop of that size. It would solve the railway problem and the relief problem-there would be no need of relief-business would be good; the revenues of the country would be greatly increased, and Canada would have much less trouble in financing than she has to-day.
I am sure western Canada would make this offer to all Canada, that if the tariff be done away with she will ask for no relief and no protected price on wheat. Let industry stand on its own feet and the farmers of the country will stand on theirs. I know western Canada is willing and able to make that offer. I hope the government will not forget the durum wheat growers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


William Richard Motherwell: The old man has
now got his second wind, and intends to use it. Pardon me if I take a minute or two to unlimber my ammunition wagon.

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
The things we have been speaking about this afternoon are as chicken-feed compared with what I should like to tell the committee if I can stick it out-and I am going to stick it out. I have my braces on; I left my belt off. But I have in its place, we hope, my shield and buckler.
Three years ago, more or less, I received from John Glossop, the superintendent of the old government terminal elevator at Port Arthur, a communication in which he made a large number of serious charges, and a number of helpful suggestions as well, with regard to the carrying on of that terminal elevator under the auspices of the McCabe Brothers, which had then been converted into a semi-public terminal. "Semi-public terminal" was always a misnomer; it is a mixing elevator, semi-mixing if you like, but altogether mixing now.
Glossop wrote me about February, 1935. There was no use in doing anything about those charges at that time, for the simple reason that you could not do anything with them successfully just before an election. It would always be cast up that it was an election dodge. Besides, I did not know then just what merit there was behind the charges, and not much about Mr. Glossop; although he had thirty years of experience in terminal elevators, and sixteen of those years were in the government owned terminal elevator. Therefore he was an employee of the government, and surely, holding that position for all those years, his statement should not be passed up carelessly. It came from him voluntarily; he had communicated first with Mr. Coote regarding the same matter. Mr. Coote could not see his way clear to take any action with the information, and before I had an opportunity to do so this grain commission was appointed. When they got into action I placed Mr. Glossop's charges in the hands of Mr. Ralston. counsel for the commission.
All I am going to tell hon. members now, or a great deal of it, has been placed before several members of the government, including the Prime Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, and one other minister outside that grain sub-committee, whom I regarded very highly, and to whom I talked as man to man, as one privy councillor to another. I gave the same manuscript, the same statements regarding the administration of the grain act under the present chairman of the board of grain commissioners, to this minister, whose name I feel in honour bound not to mention, 'because I wanted to make sure that this information was getting to all the cabinet
and not merely those to whom I had sent this evidence. I hoped that between what I supplied them with and what they knew of me they would believe I was in earnest, and I hoped also they would take the initiative, without leaving it to me to investigate these matters and seeing to it that these practices were discontinued.
With regai-d to Mr. Ramsay, the chairman of the board, I gave the information to one of his colleagues when he was here about two weeks ago. I told Mr. Hamilton personally some of the things I am going to tell the committee now, so that the information would go to Mr. Ramsay and he would not be unprepared. I gave the same information to another hon. member who, I knew, would send it to the Minister of Mines and Resources. I gave everybody warning, so that I could not possibly be accused of taking advantage of my position here to make these statements in parliament. I did everything I could think of becoming a man so that everybody would be given fair warning.
Why should it be necessary for me to go into these matters? I have not time to go into them minutely, but I will go into them sufficiently to convince hon. members that it is time somebody took action in Canada if we are to preserve the quality of our wheat in the markets of the world. I know I am thought a hobbyist on this question, but I also know that the quality of our wheat is the one asset in the west that keeps us out of the poor-house. Tamper with the quality, and you strike at the very root of successful agriculture in the west. As I said a short time ago, ever since this act came into force, or at least ever since 1912, it has been violated at every opportunity; and if there were not an opportunity, one was made. Now it is my duty to show one more opportunity that has been and is being taken advantage of right up to this day.
I think I will tell my story without this confounded volume of evidence before me. It is so messed up, with four lawyers questioning Mr. Glossop, that it is hard to know just what he was saying. Like myself, he was pretty well bushed in the ears; he had a poor voice as well, and was not a very good witness. But out of the mouths of babes and sucklings-and even the Mr. Glossops- sometimes comes wisdom. I have here some eighteen charges that he made, giving the dates, the boats and the mixtures that went out of this McCabe elevator, where the mixing of the four top grades was prohibited. These questions came before this royal grain commission, with all these lawyers, and this is

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
what was said by the commissioner himself, if you please:-
The board of grain commissioners is the proper tribunal to hear these charges. Whatever evidence is taken here or whatever other evidence need not be taken here should be forwarded to the board.
That is, the board of grain commissioners, whose conduct was under observation, and who would be sitting in judgment on themselves. Is that not a remarkable thing? Then Mr. Ralston said:
I was not going into these in detail, but I was going to have him speak generally of his knowledge of these transactions-
He is referring to Mr. Glossop now.
-reported here and then turn him over to my learned friends for any examination they may have.
That is, to Mr. Pitblado, Mr. Coyne and Mr. Haffner, the last gentleman representing McCabe Brothers.. Then Mr. Glossop refers to the J. J. Donovan and two parcels of 10,000 bushels each.
That was one of the last parcels before you left?
A. Yes.
Q. What took place there?
A. An order for ten thousand bushels of No. 4 Northern was shipped in one hold. After the boat left the superintendent was told by the inspection department the grade was too low. Arrangements were made for the boat's return for an additional 10,000 bushels of 4 Northern. This second lot was made up of 3 Northern and Garnet tough 2 Northern, the average of the two lots making up the grade.
The particular offence charged here was allowing a boat, after it had received a grade, to come back and have that grade jacked up by the addition of other wheat. I think that was the outstanding offence here, because most people take it for granted, that No. 1 cannot be mixed with No. 4, though in my opinion this is very doubtful. I merely refer to this to show the committee, as I will in another place also, that Mr. Ramsay, the administration of whose department was in question, according to his own evidence knew there was some reflection being made on him. But what a glorious prospect it is for a potential offender to be given an opportunity of reviewing and sitting in judgment upon his own conduct! I know of only one other case of that kind in history. We might well go on a jaunt and a jag if the officer in charge would hand us over to ourselves for condemnation or approbation, to adjudicate upon ourselves.
There is one notable example, however, of this being tried once before. There is no record of it, because the records all disappeared somehow, but it was the famous or, if you like the other word, the infamous Hyndman commission. Those who did not like that

commission called it infamous; those who did like it omitted the prefix. That commission never reported. I searched the library in vain to find any vestige or trace of a report by the Hyndman commission. There is no doubt that it sat all through the west, right out to Alberta, through broad Saskatchewan and a little bit in Manitoba.
Then we find a man named Henderson occupying the same position in the United Grain Growers terminal elevator as Mr. Glossop occupied in the government elevator at Port Arthur for many years, until 1933, that of superintendent. The United Grain Growers were outraged at the thought that their business was being investigated. I have before me a resolution passed by the Canadian Council of Agriculture, and if necessary I can refer to another one drawn up by the vice-president of the United Grain Growers, whose name for the moment I have forgotten. In the document before me we find what they said about what they considered at that time to be an outrage.
But what was done last summer or last fall? In this instance, they handed over the charges to the one whose conduct was under observation and asked him to look into the matter-to look into his own conduct-and to report later to the commission. So that in the last instance we have the government passing the buck to the royal grain commission, and the commission passing the buck to Mr. Ramsay. Good Mr. Ramsay in due course passed the buck to Doctor Geddes, whose report will be recited in a few moments. This is what the resolution set out:
That to appoint as a member of the inquiry board-
And this was the Hyndman commission. Possibly I would do well to first give the names of the gentlemen who formed that commission. These were men of renown and of high standing in the community. Hon. members of the legal profession will know Mr. Justice Hyndman who, I understand, is now resident in Ottawa. Before I forget it may I say that a member of the library staff informed me he telephoned Mr. Justice Hyndman to ask where his report could be found, and said that it could not be found in the library. Mr. Justice Hyndman stated that he never did give a report. Well, now, that is funny- never did give a report. No evidence of Mr. Henderson which was taken before itl
Nothing daunted at my lack of success in tracing the history of this wonderful commission

and I do not say that in any offensive way-I found this information in the Canadian Annual Review of 1921. That is not

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
necessarily an official document, not at all; but it is usually fairly authentic. If any hon. member or minister thinks he is unjustly dealt with in this matter, he will have an opportunity to say where the record is wrong. It is the only record I can find. If the real record is not to be found, I cannot be blamed for taking the next best. I want to get at the facts, and to find the precedent for the present chairman of the board of grain commissioners being handed an opportunity of trying himself and of reporting back to the commission. This is what is contained in paragraph 2 at page 469 of the Canadian Annual Review:
That to appoint as a member of the inquiry board one who for nine years (Mr. Staples) has sat as a member of the board of grain commissioners, and whose failure properly to administer the grain act would constitute the principal ground for appointing a board of inquiry, is a fundamental breach of the principles of any inquiry conducted in the spirit of British law, and, therefore, is highly undesirable in the public interest.
If we apply that language, which was expressed with respect to the United Grain Growers and officers thereof, to the present situation, it would seem that this is exactly what was done by the royal grain commission of 1936-37 with the chairman of the board of grain commissioners. That is almost incredible, is it not? Here are the names of the commissioners: Hon. J. D. Hyndman, of the Alberta bench; W. D. Staples, of Fort William-the gentleman who was a member of the board of grain commissioners-J. H. Haslam, of Regina, and Lincoln Goldie, of Guelph. That was a pretty well qualified 'body of men; quite as good as the average, I would say.
If you will notice, in those days they were not satisfied with only one royal commissioner. There were four on that commission. Despite that fact, there is no record of any report given or of any evidence taken.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) was at that time president of the United Grain Growers. He may correct me if I am wrong, because I have only this book and the newspaper files in the library from which I can get information in the matter. When the evidence of Henderson was given in which an affidavit was provided by a gentleman whose name I do not recall, making statements with regard to false bottoms in sixteen or eighteen bins of the United Grain Growers, rather than let the matter proceed farther my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Resources, together with thirty other elevator men, applied before Judge Galt of Winnipeg, or some other judge-that does not matter-for an injunction to restrain the 51952-283
Hyndman commission from going farther into the investigation of the United Grain Growers elevator. When any person puts himself in the position of stopping an inquiry rather than having the truth told, the information which might come out must have been rather terrible to contemplate. I could not come to any other conclusion. And that gentleman is one of the advisers of the present Prime Minister in connection with wheat matters. However, I shall let that stand for the moment.
It would appear that this kind of thing is infectious because it is being carried on now. Mark the stage of my story: The royal grain commissioners have passed the buck to Mr. Ramsay. Let us see what Mr. Ramsay has done with the buck. I shall not talk about the little frills in connection with what was done to the government terminal elevator at Port Arthur. But just by way of experiment and to clear the decks, reverting to mixing, may I point out that the letter from Mr. Glossop was the first information I received that the government elevator had been leased to a mixing elevator. That shocked me at the time. When you remember that there was no other public terminal left at Port Arthur at that time you can understand why I was shocked. This public terminal elevator was built by the Borden government at the request of the western farmers. What for? So that they might be sure that there was at least one elevator through which grain could be passed without fear of vulgar contamination. This elevator operated for many years and made a profit nearly all that time. Mr. Heatherington stated that the elevator had earned three times its cost up to that time. Under date of March 14, 1935, I asked the government the following questions:
1.	Is the federal government terminal elevator at Port Arthur still being operated by the government ?
2.	If not, (a) to whom was it leased; (b) when was it leased; (c) what were the terms and duration of such lease.
Here are the answers:
1.	No.
2.	(a) McCabe Brothers Grain Company Limited.
Just incidentally let me say that this company is recognized as one of the worst wheat mixers at the head of the lakes. There are degrees of mixing, and when it becomes too great it is no wonder that our wheat goes overseas in bad and irregular condition. There is probably such a thing as decent mixing, but this is a hog mixer who goes the limit -and teaches others to go the same pace. The



Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
fact is that the Department of Trade and Commerce leased a public terminal elevator at Port Arthur which had been asked for by the farmers of the west as part of their bill of rights. This is another illustration of how the Department of Trade and Commerce handles the grain of this country. Here are the rest of the questions:
3.	Did the government cease operating this public terminal elevator and lease it to a private concern?
4.	If so, for what reason?
The answer given to No. 3 is "answered by Nos. 1 and 2." You have to go back to Nos. 1 and 2 to get the answer, but I am not going to do that. The answer to No.4 is:
Owing to private interests in the grain trade acquiring greater storage capacity of their own, as also smaller crops and greater quantities of grain going out through Vancouver and Port Churchill, the government elevator at Port Arthur had been operating at a loss for the two preceding years, and the board of grain commissioners recommended that it should be leased.
When an institution has been earning good profits for fifteen or twenty years and then suffers a loss for a couple of years, is that justification for leasing to someone else? This elevator was asked for by the farmers of the west, but that is what happened. It was simply a case of clearing the decks to prepare for what was to follow. It was from this source that we obtained the first information that the elevator had been leased. Nothing that we have seen had been said about it in the newspapers or anywhere else. Section 125 contained the mandatory prohibition against mixing. Every effort was made to show that there were some reservations in connection with that. Let me quote from the evidence given before the commission. The royal commission was dealing with smutty and other rejected grains, and Mr. Ramsay is examined by Mr. Coyne as follows :
Q. That was the act of 1925?
A. That was the act of 1925. When this act was redrafted and revised in 1929, through some reason, possibly through an oversight, section 103 was omitted.
Those who have anything to do with the legal or departmental revision of statutes understand how sections can be dropped inadvertently, but when that happens too frequently you prick up your ears to find out what is happening. The result of this omission was that, from 1930 on, the Canada Grain Act contained no statutory basis for these off grades. It left them out on a limb, as it were. Hon. members can look up the old section 103 if they want to. I wish these

documents would rise up themselves to give witness against these things. My eyesight is not so good, and I have no doubt the document I want is right on top here but I cannot see it. Of course, one does not see as well under these trying conditions. Here is what happened. Testimony was given before the Brown commission in Saskatchewan and accepted by the federal government. Mr. Ramsay had that to go to, recommending no mixing of dry and tough wheat, as a guide when he found that section 103 had been lost. Lost? It was not lost.


Frederick George Sanderson: Six o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: I guess it was the
same time at this time last night.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Richard Motherwell: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring to show what the chairman of the board of grain commissioners was doing by way of sitting up and making the best defence he could. I referred to the losing of section 103 as one of his experiences. I think maybe he was disappointed. The section was this; I read it to show its importance:
103. All good grain that has an excessive moisture, being tough, damp or wet or otherwise unfit for warehousing, shall be entered on the inspecting officer's books as "No grade," with his notations as to quality and condition.
2.	All grain that is in a heating condition or is badly bin-burnt, whatsoever grade it might otherwise be, shall be reported and entered upon the inspecting officer's books as "Condemned," with the inspector's notations as to quality and condition.
3.	All grain that is unsound, musty, dirty, smutty or sprouted, or that contains a large admixture of other kinds of grain, seeds or wild oats, or from any other cause is unfit to be classed under any of the recognized grades, shall be classed as "Rejected," with the inspector's notations as to quality and condition.
4.	All grain shall be weighed and the weight per bushel recorded in the inspecting officer's book.
5.	No grain that has been subject to scouring or treatment by use- of lime or sulphur shall be graded higher than No. 3.
This last is supposed to refer to what was, in the old days, smutty grain.
It can easily be said by pro-mixers that the omission of that section has no significance; that it neither legalizes nor prohibits. Anticipating that objection, might I refer to another lost "Charley Ross"-you know who Charley

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
Ross, of long ago is,-lost in the statutes of 1929. That emanated as a result of a terrible struggle in camera in the subcommittee, which about put me "on the hummer" before we got through. I remember that we wrestled over this particular section, knowing the predisposition of the trade and commerce department, largely through ignorance, or rather, through want of information, throughout the years, right from the days of Sir Richard Cartwright down to the present day. I know them all-giant intellects except as regards wheat. Here is the section we wrestled over; that is the reason I missed it. It is section 140 subsection 1A of the Canada Grain Act of 1929:
Private elevators when so licensed may carry on the business of mixing grain and grades of grain except grain of the grades mentioned and defined in section ninety-six of the act under the heading "Spring Wheat" and more particularly described therein as No. 1 Manitoba Hard, No. 1 Manitoba Northern, No. 2 Manitoba Northern and No. 3 Manitoba Northern."
These are definitely described grades in which mixing must not be done. Here is another clause, subsection 2 of section 18 of the old act and section 84 of this; it is a very important one to be lost:
No grain while being received into, while in store in, or while being shipped out of any public elevator, shall be mixed one grade with another or with anything else whatsoever.
There is nothing left out there; in order to make assurance doubly sure, that was put in, but it was inadvertently dropped from the consolidating act of 1930. If anybody can find it there, I shall be the first to thank him, because if it is in the 1930 act my case is stronger than ever.
I was endeavouring to show how my friend the chairman of the board was getting along examining himself. At page 12,244 of the evidence taken before the royal commission I read this:
Q. The reason for rejection would be given so that you would have a number of off grades, all attached as satellites to 1 Northern, and similarly for all the other straight grades?
This was asked by Mr. Coyne of Mr. Ramsay. He answered "yes".
Q. That was the act of 1925?
A. That was the act of 1925.
The witness Mr. Ramsay goes on:
When this act was redrafted and revised in 1929, through some reason, possibly through an oversight, section 103 was omitted.
I referred to that before.
Consequently the Canada Grain Act from 1930 provides no statutory basis for these off grades.
It is too long to quote it all. Later on the statement is made:
The omission is serious. . .
I should think it was. It makes all the difference between mixing and not mixing.
. . . particularly with respect to tough grain where the quantity is often quite important. Primary inspections for the western division from 1925-36 report 6,721 ears of tough grain. The other "off" grades included 642 cars of damp grain, 703 cars of smutty grain and 349 cars of rejected grain, rejected for being sprouted, heated, mixed with gravel.
Mr. Chairman, do you know where those are going now? A great many of them, if not all, are going into the straight grades, after that little section I read, which has been lost, which stated that nothing else, nothing which you can conceive of, shall be or can be put into the straight grades.
The failure to provide for the off grades was discovered when the act was put into effect in the autumn of 1930. Confronted with this difficulty, the board instructed the chief inspector to prepare classifications covering grain of this nature. At the meeting of the grain standards committee of that year, the subject was discussed, and the classifications prepared were approved as proper specifications to cover out of condition grain and mixtures.
This is what he is saying. He authorized this himself, without any statute to back it up. This is about as bad as the government itself was with respect to the order in council, the rider to which I referred that rode out the wheat board in 1936. Like priest, like people; like master, like men; this is an infectious sort of riding, apparently.
The other phase of the problem was how were cars marked as off grade grain to be handled when they reached the terminals.
He knew there was a question there, or he would not have said that. What should be done with it when it reached1 the terminals? Let us see.
The board decided in accordance with previous practice-
Yes, in accordance with practice in the old mixing days when it was as wide open as a barn door.
-to provide for the treatment of the grain where practical, with a view to placing it after treatment in the grade to which it would belong originally had it been in satisfactory condition.
There you are, manoeuvring first to get rid of the big government terminal at Port Arthur through which the grain could go without any mixing, and after clearing the decks for that, they come along with this ingenious device of mixing wheat for the purpose of drying it-mixing dry wheat with tough wheat, making the dry wheat absorb the surplus water in the tough wheat, thereby enabling them to get the mixture into the

Supply-Trade-Grain Commission
straight grades and sell at the same time thousands of tons of good water, in the form of either spray or water from the clouds. At any rate, it was water, and the more water you have in grain the lower the price you get for it, because one of the price determining factors in grain is its moisture content. That is something which has never been gone into properly. When I was on the other side in 1928 I met a man with many others sitting around the board room of the Liverpool corn exchange who assured me they were positive that Canadian wheat was sprayed somewhere in transit, perhaps at the head of the lakes. If these practices are abroad as above alleged, they should be run down and discovered and disclosed, and not covered up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know what that remark was, but I do not care; it may have been good, or it may have been bad. I hope I am not hurting anyone, and I am awfully sorry that I cannot hear. The minister might come a little closer and we would both be better off; but ministers do not do that these days, though they used to. When we had a majority of only one we would move along the front line anywhere you wanted, but when there is a majority of 101 they are not so particular. But that is always the way. This is the best defence, remember, that could be put up by the chairman of the board of grain commissioners. If he has any other, he has not disclosed it. I continue:
Q. Section 125, subsection (1), reads:
""All western grain received into any licensed public terminal elevator shall be binned with grain of the same grade, and not otherwise."
A. This is merely pointing out that the act does carry exceptions to the mandatory section 125 in regard to the handling of the first four grades.
What do you know about that? 'That is Mr. Ramsay's answer, remember. In my opinion the section which he contends did that was inserted afterwards, just as the other ones were previously lost. That is the result of my investigation, and again I shall be glad to apologize if it does not prove to be the case, because I want someone in authority to get to the bottom of this thing and see that I am not flimflamming. The truth is too bad already without making it worse by exaggeration.
Q. This section 138 (6) may only say that you can bin this commercial grain which has been altered with one of the other statutory grades, and not the first four?
A. Mr. Coyne: Yes. It is really a question-
This is Mr. Coyne. Some nasty person has suggested that he has a woolsack appoint-
IMr. Motherwell.]
ment around the corner, but that is what mean people say:-
It is really a question whether section 125 governs section 138 (6) or whether section 138 (6) is an absolute exception.
The Commissioner:	Yes, whether section
138 (6) is an exception to section 125. I would not care to pass on it hurriedly, but there is a legal question there.
Mr. Coyne: Yes.
Well, how could you expect the royal commission to revert to that weeks afterwards with thousands and millions of words before them. The commissioner recognized that there was a legal question there and Mr. Coyne said yes.
The Commissioner: Section 138 (6) seems to assume that certain things may be done. It says, "has been graded into any commercial grade but may nevertheless, by reason of its subsequent treatment or otherwise, be properly binned with grain of a statutory grade." That may mean having regard to the full force of section 125-
Then again:-
-which says no other grades shall go into the first four except those that are graded in among those numbers.
Mr. Coyne: Yes, My Lord.
That reminds one of a fox circling around a baited trap stepping gingerly for fear of getting caught. Do you mean to say that these learned men could not detect something here? Then the chairman of the board of grain commissioners goes on:
Q. Are you giving this as an illustration of the variation now in the act?
You see how they are worming in, getting in at the back-door when they were fired out of the front on this mixing joint business.
A. No, just dealing with the situation the board found itself in in dealing with this particular problem of tough and straight grade grain. Possibly we have covered the situation now. I would just like to make the observation though that probably I have accepted a condition which was intended in the drafting of the act.
He is a mind-reader.
I think we all had the idea that all these sections were ameliorating the mandatory demands of section 125.
Do you think we sweat blood for days and weeks and months in 1929 that someone could come along and "ameliorate the mandatory demands" of what we knew we had?
Whether or not the draftsman accomplished that I cannot say, but I have always accepted that as being the intention of the act.
Look at the strange interpretation the chairman of the board of grain commissioners put on the act. And the gentleman was before the agriculture committee of, I think, 1928,-as a witness against mixing. What con-

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
verted him in that short time to a pro-mixer?
I never was more proud of an officer of the pool than when I found the present chairman of the board come down and give evidence against mixing and help us to win. Then he turns around and double-crosses us, and goes over to the other side!
I should like to have the attention of the committee if I may. They are doing very well, Mr. Chairman; this is tiresome, when we all want to prorogue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: May I say a word by way of digression? A very good friend of mine said before we started this evening: Why didn't you bring this on earlier in the session? Will anyone tell me one moment when I could have brought it on before?
I have not the bringing of it on. Was I not rapping at the door of many ministers urging them to look into this? I do not want to be taunted now with killing time when we all want to go home. We all do; so do I. But I had not the bringing of it on. I went as far in the debate on the address as it was decent to do. The commission had not yet reported. I strained a point in giving the government a hint. Hon. members will remember that I said I wanted a self-supporting board, and also a non-hibernating one, and the commission had not reported. That was going as far as I dared go, recognizing the proprieties at all, before the commission reported. Then Mr. Coyne and Mr. Ramsay go on. Mr. Ramsay said:
We have never had a suitable opportunity to amend the act until last year.
I wonder what that means.
That was before we knew you, Mr. Commissioner, would look into this matter. The question is now in the hands of the government.
Let us analyse that. It is strange how we can read a thing and see nothing in it. I gave some of my old colleagues a hint of what was in it, but I do not think they saw it. There is such a thing as seeing and not perceiving, hearing and not understanding. I know something about the latter. Let us see what he says:
We have never had a suitable opportunity to amend the act until last year.
That was said in 1937. Parliament had met at ieast seven times, since 1929, in three of which sessions the grain act was before this house. Why did they not take one of those three times, or one of the seven times? Probably the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) will answer that after consulting his coachers. I will answer it for him in one possible way other than what I
have mentioned. I have told this to some friends too. Possibly Mr. Ramsay tried to get amendments made, tried to have these deficiencies corrected, these lost Charley Rosses found, but his minister would not listen. Maybe I should not say that, but I am between the devil and the deep sea. I want to be fair to Mr. Ramsay; I almost want to make an excuse for him. If he went to the Minister of Trade and Commerce who was over him during that period from 1929 until now and recommended that the necessary remedial legislation be introduced and was refused-well let them have it out between them.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I must inform the hon. member that he has exceeded his time.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, then, I shall sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Or rather I shall not sit down unless I am ordered to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member can start again.


William Richard Motherwell: All right, you will get it some other time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Richard Motherwell: I would just as soon have it this way, the remainder unfortunately is worse, but it will keep.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Grain Act-Operation and maintenance, including inspection and weighing, $1,502,601.
Richard Bedford Bennett: We get that money back
again, do we?


William Daum Euler: Yes, we do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics-Census of population, $120,520.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this item about?


William Daum Euler: The 1936 census of the western' provinces. It is what one might call clearing up the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions Pacific ocean-
British Columbia and China, and/or Australia, service between, $118,800.
British Columbia and South Africa, service between, $80,000.
Canada, China and Japan, service between, $600,000.
Supply-Trade-Subsidies
[Stage Direction]
Canada and New Zealand on the pacific, service between, $300,000.
Prince Rupert, B.C., and Queen Charlotte Islands, service between, $10,000.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $25,000.
Vancouver and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $15,000.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, service between, $10,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver Island, service between, $10,000.
Mr. REID:: I protest against the actions of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in connection with this grant of $600,000 that we have -been giving them every year for the service between Canada, China and Japan. In 1936 I introduced a resolution asking that they be called upon, before they received any more subsidy, to -have their ships manned mostly by Canadians. This matter was referred to a committee of the house; the committee met; evidence was called from the Pacific coast, the Canadian Pacific Steamships were represented, likewise the seamen. That committee brought in a report recommending that the company be called upon as a start to take the Chinamen off the decks of their ships and replace them by Canadian seamen. I am going to take a moment to read the recommendation of the committee of 1936:
That, as up to the year 1913 the decks of the Empress boats were manned by white seamen, and inasmuch as the deck service is an important and responsible branch of the work of these boats, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company be requested to replace the orientals now so employed by Canadian seamen, and that this change be made at the company's earliest opportunity.
This report was presented to the house and adopted unanimously. No action however was taken by Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited, so in -1937 I again introduced this resolution. At that time the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) was in Australia, and his duties were being carried on for the time being by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). On suggestion of the latter minister 1 withdrew the resolution at that time rather than press it to a vote, because he stated that he would set up a committee on the Pacific coast to find out if the contention of the company was correct, that there were not enough white, Canadian seamen there to work the decks of the ships. So Mr. Kerr, inspector of subsidized steamship services, was sent there and, with Mr. F. E. Harrison, representing the Department of Labour, and Mr. J. A. McGowan, shipping master of Vancouver, formed the committee which held an inquiry, and I am going to take a moment or two to give their findings. 
At this late stage of the session I have not time to go into the matter as fully as I should like, -but briefly they advertised and asked for experienced seamen who would be available for employment on these steamships. In response some 380 experienced seamen were registered, and here is the recommendation of the committee:
In addition to the above mentioned seamen, a very large number of young men presented themselves and expressed a desire to sail in Canadian Pacific trans-Pacifie vessels if employment on deck could be found. The navy league, sea cadet corps, has about 200 youths between the ages of 12 and 18 in training at Vancouver and Victoria.
These would be available, and they are very anxious to obtain this employment. Here is the final part of the recommendation of the committee that went out to the Pacific coast and investigated the entire situation:-
The committee is of opinion that the deck departments of two Canadian Pacific ships could be manned by the seamen shown in the third classification above mentioned, which contains men with statable experience in oceangoing vessels, and that the change-over in the remaining ships should be possible within a reasonable time by transferring a number of experienced men to those vessels and drawing on selected types in other classifications.
For the benefit of the committee I repeat that on these four ships there are some 1,783 Chinese from Hongkong, who are not British subjects, but who are Chinese in the strict interpretation of the word. The first recommendation requested that the deckhands of these ships be replaced and that white men be given preference, and this latter committee of 1937 found that 380 fully experienced seamen were available, and should replace the Chinamen. So I maintain that the Canadian Pacific should be compelled to comply with the recommendation adopted by this house in 1936. which recommendation was not carried out either last year or this year. I say by their attitude they have actually defied this House of Commons, by their contempt for a recommendation so made by this house.
There are seventy Chinese on each deck. It is well known that one white man can replace two or even three Chinese, so on each of these ships thirty-five white men could take over the work and comply with all the regulations of the shipping act, if given a chance. I am taking great exception to that fact that they have not been given this chance. I am taking exception to this subsidy being actually granted, and I am sorry that it has not been possible to air this matter in the house before this late hour. I had a resolution in this connection on the order paper this session, but only one resolution can be brought for-

Supply-Trade-Subsidies
ward at a time, and so mine was not reached.
I am going to appeal to the minister, and if the Canadian Pacific is not brought to time I am serving notice now that if I am here next year they will have quite a good deal more trouble in getting this subsidy through. I think it is a travesty of justice for the Canadian Pacific to set itself above the house and defy what I claim to be an order of parliament. In Vancouver we have men by the hundreds walking the streets who would gladly take positions on these ships if given a chance, and in view of all the inquiry that has been made I should like to hear what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has to say as to why this recommendation has not been carried out.


William Daum Euler: I should like to assure the hon. member for New Westminster that the department is not unmindful of the report of the committee with regard to the replacement of the Chinese on this service with white men. The matter has been very fully discussed; I have repeatedly brought it to the attention of the Canadian Pacific. I am not sure that I should go into all the details at the moment, but the arguments that were advanced, it seemed to me, made it inopportune to press too strongly for the withholding of the subsidy. Perhaps for the time being at least it might satisfy the committee and my hon. friend if I read a letter from the chairman of Canadian Pacific Steamships, Limited, in which he offers to make at least some concession at the moment. I am not making any commitment as to what might be done later. Sir Edward Beatty writes me as follows :
For a number of years each of our ships has been carrying from eight to ten youths for training as pursers, stewards, etc. These youths serve first of all in the deck department as bridge messengers, and, as such, they learn discipline, ship's routine, and the interdependent relation of the various branches of the ship's staff.	.	,
We propose to add an additional six to each ship (or twenty-four in all) in the deck department, to be classed as ordinary seamen as soon as qualified, and to receive regular instruction in seamanship, so as to qualify for the rating of A.B., when they have accumulated the necessary legal time at sea.
As soon as we have six qualified A.B.s, we would replace the Chinese quartermasters with these white boys, who should eventually be able to obtain a certificate as second mate, and, in due time, as mate and master.
These boys would be drawn through the navy league, where they would have obtained useful preliminary training, and are good material for the R.C.N.V.R.
Our plan has the entire approval of the naval branch of the Department of National Defence, who more than once have expressed a willingness, if the necessary funds were forthcoming, to assist in the training of these young men.
There should be no undue delay in giving effect to this plan, as soon as the necessary
living and sleeping quarters can be provided, and it can be in operation in a very short time.
Yours very truly,
E. W. Beatty,
Chairman.


Mr. NEILL:: What is the date of that letter?


William Daum Euler: May 6, 1938.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just one difficulty that has been overlooked by the hon. member for New Westminster when he suggests that this is defiance of parliament. A subsidy is an act of parliament; both houses agree, and the crown assents. A resolution of a committee of the House of Commons would not be sufficient to withhold a subsidy; and until such time as it is approved and becomes an act of parliament .by being passed by the senate and approved by the crown, it would not rank with the appropriation bill so that we would be able to give effect to it. Surely the hon. member has overlooked that fact.
I have had occasion to look into the matter.


Thomas Reid: I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition and realize that what he says is perhaps true. But here we have a committee of the house going into all the facts in 1936, hearing the Canadian Pacific on the one hand and the seamen on the other, and bringing in a report recommending that the Canadian Pacific take steps to man the decks at least, with white, Canadian seamen. They do not do so. In 1937 another committee is set up, and it finds that 380 experienced seamen are available; yet the Canadian Pacific say there are not sufficient men with which to man these steamships. I say that if this country means anything at all to Sir Edward Beatty, he should at least give a lead to Canadians, especially in these times of stress, when thousands of our citizens are walking the streets. There are hundreds of men in Vancouver who are willing and ready to go on these ships if they were given a chance.


Mr. SPENCE:: Would they work, if they
got a chance?


Thomas Reid: Yes, they would. There are
380 experienced seamen registered, men who have been in ships for three or perhaps four years, and they have expressed a willingness to work. Then, there are 200 young naval cadets looking for work, and who are willing to board these ships, if they are given a chance. But no consideration was given them at all. The Canadian Pacific just says there are not enough men available. I say that is not true, and a position which should not be tolerated. If it were not for the lateness
447S
Supply-Trade-Subsidies

of the session, I would certainly press the matter to a vote. But I am serving warning on the Canadian Pacific that if I am here next session and I hope I shall be-they will hear more about the matter. It is a disgrace to find a steamship company preferring Chinamen to white men on their ships. It is a disgrace to Canada and should not be tolerated. I certainly do not feel like sitting in my place without voicing a protest as loudly as possible.


Mr. MacNEIL:: What company receives
the subsidy for the service between Vancouver and northern British Columbia ports? What is the reason for the decrease, and does such decrease mean a lessened service?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is put back in the supplementaries; most of them are.


William Daum Euler: But not all of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nearly all of them.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member is referling to the service between Vancouver and the northern ports of British Columbia.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Yes.


William Daum Euler: There is a decrease of
$3,000. That is brought about merely because we thought they could get along on the smaller amount, and they were willing to do so. They give the same service. There is no diminution of service at all.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Which company received
the subsidy?


William Daum Euler: The Union Steamships
Limited, Vancouver. They have four ships, and are on a one year contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and fairs-further amount required, $90,000.
Publicity and advertising in Canada and abroad other than in the United Kingdom and Europe-further amount required, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this vote governed
by the general principle to which the minister referred this morning?


William Daum Euler: Yes. Most of that will be
in this country, though.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- Atlantic ocean-
Canada and South Africa, service between- further amount required, $4,166.67.
, Mr. BENNETT: What is the rule governing this service? What subsidy is given, for how many trips, and is it monthly or for a year?
William Daum Euler: The Canada-South Africa service is a one year contract for $100,000, and there is a reduction of 812,500.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many trips every year?


William Daum Euler: There are twelve subsidized and eleven extra unsubsidized sailings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who receives the subsidy?


William Daum Euler: The Elder Dempster Line, with four vessels. At one time they received $146,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pacific ocean-
;.i?runCe Kupert', BC- and Queen Charlotte quiret$™ be*;ween further amount re-
Mr BENNETT:: Does this not put these subsidies back where they were? When the mam estimates were carried these sums were taken off.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the additional
sum for?


William Daum Euler: For the New York exhibition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the other item was for that.


William Daum Euler: That was the original amount for buying the site, and putting up the building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total cost?


William Daum Euler: So far it is about $150,000,
and it will possibly cost more.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will be the total
cost?


William Daum Euler: I do not know yet, exactly


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Daum Euler: Not all of them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most of them.


William Daum Euler: In a few instances.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Look at them and you will see the ones. For instance, if the minister will look at the vote for the Charlottetown and Pictou service he will find that in the main estimates the amount was reduced from $30,000 to $25,000, and that it is now being increased to $30,000 by the additional $5,000 mentioned in vote No. 616.


William Daum Euler: We had taken off about $40,000, and this is what has been restored. It still leaves a substantial reduction. In some instances we expected we would be able to get the service for the amounts mentioned in

Supply-Fisheries
the main estimates, but had difficulty in getting services for those amounts, and we have had to increase the votes in some instances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Fisheries inspection, including fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $1,000,000.
Thomas Reid: I have a few observations to make regarding statements made bv the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) when the item was under discussion on a previous occasion. I believe he left the impression that in connection with the operation of traps the Fraser River Fishermen's Protective Association were in favour of the retention of traps. I want absolutely to refute that statement.
Immediately the statement was made in the house a telegram was received by me from the association protesting strenuously against the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo. On that occasion the hon. member quoted from a book entitled Net Profits, published this year under the auspices of the Fraser River Fishermen's Protective Association. He quoted one paragraph. Although it makes no definite statement, it does say this:
Based upon the experiences of past years, when groups employing different modes of fishing have vied for position to strengthen their particular interests in this fishery, the necessity of maintaining status quo in the industry becomes apparent.
The hon. member for Nanaimo left the impression on the house and perhaps the country also that by that statement appearing in the booklet Net Profits, the fishermen's protective association of the city of New Westminster were in favour of the retention of traps.
On the day following I received a telegram in which they emphatically denied that statement, saying it was not true. They are hoping traps will be eliminated before long, and I want the house and the country to know they are opposed and will continue their opposition until the traps are removed.
I shall take another minute to refute a further statement in regard to the number of men employed. Possibly I should say I make these observations for purposes of refuting the hon. member's statement, and I do so to draw the facts to his attention and to the attention of the minister. Last year these traps caught a total of 311,438 fish. There were forty men employed, making an average catch of 6,228 fish per man, whereas in the whole Fraser area in Puget Sound the average catch was 745 fish per man.
These figures are striking. Those who want the fish traps taken out of there are anxious
to employ more labour, realizing that the traps not only deprive men of their livelihood, but also to a certain extent ruin the fish. The two companies in question have an investment of $100,000, but I must point out that that is not their own money. Of that they have only a total investment of $12,000 each. One year they made a profit of $24,800, which shows this is another case of vested interests being protected. I would suggest to the minister that instead of charging a licence fee of $500 a year, he might very well raise the amount. I venture to predict there are men in British Columbia who would be willing to pay $5,000 to be allowed to operate those traps. I am sorry I have not the time to go into the matter fully, but I wish to reassure the committee and the hon. member for Nanaimo that the fishermen of the Fraser river are absolutely opposed to traps, and want them entirely eliminated.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I have just one observation to make. I should like to ask the hon. gentleman if he is a member of the international sockeye commission.


Thomas Reid: Yes.


James Samuel Taylor: Does he carry into the meetings of that commission his prejudice against the Sooke traps?


Thomas Reid: I do not think I should answer a question like that by the hon. gentleman. It is not that I am afraid to answer it, but he has no right to ask me that question.


James Samuel Taylor: If the hon. gentleman is taking his prejudices into the meetings of that commission, he has no right to be a member.


Thomas Reid: I dispute that statement. I have every right to be on the commission, and represent the gill net fishermen on that commission.


Alan Webster Neill: Since this matter was last before the committee, two things have happened which, I think, have a bearing on the situation. The first is a resolution passed by the Kyuquot Trailers Cooperative Association, one of the oldest and largest and most successful fishermen's cooperative associations in British Columbia. This is dated June 25, 1938, and reads:
The members of the Kyuquot Trailers Cooperative Association, Victoria, B.C., at their semi-annual meeting held at Kyuquot, deplore and protest against the continued issuance of trap licences in British Columbia, considering it an unfair privilege, that excludes other fishing gear from operation within such fixed location, and also as a destructive measure which does not distinguish between legal size nor out of season fish.
Supply-Fisheries

They pass this resolution every time they meet. It will be recalled that when this matter was last before the committee the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) read a brief which had been prepared for him by one of the trap owners. At that time he stated that the resolution against traps had been railroaded through the meeting of the associated boards of trade of Vancouver island by myself at the meeting held a year ago. Under date of February 1, the hon. member wrote to the minister to call attention to the fact that this resolution was of small value; that it was wrongly presented and hastily passed. He stated that it met with strenuous opposition from the Victoria board of trade, a far superior board. Something has happened since then which throws some light on the matter. The associated boards of trade of Vancouver island have held another meeting. That is a very representative body, a parliament in itself. The members act without pay, and they have a fine idea of their duties and responsibilities as citizens. They met at Courtenay the other day, and this subject was brought up and discussed for three hours. The resolution was not railroaded through by me because I was not there. Mr. Todd, one of the moneyed principals in this matter was there, as well as Mr. Goodrich, another member. I understand there was also a lawyer along. After a debate of three hours a vote was taken, and only seven votes out of a total of thirty were in favour of traps. Everything possible was done to secure a verdict favourable to traps; but after a full discussion, that little parliament of Vancouver island, representing the best elements of the district, took an even stronger stand against traps than they had taken previously. It is true the Victoria board of trade was largely against this, but that board represents the moneyed interests. I am glad Vancouver island has shown its good sense by acting in this way.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I share the views expressed by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), in regretting that the minister has seen fit to protect the privileged interests at Sooke and to disregard the welfare of the workers in a most important industry.
There is another matter to which I should like to direct attention. I have in my hand an urgent communication which was received this day from the fishermen in Parry Pass, Queen Charlotte islands, British Columbia, under date of June 21, 1938. I believe the

best way to place this matter before the committee will be to read the important paragraphs of this communication. They are:
On the Langara island trolling grounds approximately 400 fishermen (white and Indian) manage to eke out a living for themselves and their families, possibly 2,000 persons, by catching the spring salmon which are attracted there by a comparatively small colony of herring schooling in that vicinity.
Should, for some reason, these herring on which the salmon feed, disappear, it is obvious that the salmon would also disappear in search of other feeding grounds, thus closing the source of livelihood of the 400 fishermen and their dependents.
Until recently the possibility of this happening has seemed remote, but now through a lack of foresight on the part of our fishery department, it has become a real danger.
Having received a permit from the department, a herring seine boat is now removing this salmon feed by hauls of from 50 to 100 tons at a time (approximately half a million herring to a haul). At this rate the small school will not last long. They are decreasing a.nd as they go the salmon catch is also decreasing.
Appeals to the department seem to be in vain. Not an unusual thing when the person appealed against is the wealthy operator. The replies received from the department are not convincing to practical fishermen. For instance mention of no control outside the three mile limit when the herring are being caught within quarter of a mile of the shore, show that they are not even caring to investigate the matter, but are content to give an opinion from an armchair in the same office to which we send their salary cheques.
If these herring were being used for food purposes perhaps there would be less reason for grumbling but they are being reduced to fertilizer.
What inhuman system is this that allows a wealthy company to send out a single boat to take away for all time the means of livelihood of 2,000 people? And all for the sake of the profits on a few measly tons of fertilizer.
The resolution endorsed by the fishermen's committee and the councillors of the Indian tribe in the area reads as follows:
Whereas herring is being rapidly depleted on the northern coast of Graham island, Langara island in particular, and incidentally salmon being caught in the seine also, and
Whereas where herring have been depleted on their feeding grounds, such as the above mentioned, the grounds are also destroyed for salmon, and
Whereas we consider the use of this superior quality of herring in a reduction plant should be prohibited and conserved as much as possible for food purposes only, and
Whereas about 400 fishermen, Indians and whites (with their families about 2,000 persons), are dependent on those salmon grounds for their livelihood, and further, consider this $300,000 industry is of more importance to Canada than the operation of any reduction plant,
Therefore be it resolved that (at this joint meeting of Indians and white fishermen) we desire to take all legal means to protect our

Supply-Fisheries
source of living, but, we demand and intend that seining for herring on the above mentioned grounds be stopped.
I should like some assurance from the minister that this matter will be investigated and the interest of these fishermen properly
protected.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: I have received a communication along lines similar to that just read. Last evening and this morning .we inquired from our officers on the Pacific coast, and we have been informed- that what happened there was that a boat has been prospecting during the last few days. We were told that there has been no fishing going on and that there is no likelihood of any fishing being carried on in those waters.


Thomas Reid: A moment ago when I was speaking I could not place my -hand on the telegram which I had received from the fishermen asking that immediate action be taken in connection with the Sooke traps. This telegram reads:
Any intimation that Fraser river fishermen wish Sooke traps to remain absolutely false. Every fishermen's organization on Pacific coast to the best of my knowledge want Sooke traps out immediately and expect action to this end from parliament this session.
Before I resume my seat may I say to the hon. member for Nanaimo that I was made a member of the international sockeye commission to represent the Fraser river fishermen. My views with regard to traps were well known before I was placed on that commission. I would be derelict in my duty if I did not support the Fraser river fishermen in their attitude against these traps and in their request for immediate action. In case I am misrepresented, I want to assure my hon. friend that I am opposed to the continuation of traps at Sooke.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister give us some assurance that if it is shown that seining for herring in the vicinity of Langara islands threatens the interests of the fishermen in that vicinity, it will be prohibited?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Certainly.


James Samuel Taylor: I do not think it is necessary for me to protest, but I hope the minister will study this question of the Sooke traps as he has done hitherto. I hope he will do this in the interests of the conservation of the salmon and in the light of the peculiar conditions under which these traps were established.


Thomas Reid: And the profits of the man who has the concession.


Alan Webster Neill: As regards the herring situation, I brought this up when this matter was before the house on April 26. It is a lifelong grievance on the Pacific coast, the reducing of herrings which are not very profitable to reduce because they are very small in oil content as compared with pilchards, and the fishermen claim, I think without contradiction, that they are the food of salmon. It is a well known saying among fishermen, "No herring, no salmon." That is, if the herring are scarce this year, the salmon run will be short.
The minister says they are only experimenting out there. Quite so, but what for? With a view of taking larger quantities for reduction. That is the sole purpose for which they are seining in the waters to which the hon. member for Vancouver North has alluded, and the reason why there has been no depletion there is because it had not been fished before. I would ask the minister if he will not yield this much to our representations: Why not put that area up there under the same conditions as obtain on the west coast of Vancouver island, where experience has shown it is absolutely essential to have a close season, and we have a close season running from February 5 to, I believe, October 1. That would give the herring at least half a chance.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As my hon. friend knows, under the present regulations there is restriction upon the quantity of herring to be caught in some areas. I understand it has been and I can assure him it is the policy of the department at the present time that when the catching of herring for reduction purposes is a menace to the salmon industry, the prohibition of fishing for herring is made and will be enforced.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, but the only trouble is that it is not. There is a quota put on, yes. The quota is only that amount which the reducing plants want. I have in my possession a letter from the local minister saying that he was not going to allow herrings to be reduced on the west coast. A year later he announced that he had gone into the matter very thoroughly, and the dead limit he was going to allow was 20,000 tons.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That was the provincial minister.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. But we have the control of the fishing. He said it would not go beyond
20,000	tons. I replied, saying, " Oh, yes, it will. The amount of the quota will be limited only by the desires of the reduction plants." Sure enough, next year, instead of
Supply-Fisheries

20,000	tons it was 40,000 tons. Before that season was over-even in that one season- it was raised again another 5,000 tons, raised up to 45,000 tons in the comparatively limited waters of Barkley sound and the west coast. My experience is that while a quota is put on and they say they will not allow it to be exceeded, that quota will be raised to whatever quantity the reduction plants want. The minister has had scientific men out there who have demonstrated, to their satisfaction at any rate, that herrings on the Pacific coast are being depleted. They proved that by the size of them. Long experience tells them that the depletion of a run is first indicated by those taken being smaller. That was demonstrated, and an expert sent in a report to that effect. My information is-I cannot prove it at the moment, but I think I could if I were given time-that the official got a hint not to send in reports like that because they were not acceptable at Ottawa.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All I can say is again to reassure my hon. friend that whenever it is demonstrated that fishing for herring in any waters is detrimental or a menace to the salmon industry, fishing for herring will be restricted.


Mr. BROOKS:: With reference to the matter of herring being used for fertilizer, this is a subject which concerns not only the west coast but also the east coast. I have received letters from fishing organizations in tihe maritime provinces stating that a splendid market for herring could be obtained if there were instructions issued, by men properly trained to instruct fishermen, how to prepare the herring for market. Has the minister received any requests that a practical instructor, conversant with both French and English, be appointed by the department to instruct the fishermen of the Northumberland strait or any other part of the maritime provinces in the preparation of these herring for the market?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not recall having received any request from fishermen or residents along the Northumberland strait. My recollection is that in Charlotte county, the bay of Fundy and that district there is a very valuable herring industry, and we have instructors giving demonstrations and instructing the fishermen how to prepare their fish for the market. I believe the best herring that are processed and put into foreign markets and into our own markets come from that area and command the best prices.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister, then, is not
aware of any request from Westmorland or

Kent county in New Brunswick, or that section, for a bilingual instructor to instruct the fishermen in the preparation of herrings?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is possible that a request has been made to the department, but at the moment I do not recollect any.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $9,000.
Alan Webster Neill: The last time this item was up on a general basis I discussed the question of the fish ladder on the Puntledge river at Courtenay. The minister, no doubt, has had time to look into the matter. Has he any statement to make in connection with it?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The hon. member is correct. On the last occasion when the matter came before this committee I think I gave the information which was then before me, that is, that a fish ladder or fishway had been built in that river in 1922, had been washed out in 1927, was renewed in the same year, in 1935 was washed out again, and has been replaced.


Alan Webster Neill: And again last December.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: And again last December was washed away. Since then there has been some difference of opinion as to whether the same kind of fishway should be built or a different method used. To build another fishway to meet the wishes of some people who are advocating a change, it is claimed, would impair the use of that river for water power development; and, looking over the files of the department, I find that there is a great difference of opinion between the residents of the locality, the company which is operating the water power-I think it is the Dunsmuir Collieries-and the engineers. Since then the local engineer of the department has reported that it would be costly and would not be as efficient as it is claimed to build a new type of fishway, and it would impair the use of that water power. However, I know that the citizens of the localities-I think these are Courtenay and Cumberland-have different views; and in order to settle the matter or set at rest the minds of these people, if it is agreeable that an independent engineer should pass upon the position, I am satisfied that this shall be done. My colleague the Minister of Public Works will lend me the use of his resident engineer or one of the staff on the Pacific coast to look over the situation and make a report as to what he thinks should meet the requirements.


Alan Webster Neill: I think that is a satisfactory suggestion, and I know the public works en-

Supply-Fisheries
gineer is a man of great ability. I have no doubt, therefore, his report will be exactly what he sees.
I want to say a word or two in connection with the statements that have been made to the effect that it would not be possible, or that at any rate it would be very difficult, to put the ladder up where it ought to be, namely, at the end of the dam. After being washed away three times, it is no use where it is; we must put it somewhere else, and the obvious place in which to put it is around the end of the dam in the rock. The departmental officials say that this would be dangerous to the dam on account of blasting. But you can blast anything, anywhere, if you are careful. I have blasted within three feet of the glass windows of my house without shattering the windows, and in the city you will see workmen using dynamite a few feet away from the sidewalk without any damage ensuing, because they know how to do it. They use discretion; they cover it up, and so on.
The next question is, Would it be workable? Well, we have an example of a fish ladder at Stamp falls in the neighbourhood of Alberni, and people come from far and near to see the fish going up the ladder pretty much as people go upstairs. That cost only
84,000	and the height was twenty-two feet. At Maggie lake the ladder was nineteen or twenty feet and it cost only $3,000. At the Puntledge riger the dam is fourteen feet at the outside, probably less. It would not, therefore, be a big undertaking and would not need more than six steps for the fish to jump from one pool to the other.
Let me give an illustration of what science can do. I allude to Bonnieville falls in the Columbia river where the fish have to ascend an average of fifty feet, lower at high water and higher at low water. The ladder is cut out of the rock on both sides. Of course, the higher the elevation the greater the cost. At Puntledge river they ascend fourteen feet at the most and less than that when the water is higher. The cost would not be deadly at all, and it would be a means of establishing a run there which used to be a valuable cohoe run and one that could be made into a sockeye run as well. I would remind the minister that the department pledged themselves, when they obtained the consent of the house, to do away with the policy of having hatcheries for the propagation of fish, to devote more money to the development of fish along natural lines, clearing out the rivers and putting in fish ladders. They put one in at Maggie lake last year in pursuance of that policy, and as we are saving large sums in connection with the
hatcheries, I suggest that we can well afford to undertake such work as I have indicated. The minister has made a statement about bringing in an outside engineer, and I am glad to see an independent man brought in, because a mistake was made about ten or fifteen years ago. We all make mistakes; but a mistake was made at that time, when the wrong type of ladder was put in, and it is difficult to get a local engineer to turn around and admit that he made a mistake. It is against human nature. I would be prepared, however, to accept the judgment of an independent engineer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish, $62,000.
Alan Webster Neill: When this matter was up
before, I brought up the question of the prospect of a foreign power-it does not matter who they are-fishing off the shores of British Columbia in such a way as entirely to eliminate our industry. We are talking about fish traps and guardians, and all that sort of thing. But if the policy that I mention, which is being pursued by the foreign power in question, is continued, then the fisheries department, so far as British Columbia is concerned, might as well shut up shop, because there will not be any fish at all. That applies not only to cod and herring, but to halibut as well. We have built up a wonderful business in halibut under the United States treaty and that will be wiped out if the present policy is continued. The minister did not give me much encouragement before. He said I ought to have more confidence in the government and should know that matters of such importance would be considered in the way they ought to be. I am sorry, but I should like to get a little more information.
The situation is this. Three years ago there appeared off the shore of Alaska-it is Alaska to-day, but our funeral to-morrow-a large number of fishing boats belonging to the Japanese. The procedure was to bring a great mother ship from Japan and it would be loaded up with what, in the east, would be dories. They are small gas-driven motorboats, and they string a line of nets 200 miles long-I wish to impress that fact upon the committee 

right across the run of the fish making into Alaskan waters. Through the use of aeroplanes it is now possible to spot the fish far at sea and see the direction in which they are running, because fish do not run all over the ocean, but move in one concrete body towards a definite destination. It is therefore possible for the Japanese to run this line for 200
Supply

Fisheries

miles, as they have done more recently on the Russian shore and at a distance of ten or twenty or thirty miles out, entirely cut off the fish and there catch every fish that comes along. They are bothered with no restrictions. The Japanese idea of fishing in their own waters-and they demonstrated it there fairly well

is to take every fish they can possibly get. The Jap does not know the meaning of conservation, nor does he know anything about restricted hours or seasons. His idea is to take whatever is there, and when that is gone, to go somewhere else. They exhausted their own fisheries and then turned to the Russian fisheries. They are now beginning the same thing in Alaskan waters, and it is only a matter of a year or two when we shall find them taking the halibut banks off the British Columbia coast and the salmon runs going into the Fraser river and into all these rivers to which we have referred.
This is no idle dream of mine, because it is actually going on. I have a number of newspaper cuttings here, but I shall not read them. One or two of the headings are interesting. Here is one for instance, "United States fisheries known to Japs" and another, "United States fishermen armed to drive out Japanese." They found that the Japanese were not playing the game; that they were not living up to the agreement with the United States; so these men sent for a couple of hundred rifles and ammunition and they proposed to take the law into their own hands. The situation attracted the attention of the United States government. I do not know whether the minister was aware of it, but I do know that the United States government took the matter up with Japan and I have here the brief they presented. I shall touch on some of the points. They pointed out that beginning in 1930, and ever since then a large number of Japanese fishing fleets, made up of floating canneries and auxiliary vessels, have been operating. The mother ship acts as a floating cannery, or a reduction plant, or a freezing plant as necessity warrants, and they stay through the whole season and take the whole catch back to Japan. The Americans object to that. They say that the reports are becoming more and more insistent and reliable, and during the past season their authenticity has been supported by impressive affidavits and actual photographs of the fishing operations in question.
The Japanese, with their usual diplomacy, explained that they were fishing not for salmon, but for crabs; they said that they were simply engaged in a few exploratory operations, looking for crabs. The white men, however, flew over the mother ship and got

so close to them that they could read the names on the boxes of canned salmon, and they saw thousands of fish on their decks. They could even identify the varieties of fish on the decks of the mother ship and they took photographs. In other words, Japanese diplomacy was rather at a discount. The Americans say that the United States government has understood, from assurances given by the Japanese government, that there are no licenses granted, but that is all a midsummer night's dream. They say they are sorry; but the reports they get and the photographs raise a strong presumption that the Japs actually are fishing there. Then the Americans deal with the enormous trade that they do in Alaskan waters, pointing out that the people of Alaska are allowed to fish only for one month, with the idea of conserving the fish, but the Japanese will fish for the whole period. They say the Japanese fishermen appear to be unrestricted as to season or equipment. Large bodies of United States fishermen are of the opinion that the salmon runs of Bristol bay are a United States resource, as they breed in Alaskan waters. The prospect is that the use of these more effective methods by Japanese nationals, while similar methods are denied to United States fishermen has provoked among United States fishemen serious concern and resentment. It is clear to all that if foreign nationals are permitted to carry on these operations off the shore of Alaska, the conservation efforts of the United States government within a comparatively short period will be of absolutely no effect. They point out that some
25,000	people are employed in the trade in Alaska, what they pay in wages, and the enormous business they do.
Then there is some correspondence. I shall read only a final extract from a confidential release dated March 25, 1938. They say that as a result of discussions between the United States government and the government of Japan in connection with these matters the Japanese government has given, without prejudice of course, assurance as follows: that the Japanese government is suspending- that -means stopping for a short period, doesn't it?-the three year salmon fishing survey which has been in progress since 1936, and inasmuch as salmon fishing by Japanese is not permitted without licence from the Japanese government, that government will continue to suspend the issue of them, and if the United States government will prove Japanese vessels are fishing illegally, they will take cognizance of it. The United States government accepts these assurances and

Supply-Fisheries
hopes they will live up to them. But between the lines you can read considerable doubt about that. Since that, these headings appeared that I have quoted about the United States fishermen arming themselves against the Japanese, because they are still there and are proceeding to fish. It is not a local matter to Alaska, or even British Columbia; it is of nation-wide concern. If that is persisted in, it means that with modern methods they will clean up the whole Pacific coast from Alaska to San Francisco. They can keep offshore, outside territorial waters, and I suppose they are legally correct.
But there are methods of bringing pressure to bear even upon Japan. If it were suggested that there would be retaliation in the way of non-trade, they would probably see reason. But unless the government do something more than tell me I ought to have confidence in the government looking after these matters, I shall not be satisfied. The minister knows the situation; has he taken any steps about it; has he associated himself with the United States in this protest? If not, then if the Japanese make any deal with the United States to keep out of Alaskan waters, there is only one place they will go, namely, to British Columbia waters. Has the minister had any communication with the Japanese or the United States government, so that we might join in any action that has been taken? And it is not only the Japanese; there was a suggestion last year that a British boat was coming from the Atlantic to fish for halibut, also a Norwegian boat. Unless we do something to stop them soon, the Japanese will establish their claim and our fishing will be non est. Will the minister give the committee some information as to what progress has been made in connection with the matter?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) has stated, this is a delicate matter. These operations are carried on, on the high seas, where the Japanese, Americans, Norwegians, Canadians and others have a legal right to fish. It can be stopped only by mutual agreement between the countries interested, And I * dare say it can be stopped by those countries only by preventing their nationals from resorting to those waters; that is, the Canadian government would have no right or power to prevent natives of a foreign country from carrying on such operations. As stated by my hon. friend, the government of Japan have said that they are going to refuse permits to their own nationals to carry on such operations, and that is the only way by which what is desired can be accomplished. When I said on a
previous occasion that the hon. member should have enough confidence in the government to accept the statement that the matter is in hand and would be looked after, I knew my hon. friend would realize that this was what was intended. As far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned, it is not within our power to take up questions of that kind with foreign countries; all these matters are dealt with through the Department of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But I know the matter is being dealt with. As far as the Department of Fisheries is empowered, we are following up with a view to protect the sources of supply for our fisheries as much as possible, and trying to impress upon neighbouring countries that the fisheries can be protected for all concerned only by mutual understanding and cooperation in conservation.


Alan Webster Neill: No doubt the minister's statements are correct as far as they go, but they are more in the nature of truisms which do not lead to any definite action. He says it can be done only by agreement. I admit that; it is out in the open ocean. And he says that the Japanese government say they have refused to allow their vessels to operate in Alaskan waters. Yes. They promised the United States that, but have they promised us that they will not do it in our waters? We, it must be remembered, are next, and we have under the hand of the Canadian embassy at Washington the assurance that the Americans have been promised that the Japanese will keep out of Alaskan waters; but have we any such assurance? It is just as vital to us as to the Americans, and as far as I can find the fisheries department has done just nothing in the matter. Is that not the situation? If it is not, I shall apologize. If it is not so, will the minister bring down some correspondence showing the progress of negotiations? I submit nothing has been done, but still he asks me to have faith and confidence. Our neighbours to the south have done something; we apparently have done nothing. If we have done anything, what was it? Have we a promise that they will abstain? I have in my hand a long three column page of regulations made by the department in connection with mackerel on the east coast. There are about nine different brands: large, small and medium summer, and dark summer, and large, medium and extra large and choice fall, and dark fall, and so on. I notice that the biggest size in one case is not the biggest in the other; this is calculated to deceive people. It ends by saying that in the event of these sizes not being suitable, the minister may authorize a
Supply-Fisheries

tolerance in the count to suit the requirements of the trade. Is that not a comparatively petty matter? Perhaps $150,000 worth of mackerel is packed, but should not the heads of the department at least be negotiating matters of such vital importance to us on the western coast? If I am wrong, and negotiations have been taking place, what are they? How far have they got? Will the minister bring down the correspondence? If not, will he initiate such correspondence; because it is for us to act to-day, not to-morrow? The Americans made their arrangement on March 25; what have we done?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend has read some newspaper clippings intimating that some Japanese boats had been fishing off the coast of Alaska. But he has not shown that any of these boats have been operating in territorial waters along the British Columbia coast, and as far as the department is concerned we do not know of any specific instance of Japanese boats carrying on such operations there. Until we have some specific case to complain about, I do not think we should anticipate any possible operation of that kind in waters adjacent to our country by adopting the methods of negotiation which have been adopted by the United States.


Alan Webster Neill: If that is the attitude of the government, I will throw up my hands and not bother them any more. Here is the situation. Suppose there is a war and an enemy fleet lands in Vancouver. Somebody on the prairies says, " It will be time enough for us to fight when they reach Winnipeg." I know they are not doing anything in our waters to-day, but I was trying to look ahead, to galvanize the government into a little foresight in the matter. To-day it is the Alaskan situation, but, the United States have negotiated a treaty-whatever it may be worth-under which the Japanese are to keep out of Alaskan waters. But there is the mother ship and there are these boats; where are they to go next? The minister says it will be time enough to do something when they take some action. It will be too late then, because they will have established a precedent; they will have their equipment ready. Surely it is the part of wisdom to look ahead and try to reach an understanding about these things before they become acute, before there are large sums involved and vested interests concerned.
There is no use saying I quoted newspapers only. I quoted our own Minister to the United States. I obtained this information from Sir Herbert Marler in Washington. This was a confidential intelligence release given

out by the United States government, which finally led up to the announcement that they had successfully-I hope it will be successful in its permanence-negotiated a deal by which the Japanese agreed not to fish outside the territorial waters of Alaska. Is this not the time for us to take some action? But if the minister takes the view that it will be time enough when the enemy is knocking at our door, I am afraid there is no use in discussing the matter.


James Samuel Taylor: I should like to ask the minister whether this whole matter does not come within the ambit of the international sockeye commission.


Alan Webster Neill: No. Halibut are not sockeye.


James Samuel Taylor: In any event I want to say that since the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster I have been rather disconcerted. I understand that this is an international sockeye commission. If the Canadian representative only represents the fishermen of the Fraser river, then I want to ask the minister if he will kindly see that the Canadian representative represents also the district of Nanaimo. I want to feel that the interests of Canada in the matter of salmon are being protected by our representative on the international sockeye commission.


Thomas Reid: Would the minister tell the hon. member that there are three commissioners, not just one?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $240,740.
Mr. BARBER:: I think we all regret that almost each year the estimates of this department are brought in on the last day of the session. Under this item I notice that the number of inspectors and those employed in canneries is exactly the same as it was a year ago; thirty-five; there has been no reduction. Seeing that the fish hatcheries in British Columbia have been closed, what portion of this vote will be expended in that province, and for what purpose?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The only expenditure under this head in British Columbia during this fiscal year will be for the payment of the salaries of officers whose leave has not yet expired and who have not been either superannuated or transferred to some other district.


Harry James Barber: I understand that at the beginning of the present year the control of sport or game fish in non-tidal waters of British Columbia was transferred to the

Criminal Code
province by a federal order in council. That has raised the question of licences. I understand that non-resident anglers' licences are still collected by the federal government, and at present it is understood that the dominion Department of Fisheries have placed licence books in the hands of custom officers and other agents in the interior and along the southern border of the province. One is quite safe in saying that ninety-five per cent of the licences issued will be used in non-tidal waters. This is somewhat confusing, if it has not been straightened out.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am pleased to be able to inform my hon. friend that we have been able to come to a satisfactory understanding with the government of British Columbia. The federal government has withdrawn from the sport fish business. We have left the field; we do not issue licences any longer, nor do we collect licence fees.


Alan Webster Neill: But I understood there was some confusion. We collected a fee for tidal waters and the province collected a non-tidal angler's fee, which meant that the tourist had to pay double.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; he will not pay any federal fee now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 137, to amend the criminal code.
He said: The first amendment is to section 12, which deals with the definition of common gaming house. The object of the original amendment to the section was to include within the definition of "common gaming house" one where any direct or indirect fee is charged to or paid by the players or any of them for the right or privilege of participating in a game. There was the exception concerning the house, room or place occasionally being used by a charitable or religious organization for playing a game the proceeds from which are to be used for the benefit of any charitable or religious object.
The senate has added another exception concerning:-
[Stage Direction]
any house, room or place while occupied and used by an incorporated, bona fide social club or branch thereof, if the whole or any portion 51952-284
of the stakes or bets or other proceeds at or from such games is not either directly or indirectly paid to the person keeping such house, room or place, and no fee in excess of ten cents per hour or fifty cents per day is charged to the players for the right or privilege of participating in such games.
I understand that unless this amendment had been accepted, the whole section would have been rejected. It is a compromise, and I am quite willing to accept it, although I preferred the section as it was.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing objectionable about it.


Ernest Lapointe: No. Then, section 14 deals with disorderly conduct, and
contains the words:-
Causes a disturbance in or near any street, road, highway or public place, by screaming-
And so on. At the end of the section are the words "or in any other way." My right hon. friend had objected to them. They are now struck out, and the word "shouting" is added before the word "swearing."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should not think there is any relation between the two things.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know; however, I do not object.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it is better.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps. If it were not, it would not be the first bad thing the senate has been doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And not the first good one, either.


Ernest Lapointe: Then, section 17 refers to everyone who steals any plant, root, fruit or vegetable production. The penalty was not exceeding $50 or imprisonment of two years. This has been changed to six months.
Under section 18 there was provision for two years imprisonment, in connection with stealing cultivated plants. There, again, the penalty has been changed to six months, and for a subsequent offence a penalty of three years imprisonment has been changed to one year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Apparently they are not such lovers of horticulture as we are in this chamber.


Ernest Lapointe: Apparently not. Then, the amendment to section 22 is a good one. They have added the words "gold, silver, platinum or other precious metals" at one place where obviously it had inadvertently been omitted.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Supply-Fisheries



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock p.m. this day.
He said:	This motion having to do with
the sitting of the house does not require notice. I would say that with the progress we have been making, unless we run into some unexpected discussion, I think it might be possible to arrange for prorogation by midnight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it should be understood clearly that we would not sit beyond midnight. This is a suspension of a standing order, and I think we should not sit beyond midnight. If we cannot dispose of the business by midnight, clearly we shall have to sit to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: It is never "to-morrow" so long as we sit to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would judge from what has taken place in the last six months that it is always to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
The house again in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Special-To enable aiding fishermen, groups of fishermen and others to establish or better establish themselves in the industry, $500,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I would ask the minister to place on Hansard the information for which I asked some time ago. Last year parliament voted a sum of money to be distributed among fishermen; it was for a specific purpose. This vote is to enable fishermen, groups of fishermen and others to establish or better establish themselves in the industry. What was done under the vote passed last year? I suppose, in view of the notice given, there will be no difficulty in giving the information.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Last year $500,000 was voted to aid in the reestablishment and reorganization of the dried and pickled fish branches of the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast, which because of world economic conditions had become acutely depressed. It was hoped to rehabilitate those engaged in the industry by granting assistance in processing, storing and marketing, and attempting to expand the demand for the products of the industry by assisting in the provision of

transportation facilities on those portions of the coast where they were inadequate. All of this was to be carried on under conditions to be approved by order in council. Only about $60,000 was expended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might we have the details of the expenditures?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A total of $24,451 was expended to increase the demand for fish by way of advertising, mainly in rural newspapers, because it was expected that dried and salt fish would be consumed mainly in rural districts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was that all within
Canada?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. About $5,000 was expended to send two men to the West Indies, Puerto Rico, Cuba and other countries in South America, which in the past had taken most of our exports of cured fish.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who were they?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Mr. O. F. MacKenzie, of Halifax, and Mr. F. Homer Zwicker, of Lunenburg. Mr. MacKenzie received $2,229.70.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How was that amount determined?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That was made up of travelling expenses because he did not accept any remuneration for his time. Mr. Zwicker received $2,717.75 for travelling expenses and a small allowance of $600 or $700 for his time. Both these gentlemen made a report which has been printed and distributed. To the end of the last fiscal year the balance of the vote could not be expended because the propositions made by the department to the industry and by the industry to the department could not be accepted. That is, no mutual understanding could be arrived at as to how this money should be expended, so we decided we had better keep it. However, negotiations are still continuing in the hope of having the industry take care of the weaker sections of the maritimes, such as eastern Nova Scotia and northern New Brunswick. The government is offering to subsidize certain processing plants which are necessary because of loss of European markets and changed conditions. An effort is to be made to get these people to adapt themselves to new methods so that they will be able to process a product which can be marketed more profitably than dried and salt cod.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Some time ago I intended to make a few remarks in connection with the fisheries of the maritime provinces. I shall not impose myself upon the committee

Supply-Fisheries
this evening except to protest to the minister and to his department over the treatment given to the maritime fishermen. Last year $500,000 was voted to rehabilitate the fishermen in the maritime provinces, and the minister now tells us that some $40,000 of that vote was spent in advertising. I consider that the fishermen in the maritime provinces have received very poor treatment from the department, and I take this opportunity to protest to the minister. These facts are well known because the press of these provinces have called attention to the conditions under which the fishermen are living. These men are receiving very little for their fish. As a matter of fact, they have been receiving only starvation prices. This afternoon we listened to hon. members from the west talking about fixing a price of 85 or 874 cents a bushel for wheat. The fishermen of the maritimes have been receiving for their product a price far below what they should. I contend that all the money which was voted last year should be spent along with whatever is being voted this year. The minister must know the conditions that exist, and he must be aware that this money could easily be spent to good advantage in rehabilitating the fishing industry. I shall not weary the committee with any more comments, but I feel that more attention should be paid to this great industry. When money is voted by this parliament for these men I contend that it should be spent by the minister and his department.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not think my hon. friend is fully aware of all the facts and circumstances. There were two votes last year, one of $400,000 to assist the needy fishermen, and another vote of $500,000 to rehabilitate the industry. The vote for the needy fishermen has been all expended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall want the particulars of that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That vote was expended in cooperation with the provinces. My hon. friend must appreciate that these individuals are not the wards of the dominion government. They are not subject to our jurisdiction unless they come within the scope of the fisheries regulations.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Many .individuals in other industries in Canada have become the wards of the government.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Unfortunately. The Department of Fisheries has recognized its obligations in this emergency. This is the primary responsibility of the provinces, but 51952-2844
the federal government has offered to cooperate in helping the needy fishermen. Agreements have been signed with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, and also Quebec in connection with that portion of the province still under federal jurisdiction, that is, the Magdalen islands.
We have entered into successful agreements whereby we have allowed to Nova Scotia $150,000; to New Brunswick, $100,000; to Prince Edward Island, $50,000, and to Quebec, $50,000. We have kept in reserve a certain amount which was offered to another province and which was declined because conditions there were not such that they could embark upon the policy which was suggested by us. So, as far as the money voted for the individual fisherman is concerned, I think we have done our duty by appropriating it to the provinces in proportion to the number of fishermen registered in each of such provinces.
Again this year we are negotiating with the same provinces with a view of continuing the help -which was given for the last two years. As far as individuals are concerned we are leaving it with the provinces to determine what methods should be adopted to help them. Even in one province the problem is not the same in all sections, and it would be very difficult to adopt in Ottawa a uniform policy applicable even to one province. We prefer leaving this to the provincial governments that are willing to cooperate with us.
As to the industry, we are trying to adopt the best methods possible to help it and place it in a position where those engaged in it can regain the standard which they held prior to the depression. I am pleased to state that in this year we have reached a point where the fishing industry is back to where it was in 1930.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: With regard to the
amounts allotted to the provinces, have the provinces taken advantage of those allotments? I have here a return which I received some time ago from the department indicating the contributions to provincial funds from which aid was given by the provinces concerned in establishing or better establishing groups of fishermen in the industry. I notice from the return that Nova Scotia expended $96,792.99; Prince Edward Island, $42,406, and New Brunswick, only $1S,180. I should like to know why so small an amount was expended in New Brunswick, and why it W'as expended only in one month out of the twelve months? Nova Scotia seems
Supply-Fisheries

to have taken advantage of it for eleven months of the year, and Prince Edward Island, for eight months.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: This was due to the
fact that at the time that information was given to the hon. member, accounts for these amounts only had been rendered to us. Since then, further accounts have been rendered, and up to the time that these estimates were made Nova Scotia had paid out $100,000; New Brunswick, $75,000; Prince Edward Island, $77,000, and Quebec, $75,000.


Alan Webster Neill: How about British Columbia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: They did not expend
anything.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will any portion of this
sum be made available to aid the fishermen of British Columbia? If no agreement exists, is there any prospect of an agreement with British Columbia ?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A portion of it was
offered to that province, but no agreement was entered into. The prospects of entering into an agreement depend on the attitude of the province.


Alan Webster Neill: Will it be open to British
Columbia to participate in this sum?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Part of it was always
open to British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: To what quota would British Columbia be ordinarily entitled?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: About fifty thousand
dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows that I have taken a deep interest in this matter, for reasons which, I think, are obvious to every thoughtful man. Nova Scotia is a pretty rocky province. In pre-glacial days there was some soil on the rocks, but the soil has been largely removed, and these people live on a very rocky coast. I have visited their communities. I learn from the press that they are getting one cent and one and a half cents a pound for halibut, and the consumer is paying anywhere from twenty to twenty-five cents. As the minister knows, cod brings a much smaller price. These are facts. It is true that the amount I mention is an extremely depressed price. We know what the Atlantic halibut is, compared with the Pacific halibut; it is a smaller fish. They have also the haddock, which is an excellent fish, and the cod, which is not as clean as the others. These fish are being sold to-day at a very low price by the fishermen. When I say

they are getting a cent and a cent and a half per pound, and the fillets are being sold on the markets to consumers at fifteen cents and as high as twenty-five cents a pound, the minister will realize what the condition of mind of these fishermen is. Certainly- it is an attitude of great resentment against conditions. Everyone knows that.
I have a suggestion to make to the minister. Last year we voted a large sum of money to help the industry. To-day the minister has given an explanation of why only $60,000 has been spent. We now come to the other half million dollars which has to do with the individual fisherman, and what do we find? We find that in one of the provinces we gave $150,000 under the terms of an agreement by which we exercise little or no jurisdiction over the spending of it, leaving it, for the reasons the minister mentioned, to the province to deal with. In New Brunswick the situation is the same. I have followed with increasing interest the operations of the cooperative movement in Nova Scotia. Whatever else may be said, Mr. MacDonald, who is associated with St. Francis Xavier university, has done a most remarkable work. They endeavoured to get him to go to upper Canada. Fortunately Nova Scotia has retained his services. When he was here the other day I had an opportunity to talk with him regarding the work which is being done in Nova Scotia. I suggest to the minister that he should make available out of this sum of money a substantial grant to assist in cooperative enterprises among these fishermen. I believe that by so doing he will achieve a very great reform, and of course he is anxious to do so.
And, sir, I know something more. I know of the money that is being made out of the fishing industry. I recall a man who left Halifax with a reasonably small sum of money; he went down to a Nova Scotian port and established a fishing industry, and in combination with a great company which has existed in that industry he has made a substantial fortune. The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth^Clare probably knows whom I mean, although I am not mentioning any name. He acquired a very large sum, somewhere, I believe, between a quarter and half a million dollars. To no small extent that fortune should have been distributed under proper conditions amongst the fishermen themselves, because the inability to sell their fish for more than one or one and a half cents per pound made possible the accumulation of these large returns. I suggest that the minister utilize some part of

Supply-Fisheries
this vote-and he will have everybody behind him in doing so-in helping these poor unfortunate men to forward a cooperative movement which will ensure that a larger part of the price paid by the consumer goes into their pockets.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Members of the committee must have noticed in the main estimates that we have this year for the first time an appropriation-small indeed- to the United Maritime Fisheries organization, which is the central organization of the cooperatives of Nova Scotia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it is only $3,000.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is for organization purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What good is that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Besides this, we have an agreement, under another head, with the extension department of St. Francis Xavier university whereby we vote them an appropriation to cover the expenses of carrying on their movement in the three maritime provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much is that?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Eight thousand dollars this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite. Well, they spend $25,000 per annum.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I know. But this movement is growing and we are increasing our grant each year. We are in constant consultation with the head of the department, Doctor Coady, under whom Doctor MacDonald works, and we follow exactly their directions. We leave them free to act as they feel they should. I may take the committee into my confidence and say that last year we were willing to put a substantial amount at the disposal of the organization to help them to establish a base on the eastern coast of Nova Scotia, but as will be seen from their petition and the records of the department they were not yet prepared to take advantage of the offer and were not sufficiently well organized to begin in a large way to take care of themselves. That is one of the main reasons why the amount was not given them. Admittedly they were not ready to take advantage of the offer. They wanted the government to start a publicly owned plant, and the opinion was shared by the heads of the movement that this was not the proper thing to do. It was felt that we had better wait a little while until these people were ready to take hold of the movement themselves and to administer their own business without any governmental interference or control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will admit that a cent or a half-cent a pound is ruinous.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Absolutely, and if we knew of any method whereby we could compel those through whom the fish is processed and marketed to pay higher prices, it would be done. The only hope is to encourage these cooperative movements so as to enable them to manage their own affairs and market the products of their own industry in order that they may get everything that is in it and enjoy all the profits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Try icing a few cars and paying the freight on them from the seaboard to upper Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was done a few years ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it was stopped before it was developed.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The trouble arises in connection with the distribution. The organization is not quite prepared to take care of distribution in foreign markets, and until they are ready to do so, I do not think it would be in their own interests-they say so themselves -to go ahead too fast and to undertake a venture which might bring ruin to themselves and discredit upon the organization.


Mr. HARTIGAN:: While the amount of $2,000 given for organization purposes may do some good, we cannot obtain lasting benefit unless we give a sufficient amount of money to the cooperative societies. A good many people, no doubt, share my conviction in this regard, but the idea may prevail that this is a partisan or a religious movement, merely because it is sponsored by St. Francis Xavier university. I can assure the committee, however, that the cooperative movement in Nova Scotia is non-sectarian and non-political. I had the pleasure of listening to the Rev. Nelson MacDonald when he explained the aims and objects of the society. I fancy he is known to most members here, by reputation at least, because he is one of the most assiduous workers in the cause of the cooperative movement, working hand in hand with the St. Francis Xavier extension movement. If we want any lasting benefit, I repeat, we must give the greater proportion of the money to some extension movement to educate the fishermen. You may spend all the money you like, but unless you spend money to educate the fishermen you will not get any permanent results. Give them a course of six months or a year under such leadership as is provided by the extension movement to which I have referred. In other parts of the country other
Supply-Fisheries

colleges may come into the picture; perhaps they may be in a better position by reason of location to further the work. At the present time, however, we have only the St. Francis Xavier extension movement in eastern Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and if you gave them $100,000 you would get more value for the money and it would result in more ultimate good for the fishermen than from other expenditures. The cooperative movement is not local; it has assumed international proportions, and the day has gone when you can regard it as purely local.
I am not going to take sides and argue whether the trawlers should or should not operate. As a matter of fact, I do not believe there is anyone in Canada to-day who can argue convincingly on that question, and therefore I suggest that we should move cautiously before making any change in our system in that respect. I do urge, however, that if you give the fishermen proper leadership and the educational facilities furnished by the extension society, you will enable them to look after themselves. One of the chief things they are taught is to look after their financial condition and the processing of their fish. I hold that through the processing of the fish the market in the future will be gained, and the benefit that will accrue to the fishermen will depend upon their ability to process fish in such a way as to render them salable to the rest of the country.
I know that the great concerns which have operated in the past, the fish companies, deserve some credit; in fact they deserve a good deal of credit. For one thing, we cannot overlook the fact that they established the market; they placed their fish on the markets of the rvorld. You cannot, therefore, eliminate these great fish concerns and expect the fishermen to step in at once and fill the gap. I do urge, however, that they be given an amount of money which would enable the St. Francis Xavier organization, or any other college that wishes to take up the work, to function. I am speaking irrespective of any religious denomination or political persuasion. If this were done, the fishermen would be able to look after themselves and to process their fish properly, and they would be ready to fill the gap that would be left by the elimination of the large fish companies if that were necessary

and it will be observed that I add that proviso. It may not be necessary. My guess is as good as anybody else's, I suggest that we are going through a transition period in the economical distribution of foods of all kinds, and there is no man, I do not care how good an economist he may be, or how many letters he may have after his name, who can 
tell the people what the outcome is likely to be so far as distribution is concerned. The minister will have the whole-hearted endorsa-tion of the country if he devotes a greater amount of money to the cause I have been advocating. Do not give it away, as in the past, to ship-owners, but give it to a worthy extension movement which will put the fishermen on a higher plane and enable them to look after their own interests. That would be doing something worthy of the government of Canada.


Mr. POTTIER:: I realize that the time
is late, but we have waited five months for the fisheries estimates, and this is our first opportunity. I would impress upon the minister that there has been developing in the maritime provinces a condition which is serious in two ways. It is serious from the standpoint of the individual and from the standpoint of the industry. The individual is getting to the point where he is becoming discouraged, and in any project which we undertake we must realize that the individual himself must be convinced that the department is willing to assist him in his difficulties. It is not sufficient to- think only of the industry; we must attack the problem fundamentally from the standpoint of the individual. Until we convince the fisherman that we are willing and anxious to help him and are in with him in this fight, we shall not get very far with broad policies touching the industry only. I suggest to the minister that tt'hen he distributes this amount he think of having the dominion government, the provincial government and the individual fishermen acting in cooperation. All three must come in before any lasting good to the fishermen or the industry is achieved. At this late stage of the session it is impossible to deal with the matter at greater length, but I ask with final emphasis that the minister think particularly of the help he can give to the individual fisherman to encourage him and restore his enthusiasm.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mines and geology branch-Payment in connection with the movement of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $2,250,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is an item of
great importance, a couple of million dollars or more. It involves a national policy with respect to fuel. It affects largely the mari-times, and to some small extent western Canada. The movement of coal from the east to the more densely settled communities

Supply-Mines and Geology
has been going forward slowly, but the realization of our expectation of a million more tons of coal being lifted in Cape Breton than formerly as a result of this policy, is now an accomplished fact. But I have been reading with a good deal of care something that touches this matter. There are in Nova Scotia two great enterprises-or were; I do not know whether you can now call them two or not-the Dominion Steel Company, and for the purpose of this statement we will call it the Nova Scotia Steel Company; among the companies it owned was a coal companj' called the Acadia Coal Company.
I observed the other day that there has been some discussion with respect to this matter in connection with its liquidation, and I made up my mind that I would bring it to the attention of the minister. If we are to have a stock-jobbing proposition with respect to this company; that is, if the Acadia company is to be acquired by Scotia and then Scotia is to be closed down and Acadia closed down and the Dominion company issue shares or securities or guarantee payments in any sense, the time has come when we must make it perfectly clear that if there is a curtailment of subsidies because money is used for those purposes, that should be utilized for the purposes for which we voted it, then the complaints that will come should be complaints made to those responsible for this action being taken, and not against this parliament. This parliament has provided money for these purposes, but is not providing money for stock-jobbing exploitations. That is what I want to bring home to the minister.
If anything such as the newspapers indicate is contemplated, he should make it his business now to ascertain what is being done and prevent it from being done out of moneys provided by the taxpayers of Canada in connection with the movement of coal from Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia to the more central parts of this country. It has been a difficult matter to educate the people of the central regions of this country to purchase their coal requirements from the maritimes. It has been an effort on the part of governments, not of one party but of all parties, to get them to take that point of view. It is fundamental that the great enterprise in Cape Breton should not be utilized for stock-jobbing exploitation by the use of any part of the moneys which we pay in large sums-large sums, mark you!-to assist in employment on that island. This money should not be Used to advance the interests and stockjobbing ambitions of those who have been responsible for some of the happenings which
are now before the courts of this country. I give the minister timely warning in order that he may take steps to see that the government is protected by appropriate action, and by doing so he will prevent what I regard as a very serious matter and ensure that these subsidies, heavy as they are, are utilized for the purpose of providing for employment and the development of a fuel policy that will enable this coal from Nova Scotia to be utilized as it now is in the consuming markets of upper Canada.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend's statement is the first I have heard of the matter.
I understand two of the companies mentioned are in financial difficulty or liquidation. I quite agree with the general principle he has enunciated. Certainly I would be the last one in this house to support the payment of public moneys for stock-jobbing propositions of any kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe that; that is the reason I bring the matter up here.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be glad to get some information in regard to what my right hon. friend has said.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: How much of this money was expended for the movement of coal from the coal areas of New Brunswick last year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It amounted to $32,362.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The amount paid in New Brunswick is not at all in proportion to the amount paid in Nova Scotia. If we received the same proportion in New Brunswick, I think we would get about ten times that much, or about $300,000. Would the minister look into this matter and see that the coal areas of New Brunswick receive the same consideration that is given the coal areas of Nova Scotia?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Nova Scotia is in a preferred position because a large amount of its coal moves by water. It is my information that even in New Brunswick the mines have not anything like succeeded in supplying the requirements of that province.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The difficulty is that the assistance given under this vote is enabling Nova Scotia to displace New Brunswick coal even in that province.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The fact of the matter is that the basis upon which the subventions are paid apply precisely the same in New Brunswick as they do in Nova Scotia. If a variation should be made to meet the suggestion
Supply-Mines and Geology

of my hon. friend, it would simply mean tha; New Brunswick would be getting something over and above what Nova Scotia was getting. I shall leave it to the imagination of my hon. friend and of the committee as to what would happen under those circumstances.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Has the minister given any consideration to the possibility of stabilizing these subventions? At the present time they are voted by parliament year by year, and we in western Canada think it would help the industry if this was done by statute for a period of five or seven years. Then the subventions would be sufficiently stable for mining interests to invest in mines and establish warehouses in Ontario in order to compete for the markets now supplied by United States coal. I wonder if that policy has been considered at all.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. I should be glad to
give consideration to it, but I would point out to my hon. friend that since we have had these subventions they have been applied on the same basis. Without having given the question a great deal of thought, I should say that very careful consideration should be given before making any change. However, I shall be glad to keep in mind the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will find in the files of the department that the suggestion has been advanced.


David James Hartigan: I have just a few words to say about these subventions and about conditions in the coal mining areas of the country. Some hon. members were asking whether or not consideration has been given to the equalization of rates in order to get down to a stable basis. As I see it, the chief trouble in Canada is that we have not given the coal situation, with regard to Nova Scotia or any other province, enough consideration to know really what it is all about. I do not attribute this situation to the minister at all; but he is supposed to be aided by the fuel board, and I venture to suggest that this board has not met as such for a couple of years. I may be wrong, but I very much doubt if it has. Of course I know that the secretary is indefatigable in his efforts, but I doubt if the board has ever had a real meeting. It exists in name only, and what is the result?
I wish I had more time at my disposal to deal with this question, but I do not want to block this item at all. However, I think this is the opportune time to say what I have in mind, and I believe I should be doing wrong if I did not bring to the attention of the

minister a few suggestions which I consider may be helpful. The first is that in spite of slack employment conditions in the coal mines of Nova Scotia I venture the prediction that there has been no slackening in the importation of coal into central Canada. There would be no need for only three or four days work a week in the coal mines of Cape Breton or any other part of Canada if we did not import so much bituminous coal from the United States. According to my information that importation amounted to 9,720,000 tons last year. I do not want to enlarge on that; I think hon. members can get the point as well from those few words as if I spoke for an hour or two.
I go now to another matter to which not only the fuel board but also the minister should give some attention. While we do not stand in the way of progress; while we realize that progressive methods must be introduced in industry in order to increase efficiency, still industry owes something to this government as representing the people of Canada. This, I think, is a most inopportune time for any company to install electrical devices which will automatically throw one-third of the working population out of employment. That is just about what we are facing in Cape Breton to-day. I do not wish to obstruct progress; I believe in progress, and I realize that the time is coming when electrical mechanization will be the only process used in mining coal. But at this time, when unemployment is such a great issue in this country,
I say these people should be slowed down. Let them introduce it to some extent; let them try it out if they wish, but I think the introduction of electrical mechanization into the coal mines of Nova Scotia gives the explanation to the problem presented by the right hon. leader of the opposition in his reference to the Acadia coal area. Take one electrical unit in a mine. It will produce perhaps 250 tons of coal, and will require perhaps eleven men. Put ten units in a mine, and you will have 2,500 tons of coal spilling out of that mine if these machines work efficiently, as I believe they do. With eleven men to a unit that would mean 110 men. Then put three men, let us say, behind every man attached to the unit. There you have a small crew producing 2,500 tons of coal a day. It is easy to figure out the result; it does not require any advanced mathematics. If you electrify three or four mines, you will drop about a third of your crews; instead of having 1,800 men at work, you will employ only 600 or 800 men at the most. The remainder

Supply-Mines and Geology
will be a burden on the people of this country, and ultimately a large part of the coal mining districts will close down.
My argument is that while neither I nor any other member of this house would want to obstruct progress, this electrification process should go forward very slowly, so as to not throw into the ranks of the unemployed a large number of men whom the rest of the people will have to support, making so much worse the unemployment situation of the country. These are faots which cannot be gainsaid. I do not make the statement critically, but I doubt very much whether the government as a whole is cognizant of what is happening throughout the dominion. I again come back to the fishermen and point out that we are in a transitional stage. By ignoring the fact that we are in a transitional stage we shall not improve our unemployment situation. Rather than throw back on to the unemployment lists a great number of men, let us increase the coal subventions by giving a higher rate, or even by an amount of money equivalent to that which would otherwise have to be paid to the unemployed, if they were pushed on to relief.
I think the economic outlook the government should take would be that of considering the man power, the greatest economic factor in Canada. If the government does not look at what is happening, with the men working only two or three days a week in Nova Scotia, and coal still being imported in the vast quantities I have mentioned, we shall have another 9,000,000 or 10,000,000 tons of bituminous coal coming into Canada.
A short time ago the hon. member for Royal spoke about New Brunswick. In that connection, if the government had been on the alert, and had been watching what was happening, the condition of affairs he described would never have been allowed to exist. The royal commission appointed to investigate conditions brought out the facts that the conditions under which those people are living are horrible in the extreme. What was happening at the same time? At the same time our government owned railways were playing the coal miners of New Brunswick against the coal miners of Nova Scotia, to keep the price down. They got their coal from New Brunswick for from $3.20 to $3.60 per ton. Is that taking into consideration the economic man power of Canada? I submit it is not. These are factors which should be gone into exhaustively by a fuel board, so that they may know what is happening in our coal industry.
We do not know what the future of coal mining may be. I do not pretend to know. But I say that during this transitional period the lot of the coal miner in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta and British Columbia can be eased a great deal by having correct supervision by a board which would take an active interest. I bring these facts to the attention of the committee, not by way of criticism, but in the hope that the minister may take action to see that the conditions are investigated, and that they will not continue to exist. I trust that he will see to it that conditions do not become much worse than they are at the present time. If those men are thrown out of work, our unemployment situation will become aggravated to a great extent.


Mr. HANSELL:: Some of us regret that the item has not been brought down until this late hour.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ernest George Hansell: No; it is not carried yet. There are some of us who refrained from debating the budget because we believed we would have the privilege of talking on this item, and saying what we wanted to say. However, we find that now we are almost within minutes of the time for prorogation. I protest against that procedure. Under the circumstances I shall limit myself to saying briefly what I want to say. The hon. member who has just spoken has brought to the attention of the government the matter as it relates to the unemployment situation in Canada. Last year this situation was placed before the national employment commission, and Mr. Purvis delegated a special man'so far as possible to investigate whether or not if operating at capacity, the coal mining industry could relieve the unemployment situation in this country. We understood something would be done in the present year. We now notice that the commission's report has been presented, and the matter entirely ignored. I cannot emphasize too much the fact that if the coal situation were viewed from a national standpoint, we would to a very great extent solve our unemployment problem.
We should have time to go into a discussion of the matter from a national point of view. The coal mining industry of Canada is almost on its last legs, if the matter is not dealt with within a very short space of time. I should like to know how much of the appropriation goes to the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia and how much to Alberta?
Supply-Mines and Geology


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In Nova Scotia the amount was SI,786,000, and in Alberta, about $400,000.


Ernest George Hansell: Let it be remembered
that for every ton of Alberta coal bought in eastern Canada there is that much more money out west to buy eastern Canada's goods.


Mr. PELLETIER:: What is being done
by the department to increase the export of Alberta coal to the western United States market?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We do not give subsidies
for the export of coal.
operating on a shoe-string. That is the trouble. They have no money to go out to find markets. In Canada we have a Department of Trade and Commerce, and I would say it is their job to try to obtain markets for Alberta coal. It can be done.


Alan Webster Neill: Did I understand the minister to say there was no bonus for the export of coal?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Not to the United States.
The hon. member's question was with respect to exports to the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
René-Antoine Pelletier: I understand that;
but is the department doing anything towards increasing the export of Alberta coal to the western United States market?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is a matter for the
mine operators in Alberta. They must try to find a market in the western United States if they wish to have one there.


Ernest George Hansell: I admit it is a matter
Indian Affairs branch-Grants to residential schools, $1,335,975.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The right hon. the leader
of the opposition asked the other night that a statement be placed on Hansard giving the Indian residential schools, and I now have that statement ready. The schools are given by provinces, and there are details with respect to denomination, ownership, pupilage and per
for the mine operators of Alberta,	and they capita allowance. I	would ask	to have thiiare doing the best	they can; but	they are placed on	Hansard.	The table	is as followsIndian Residental Schools-June	30, 1938	Nova Scotia	Per capitaSchool	Denomi-	Owner-	allowancenation	ship	Pupilage	(less 5%)Shubenacadie.. ..	
R.C.	Gov't.	100	$180Quebec	Fort George	
C.E.	Church	50	200Fort George	
R.C.	Church	20	200Ontario	Albany	
R.C.	Gov't.	80	200Cecilia Jeffrey.. ..	Gov't.	145	165Chapleau	
C.E.	Gov't.	100	ICOFort Frances.. ..	
R.C.	Gov't.	85	165Fort William.. ..	
R.C.	Church	95	150Kenora	Gov't.	85	165McIntosh	
R.C.	Gov't.	110	165Mohawk	
C.E.	Gov't.	150	ICOMoose Fort	
C.E.	Church	100	200Mount Elgin.. ..	Gov't.	150	160Shingwauk	
C.E.	Gov't	130	100Sioux Lookout.. ..	
C.E.	Gov't.	135	165Spanish	
R.C.	Church	250	160Manitoba	Birtle	Gov't.	115	170Brandon	Gov't.	170	170Cross Lake	
R.C.	Church	40	175Elkhorn	
C.E.	Gov't.	155	170Fort Alexander.. .	
R.C.	Gov't.	105	165Norway House.. ..	Gov't.	105	175Pine Creek	
R.C.	Gov't.	120	165Portage la Prairie.	Gov't.	90	165Sandy Bay	
R.C.	Gov't.	75	165

	JUNE 30, 1938			4497
		Supply-Indian Affairs		
Indian	Residential Schools-June 30,	1938-Concluded		
	Saskatchewan			
				Per capita
School	Denomi-	Owner-	allowancenation	ship	Pupilage	(less 5%)Beauval	
R.C.	Gov't.	100	$180Cowessess	
R.C.	Gov't.	85	165Duck Lake	
R.C.	Gov't.	175	170File Hills	Gov't.	100	165Gordon's	
C.E.	Gov't.	120	165Guy	
R.C.	Gov't.	125	175Lae la Rouge	Gov't.	100	200Muscowequan	
R.C.	Gov't.	105	165Onion Lake	
R.C.	Gov't.	120	170Onion Lake	Gov't.	100	170Qu'Appelle	Gov't.	235	170Hound Lake	Gov't.	75	165R C	Thunderchild	
R.C.	Church	120	170Alberta	Blood	
R.C.	Gov't.	140	$165Blue Quills	
R.C.	Gov't.	140	170Crowfoot	
R.C.	Gov't.	75	165Edmonton	Gov't.	150	170Ermineskin	
R.C.	Church	140	170Grouard	
R.C.	Church	90	200Holy Angels	Church	40	175J oussard	Church	125	175Morley	Gov't.	100	165 'Old Sun	
C.E.	Gov't.	100	165St. Cyprian	Gov't.	50	165St. Paul's	
C.E.	Gov't.	140	165Sacred Heart	
R.C.	Gov't.	50	165Sturgeon Lake	
R.C.	Church	90	180V ermilion	Church	65	180Wabasca	
R.C.	Church	110	180Wabasca	
C.E.	Church	35	180Whitefish Lake	
C.E.	Church	30	* 180Youville (St. Albert) ....	
R.C.	Church	160	180Northwest Territories	Aklavik	
R.C.	Church	40	$200Aklavik	
C.E.	Church	50	200Fort Resolution	Church	80	200Providence Mission	Church	65	200Yukon	Carcross	Gov't.	40	250St. Paul's Hostel	Church	30	250British Columbia	Ahousaht	Church	65	180Alert Bay	Gov't.	200	180Cariboo	Church	123	170Christie	Church	110	180Coqualeetza	Gov't.	225	170Kamloops	Gov't.	285	170Kitamaat	Church	30	175Kootenay	Gov't.	90	170Kuper Island	Gov't.	100	170Lejac	Gov't.	160	170Port Simpson	Church	35	175Sechelt	Gov't.	80	170Squamish	Church	60	170St. George's	Gov't.	180	180St. Mary's Mission	Church	172	170
Supply-Indian Affairs


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appreciate the minister's action, and I believe it will make unnecessary a large number of questions which he would otherwise be asked. I desired to have it in order that I might be able, by sending for Hansard, to answer questions which I might be constantly asked.


Mr. WALSH:: Is the grant to these various schools based upon the unit cost?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is based upon the cost of operation. As I stated, I believe it was last night, these grants vary from approximately S150 to $200, depending on the location of the school and the cost of operation and maintenance. For instance, if a school is located in the wilds of northern Saskatchewan, it would be more expensive to operate than one located in a settled district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-administration of the Immigration Act and the Chinese Immigration Act, $179,923.
Mr. GREEN:: About four months ago the government announced that two committees had been or would be appointed to look into the question of the illegal entry of Japanese into British Columbia. We were told that an inter-departmental committee had already been at work for almost a year, and subsequently a board of review was appointed, which I believe brought in a report early in May. What reports have been made by these two committees?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Some interim reports have been received from the board of review, but their final report has not been issued. So far as the inter-departmental committee is concerned, its considerations-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was treated as privileged.	[DOT]


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand the interdepartmental committee has not made a report but the board of review is operating.


Howard Charles Green: Has either the committee or the board of review been responsible for sending back to Japan any Japanese who had entered Canada illegally?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am told that there are
cases under investigation, but I cannot say at the moment whether any actual deportations have taken place since the board of review started to function.


Howard Charles Green: Have these two boards found it to be a fact that there are many Japanese in British Columbia illegally?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At the moment I cannot give my hon. friend any more information than I have just stated.


Howard Charles Green: On May 26, the Prime Minister told us that a statement would be made by the government on the interim report which had been received from the board of review. When are we to get that statement? We have been led to believe right along that the government was anxious to get results quickly from this inter-departmental committee and the board of review, but it would appear now that this is another case of waiting and seeing.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is quite wrong, and I am quite sure he does not desire to be unfair in any sense. This is a matter that involves a great deal of investigation, and I think my hon. friend will appreciate the inadvisability of broadcasting in the house or to the public the progress of these investigations. When the board of review has finished its work I have no doubt that a report will be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many have actually been deported since the beginning of the year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am unable to give that information at the moment.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the government under consideration the making of a census of either the orientals or the whole population of British Columbia? I suggest that this is the only way to ascertain really whether any orientals are in the country illegally.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might say that the matter has not received consideration at the moment, but I imagine that when the board of review completes its investigation it will have something to say on that score.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Empire settlement, $1,000.
George Halsey Perley: Would the minister care to make a statement with regard to the results of the empire conference held last year in London? I believe a representative of Canada attended that conference at which was taken up the matter of British empire settlement and immigration.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Canadian government did not have a representative at that conference.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines and geology branch-To assist in provision of transportation facilities into mining areas and to authorize subject to the approval of the governor in council, the appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the following items designated " special " under this department, $1,310,000.

Supply-Mines and Geology
Thomas Alexander Crerar: A typographical error has been made in the printing by including the word " following " in the description.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the word " following " be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
René-Antoine Pelletier: How much has been allotted to each province under this item?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The allotments are as
follows:
Nova Scotia	 $ 25,000
Quebec	 250,000
Ontario	 250,000
Manitoba	 230.000
Saskatchewan	 125,000
Alberta		50,000
British Columbia	 240,000
Yukon	 50,000
Northwest Territories	 43,000
There is a small sum unallotted and another small amount reserved for administration costs.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Last year some $25,000 was supposed to be allotted to Alberta. Has that money been paid to the province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The money was not spent in Alberta last year.


René-Antoine Pelletier: There was no payment made to the province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


René-Antoine Pelletier: What about the $50,000 supposed to be spent this year? Have any requests been received for the expenditure of this money from the government of the province ?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The $50,000 is to be spent this year in the improvement of the Atha-baska river from Waterways down. As my hon. friend probably knows, the water of the Athabaska river has been low this year. The freight movement on this river down to lake Athabaska has increased considerably in the last five years. It is proposed to appropriate, out of this, $50,000, and I think a similar amount is coming from the Department of Public Works, for a commencement of definite river navigation improvement on the Athabaska. Then I draw to the attention of the committee that $42,000 is being spent in the northwest territories, which is solely under the control of the federal administration; and since Alberta gets all the benefits, what is really being expended in relation to benefits which will accrue to Alberta is $93,000.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I quite understand. But was there any request by the government of Alberta for money to be expended at that particular spot?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I think we had requests from the province of Alberta and we certainly-


René-Antoine Pelletier: Pardon me; I said "the government of Alberta."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, I am not going to get into an argument with my hon. friend with respect to terms. Requests came from the province of Alberta over a year ago for the improvement of transportation into the north country. The suggestion was made that a winter road might be built from Waterways to lake Athabaska. That would incur a very heavy expenditure and, in our judgment, was not the best method of proceeding with the development of transportation facilities into that area. I believe the Alberta government are quite agreeable to the spending of the money on the improvements on that river. As a matter of fact, the Alberta government are not being asked to make a contribution to that work. Personally I do not think they should be. River and harbour improvements are usually-indeed, I think, invariably-a federal responsibility. Erom present appearances the developments year by year will increase in the north country. One of the most promising mining fields to-day, potentially, is the area north of Slave lake. Several companies are now going in there. I believe three mills are being built in the vicinity of Slave lake. All that freight has to move down the Athabaska river, and with the improvements made from Fitzgerald to Fort Smith better facilities will be afforded for the movement of that freight. Personally I think that is the sensible course to follow.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am in entire agreement with the minister so far as transportation facilities to the north are concerned, and I am sure they will be received with pleasure by those concerned in the area. Nevertheless I would point out to the minister that last year the demand was made that this $25,000 which was supposed to be allotted to the province should be spent. The minister tells us that in the opinion of the department the proposed location of the work was not suitable. I happen to have letters on file from the minister's department telling me that they have not even given this such consideration as they would like to do and have never been advised that this location is not suitable. If that is the case, this must be a brand new decision on the part of the government, because at that time there was no decision of that kind considered.
In that connection I should like to point out that a vast amount of money has been
Supply-Mines and Geology


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is confusing two things. He is referring to the road from Grimshaw to Great Slave lake. I am referring to a request from the Alberta government over a year ago that a road be built form Waterways to lake Athabaska.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The point is this, that the $25,000 which was supposed to be allotted to Alberta last year never was paid to that province. I say in contrast with that, when a certain company in the northern part of British Columbia desired assistance, vast sums of money were expended in that particular territory. Will the minister be good enough to state how much money was spent last year in the northern half of British Columbia and how much in the northern part of Alberta?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot at the moment give my hon. friend the information. The money which was expended in British Columbia was spent getting into metal mining areas. No such areas have so far been discovered in Alberta. The development at lake Athabaska is in Saskatchewan, though of course immediately north of Alberta, and as

I said before, the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta generally are going to benefit greatly.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Just finally, there is this word to be said, that so far as the development at Fort McMurray is concerned, that request, I understand, did not officially come from the government of Alberta. I agree that the work should be carried on, but I merely want to point out that this is not the policy which is adopted in connection with other provinces. If my understanding is correct, every provincial government is always consulted before expenditures of this kind are undertaken. I well recall last year when a return was brought down, the minister advised me that British Columbia was consulted before the particular expenditure was undertaken. I beg to point out that Alberta is the only province where the provincial government is not consulted as to the disposition of the money voted.


Mr. HANSON:: I should like to draw to the attention of the last speaker that if he looks through sessional paper No. 313, he will find out what has been spent in northern British Columbia from 1930 to 1938, and he will find that reasonable consideration has been given to that portion of the country.
Item as amended agreed to.
Lands, Parks and Forests Branch-Government of the Northwest Territories-General administration, operation, maintenance and improvement of services, including Wood Buffalo park-further amount required, $20,300.


Howard Charles Green: Have there been any negotiations yet between this government and the government of British Columbia concerning the taking over of the Mackenzie river basin or any other portion of the northwest territories by that province?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; there have been no negotiations of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Special - National Parks bureau - national parks, $400,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have a very large body of information which I should like to impart to this committee as to the conduct of affairs in the national parks. But at this late hour I shall refrain from saying more than this, that life has become a great burden by reason of the method employed by the superintendent at Banff in the enforcement of regulations under leases which have been issued over a period of years. He is compelling those who seek some sort of remedy for their difficulties

Supply-Mines-Highways
to sign documents which would have the effect of putting them completely and absolutely in the hands of the government, regardless of what their legal position may be. If I were to utilize the information at my hand, it would take at least an hour to present to this committee, and I would offer no apology; for it spells a condition which I think is intolerable in a country such as this.
I mentioned the matter to the minister, and some time ago he gave instructions that in my judgment, had they been carried out, would have had the desired effect. They have not been made effective. I have again discussed the matter with him, and I think he proposes to take such action as will bring about an improvement in that situation. If the minister is prepared to make a statement that will cover the situation, in the light of the knowledge that has been presented to him, I will refrain from taking up the time of the committee in discussing a matter which I think is of very great importance. I trust I shall not be regarded in any sense as suggesting that the minister should do this rather than that I should give effect to what may seem to be my duty, but which I shall refrain from doing if the minister is able to carry out the suggestions which he has already made to me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I may say briefly to my right hon. friend that I know his interest in the Banff national park, and while there has been some little difficulty I do not think it is so very serious, as he states.


Richard Bedford Bennett: See the telegrams that I get.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is a town of 3,000 people in the park with all the ambitions of a town that size. We desire to make certain improvements. The right hon. gentleman has called my attention to some of the difficulties that exist there, and within the next few days I am going to take steps to have a special investigation made. I can assure him that I am as anxious as he is to have Banff become a first-class national park.


George Halsey Perley: Are any new parks to be developed in Saskatchewan this year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is no provision for additional parks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Development of tourist highways, $1,750,000.
Harry James Barber: W7hat proportion of this vote is being given to British Columbia? Has any agreement been entered into?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The allotment for British
Columbia is $150,000.


Harry James Barber: That is this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the Alberta allotment?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Alberta's is $75,000.


George Halsey Perley: And Saskatchewan?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: These are the various
amounts, Saskatchewan, $175,000; Manitoba, $390,000; Ontario, $500,000; Quebec, $175,000; New Brunswick, $100,000; Nova Scotia, $135,000; Prince Edward Island, $40,000.


Charles Grant MacNeil: What projects have been
agreed upon in British Columbia?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The allotment will be spent on the development of a highway from Blaine into Vancouver.


Harry James Barber: That is the point I wanted to bring up to-night. We have a paved highway from Blaine to the Westminster bridge, and what I want to direct the minister's attention to is this. At the port of Huntingdon you enter from Seattle, through Bellingham and Sumas, to the trans-Canada highway. The port of Huntingdon is the fifth largest port in Canada from the standpoint of business, and we have there, on the Canadian side, what is commonly termed a dirt road. It takes three or four miles to reach the trans-Canada highway over the dirt road and one can imagine what an impression it must make upon tourists coming from the United States and hitting that sort of road. What must be their opinion of Canada, and what encouragement will they have to return and to induce others to come?
Two or three years ago a survey was made, and through the construction of one mile of road direct connection can be made with the trans-Canada highway. I was in hopes that provision would be made out of this vote, in conjunction with the province of British Columbia, to complete what is known as "C" street, which would connect directly from the United States highways with our own paved trans-Canada highway. To complete it there would be required perhaps, in addition, two miles of paving. I do not like to make the charge; but it seems to me, from information I have received that party politics is entering into this question to some extent. To the west of us there is a riding on which there is going to be spent some $300,000 or $400,000 for the construction of a wide new highway from Blaine to Westminster bridge, whereas in this other district, which happens to be represented by a Conservative, we cannot get a highway completed with a two mile hard surface. This is a matter that was taken up with the provincial government two or three
Supply-Mines-Highways

weeks ago, but no answer has been received, and I wish to impress upon the minister the importance of this construction from the standpoint of the tourist industry. The tourist industry can be encouraged and considerably increased at this point by the expenditure of a very small sum of money, and I wish to urge upon the minister the importance of that particular road.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Will the minister give a break-down of the $500,000 which is being spent in Ontario?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not able at the moment to give that information. That question is under study now, and the province is being asked in each of these cases to provide at least an equal amount. The allocation of this particular vote in Ontario has not yet been definitely determined.


Mr. STEWART:: Will the administration of these funds be under provincial control?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will be under agreements with the provinces. The agreements are similar to those we have had in the past, except that the projects, the places where the roads would be built, have to be approved by the federal government. The provincial government also consents, both contributing, and we take the necessary steps under the agreement to see that the provisions are carried out by inspection in regard to labour, the sort of labour employed, and everything else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the fact that in Alberta we have not only Jasper park and Banff park, but communicating roads and the Kootenay park which is reached through these roads, I cannot but think that the sum allotted to that province is wholly inadequate. In the ultimate analysis the tourist trade is almost as valuable as the mining industry, and that trade is so important that unless we provide decent roads we shall lose it. This long dust line leading into Alberta from the south must be replaced with properly surfaced roads. In the great province of Ontario they have such roads; they have money. In Alberta and Saskatchewan they have no money, and there is no place in which federal grants should be expended so readily as in those provinces, which have not the road material. They have road material in Alberta; but in the prairies and the plains they have not, and the only way by which we can keep the tourist traffic is to provide proper roads into those parts. The sum of $75,000 is a miserable amount.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In item No. 536 there is a further sum of $300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but that is the one road which is under contract. That does not help these matters at all. That only continues the road from Banff. It is Jasper and the road through to Revelstoke. Those are two different roads. I am talking about the roads that lead to these parks, coming in by Kings-gate in British Columbia, by the ports in Alberta and Saskatchewan and by way of Lethbridge. Surely $75,000 is a paltry sum to talk about for Alberta, where they have little money, and where the importance of these roads to these great parks cannot be estimated. The other day I saw the road leading from Calgary to Banff; it is partly covered with oil, with a surfacing substance to keep down the dust. But the road leading to the United States is not in that fortunate position. Surely something must be done to make these roads passable. As an allotment to Alberta I would almost say that $75,000 is in the nature of a punishment, not a reward.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, that is not so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it looks like it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; my right hon. friend is a little less than fair in this. As far as the road from Calgary to Waterton Lakes park is concerned, we hope that road may be completely hard-surfaced this fall. The improvements to the road have been going on for two years; in each of the two years grants were available when no other grants were being made elsewhere in the dominion for hard-surfacing and dust laying, except on the Kingsgate-Radium Hot Springs road in British Columbia. No one will appreciate more than the right hon. leader of the opposition the interesting time a minister has in trying to allot a vote of this size. There are claims from all parts of the country. In Alberta this year $300,000 is being spent on the Banff-Jasper road. Also there is further work being done for which British Columbia is paying 50 per cent, looking towards the completion of the Kingsgate-Radium Hot Springs road. We are also spending $100,000 in hard-surfacing in Banff this year. That is entirely in the province of Alberta, with the exception of the Kingsgate road, and when that road is completed Calgary and all the towns down to Waterton lakes are going to derive the main benefit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is roads leading to the United States that I am concerned with.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but tourists will come in by Kingsgate and go out through Calgary and the Waterton lakes. Alberta is bound to get a large benefit from that. I would have

Supply-Mines-Highways
liked to see a larger vote, because the development of the tourist business is a great asset for this country, an excellent way to increase the national income, and I hope the public consciousness will develop to support increased assistance from the federal government in the development of what I consider one of our great national assets.


Harry James Barber: Is the responsibility for
these expenditures and the selection of the sections where they are to be spent up to the provincial government? Do they initiate it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The provincial government submit the project to us. I shall be glad to look into the road referred to by my hon. friend; but the representations that have been made to us-and they have, I think, been borne out convincingly-are that the present road from Blaine, where the Peace arch is on the international boundary, to Vancouver, is hopelessly inadequate for tourist traffic. I was told recently that on one day over fourteen thousand cars passed over the new Pattullo bridge at New Westminster. That is an indication of the development and the possibilities of that traffic.


Harry James Barber: That traffic can be relieved to a great extent by improving these other entries. I am not opposing the other road, but this road has just one mile to complete. I urge the minister to look into that.


George Halsey Perley: On what roads in Saskatchewan will this money be spent? Have the provincial government made application stating what roads they want it spent on?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No decision has yet been reached on that.


George Halsey Perley: It was a live question during the recent provincial election in Saskatchewan. Roads were promised to be built from the southern boundary through to Regina and Humboldt and Melfort, and another by Moose Jaw to Prince Albert park. Surely, when the discussion took place, it had been decided which road the money was to be spent on.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the minister's department control the conditions under which labour will be employed on the new Pacific highway? If so, has provision been made to absorb a number of the single unemployed men now in Vancouver?


Charles Grant MacNeil: From the sessional paper tabled a few days ago I read from a telegram sent by Mr. Pearson, Minister of Labour, dated June 10, conditions which practically exclude the absorption of the unemployed transients now in Vancouver:
Only two major projects are Big Bend highway and New Pacific highway former under entire control federal government while latter will be constructed through districts that now have hundreds of families on relief nevertheless employment of unemployed persons in areas through which road runs will relieve competition from labour market. Assume terms agreement will provide fifty per cent relief labour and fifty per cent contractors choice. Single men will be free to compete for latter quota without specific preference being given to any one group.
I point out that those conditions as laid down will not lead to any solution of the distressing problem confronting the city of Vancouver at this time.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That will be governed
by the agreement, not by some statement Mr. Pearson has given to the newspapers.


Mr. ESLING:: From the international
boundary there are 140 miles of hard-surfaced road to the south. It is about eight miles from the international boundary to connect with the trans-provincial highway leading to Vancouver on the west and Banff on the east. Last year this government contributed $10,000 towards the completion of two miles out of the eight. Is there any contribution to complete the remaining six miles this year? It is entirely a tourist highway connecting with the transprovincial highway through the port of Paterson, the point of entry. There is so much business there that the department has to put on extra help for the collector of customs.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter to which my
hon. friend refers certainly was not under the Department of Mines and Resources last year, and consequently I am not familiar with the point he has raised. I shall be glad to look into it.


William Kemble Esling: It is a tourist highway.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We did not build any
tourist highways last year.


William Kemble Esling: Is there no appropriation
towards the completion of that highway this year? If so, is it because the provincial government has not made any recommendation for it? There has been plenty of publicity in the press to the effect that those six miles were to be completed this year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The agreements with the Mr. CRERAR:	I am not familiar with
provinces carry provisions that cover the the geography of the district to which mv point raised by my hon. friend.	hon. friend refers, so I cannot say at the

Supply-Indian Affairs

moment whether that project is under consideration this year or not. Certainly it was not last year as far as the Department of Mines and Resources is concerned.


William Kemble Esling: But from the standpoint
of the development of tourist traffic; over which matter the minister has control, this road comes from Spokane to Trail and Ross-land, connecting there with the southern trans-provincial highway, and I want to ask explicitly if the provincial government has made any suggestion as to the completion of that road.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot say at the moment. I shall be glad "to ascertain that information and give it to my hon. friend. But I can say that it is not in the program for this year.


William Kemble Esling: The newspapers said it
was to be in the program this year. Is there any appropriation at all for the completion of tourist highways in southeastern British Columbia?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It may be in some provincial program that we have nothing to do with; I cannot say as to that, but it is not in the program that comes under this vote.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister was under
a misapprehension a moment ago when he said I was quoting newspaper statements-I was quoting from a telegram contained in a sessional paper, from the provincial minister of labour of British Columbia to the federal Minister of Labour, evidently referring to the agreement. I am directing the attention of the minister to the fact that the people of Vancouver have been advised that this project will be so conducted as to relieve the distressing situation which exists following what is rightly termed "bloody Sunday" in that city. Under the terms of the agreement, as disclosed in this telegram, there is no suggestion of any solution of that problem. A works project will be developed without absorbing a single man from that group.


Mr. ROGERS:: If I may answer that question, the telegram to which the hon. member refers was sent before the agreement was drafted which covered that work. The work was announced, but the agreement was not drafted. I can assure my hon. friend that the clause dealing with the employment of labour on that project does provide for a certain number of single unemployed men to be taken through the Employment Service of Canada at Vancouver and New Westminster.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Surveys and Engineering Branch-Hydrographic and map service-legal surveys and map service-further amount required, $11,000.
James Samuel Taylor: What is being done with the claim of Saanich municipality in connection with the dominion astrophysical observatory at Victoria? Some four years ago they spent a considerable sum of money in assisting to put out a fire which raged on the hill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I remember something
about the fire, but at the moment I cannot recall what has been done about it. I shall be very glad to ascertain that information and give it to my hon. friend.


James Samuel Taylor: I do not think it should be dismissed in that manner, though I am sorry to have to say so. The minister and his department must be well aware that I have written about the matter many, many times.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I remember my hon. friend speaking to me about it, but at the moment I cannot recall the precise position. I did not wish to be discourteous to my hon. friend; he is certainly one of the last members of the house to whom I would desire to give any impression of discourtesy. What I said was that I would be very glad to get the information and give it to my hon. friend. I may be able to get it in a moment, but just now I do not have it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Indian Affairs Branch-welfare and training-Indian education

further amount required, $25,000.
Alan Webster Neill: I assume this provides for the further construction of schools. The Indian school at Albemi was burned down some two years ago, after having been in use for about forty years. I understand there is no provision for the reconstruction of that school this year; that the money allotted has gone to build schools elsewhere. Can the minister give us any assurance that it will be considered next year?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; I will say to my hon. friend now that it will be considered in our program next year; and if the generosity of my colleagues is such that I can get an amount for it, I shall be glad to include it. But I can say seriously to my hon. friend that it will be considered.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister use the word "favourably"?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not like to give such guarantees a year ahead.

Supply-Immigration


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I understand there have been increases in the estimates for Indian education this year, and I should like the minister to explain in what way the work has been extended. Last year I said that in my opinion the work was being neglected in some ways, but this year I see a considerable increase in both the main and supplementary estimates. In what way has this work been increased, and in what way are the Indians receiving a better education?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The increase is due entirely to the fact that, as I recall the figures at the moment, there are from 200 to 250 new Indian children coming in for education every year. The Indian population is increasing, and the school population is also increasing.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: To what extent is the school population increasing?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: As I said a moment ago to the extent of about 250 pupils per year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is a definite increase of 250?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I would not be certain that that was the precise number.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Carried.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: We should not make a burlesque out of this thing; it is information we want, and it does not help to have a few hon. members keep calling, " Carried." I want to know if there is any new phase of education for the Indians being taken up this year. I do not want to go into the details of what might be considered the neglect of their education; but have there been any new branches of education undertaken or any enlargement of the scope of their education *throughout the country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think there is a general desire to make education more vocational in character. That does not involve any increase in the amount of money required. As I stated, however, when the main estimates were before the committee, and as I said a moment ago, there is an increase in the number of Indian pupils each year because of the natural increase in the Indian population; and of course, as the number of pupils increases, the amount of money for education has to be increased. That is the explanation for the increase.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Then, am I to gather that the work is being carried on exactly as it was a year ago, with no changes in the curriculum and no new methods adopted for the education of the Indian children?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I did not say that.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister said the increase in the amount of money required was due to the natural increase in the school population. I am asking if there has been any change in the system of education or if the work is being carried on just as it was last year, and if it is only the natural increase in school population that has brought about the increase in the amount of money required.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have said already that the increase is due practically altogether to the increase in the number of pupils requiring school care and education. So far as the general problem of education is concerned, I stated before and I repeat now that study has been and is being given to the matter of making that education more vocational in character, so that it may be of more value to the Indian youngsters when they leave school and go out for themselves.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: That is the point I am trying to arrive at, and it seems to be taking some time. Is there any change in the vocational education being given to the Indian children? Goodness knows there is necessity for it. Is it only to be studied for another year, or has it actually been accomplished?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration branch-to provide for investigation of illegal entry of aliens into British Columbia, $15,000.
Harry James Barber: Is this item to provide for the investigation going on in connection with orientals. If so, what has this commission cost to date?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am unable to give that information.


Harry James Barber: What is the per diem allowance, and how are these men being paid?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is a per diem allowance to Doctor Keenleyside for living expenses. At this time I cannot recall what it is. The other members of the board of review are government officials resident in Vancouver.


James Samuel Taylor: Is the minister able to say anything about this Saanich business?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not in a position to give the hon. member the information he desires, but I shall look into the matter and advise him.


James Samuel Taylor: I have been repeatedly asking about this one matter. Saanich municipality spent $1,100 in putting out a fire on the dominion government's observatory hill. The reeve of the municipality

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
attempted to get the money back from the government. I have taken a hand in it and have made many representations to the department. I understand that finally, after the matter being set aside several times, it was referred to the director of the observatory, and that some compromise has been effected. I am asking how the compromise was made and when the money is to be paid over. Is there a provision in this year's estimates whereby that long standing claim may be settled? I could take up a great deal of time in discussing the matter, but shall not do so. In view of the promises made to me and to the municipality, I would ask the minister to look into the matter.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Chief Architect's branch-Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings- Saskatchewan-
Biggar-public building, $20,000.
Broadview-purchase of and alterations to building for armoury purposes, $4,200.
Foam Lake-public building, $27,500.
Meadow Lake-public building, $29,500.
Moose Jaw armoury-reconstruction, $18,000.
Sintaluta-purchase of building for postal purposes, $3,500.
Star City-purchase of building for postal purposes, $3,000.
Wadena-public building, $24,500.
Wynyard-public building, $15,000.
Yorkton-public building, $35,000.
George Halsey Perley: What was the building purchased for postal purposes at Sintaluta, Saskatchewan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenditure is to purchase from Mr. George Hill a building, now used as a post office.


George Halsey Perley: Has the purchase been completed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


George Halsey Perley: The department has agreed to take the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Would the minister explain the expenditure of $20,000 for Biggar?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building for postal purposes, and also to provide accommodation for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Major James William Coldwell: For the purchase of the property or the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The site and building.


George Halsey Perley: What is the price of the building at Broadview, and what amount will be spent on alterations?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is an amount of $4,200 to provide for the purchase of a Sons of England lodge property, consisting of lots 26 and 27, together with a one storey frame building thereon, and the adjoining lots numbers 28 and 29. It is to be used for armoury purposes. The alterations and repairs are estimated at $800, and that amount is included.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta
Cardston-public building, $5,000.
Jasper-public building, $20,000.
St. Paul-public building, $20,000.
Mr. LANDERYOU:: I notice that in the total vote of $45,000 there is one revote of $5,000 and another of $12,000. The total amount to be spent in Alberta on public buildings would be only $28,000. Why is such a small amount spent in Alberta when such large sums are spent in the adjoining western provinces?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is probably due to the fact that I have not received requests for larger expenditures in Alberta.


John Charles Landeryou: From whom would the minister receive requests? Would they be from the government of Alberta?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; requests of that nature generally come from the members.


John Charles Landeryou: I would recommend that the minister build more buildings in Alberta. What is the nature of the building at Jasper?	[DOT]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a public building for postal purposes, located in the park.


Ernest George Hansell: Was the minister serious in the answer he gave a little while ago? Are the appropriations made to the provinces because certain members ask for them? I would like to know if he was joking or was serious?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I was certainly not joking, and was serious. I always respect the recommendations which come from members representing constituencies. A member is supposed to represent to the government the needs of his constituency.


Ernest George Hansell: I can assure the minister that I shall have a few requests to make next year.


Mr. POOLE:: I might point out to the minister that I made a request last year for certain work which I have not got as yet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend should not
lose hope.


Eric Joseph Poole: I understand a minister of the Alberta government is here now, and I hope the minister will be more generous with him than he has been in the past. I understand a request has been made.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too late.


Eric Joseph Poole: It is never too late unless it is always too late.


John Charles Landeryou: Why was not the building at St. Paul completed last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The site was not obtained early enough to start the building. The contract was awarded in December, 1937.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Armstrong-public building, $15,000. Esquimalt-H.M.C. dockyard office building, $16,000.
Kamloops-entomological laboratory for Department of Health, $6,000.
New Westminster public building

addition, $185,000.
Prince George-public building, $25,000. Salmon Arm-purchase of building for national defence, $1,650.
Vancouver examining warehouse and winch building-alterations, improvements and repairs, $19,000.
Victoria public building-improvements and repairs, $11,000.
Mr. STIRLING:: Have tenders been called for the Armstrong building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sorry I have not that information for my hon. friend, but I shall expedite the asking for tenders.


Grote Stirling: Will the minister be good enough to let me know by letter when they will be called for, if they have not been called for already?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: With pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief Engineer's branch-Special-Construction, repairs and improvements-Harbours and
Rivers-
Nova Scotia-
Abbott's harbour-wharf, $7,100.
Battery point (Victoria beach)-breakwater extension. $7,000.
Baxter's	harbour-breakwater	extension,
[Stage Direction]
Bear river-dredging, $20,500.
Bridgewater-dredging, $4,800.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Broad cove marsh-breakwater repairs,
[Stage Direction]
Brooklyn-breakwater, repairs and improvements (revote) - (estimated cost $165,000), $75,000.	.
Cape St. Mary's-breakwater reconstruction (revote $1,000), $15,000.
Caribou harbour-improvements, $100,000. Carleton village-breakwater, $5,500. Comeauville-breakwater, $18,500.
Cribbin's point-dredging, $16,000.
Dartmouth-wharf repairs, $9,600.
Dayspring-wharf, $5,500.
Digby-dredging, $29,000.
Dingwall-harbour improvements (estimated cost $315,000), $90,000.
East river-dredging. $10,400.
Estmere-wharf, $3,400.
Fourchu-wharf reconstruction, $8,700.
Fourchu-dredging (revote $9,400). $27,300. Framboise-breakwater extension. $4,500. Hantsport-wharf extension. $4,300.
Johns island-breakwater-wharf, $7,000. Johnstown (north pond)-wharf, $6,400.
La Pointe (Cheticamp point)-wharf repairs, $10,800.
La Have-dredging, $4,500.
L'Archeveque-breakwater, $9,400.
Larry's river-dredging, $34,000.
Lloyd's cove-breakwater extension, $7,400. Liverpool-dredging. $20,000.
Louis head-breakwater	(revote $1,800),
$3,200.	.
Lunenburg-dredging, $14,000.
Mabou bridge-dredging, $14,500.
Margaree harbour-repairs to pier, $8,000.^ Margaree island-extension to wharf and pier, $10,700.
Meat cove-wharf replacement, $6,000. Meteghan-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
Middle island-breakwater and skidway, $7,000.
Middle point cove-breakwater (revote), $3,200.	.
Mill cove-breakwater extension, $30,000. Mulgrave (Pirate harbour)-to purchase and repair wharf, $4,600.
North West cove (Tancook)-breakwater extension, $13,000.
Pictou island-breakwater, $20,500.
Pictou landing-harbour improvements (revote $1,600). $25,700.
Poirierville-wharf extension, $11,000.
Port Hood-closing northern entrance (revote) $6,500), $48,200.
Port Maitland-harbour improvements, $45,000.
Portuguese cove-breakwater repairs, $8,800. Pugwash-warehouse, $5,000.
Rockdale-breakwater extension. $7,600.
St. Mary's river-dredging, $48,200.
Seal island west-breakwater repairs. $6,000. Ship harbour-wharf extension, $5,500. Skinner's cove-partial reconstruction of pier, $11,000.
Sydney-warehouse (revote $41,500), $65,000. Tibbo's cove-breakwater, $5,600.
Walker's	cove-harbour improvement^
[Stage Direction]
West Advocate-improvements, $3,300. Westport	(south)-breakwater (revote),
[Stage Direction]
Weetmount (north)-wharf extension, $4,900. Weymouth-to purchase and reconstruct wharf, $15,500.	.
Windsor-contribution towards protection work. $2,055.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Hugh Alexander Stewart: In this item there is a
revote of $75,000 for breakwater repairs and improvements at Brooklyn, the total estimated cost being $165,000. What is the explanation of this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract for the work has been awarded, but I understand that this year it is not expected that we can spend more than $75,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do these items cover the entire estimated expenditure or only that part of the contemplated expenditure which may be made in this fiscal year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In many instances they
cover the whole expenditure, but in others they cover only that amount which we reasonably expect to spend during the year. Generally speaking, we do not award a contract without having a substantial amount in the estimates, generally about half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whatever is contemplated to be expended in the fiscal year. What does this item really contemplate in the way of public expenditure? What will be the total expenditure by the taxpayers of Canada under this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That would be hard to give. In connection with many items, particularly the small ones, we shall be spending the whole amount.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What will it cost to complete the program outlined in this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am sorry I cannot give
that information, because we have not added up the different items where only a portion of the total amount is indicated. For example, in connection with the Brooklyn breakwater, the amount asked for is $75,000, but we indicate that the total cost of the work will be $165,000. The same thing would apply to other items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total of this item
is $1,051,055, and I should like to know what it is contemplated must be spent to complete the program.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The commitments covered by this item will probably run to $1,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid the total will be more than that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Another item about which I should like some information is the harbour improvements at Dingwall. In this case the estimated expenditure is $350,000 and $90,000 is being asked for this year. What is the nature of the work to be carried on here?
[Mr. Card in. 1


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A gypsum deposit was discovered at this point, and a considerable business has been developed. A few years ago the government undertook to deepen the channel in the harbour, provided1 the company operating there would agree to build up a traffic of 120,000 tons. The company has carried out that undertaking which goes back as far as 1933, and it is now asking that the harbour be deepened still further in order to permit the entry of vessels with a deeper draft, that is, vessels of eight or nine thousand tons. Instead of providing a traffic of 120.000 tons in eight years, the company has increased the annua! capacity of the plant to 120,000 tons. In order * to help it to develop this business, which is quite important to that section of Nova Scotia, the government has agreed to deepen the harbour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I recall quite well the facts in connection with the start and development of that industry. What the minister has said now recalls to me the terms of the agreement. How much has been spent altogether on that harbour since 1933?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In 1933. $43,000 was expended; in 1934, $40,000; in 1935, $28,000; in 1936, $48,000; in 1937, $113,000. The total that has been spent there is $274,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Port	Hood-closing
northern entrance, $48,200. What is the reason for undertaking this work? It is one that has been under consideration, I know, for a number of years, and there seem to be reasons why it should not be done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $48,000 includes a revote of $6,500, and is required for the completion of the work under contract with Mr. Condon, consisting of placing fascine mattresses across the northern entrance to the harbour of a length of 2.645 feet. The amount of the contract is $51,520. The ultimate object of the work is to close the northern entrance, which is exposed to northerly seas to such an extent that shipping cannot anchor safely during a northerly storm. I am informed that this is to complete the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-
Basin head-boat harbour. $12,500.
Belfast-wharf repairs, $6,000.
Belle river harbour-breakwater extension, $5,500.
Boughton island-wharf. $6,300.
Canoe cove-breakwater. $14,800.
Malpeque (Kier's shore)-wharf repairs, $6,000.
Mont Carmel-breakwater extension. $3,600.
Summerside-to take over and reconstruct Queen's wharf, $16,500.
Wood islands-harbour, $150,000.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item raises the question we discussed in this chamber last year, namely the expenditure at Wood islands and at Pictou of $150,000, involving an entirely
new ferry for a distance which renders it impossible to create any more rapid transit between the two sections. Would the minister give the committee some explanation of what has been done and what is contemplated.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A contract was awarded some days ago for that work at Wood islands.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were tenders called?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A contract was awarded to the Dominion Construction Corporation Limited, of Toronto. Several tenders came in, and that was the lowest.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There were tenders also by J. P. Porter and Sons, Montreal, and T. C. Gorman Construction Company Limited, Montreal. The amount of the contract is $254,143. That is the amount of the lowest tender. It is certain that we cannot spend that whole amount of money this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much was spent last
year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nothing was spent last year except upon the preparation of the plan and the survey.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to have on record just where are Wood islands. I just want to follow this up, this ferry from Wood islands to Pictou.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is on the eastern end of Prince Edward Island.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The eastern coast of Prince Edward Island. How far north of Charlottetown?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Wood islands are situate at the southernmost point of Queens county, on the Northumberland strait coast of Prince Edward Island. The strait has a width of about twelve miles. The establishment of this ferry service will enable the government to dispense with the subsidies now given to the steamship service on the Charlottetown-Pictou route and also the service between Sydney and Bras d'Or ports and the west coast of Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not by a long shot.
I suppose that here is one of the finest managed bits of work which has been before this
committee for a long time. Hon. members will perhaps remember the discussion last year. There is just as much necessity for this as there is for a fifth wheel to a coach, but because I dared to mention it a gentleman rose in his place and denounced me for being opposed to money being spent in Prince Edward Island. The minister knows perfectly well why this is being done. He might tell the committee. What hon. member asked for this?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide a shorter
ferry service between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.


Ernest Lapointe: And do
away with certain subsidies.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, I heard that.
I happen also to know the story of the subsidies, of the $30,000 grant given to a firm located in Montreal who bought an old ship, and the government endeavoured to reduce the grant to $25,000 in the main estimates and increased it to $30,000 in the supple-mentaries. The application for the same subsidy will be there when the new route is established. At the present time the ship runs from Pictou to Charlottetown. It leaves in the afternoon and it arrives in the afternoon. Who is to carry on the service between Wood islands and Pictou without a subsidy? Perhaps the minister will say.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps I might be permitted to intervene, because the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned in this particular subsidy. The purpose of having the improvements made here is to shorten the distance between the mainland and Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to something like twelve to fifteen miles. The present connection between the mainland and Prince Edward Island is from Pictou to Charlottetown, a distance, I think, of something like fifty miles, taking a considerable time to traverse.	On	that route,	as theleader of the	opposition	knows, there	is andhas been for	some	time	a subsidy of	$30,000a year. At	one	time	it was reduced to
$25,000; at another time it was $30,000. Now the purpose of transferring-because it is going to be transferred-the subsidy that is now being given, for the service between Pictou and Charlottetown, because the longer distance is to be discontinued, is to give the subsidy for a ferry which is to run between Caribou and Wood islands, a distance of some fifteen miles. The sole purpose, as I understand it, is to shorten the distance between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not run in the
winter, you know.


William Daum Euler: The other does not run in
the winter either. It is to substitute a shorter route for a longer one, and a contract has been made for a subsidy for the construction of a new ship, a ferry, to run on this new route.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With whom?
^ Mr. EULER: The firm, I believe, is called Farquhar and Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Remember
there was to be no subsidy a while ago. Now we have one.


William Daum Euler: No; we were giving a subsidy of S30,000 for the longer distance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the new one was
to get none.


William Daum Euler: No; I never heard of anything of the sort.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister was not
listening.


William Daum Euler: The new one is to get a
subsidy of $28,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
William Daum Euler: It is $2,000 less than we
are giving now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect will be to hand to private industry $25,000 instead of the $30,000 that was given from year to year. It will shorten the distance and deprive the Canadian National of the additional revenue it had in the summer traffic. The Canadian National enjoyed almost a monopoly in the moving of cars across the strait, and we are now going to move the traffic down to Pictou and lose the money that was heretofore paid for the purpose of conveying cars-


William Daum Euler: Motor cars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -to Prince Edward Island. We are giving to private industry $28,000 a year and spending $250,000, and we are spending an additional sum at Pictou harbour, which .is indicated here. Now, $28,000 a year is four per cent on $700,000, and they are going to build a new ship. Why should they not?


William Daum Euler: The Canadian National ferry crosses at a point much further north, at Tormentine. At that point motor cars may come over and now proceed to the island and fMr. Euler.]
enter Nova Scotia at another point, completing the circuit. That will not deprive the Canadian National of any business.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They lose the return
traffic.


William Daum Euler: With the tourist traffic
developing, the tourist who enters at one end of the island does not want to go back the same way, but leaves from another point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister is wrong.


William Daum Euler: I am quite sure I am right


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the cost of the
development at Pictou island?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The plans and specifications are not ready yet, but we contemplate about the same expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are going to spend
half a million dollars and provide an annual subsidy equivalent to four per cent on $700,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I protest against the
expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New Brunswick, $725,200.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is one of those long items covering nearly a page. If we are not going to finish to-night, I suggest that we rise now and take the item to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had hoped it would be possible to announce prorogation this evening. There are, however, still a number of items which have to be passed, and it might be pressing the house unduly were we to seek to pass all the votes to-night. There are not very many, but it might be thought a bit arbitrary on the part of the government were I to urge hon. members to remain until all were passed. Possibly, therefore, the suggestion of the former Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), might be accepted, and the house adjourn at the present time. I believe hon. members generally are anxious to have prorogation as soon as possible, and were we to meet a little earlier to-morrow morning, we might definitely decide to arrange for prorogation at one o'clock. The government is always in the hands of the house in seeking to make an arrangement of the kind, and no one can say exactly what hour can be fixed, but I believe that we should be able to count on prorogation by one o'clock to-morrow were we to adjourn now and reassemble at 10.30 o'clock in the morning.

Penitentiaries Commission Act
I wish to say a word about prorogation itself. As hon. members are aware, His Excellency the Governor General has arranged to pay a visit to England this summer. About three months ago, in conversation with His Excellency, I suggested, that, having regard to the probable length of the session, it might be well not to fix a time for sailing before the first week of July and His Excellency so arranged. For some weeks past his sailing has been fixed for July 1st which is to-morrow. He is here this evening. As hon. members are aware His Excellency has been in residence at the Citadel in Quebec city for the past few weeks. He left Quebec this morning in anticipation of prorogation of parliament this evening. He is quite prepared to prorogue parliament at three or four in the morning. Moreover, His Excellency is quite prepared to postpone his sailing another week should his not being present to prorogue parliament occasion any disappointment. I feel that I will have the support of the house if I advise His Excellency not to alter, at this late time, his plans for sailing but to leave from Quebec to-morrow on his journey across the sea. I intend to advise him accordingly and shall arrange for prorogation by the deputy of the governor general. That is all I wish to say in that respect. If it is the wish of the house that we do not sit later to-night, the committee might rise now and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and after that is done I shall have a motion to propose, that for its next sitting the house meet at halfpast ten o'clock in the morning.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Ten o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carry on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That can be done only with unanimous consent. This is another day and I object to continuing after midnight. I shall be glad to meet the wishes of the Prime Minister and agree to the house meeting at 10.30 o'clock.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That when this house adjourns to-day it stand adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a.m. the first day of July, 1938.


Mr. HEAPS:: Quite a number of members would prefer ten o'clock instead of 10.30.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 12.20 a.m., (Friday).
Friday, July 1, 1938