Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the names of Messieurs Hartigan and Tucker be substituted for those of Messieurs Beaubien and Donnelly on the special select committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act and all matters pertaining thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Is the building known as "The Duffield
Building" at Hamilton, Ontario, still leased by the federal government?	.
2.	If so, what is the yearly rental of this building?
3.	To what use is it being put this winter?
4.	Is any revenue being derived from it?
5 What was the cost of maintenance for the twelve months ending December 31, 1937?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes. The five year lease expires April 1, 1938.
2.	$20,000.
3.	Building presently vacant.
4.	No.
5.	$2,655.58.


KINISTINO, SASK., INDIAN SCHOOL
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What was the cost of building the Indian school on the Ivinistino Indian reserve, No. 91, in the Pleasant Dale municipality?

2.	Were tenders called? If so, what was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	$4,962.13.
2.	No.	.
3.	Work done by day labour under direction of departmental engineer.


SASKATCHEWAN RELIEF-FEED AND FODDER
Mr. NEEDHAM:: 1 Was the direct relief in Saskatchewan, of feed and fodder for 1936 and 1937 up to April 1, cancelled?
2.	If so, why were not farmers notes returned?	.
3.	Was the twenty per cent of rural municipalities' share also cancelled?


Mr. DUNNING:: This question calls for information which is entirely the business of the province of Saskatchewan. It is not on record here, so far as I can learn.


AMALGAMATIONS AND MERGERS
Mr. THOMPSON:: How many corporations have been granted letters patent by the Secretary of State for Canada between the years 1921 to 1937 inclusive where powers were granted for amalgamation or merger of it with other corporations, or where powers were granted to it to acquire the business of more than one corporation or business then in existence?


Mr. RINFRET:: 12.548 letters patent and supplementary letters patent have been issued by the Secretary of State during the period from January 1, 1921, to December 31, 1937.
The principal objects of each company incorporated are set out in the notice published in the " Canada Gazette " in respect of each incorporation. Each company incorporated under the Companies Act has, as ancillary and incidental to the purposes or objects set forth in the letters patent or supplementary letters patent, the power, unless such power is expressly excluded by the letters patent or supplementary letters patent,
to purchase or otherwise acquire and undertake all or any of the assets, business, property, privileges, contracts, rights, obligations and liabilities of any other company or any society, firm or person carrying on any business which the company is authorized to carry on, or possessed of property suitable for the purposes of the company, (s. 14 of "The Companies Act, 1934.")
Mr. Wegenast in his book on " Canadian Companies" (1931) at page 164 says:
It was formerly considered important that the charter should set out in detail every line of activity in which the company might wish to engage, and the enumeration of powers gradually assumed the more or less stereotyped forms which are to be found in Palmer's Precedents. These precedents were so uniformly

Questions
used as models that in 1907 the Ontario legislature incorporated them bodily in its Companies Act. ... In 1924 a similar section was brought into the dominion act.
Similar incidental powers are conferred by the companies acts of nearly all the provinces of Canada.
It will be observed, therefore, that few applications for letters patent now ask specific authority in the letters patent in respect to taking over business of other companies, since such acquisition comes within the ancillary and incidental powers.
To examine the 12,548 letters patent and supplementary letters patent issued during the period indicated would require the services of a legal officer for many months, since the interpretation of the language used in the applications could not be entrusted to the regular clerical staff.


WILLIAM H. CALDWELL
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Was William H. Caldwell, inspector at the south pier, Burlington channel, until September 22, 1937, employed by the government for the remainder of the year? If so, where?
2.	How many days during each of the months of October, November and December, 1937, was he employed?
3.	How many hours a day was he employed, and under whose supervision?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes, as inspector on the construction of the terminal wharf at Hamilton.
2.	Twenty-six days each month.
3.	(a) Eight hours per day; (b) Senior assistant engineer, C. C. Jeffery.


GOVERNMENT VESSELS-COAL
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Has the government any vessels at the port of Sorel, or in use on the St. Lawrence river?
2.	If so: (a) what are their names; (b) their use; (c) where is the coal used for fuel obtained; (d) from whom is it purchased; (e) how is it purchased?
3.	Has the government ever purchased imported Russian coal for fuel on these vessels?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Government vessels at Sorel or working
out of Sorel:	(a) Argenteuil, Berthier,
Frontenac, Jalobert, Safeguarder, Vercheres; Ob) Lighthouse and buoy service: Argenteuil, Safeguarder, Vercheres. Ship channel service boats: Berthier, Frontenac, Jalobert; (c) Mined in Nova Scotia; (d) Sorel, P.Q., Lavallee, Lachapelle, Cournoyer Ltee.; (e) By tender at points where there are more than one dealer; by agreed price otherwise.
3.	No.


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What has been the cost to the federal treasury to date for developing Churchill, including the construction of wharves, sheds, elevators, etc.?
2.	What has been the cost to the federal treasury to date in connection with aids to navigation for this port?
3.	What has been the annual cost for each of the last three fiscal years for maintaining the various services at this port, including aids to navigation made necessary by its existence?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. Department of Railways and Canals:
To December 31, 1936,
Capital appropriations	
S13,263,75S	77Income appropriations	
77,120	91Collection of revenue appropriations	
713,519	85
814,054,399 53
National Harbours Board, 1937:
Capital	 9,593 94
Maintenance and operation		140,889 61
8150,483 55
Total to December 31, 1937..$14,204,8S3 08
2.	Department of Marine:
Hudson bay and Strait to
March 31, 1937	 $4,178,506 58
(Includes Radio, Hydrographic, N. B. McLean, Meteorology, Aids to Navigation).
3.	Department of Railways and Canals:
Net.
1934-	35	
$171,095	471935-	36	
79,424	441936-	37 (to December 31,1936)	
49,085	34
National Harbours Board:
1937	 $140,889	61
(These expenses are included in the total given in answer to Question No. 1, above.)
Department of Marine-Radio, Hydrographic, N. B. McLean, Meteorology, Aids to Navigation:
1934-	35	
$109,668	111935-	36	
110,522	181936-	37	
126,844	63
(These maintenance expenditures are included in the total of Aids to Navigation given in answer to Question 2).


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-PEEL COUNTY, ONTARIO
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many applications were made by farmers in the county of Peel under t^e pro-
Question as Order for Return

visions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	How many of such applications were settled in each of the said years without reference to the board of review?
3.	How many cases of Peel applicants were heard in each of the said years by the board of review?
4.	How many of such cases are now awaiting disposition by the board of review?
5.	Under the provisions of the said act, what
was the total reduction in:	(a) claims of
secured creditors; (b) claims of unsecured creditors, with respect to applications made by farmers in the county of Peel in each of the above mentioned years?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	1934, 1; 1935, 63; 1936, 40; 1937, 13; 1938, 13.
2.	1934, nil; 1935, 28; 1936, 21; 1937, 13; 1938, 7.
3.	1934, nil; 1935, 16; 1936, 17; 1937, 17;
1938, 1.
4.	4.
5.	(a) Secured (b) Unsecured
1934	
nil	nil1935	
S 9,968	$ 62611936	
21,997	82061937	
32,290	10,2411938	
6,894	322
(Six cases not yet disposed of by official receiver.)


OLD AGE PENSIONS-QUEBEC
Mr. MALLETTE:: Since the Old Age Pensions Act came into force in the province of Quebec, what sums have been paid to the said province by the dominion government, each month?


Charles Avery Dunning: Payments to the provinces of the dominion's contributions under the Old Age Pensions Act are made quarterly. The following amounts have been paid to the province of Quebec:
Old Age Pensions
As of March 31, 1937	*$2,345,107	05June 30	
2,597,524	70September 30	
2,029,284	20December 31	
1,874,485	58

Pensions for the Blind
As of December 31, 1937	$	8,321 12

This amount covers the period August 1, 1936, to March 31, 1937.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	By provinces: (a) what was the original number of soldier settlers; (b) what is the present number of soldier settlers; (c) what number of settlers have abandoned their lands, given quit claims, etc.; (d) what number of civilian settlers purchased such lands; (e) what number of British families were settled by the board; (f) what is the number of loans fully repaid; (g) what number of properties is now in the hands of the board; (h) what is the total book debt of such properties in the hands of the board; (i) -what is the total investment represented by the board's operations?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars of concessions granted by various remedial legislation?
3.	What are the actual ascertained losses on resale of security taken by the board?
4.	How many settlers in each province benefited through dollar for dollar bonus plan, in each of the years of 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937?
5.	(a) What is the number of applications by debtors of the board under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; (b) what is the total indebtedness dealt with; (c) what is the total write-down for each class of settlers; (d) what is the average reduction in debt in each class?
6.	(a) What is the total number of properties on hand, with number leased in 1937, and number of properties unoccupied in 1937; (b) what is the number of properties that have reverted to municipalities and provinces under section 21 (a) of the act?


FARM IMPLEMENTS COMMITTEE
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the second report of the special committee of the house, appointed on the 1st of February, 1937, to continue and complete an inquiry, begun by the standing committee on agriculture and colonization pursuant to a resolution of the house on the 2nd March, 1936, into the causes underlying the high prices of farm implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936, presented to this house on the 8th of April, 1937, be considered by the house during the present session of parliament.
He said:	Hon. members will recall that
in the 1936 session, by resolution of the house passed on March 2, the standing committee on agriculture and colonization was asked to inquire into the causes underlying the high prices of farm implements, with particular reference to the advance in prices in the year 1936. At the 1937 session a special committee of the house was appointed on February 1, to continue the investigation begun the year

Farm Implements Committee Report
before. The second report of the special committee was presented to the house on April 8, 1937. In view of the lack of opportunity for adequate consideration, concurrence in the report was not proceeded with. The house will recall that we were anxious to prorogue in time to permit hon. members to be present at the coronation ceremonies in the old country, and an undertaking was given by the government that if the request for concurrence was not pressed at that time arrangements would be made to permit of concurrence being asked for at the present session.
Consideration of a report tabled during a previous session is a new departure for the House of Commons of Canada, but there is however precedent for it in the procedure followed at Westminster. The citation in reference thereto will be found in Beauchesne, paragraph 659, as follows:
By a motion made for that purpose in the British house, the report of a committee presented during a previous session has been taken into consideration.
The record will be found in the English journals, volume 86. I have in my hand a copy of what appears in the record of the journals. The propriety of the course I am proposing is also indicated in Bourinot, third edition, at pages 554-5, in the following words:
It (i.e., a report) remains in the possession and on the journals of the house as a basis or ground for such further proceedings as may be proper or necessary.
Adoption of the present motion will enable the house to consider the report at an opportune time during the present session.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in looking over the recommendations of the committee to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has referred one finds a recommendation concerning cream separators.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The time to discuss the report would be when concurrence is asked.


Denton Massey: I was not going to discuss the report. I was going to direct attention to the fact that during the course of that investigation no evidence was taken from Canadian manufacturers of cream separators, yet one of the recommendations contained in the report is in connection with cream separators. My thought was that it might be desirable to have the committee meet again in order to take evidence on a matter with regard to which they did not take evidence previously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that the report of the committee was made to the house. It was complete at the time concurrence was being asked last session. The undertaking at that time was that an opportunity would be granted at the present session to seek concurrence in the report, and I think the government is obligated to carry out that assurance.


Denton Massey: It seems to me that before concurrence is asked the committee should complete its work. The committee may have figured that it had concluded its work, but since hon. members have had time to look through the report they may find that one of the recommendations is 'based upon wholly inadequate information.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: desirable, to enable the evidence of Canadian producers to be given as to the cost of production of cream separators.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the
concluding words of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I am in full accord. The motion should be adopted now. When we are discussing concurrence in, the report the house can decide what it may wish to do by way of having the report further considered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day :
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he would be prepared to move a resolution in connection with the report of the franchise committee, similar to the motion that has just been adopted in regard to the report concerning farm implements. The attendant circumstances appear to me to be exactly the same, including, if I am not mistaken, a promise made across the floor of the house that we would be given an opportunity to debate the report this session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon.
friend that the government intend to bring down a bill dealing with the question of the franchise, and on that bill there will be ample opportunity for the discussion my hon. friend has in mind. I can assure my hon. friend there is no desire in any way to restrict the discussion on franchise matters at this session.


Alan Webster Neill: That is not exactly the
same thing. If the report was discussed in the house it might be anticipated that it would result in some modification of the proposed bill, but if the bill is brought down the legislation is there and the government will see it through. The undertaking, as I recall it, was that the report would be discussed in the house, and not a bill founded upon it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The bill to be introduced will be based upon the recommendations made by the committee last session, and the bill will be sent to a committee where its provisions can be considered. The committee will be at liberty to discuss all that is to be found in the previous report.


Alan Webster Neill: Then the difference will be
between a discussion in this house and a discussion in a small committee, which is not exactly the same thing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There will be both; there will be a discussion in the committee and also in this bouse.



DIVERSION OF WATER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if I am to have an answer to the question I asked on February 3 in reference to the diversion of Albany river water. I note that the question is no longer on the order paper. Neither have I had any answer, but in the white book submitted the other day I did find a letter dated January 27, according to which the government apparently has consented to the violation of the Albany river water, and I should like to know if that is the government policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that I did not intentionally overlook answering any question of his. He has just used the expression that the government consented to the "violation" of river waters. Does he mean the diversion of some waters? The violation of waters is a new *phrase. I must confess that I do not know what particular point has been overlooked in my hon. friend's previous question. I thought everything had been answered as satisfactorily as it could be answered. If my hon. friend would put another question on the order paper which will meet the exact point he has in mind I shall endeavour to see that it is promptly answered.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer a suggestion to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), in view of the fact that the reports called for by the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which are made to him every week, for the purposes of a return would be very voluminous and very difficult to prepare. It would serve a useful purpose

Saskatchewan Schools
and probably meet the requirements of us all if the minister would bring the originals, without filing them as sessional papers, but making them available for inspection in the office of the clerk of sessional papers. This would obviate the necessity of much copying, and would enable us to get the information sought in time to be of use in connection with measures which will necessarily have to be considered during the session.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be
glad to give consideration to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I should like to know whether he means that the reports for the past year should be submitted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute provides that the board shall send to the minister every week certain reports certified by the auditors. Obviously we have a right to see those documents, and it would seem to me to be much easier if the originals were merely placed in the custody of the clerk of sessional papers, so that they could be inspected by all members of the house. I meant not only this year, but 1936 as well.


William Daum Euler: Reports are received by the minister each week, but I am not so sure it is the intention of the act that they shall be made available to all members of the house. However I am perfectly willing to consider the suggestion.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). In October, 1936, a special conference of the International Labour Office dealt with marine matters, and at that time certain conventions and recommendations were made. Has the government ratified any of the recommendations or conventions, or is it the intention of the government in the near future to do so?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I may say that the conventions and recommendations to which the hon. member has referred are being studied by officers of my department, and I assume some decision will be arrived at shortly.



SASKATCHEWAN SCHOOLS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. EDWARDS (Waterloo South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) based on a telegram and several communications I have received. Probably if I read the telegram it will be self-explanatory. It is addressed to me, and is in these words:
Canadian Teachers Federation is appealing to the federal members on behalf of Saskatchewan schools. Teachers are unpaid for months; equipment and supplies are inadequate; hundreds of children are being deprived of educational opportunities. Galt local secondary school teachers' federation requests your cooperation in securing emergency grants.
I appreciate the distribution of the relief funds in the manner in which it is done, namely through the provincial authorities, but I should like to ask the minister if there is not some plan by which some of this money could be diverted for this particular cause, or some suggestion made which would have the desired effect.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members have received circular letters respecting the plight of school teachers in Saskatchewan. In answer to the hon. member I can say only that assistance which has been given to provincial governments under the extraordinary conditions which have prevailed in several past years, has not carried with it any special provision for the ear-marking of the use of moneys for a particular class of the population.
It will be remembered, however, that during the last session special extra grants were made to certain provincial governments, and that those grants were made available following an investigation by the Bank of Canada into the affairs of the provinces. Among the matters reported upon, as a result of the investigation by the bank was, of course, the difficulties in connection with school and educational matters generally. So far as the government is concerned, those considerations entered into the determination on the part of the government to place before the house the provision which was voted as extra subsidy to the provinces concerned.
I believe I can say that the condition with respect to schools in Saskatchewan has improved, as a result of the assistance which was voted by parliament to Saskatchewan a year ago. The government is not unmindful of the present condition, which of course has been accentuated by the unfortunate drough'
98S
Saskatchewan Schools

of 1937, and again, in connection with any special provision which it may be necessary to make, will have in mind the plight of the schools and school teachers. I do not think it will be likely that there will be any special ear-marking of any funds granted by parliament to go to a particular class of people within a province. Education is entirely within the control of the provincial authorities. Naturally the plight of an educational system might be taken into consideration by this parliament, in rendering assistance to a government, but it is questionable if we could go so far as to indicate that a certain proportion of the moneys granted by parliament should be used for the relief of a specific class wlhen, as a matter of fact, the whole population are in very serious difficulties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to correct at least one statement made by the minister. In Saskatchewan we have been making a direct appropriation for one class of the population, and ear-marking it for that purpose, namely, for relief. It is so designated in the order in council-for direct and other relief. The order in council reads that the sum of so much is advanced for relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a purpose, not a class.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a class, the class who are on relief.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is perfectly obvious.
I think it is scarcely a correct statement to say that we do not ear-mark, because we do ear-mark for that particular class. It is the same with seed grain.


Charles Avery Dunning: The grants made to any province for relief are not made for the relief of any particular class in the province. They are made for the purpose of relieving any who may be in necessity, no matter to what class they may belong.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: There are grants for seed grain.


Charles Avery Dunning: My objection is to
singling out a particular class to get special consideration.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 24, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1929.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 1, consideration in committe of Bill No. 30, to regulate the inspection and sale of binder twine and salt, and to establish weight of bushel for certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel-Mr. Gardiner-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: This bill
was before the committee a few days ago, and upon that occasion certain sections were allowed to stand.
On section 4-analysts and inspectors.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The first subsection standing is
paragraph (b) of section 4. On inquiry of the department I am given to understand that while they would prefer to have subsection (b) remain in the bill, if the committee considers it advisable to drop it, there would be no objection. The leader of the opposition raised an objection to that subsection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I still think it is unsound.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would agree to its
being deleted.


Mr ROGERS:: I would move that subsection (b) of section 4 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section 4 as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Labels on binder twine for sale in Canada.
Mr. ROGERS:: I move:
That subsection 2 of section 6 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Binder twine manufactured for export only and not to be sold for use in Canada need not be so labelled, but the onus of proof that any unlabelled binder twine is manufactured for export only shall rest upon the dealer, carrier or other person in whose possession the binder tw'ine is found."


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that meets the
difficulty.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. SENN:: Is the minister satisfied to
allow the onus as to alleged infringement to rest upon the retail dealer?


James Garfield Gardiner: That was the point
raised, and on going into the matter with the officials of the department I found that they had in mind the fact that to-day a good deal of binder twine moves by truck. They were taking out the word "carrier," but I

Inspection and Sale Act
personally drew attention to the fact that that might be a very dangerous thing to do with so much twine being carried by truck. All this subsection says is that where a person is found carrying or has in his possession binder twine of this particular class, then he must show that it is going into export. We are trying to avoid the possibility of a carrier loading up twine, say at Saskatoon, heading towards the American boundary and then peddling it along the way. Under this subsection any officer would have the right to compel a person in whose possession binder twine is found to submit proof that the twine is going into export and is not being sold locally.


Mark Cecil Senn: I do not think the minister
gets my point. I was referring to subsection 1, which provides that the dealer shall be responsible for the number of feet in a ball and for seeing that it is correctly labelled, and that all the other requirements of the act are complied with. The dealer may be a retail merchant who would not know whether the twine was going to run six hundred feet to the pound, or whether it would be more than five per cent short. If twine is found in his possession that is over five per cent short, under this act he would be liable to a fine. I submit it would be practically impossible for a local dealer to discover that.


James Garfield Gardiner: We discussed this point in connection with the penalty section, and finally came to the conclusion that there was no other way of dealing with the matter. While what the hon. member has said may be perfectly true, that a person who has twine in his possession cannot be certain of its length without measuring the twine, on the other hand a manufacturer cannot be certain that the individual who has the twine in his possession did not cut off a hundred feet. All that such a man would have to do would be to take the tag off the end of the twine, run off a hundred feet, cut it off and put the tag on again. It would not be fair to say that such an individual should not have some responsibility if action were taken. This section has been in its present form for many years, and, as I pointed out the other day, the penalty in connection with the tolerance of five per cent has been there since 1907.


Mark Cecil Senn: Have there been any prosecutions of retail merchants under this section?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would imagine that if there had been any prosecutions that is where they would have started, but I am not in a position to say just how many there have been.


Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):: Would it be possible to substitute the word "maker" for the word "dealer" in that section? Binder twine is labelled by the manufacturer and not by the dealer.


James Garfield Gardiner: "Dealer" is defined in section 3 as a firm or person manufacturing or importing or selling or having in possession for sale any binder twine.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 14-Labelling on salt containers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Subsection 2 reads:
No deficiency in the weight of the salt contained in any package shall be deemed a contravention of this act unless it exceeds five per centum.
When the question was raised the other day I said that there did not seem to be any provision for the five per cent tolerance in the old act. I am informed by the department that on a more careful consideration of the matter they do not think there is any real reason why this subsection should be included in the bill and I am quite prepared to have it deleted.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I move that subsection 2 of section 14 be deleted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. STIRLING:: I also raised the question of block salt.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have been informed that table salt and other kinds of salt that we were discussing the other day are covered by other legislation. In so far as salt is concerned this bill deals only with salt entering into the further manufacture of a product, and for that reason it is not necessary to deal with rock salt, block salt or any salt of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where does that appear in the act? I was looking for it the other day.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is covered partly by section 14 and section 15. The question was raised as to whether we should put those in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since the house has been in committee I have looked at one of these salt cartons to see how it was marked. It is said to contain two pounds net, but it is not marked on the end. Why should the producer be put to the expense of marking the contents of the package on the outside? Section 14 requires that each package shall be marked and it struck me that a double obligation was being put upon the producer that was unnecessary.
Inspection and Sale Act


James Garfield Gardiner: This bill does not deal with salt for human consumption. The type of container the leader of the opposition would be examining would be covered by the Food and Drugs Act. The regulations issued under that act cover all salt used for human consumption.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it proposed to add something to this bill to make that clear?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am taking the opinion of the legal authorities in the department with regard to it. I understand that that is taken care of elsewhere.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister has had considerable experience and I think he will agree that in the absence of some words of limitation-I am not aware whether they are in other parts of the bill-this would apply to every kind of salt and every kind of binder twine.


Grote Stirling: Particularly as "carton" is mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the hon. member for Yale says, the word "carton" is used. Section 14 reads:
Every barrel, sack, carton or other container of salt sold or offered for sale in Canada shall be properly and correctly labelled or marked in a plain and durable manner with the net weight and, in the case of a barrel, with the net and gross weights.
The cartons sold in the store have upon them the statement that the net weight is two or four pounds, as the case may be, and there is a patent outlet at one end. The minister surely has not been advised by his legal officers that some words of limitation are not essential in the light of that section, which refers to all kinds of salt, and goes so far as to cover any form of container.


Grote Stirling: I understood the minister to say that the object of this act is to cover salt which is to be used to further degrees of manufacture. If that be so, should not that qualification appear in one of these clauses dealing with salt?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, I think that is correct. I have been checking through to find if there is any reference to it, but I do not see any. Allow part II to stand, and go on with part III.
Section stands.
On section 18-Manner of determining a bushel.


James Garfield Gardiner: The question raised the other day had to do w'ith the description at the

top of the list of items for which weights are given.
In contracts for the sale and delivery of any of the undermentioned articles the bushel shall be determined by weighing unless a bushel by measure is specially agreed upon between the parties to such sale, and the weight equivalent to a bushel shall be as follows.
The question was raised as to why some items were not in the list. A further question was raised whether there should not be a different wording in the paragraph preceding the list. I am inclined to think that the leader of the opposition was correct in the representations he made the other day regarding it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to direct
the attention of the minister, before he concludes, to section 19, which perhaps I may be allowed to take with section 18 in order to make my point. Section 19 contemplates sale by weight only, whereas section 18 contemplates special provisions being made for sale by measurement, other than by weight, and the two apparently have not been synchronized, to use a word which at one time was in great favour here. The truth is that section 18 should not, if section 19 is to prevail, contain the words "unless a bushel by measure is specially agreed upon between the parties to such sale," because section 19 provides:
"Every person who violates any provision of part III of this act, providing that a bushel of any article shall be determined by weighing, and specifying the number of pounds such bushel shall contain, shall, for a first offence, be liable ..."
I merely point that out in order that the minister may make his arrangements accordingly.


James Garfield Gardiner: The suggestion is made that all of the words above the table in section 18 be struck out and that these words be substituted:
Legal weights per bushel shall be as follows:
A simple statement.


Grote Stirling: That is better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That makes it clear. It overcomes the difficulty, I think.


Grote Stirling: Why are certain commodities commonly sold by the bushel not mentioned here?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am proposing to have added to this list, "potatoes, 60 lbs." That is the only item other than those here enumerated upon which at the moment sufficient agreement has been arrived at to enable it to be placed in this list. Commodities such

Inspection and Sale Act
as turnips and beets and others have not been sold often enough by the bushel by weight to warrant the department's arriving at a definite conclusion with regard to them.


Grote Stirling: That applies to apples?


James Garfield Gardiner: But the weight with
regard to potatoes is pretty well established, and we propose to put it as 60 pounds.


Grote Stirling: What the minister has said applies to apples, it not being sufficiently determined what a bushel of apples weighs; is that so?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told that the
variety of sizes makes it very difficult to determine weights for apples, and the same would be true of many other vegetables unless they are properly graded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With regard to the proposed rewording of the paragraph above the table in section 18. I think it should read: "Legal weights per bushel of the undermentioned articles shall be as follows."


James Garfield Gardiner: That would be more
satisfactory.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mark Cecil Senn: Does that mean that every transaction that is carried out between two parties in the disposition of any of these articles must be done by weight, or does it mean that by mutual agreement there may be sale by measure?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is
that this will mean that if individuals enter into an agreement they may sell by measure or in any other way they choose, but that if once they get into court and a decision has to be made it will be made on the basis of weight.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There could be no court action under this statute, as it now reads, with respect to any sale other than sale by weight. I suggest that there should be struck out of section 19 these words: "providing that a bushel of any article shall be determined by weighing, and specifying the number of pounds such bushel shall contain." These words put a construction upon the preceding section, which is not desirable in a statute, and they describe the preceding section, which is not sound draftsmanship. All that is necessary is to provide that " Every person who violates part III of this act shall, for a first offence," and so on. Section 18 provides for the offence.


James Garfield Gardiner: My right hon. friend's suggestion is, then, to strike out all the words between " act " and " shall."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I suggest that the words "potatoes. ... 60 lbs." be added to the list set out in section 18.


Mark Cecil Senn: If you are going to add potatoes, what about turnips, carrots, and other vegetables of the kind? It is hard to determine what a bushel of turnips is. If they are large it takes only a few to make a bushel; if they are small you get a good deal more weight in a bushel. I suggest that turnips and carrots at any rate should be included.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is why previously we had subsection (b) in the act. A great deal of objection was raised to the minister having power to determine what the weight should be in some cases, and we have removed subsection (b). I do not think it would be wise to put turnips in because the weight has not been sufficiently well established. The sizes vary a great deal and the grading of turnips has not been carried to the extent that it has been with potatoes. It would be difficult to establish a weight that would be satisfactory.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: If you amend section 19 by striking out the words between " act " and " shall " you have to alter section 18 again; otherwise there is no sense at all, nor will there be any way of discovering what the offence is. If you had the words: " In contracts for the sale and delivery of any of the undermentioned articles," and added the words, " the legal weights per bushel shall be as follows," the section might be all right. But merely to put in the latter words is not sufficient because you do not presuppose a transaction or dealing in the articles in question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 19-Offence and penalty.
James Garfield Gardiner: If I understand the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition, it is that the section should read: " Every person who violates any provision of part III of this act shall, for a first offence," and so on, the intervening words being struck out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
[Stage Direction]
Soldier Settlement Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act for the purpose of reducing from seven per centum to five per centum the interest rate charged on certain repayments to the board of taxes and insurance premiums paid by the board in respect to soldier settlement lands in case of default on the part of the settler, and to provide further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made, be further extended to the 31st day of March, 1911.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. CRERAR:: This resolution deals first with interest rates and second with the bonus privilege at present obtaining. Curiously enough there are two conflicting sections in the Soldier Settlement Act regarding rates of interest that shall be charged on advances made by the board for the payment of taxes, insurance and the like. For the last fifteen years or more interest on such advances has been charged at five per cent. The amendment is simply to put it beyond question that five per cent is the rate that should govern.
The extension of the dollar for dollar bonus privilege was first made effective in 1933 for a period of three years. In the session of 1936 it was further extended for a period of two years, so that the privilege lapses on March 31 of this year. It is not proposed under the amending bill to extend the bonus privilege to those who have been able to take advantage of it in the period terminating at the end of this month; the proposal is to extend the privilege for three years to those who, owing to crop failure or other reasons, have been unable to take advantage of it in the past. That is the purpose of the resolution and the bill which will be founded upon it if the resolution passes.


Mr. PERLEY:: How many soldier settlers have been able to take advantage of the bonus scheme within the last two years?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The total number of soldier settlers who have been able to take advantage of the bonus is 8,451, and the civilian settlers number 4,278. Then there were 1,274 under the British families scheme.
[Mr. Bennett.l


Mr. CHURCH:: Would it not be better to extend the period for five years instead of three? What would be the amount of the taxes, insurance premiums and so on, in connection with these eight thousand odd settlers?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If conditions three years from now are such that the scheme should be extended for a further period to settlers unable to take advantage of the bonus up to that time, it could be done by parliament later. I think on general principles it is not good policy to extend the scheme too far ahead. That was recognized when the legislation was first introduced in 1933. The period under which the bonus could be taken advantage of was fixed at three years. Later on, in 1936, legislation was brought down extending it for a further period of three years, and in another place that was reduced to two years.
I do not think I have the information at hand as to the total amount of advances given for the payment of taxes, insurance premiums and so on, but when the estimates of the soldier settlement board are before the house, all these details will be available.


Alan Webster Neill: I regret that the wording of this resolution is rather misleading. 1 had some reason to believe that the legislation would be as indicated by the minister, but when I saw the resolution, which says-
-the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made, be further extended-
-I took it to mean what it appears to convey, that the whole scheme would be extended. I took the trouble to ring up an official of the department, and I was told that it meant just what it says. Knowing how keenly interested the settlers in my district were, I so advised them. What they want is the rescission of interest, and I understand some soldiers' association in the neighbourhood of Lloydminster made representations to that effect. Be that as it may, I hastened to tell these settlers, who are in a desperate financial plight, that while the minister or the government was not in a position to give them what they asked in connection with the rescission of interest, at least the bonus would be extended for a further period, and I think I was justified in doing so. I am in the opinion of the house whether that language does not convey very clearly that the whole scheme would be extended.	Now we are
told that it is going to be limited to those who have not been able to take advantage of it; that those who have taken advantage of it, who are just as much entitled to it and who are just as much in need, are shut out.

Soldier Settlement Act
If the government did intend to do what they now say, certainly it should have been so expressed in the resolution.
How many settlers does the minister anticipate will come under this scheme, leaving out the many who, as he says, have taken advantage of it already? To how many will it be applicable?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It will be applicable to
all who have not taken advantage of it.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, I know that now, but
can the minister not give us any idea of the number?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is rather a difficult
question to answer, because there are some soldier settlers who have taken partial advantage of the bonus. That is, they have not been able to keep up all their payments and remain in good standing as of, say, the 31st March of this year, but they have been able to make some of them. Those who have taken full advantage and those who have taken partial advantage number, as I said a moment ago, 8,451 soldier settlers out of a total of 9,459.


Alan Webster Neill: Then there will be about a
thousand to whom it will now be available?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. It will be available
to a thousand, but it will be available also to those who have not taken full advantage of it up to the present time. Do I make my point clear to my hon. friend?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. We are finding out
more all the time. That is a different interpretation from the one we had a moment ago. I thought it was available only to those who had not taken any advantage of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; I said to those who
had not been able to take advantage of it, and that meant full advantage. Perhaps I may have been guilty of a lack of clarity, but I think I can assure my hon. friend now that all arrears as at the 31st March this year will carry the bonus privilege.


Alan Webster Neill: Can the minister give us
any idea as to what that number would be? Apparently roughly speaking there are about a thousand who have not taken advantage of it. Can the minister give us any idea as to the size of the second class, wrho have taken partial advantage of it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot at the moment.
That would involve an examination of all the accounts.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I should like
to associate myself with the protest of the
hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I do not know whether it is because he and I belong to the same race-


Alan Webster Neill: The same tribe.


Malcolm McLean: -or tribe, that we are not able to read the language of the resolution clearly. To me it indicated just what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni stated, and I think that is the proper way to read it.
I should like to protest against this. I think it is unfair to those who, by sacrifice and industry, and in a desire to carry out their obligations to this country, have made their payments to a greater or less degree. If they are going to be shut out from any further benefits under this legislation it is most unfair. It is well known that this legislation has been tremendously costly to the people of Canada. Some civilians, as well as some former soldiers, have made no effort to carry out their obligations. They are being favoured and encouraged by this type of legislation to make no payments for as long a period as possible. It is well known that for many years now, and I think rightly, the government has been very chary about dispossessing any men of their land. I do not know of any cases where men have been dispossessed as long as they wanted to remain on the land. Some men alongside or nearby or in other places throughout the country made special efforts to make the payments. They made sacrifices, and did without the comforts they might have had, and for which they might have used their money, in order that they might take advantage of this plan. Some of them have made payments up to date, and some, in their anxiety to carry out their word, have paid ahead. They are going to be shut out from the benefits of this legislation, while those who made the least effort to meet the terms of their contracts are going to get the greatest advantage. When we contrast those who to-day or to-morrow might be selling farm produce at prevailing prices, and who receive the benefits of this legislation, with those who during the depression years sold produce at lower prices and made payments in order to get the advantage of the legislation and to live up to their contracts, we must conclude that it is unfair to withhold the benefits of the legislation from the class which did its best to pay.


George Halsey Perley: I wish to associate myself with the last two speakers. I do not think there should be any limit to the soldier settlers to whom this scheme should be extended. There are very few who have not been taking advantage of it, and, as the last speaker has

Soldier Settlement Act

said, there are many who, under desperate circumstances and driven hard, have deprived themselves of much they might otherwise have had, in order to take advantage of the scheme. They should not be discriminated against.
The scheme should be extended to all soldier settlers. I would be in favour of going even farther than that, and writing off some of the arrears of interest, without the bonus scheme, and giving these men a fresh start and fresh hope. I trust the minister will see fit to extend it to all.


Mr. REID:: Did I understand the minister to say that those who have paid partly will come under this plan? Suppose a man has paid for one or two years and now finds himself unable to pay and to take advantage of the dollar for dollar arrangement; would he by this enactment .be deprived of the advantage of that privilege?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No. This measure brings about a condition under which a soldier settler, whether fully or partly in arrears, can secure the dollar for dollar bonus privilege on all payments due up to March 31 of this year. I trust I have made that point clear.
As to the point raised by the hon. members for Comox-Albemi and Melfort, I agree the resolution might have been more clearly worded. When I read it I had some doubt. As the hon. member for Comox-Albemi knows, a resolution is prepared by the law clerks in accordance with the terms of the proposed bill. I discussed the matter with one of the law clerks and he assured me that while possibly it might have been more clearly drawn, it did in fact cover the bill in the terms I have explained. I shall not get into a legal argument with the hon. member, because he is far too good a lawyer for me.
When the suggestion is made that the extension should cover every soldier settler, and everyone who comes under the act, I think possibly it is going too far. The purpose of the present extension is to give some people, particularly those in the drought areas in western Canada, the opportunity to take advantage of the scheme for that period during which, had they had good crops, they would have benefited. Advantage has been taken of the plan to an amount totalling $4,409,000. It may be of interest to the committee to have before it the reductions already made in connection with soldier settlers.
First of all an interest exemption measure was passed in 1922 which conferred benefits estimated at $10,269,000. In 1925 there was
	i ; ig'BST
a reduction in connection with live stock amounting to $2,927,000, almost $3,000,000. In 1927 there was a land revaluation which conferred benefits amounting to $7,479,000. In 1930 there was a thirty per cent reduction.


Alan Webster Neill: That was on accrued indebtedness, including interest.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This was a straight reduction of thirty per cent on soldier settlement accounts as of October 1.


Alan Webster Neill: That was not on principal; it was on the total indebtedness, including interest at that date.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but the amount of it was $14,921,000. Then in 1932 there was an interest remission of $2,344,000, in round figures.


Alan Webster Neill: Was that one year's interest?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; interest charges for the year October 1, 1931, to October 1, 1932. were remitted.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Does that figure of $2,344,000 include soldier settlers and British families?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think it covers all. That of course is the 1932 remission only, for the period I have stated.


Major James William Coldwell: I have a figure from the department which gives the interest remission in connection with soldier settlers as $1,893,782.78.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I presume the balance
would be on civilian purchases. I have just indicated the extent to which the dollar for dollar bonus has been accepted. Then under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act the advantages secured amounted to $1,397,000. That is an estimated figure, but probably it is very close to the mark. This gives a total of more than $43,500,000 during the period.
While I have no doubt it is the desire of every hon. member, and probably of the people generally, that the soldier settler should be fairly and even generously treated, yet I think they have fared pretty well in view of these reductions which from time to time have been made. The dollar for dollar bonus was established in 1933 chiefly because of the low prices then obtaining in connection with all sorts of farm products. A comparison of prices of 1933 and 1937 shows that prices in all classes of farm products have increased from fifty per cent in some cases to over one hundred per cent in others. Consequently soldiers producing agricultural products for sale have been able to take advantage of these better prices. I do not think anyone

Soldier Settlement Act
would argue, for instance, that if wheat went to $2 per bushel a soldier who had been able to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus up to March 31 of this year, and who has had the advantage of the other reductions I have mentioned, would be suffering any great hardship if he were asked to forego any further bonus privilege. That is what the legislation proposes.


George Halsey Perley: What is the total outstanding liability at the present time?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The total liability at the present time is about $50,000,000, but that would include soldier settlers, civilian settlers, the three thousand family scheme and the New Brunswick family scheme.


Major James William Coldwell: The difficulty about the dollar for dollar bonus, just referred to by the minister, is that many soldier settlers cannot take advantage of the act because they have had no crops upon which they could get a bonus.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the purpose of this legislation, to extend for three years the opportunity of taking advantage of the act.


Major James William Coldwell: I realize that. Numbers of returned soldier settlers have spoken to me about their condition, and I have personally seen what they were up against. The condition of many of them in Saskatchewan is very bad. One group is particularly anxious to have an audience with the minister to discuss this whole matter. The figures would seem to indicate that ever since the first settlements were made, the number of soldier settlers has been decreasing. I find that the original number of soldier settlers was 25,017, while the present number is only 9,888. In other words, the number of abandonments and quit claims among the soldier settlers has amounted to 10,439.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the difference between the two figures?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Major James William Coldwell: I have these figures from the minister's department which perhaps I should give in full since they tell a different story. They are as of November 30, 1937:
Original number of soldier settlers.. 25,017 Present number of soldier settlers.. 9,888 Number of abandonments, quit
claims, etc	10,439
Number	of	civilian purchasers.. ..	5,790Number	of	British families	
1,790Number	of	repaid loans	
6,566
Number of properties on hand:
Leased, 1937	 1,882
Unoccupied	 708

 2,590
I assume the present unoccupied land was land that should never have been settled upon; most probably it was extremely submarginal. If those figures present any picture at all-and I think they do-they would seem to indicate a high proportion of abandonments, quit claims, and so on. No doubt some of these people were quite unsuited to life on the land, but I would submit that the great number of abandonments would indicate that they have been unable to meet their obligations. After all, not more than one-half of any group of people should possibly find themselves compelled to abandon an undertaking because of their unsuitability.
I am in agreement with the principle that this legislation should be continued, but my plea is that the soldier settlement and other allied schemes should be reconsidered in the light of present day conditions. Large numbers of the settlers cannot take advantage of the^ scheme now presented to parliament. Even if they can take advantage of it temporarily, a large number will be in a hopeless position two or three years hence. I submit that parliament will have to consider the revaluation of the properties and the drastic writing down of the principal debt and the accrued interest, as mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley).
The picture presented by the soldier settlement scheme is only part of a general picture presented by all the settlement of western Canada. Por several years I have been of opinion that before western Canada can be rehabilitated a very large part of the burden of debt will have to be removed from agriculture and the individual farmer. We have the power in this particular connection. This scheme, which I am supporting, may seem to be generous to those who are not familiar with the situation, but in reality it neither can nor does meet the requirements of the settlers.


Alan Webster Neill: I am not prepared to quarrel with the minister's statement that these settlers have been fairly or liberally dealt with.
Soldier Settlement Act

I think they have been fairly dealt with, and in some regards it may be said that they have been dealt with liberally. That may be the conclusion if the action of the government with regard to these settlers is compared with what would be taken by a fairly strict mortgage company. But we must remember that the mortgage company in making reductions would be animated by the same thought as now animates the government, namely, "We are not going to get anything; we will make this gesture of liberality by cutting the amount down in an effort to keep the men on the land." But the most cold-blooded mortgage company would do and has done that. Whether the government thought it was better business to do that than to turn the man off the land is another question, but I think the government has treated these men fairly.
I do not deny that, but we are dealing with a situation which looks much larger when expressed in the sums which the minister has mentioned than when expressed in terms of the number of settlers. Nevertheless, I think the treatment has been fair. For instance, take the land revaluation. I had a great deal to do with the initiation of that scheme, as it was in my district that a preliminary revaluation was first made by order of the government of the day. They sent a man named White out from the prairies, and his report revealed such vast and startling discrepancies between the real value and the value which very often these settlers had undertaken voluntarily to pay that the government realized that something would have to be done. The following year a revaluation was made.
Then we had the live stock reduction which was more than necessary. Cattle which had brought Slot) to S175 in the boom days can be bought to-day, even when prices have improved a little, for S50. It is hard to realize the prices that were paid then as we have forgotten the boom which occurred in the prices of farm products in 1919 and 1920.
These men bought the land at a price based partly on the keen competition to get on the land and partly on the high prices of agricultural produce at that time. When they bought the land eggs were selling at a dollar a dozen and butter at a dollar a pound, and it was only a year or two afterwards that eggs were selling at sixteen cents a dozen. It takes a good deal of reduction in the value of land to make it possible to produce eggs at sixteen cents a dozen if that land was bought on a basis of eggs at a dollar a dozen. The cuts that were made in interest during the depression were only such as were reasonable

so far as the debtor was concerned, because any creditor was glad to make these . reductions. They were afraid that they would not get their money anyhow and that they would have to carry their debtors, and they made these reductions. As a matter of fact a good many private creditors did the same.
The minister has mentioned various large reductions, and that is true; but has anyone ever suggested that the reductions were not wholly justified? I would prove that contention in this way. After all these large reductions in land valuations were made, reductions which, if my memory serves me correctly, ran to about forty per cent on the average-it varied in individual cases, but the average was about forty per cent-on top of that and all the other reductions, after all that was done and times began to get better, then the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act came along and we find that the comparatively few men applying under it got from the government reductions amounting to over a million dollars. That shows that at present values, under the auspices of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the valuations placed by the government are even now too high, because the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act cut them down to the extent of a million dollars or so.
An hon. member has suggested that we should have a revaluation; but I submit that we are having that revaluation now under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and that will meet that part of the situation. But as regards the dollar for dollar agreement, my people and I myself, after looking into it, thought the proper scheme was rescission of interest. That, however, is evidently beyond the intention of the government. I would suggest, if it is not too late, that they should at least make this dollar for dollar bonus for three years longer apply to everyone. It will be disastrous and most inimical in its effect on the mentality of the men if for the first time the government's policy is to invite people not to pay their debts. At any rate, they are saying to the settlers, " Don't pay in full and you will be carried along." That is a bad suggestion. If a concession is to be given, it should be given to all; otherwise men are being encouraged not to pay their debts, and people these days do not need much encouragement along that line. I suggest that they should all be put on an equal basis. The man who has been industrious and thrifty, who has done without things that he would like to have had, whose family have denied themselves in various ways, all for the purpose of getting enough money together to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus,

Soldier Settlement Act
should not be discriminated against, while another man sits down and does nothing but simply says-and this is coming to be the attitude more and more-" Oh, well, the government eventually will give us the land anyhow."
I would urge the minister, before the bill is brought down, to consider applying the concession to all settlers, at least to settlers who are of the same class and who are working under the same conditions. I do not believe that this would involve any very large amount but I suggest that they should all be put on the same basis.


Thomas Reid: Like the two previous speakers, I am sorry that I misinterpreted the proper wording of the resolution because I believed that it would apply to all soldier settlers. It is my opinion that the soldier settlement legislation, from its inception to the present time, under any changes which have been made in it, has had primarily in mind the prairie provinces. They have been the guiding influence when any change has been made in the act.
British Columbia is entirely different from Saskatchewan, and naturally its problems are different and, may I say, just as serious. As regards the figures quoted by the minister, it is true that considerable concessions have been granted; but over $25,000,000 have been paid out in cost of administration, while the total of collections has been around $55,000,000. For the unsuccessful carrying out of the act the blame cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the soldier settlers, and before I am through I shall make a suggestion in line with what has been done in New Zealand, where they were faced with problems similar to ours.
One hon. member has said that no soldier settler has been forced off his property. I disagree with that, because before I left home, the situation of one soldier settler was drawn to my attention. Let me give, by way of illustration, certain facts in connection with this man. He has paid something like $1,400, and his indebtedness to-day is $3,800. If he took advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus by a further payment of some $1,480, he would receive clear title to his property. As it is. however, he has paid in $1,400. If the board obtained the land and sold it, they would not get more than $1,300. Proceedings have been taken against him and under the act his only recourse is an appeal to the supreme court.
Let me ask the minister this question: If he were in that settler's shoes and had to pay about $1,500, having already paid $1,400, would he make that payment when
he could obtain the same land for $1,300? If the soldier settlement board got possession of the land, that is all they could sell it for. I asked the administrator what he would take for the land, and he would not quote a figure. I then asked him whether he would take $1,200 or $1,300, and he said, "I believe I would." I replied, "You certainly would, because that is all the land is worth." That illustrates the position of soldier settlers in the Fraser valley.
I believe there is a great deal of merit in the New Zealand system, because there they have given security of tenure, at any rate as secure as it can possibly be made, to the soldier settlers. They have put through a revaluation scheme and a price is fixed for the property. For instance, if the man had his land revalued and he owed $1,000 to the government, no more interest would be charged on that amount as long as he remained on the land. He thus knows exactly how much his indebtedness will be to-morrow or the next day, or ten years hence; and if he wants to obtain title, or if his heirs after he passes on wish to obtain it by the payment of that $1,000, he or they will become possessed of that property upon so doing. This protects the man and gives him security of tenure.
Throughout the Fraser valley proceedings are being taken to dispossess some soldier settlers and this is very serious especially with eggs at seventeen cents a dozen, butter fat around thirty cents a pound and feed, heaven knows how high. The soldier settlers in that district are despondent, and we feel that all the legislation introduced and carried out under the soldier settlement board has been based upon the requirements of the prairie farms, no attention having been paid to soldier settlement in the Fraser valley, where men have to expend a great deal of energy and money before they can bring one acre under cultivation.
There is one point which I think the minister should take seriously into consideration. In British Columbia-and I believe the situation is the same throughout Canada-the soldier settlers are not allowed to sell a portion of the property in order to obtain the bonus. We have soldier settlers with forty, sixty, eighty and one hundred acres of land, part of it bush, part of it cleared. Part of it they will never be able to clear. But a prospective purchaser comes along and wants to buy it. The man may want to sell five acres off a portion which he does not use, but if he does sell he will not receive any benefit of the bonus. Personally I think that he should; that it would help him considerably; so long as it did not dispossess
Soldier Settlement Act

him, but was done with a view of helping him to make his payments, he should be allowed to sell part of that farm. I ask the minister seriously to consider the security of tenure angle as outlined and as carried into effect by New Zealand.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I desire to add my voice to that of hon. members who have spoken on behalf of this class of returned men, because their plight was drawn to my attention just prior to coming down for the present session, when I visited a number of them at Hesketh, near Drumheller. They are in a drought area. I do not agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that some of these men would be encouraged to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus and on that account would not pay off their obligations as quickly as possible. I found in conversation with returned men in my own district that they are only too anxious to get rid of this burden of debt if they are permitted to do so. They appreciate the fact that in 1927 there was a reduction of about thirty per cent in the valuations of the lands, but it must be remembered that when that land was valuated the prices were high and the returns they received for their products were also high, whereas that land has now gone down in value probably fifty per cent. That is especially true of the farmers whom I visited just before I came here; as they are in the drought area they should have every consideration.
I do not mean to leave the impression that returned men in British Columbia should not also have consideration, but I am particularly interested in the men in my district. A situation which was drawn to my attention in regard to these returned soldier settlers was that apparently some were more of the speculative type, and these men in the good years took advantage of this dollar for dollar bonus and were able to clear off their indebtedness and to claim title to their land. On the other hand other returned men are permanently settled there with their families, which have increased year by year, and they are in an entirely different situation. They are in a drought area and it is impossible for them to carry on.
I should like to see this dollar for dollar bonus maintained without any set period for termination. I think we should go further with it, in view of the fact that in the first place about 8110,000,000 was loaned out, and if we take into consideration bad debts and cost of administration I believe the experiment has cost us already over $68,000,000. In view of that tremendous expense we should
{Mr. Reid.]
be a little more lenient with these returned men and make it permissible for them, if they have a good crop, for instance next year, and can pay off their whole indebtedness, to have this dollar for dollar bonus applied to the whole thing. As it stands, I believe, it applies to a certain portion. These men are anxious to get the debt cleared off, and a number of them told me that if they should have any crop next year they would like to take advantage of the dollar for dollar bonus and pay off the whole debt.
I believe that it would be good business to eliminate entirely arrears of interest for the last four or five years. If that were done, it would give these returned men a chance to obtain a clear title to their homes, which they are desirous of getting. It would be good administrative policy to give every consideration to these men, because there may come a time when we shall have to ask men to leave our country and fight for their homes, and it would be setting a poor example if at this time we cease to consider the needs of our returned men. I hope that when the government brings down this legislation, it will see fit to provide for some concessions in this respect.


Mr. QUELCH:: Many returned men are a little leery about coming under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. They realize that in the past they have received fairly sympathetic consideration from the government, and fear that if they avail themselves of this act they will be subject to different treatment. If they come under this act, will they receive exactly the same treatment as before, with regard, for instance, to collections in the event of poor crops?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Alan Webster Neill: Did the legion definitely say that?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the information I have.


Alan Webster Neill: The answer is, I am afraid, that the legion does not represent the settlers. The minister does not seem to be quite sure. I asked my soldier settlers if they would send a delegate to that convention of which he speaks in order that their views might be expressed there, and they said they could not afford to do so. Unfortunately the legion in what I would call its higher aspects has got more or less into the hands of a bureaucracy or aristocracy of colonels and generals, who can afford to attend these meetings. These people and influential legion branches in the cities have run the legion. Nowadays the voice of the poor man is not heard nearly to the extent that it used to be and that it should be. If the legion passed a resolution such as the minister stated, it is because they were not fully informed, and the reason they were not fully informed on the situation and the facts is that the poor man, the small man, the settler to whom a dollar looks so big, could not afford to send a delegate- they cannot afford to send a delegate to represent them at their provincial conventions- and only the leading lights and more or less the moneyed men or the men who have some government jobs or something of the kind can afford to go around the country to these conferences. I say that the settler was not adequately represented at that convention if they passed a resolution of that kind.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as that is concerned, General Ross, who was for several years head of the legion

president, I believe, was the title of his office-came from a rural district in Saskatchewan, from Yorkton, and he was wholly familiar with the conditions
obtaining among the settlers in the prairie provinces. I know further that during the course of his office he visited all parts of the country in connection with legion work. His successor, Colonel Foster, comes, I believe, from Vancouver.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Chief of police of Vancouver.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I discussed this proposal with Colonel Foster and he told me what the legion had discussed at their meeting at Fort William.


Alan Webster Neill: That just bears out what I have been contending, that Colonel Foster and the legion do not represent the soldier settlers of British Columbia.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not going to pass judgment on that; but at any rate Colonel Foster is the man whom the delegates to the general meeting of the organization elected as president, and I assume he is the man they desired to have in that position. I know General Ross took a very active part in the work of the legion, and I have not the slightest doubt that Colonel Foster will do the same. Consequently I think this is reasonable legislation. If conditions change, it is always open to parliament to extend it or to enlarge the benefits. I was not in the house when the dollar for dollar bonus privilege was established, but as far as my knowledge goes that step was taken at that time because of the extraordinarily low prices to which all classes of agricultural produce had fallen in Canada. I have already given the committee the information that the price index for 1937 as compared with 1933 shows that the value of farm products has gone up from fifty per cent to, in some cases, well over one hundred per cent, in other words has doubled. On the whole I think the legislation is reasonable.


Mr. GREEN:: One remark made by my good friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) I think was unfortunate Perhaps he did not mean to go quite so far in his attack on the officers of the Canadian Legion. It would be too bad if the committee got the impression that the legion is made up of ex-officers or wealthy men, because such is not the case. I think the legion, as well as other soldier organizations across Canada, represents all ranks and all classes.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say " made up of," I said " managed by."


Howard Charles Green: Well, all these soldier
organizations are doing the best they can for the returned soldiers of Canada, and as a
Soldier Settlement Act

returned soldier myself I should like it made clear that there is no question of their being led by wealthy men or ex-officers.


Malcolm McLean: Before addressing a question to the minister let me say that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni came near the truth in describing the convention-not the legion-in its relation to that resolution.
I was amazed at the passing of a resolution of that kind. I asked a senior officer afterwards and he said that it was better to be moderate, not to ask too much; that the government had treated them generously in the past. I happen to know a little about the convention, and it is in line with what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said.
I would ask the minister whether the bill is to be based on the resolution or if the resolution is merely descriptive of a bill already drafted.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The resolution is descriptive of the bill drafted. The first step is the drafting of the bill; then the law clerks are supposed to draft the resolution to agree with the terms of the bill. They tell me that has been done in this instance.


Malcolm McLean: I am satisfied with that answer; I think it is correct, although differing somewhat from my idea of what we are doing when we pass a resolution authorizing the introduction of legislation. As a layman perhaps my misunderstanding was excusable, but I thought the bill would be based on the resolution this house passed.
In any case I should like to draw the attention of the minister and the committee to the similarity of language used in the resolution before us to-day and that used in 1936 when similar legislation was before the house. It differs by the addition of three words; that is all I can find. In the present resolution we have the words, " to provide further that the period during which payments of arrears or instalments at present subject to bonus privileges may be made." Two words there, the words " at present," are not found in the resolution of 1936. I am not saying that the inclusion of those words does not change the sense of the resolution, but in my opinion it does not. The resolution of 1936 read:
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act to provide that the period during which payment of arrears or instalments subject to bonus privileges may be made be extended to the 31st day of March, 1938.
To all intents and purposes that resolution is exactly the same as the one now before us, and so I think there is justification for the mistake made by myself and others in thinking
it means the same as the resolution of 1936.

A good deal has been said to-day about the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act being open to ex-soldiers. As a matter of fact the legion convention at Fort William recommended that as many as possible take advantage of that machinery. But there are in this country many ex-soldiers, as well as other settlers, who do not want to have anything to do with that piece of legislation, which is based on the dominion's powers to regulate bankruptcy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It involves the assumption that the settler is himself insolvent. The act can be applied only if the applicant is insolvent.


Malcolm McLean: Yes, and many
settlers do not want to go before a court on that assumption. They want to meet their contracts, but on as favourable terms as others are getting. For that reason I think it is not a good thing that we should speak so much here of their having that machinery available.
In reference to what the minister said about reductions which have been made in the past, it is true that nominally and on paper, and I think actually, parliament and governments from time to time have been quite generous in the treatment of soldiers, once the obligation was incurred. But in the incurring of the obligation governments and parliament in times past have been most unwise in authorizing expenditures.
Someone quoted prices of cattle supplied to these men in the earlier days. I myself saw horses costing as much as S500 a team sold to settlers who had no feed for them, no work for them to do, no knowledge of horses; the horses knew nothing about the men and the men knew nothing about the horses. The result was that within a few months those horses, fed up for market and sold at a high price, were practically without value. The same is true in regard to cattle and machinery, where the latter was sold to men who had no use for it, no place to store it, and in some cases no cleared land on which to pile it. That kind of thing entailed greatly increased debt for the settlers.
I am not criticizing any administration that was responsible for these things; they were part of many other mistakes. Nevertheless the debts were incurred, and the reductions made in connection with debts incurred for stock and equipment were not enough to put many of the settlers on a sound footing. A reduction was made that applied to all. Later on other reductions were made, culminating in the thirty per cent reduction, I think in 1930. There the committee which dealt with the question of soldier settlers was faced with

Soldier Settlement Act
this very difficult situation. Many men had made sacrifices, realized on life insurance, borrowed money from friends, relatives and mortgage companies, and paid off their liabilities in full. Then a year or two later, or in some cases a few months later, they found that if they had not paid off their debts they would have been eligible for substantial relief, such as those about them were receiving. No one was to blame for that situation, because once a man has paid his debt to the government he cannot get any reduction, since he does not owe anything. But this created a feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of those who had tried their hardest and done their best to pay off their obligations.
Then the dollar for dollar bonus plan came along. There was no mistake about the intention of the plan at that time, and it was carried out quite successfully. Two years ago the extension was made, and there was no argument about those to whom it was to apply. Now, however, almost the selfsame resolution is before us to-day, but it is being given an entirely different 'interpretation. I strongly object to that, and I think it is most important. It may be that I am wrong and that the words "further" and "at present" do change the sense of the resolution as compared with the one of two years ago. But until I am told that the addition of these three words does change the meaning of the resolution, I think that the committee should hold that if this measure passes in its present form it means that the same terms should be embodied in the bill that we are going to discuss later, of which this resolution is assumed to be descriptive.


Thomas Reid: In support of my remarks of a few moments ago I want to give the minister some figures pertaining to soldier settlers in the Fraser valley in British Columbia, in order to show how serious the matter really is. The payments due in the Fraser valley last year amounted to just over a million dollars. There was actually paid the sum of S90.454.6S. Of 1,668 payments due only some 621 were made. Those are the latest figures I have been able to obtain from the department. This is a serious matter. In the Fraser valley there are three particular collection points: Abbotsford, Chilliwack and Vancouver. At Abbotsford the amount due in 1937 was $83,522.62, of which $5,150.40 was paid. At Chilliwack the amount due was $137,774.30, of which S10.452.98 was paid, and in the Vancouver district $118,751.58 was due, and only $S,148.40 was paid. That clearly illustrates just how serious the situation is in the Fraser valley, where there are men who have never
been able to take advantage of the dollar for dollar offer, and never will due to economic conditions. In many cases the interest charges have increased the cost of the property to twice the original cost, and while there are some few who can get relief under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, I think it is too bad when the director has to say to a man, "Go to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act; we will not oppose you." There are only a few who can take advantage of that because, as has been pointed out, a man has to be declared bankrupt before he can take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
I should like to see the act remain as it is; but I think the high interest charges which exist at present, at least on the debts due in British Columbia, should be carefulfy reviewed by the board. I should like to refer also to the large staff in the city of Vancouver, which I claim means a considerable overhead in looking after what is to-day really a collection agency. What is bothering most of the settlers out there is that if they are forced off their property, the board will actually sell the land for about one-third of what is against the property while it is in the possession of a soldier settler. He naturally says to himself and to the board, "Why can't I get some further reduction?" I think the figures I gave a few moments ago are interesting, and I draw that situation seriously to the attention of the minister.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to amplify the point made by the hon. member for Melfort. He modestly said he thought he might be wrong, but I do not think he is. I think the minister was mistaken when he made the statement to the hon. member that the custom is for the resolution to be founded on the bill. I submit that the custom in this house is the direct opposite. Time and again we have the minister in charge of a resolution saying, "Mr. Speaker, the bill which will be founded on this resolution, if it passes-" and so on. There is no question that the resolution comes first, and is introduced with the sanction, or the approval and recommendation, of the governor general.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that to-day.


Alan Webster Neill: He used that language when he first introduced the resolution, but in answer to the hon. member for Melfort he said that the bill was already formulated and that the resolution was founded on it. That is an important difference, for this reason.
Soldier Settlement Act

We know we private members cannot make any amendment asking a change in the terms, because that involves the expenditure of public money, and that is a matter entirely up to the government. But I think, if the bill, when it is brought down, contains not the legislation foreshadowed by this resolution but this other modified legislation which the minister has indicated, it will be our duty and privilege to rise to a point of order and say that the bill brought down is out of order because it is not founded upon the resolution and does not carry out one of the most important items in the resolution-the provision that the present privileges would be extended. Now we find that they are going to be extended to only a small portion of those concerned. If the government is determined to take this stand, I think it will have to withdraw this resolution and introduce another expressing what is now proposed. I submit that the bill to be introduced will be out of order unless it follows the terms of this resolution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not a lawyer, but I am advised by the legal officers of parliament who have to do with these matters that this resolution is in order for the purpose that I explained. If the hon. member for Comox-Alberni takes a different view, I must express regret that he feels that way about the question. In matters legal I have to be guided by the officers properly constituted for that purpose.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I should like very much to emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Melfort in reply to the minister in regard to the soldiers coming under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. They are afraid that if they come under that act and are removed, as it were, from the protection of parliament, in the event of times getting worse, while they may not be discriminated against, they will have lost their rights under anything that might be done subsequently by parliament.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not the case.


Thomas Miller Bell: As was pointed out, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is a matter of insolvency and bankruptcy. This the soldier settlers dislike. I said previously that I did not think we were being sufficiently realistic in viewing this matter. I have before me some further figures which I think confirm that statement. If we take the Saskatoon area, where many of these settlers are to be found, the number of instalments due in 1936-37 was 4,658. Of these there were 573 already prepaid from previous years. In addi-

tion there were 408 fully paid in the year 1936-37, making a total of 981, or only twenty-one per cent of the payments due. In other words, last year only twenty-one per cent of those soldiers met their instalments.
I should like also to emphasize the suggestion made by the hon. member for New Westminster regarding the New Zealand plan. That is a security of tenure plan, which some of us have been advocating for a very long time for more persons than soldier settlers. The New Zealand land policy is one, I think, that might be studied particularly for application where the government itself has control of a given area. It's basic principle is that the people on the land shall be given undisputed possession of that land as long as they use it, and the debt meantime be cut down to the point where, over a period of years without interest, they can expect to retire the obligation. The New Zealand government has put this policy into effect. Several years ago, when it was only a proposal, I had an opportunity of hearing a great deal about it from one of the present ministers of that government. Although two or three years ago there was an inclination to ridicule such a land policy, in the province from which I come, it is being used for soldier settlers in New Zealand. I am glad the hon. member for New Westminster drew it to the attention of the committee, and I should like to emphasize it.


Mr. FAIR:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments and suggestions which have been brought forward, but I am not satisfied that any of them have gone far enough. Having lived among soldier settlers for a number of years, I am satisfied they will never get out of their present position. At the time the plan came into being, the average loan was 34,155. To the end of December, 1937, only forty-five per cent of the loans had been paid off. At the same time thirty-nine per cent of the original settlers were still paying on their loans.
Coming along to the end of March, 1931, we find that the average indebtedness of the soldier settler was 32,311. At the end of December, 1937, the average indebtedness was $2,271, or an average reduction in 6even years of $40 per settler. I would ask the minister how many years it will take for those settlers to pay up under existing conditions. We have no guarantee whatever that farming conditions will be any better in the future.
The minister told us a few moments ago that prices of farm products are better than they have been in the past, but I would remind him that our wheat yields are far

Soldier Settlement Act
below what they have been. While in the district from which I come we have had crops averaging from twenty-five to thirty bushels to the acre, last year we averaged between three and four bushels to the acre. I would ask him how he concludes people are better off to-day than they were when crops yielded a higher average. From the inception of the plan to March, 1937, the amount of interest charged up was 830,643,796.76. Added to that are the costs of administration, amounting to $23,765,179.70, giving a total of 854,408,976.46. We find that the amount paid by all soldier settlers to the end of March, 1937, was $56,158,021, or very little more than the amount of interest and administration charges. I have no doubt the minister is more familiar with those figures than I am.
I say it is time something definite was done for soldier settlers, to bring them out of their present position. I had not intended to say very much at this time; but before the resolution passes, or any legislation is brought down affecting soldier settlers, may I recommend to the attention of the minister the submission of the soldier settlers union, with headquarters at Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. I believe a copy was sent to the minister and to several other hon. members in February of last year, but if he has lost his copy I shall be pleased to let him have mine. I suggest that some substantial amendments be made in favour of soldier settlers.


Mr. WOOD:: I should like to draw the
attention of the minister to the administration by the soldier settlement board in the township of Tuscarora, in which there happen to be about seventy soldier settlers. This township includes the Six Nations Indian reserve. In the last few years property of Indian ex-soldiers in that reserve has been repossessed by the board. Some of it has been resold to civilians, and some of it has been rented by the board, and the rent applied to the payments due the board on the property. The difference between the price realized on the sale of the repossessed property and the original advance made by the board is held as a claim against the original owner. The fact that he participates in a semi-annual interest fund distribution to the band gives the board a claim on him personally. Unfortunately the claim is imposed not onlj- against the original owner, but also against his wife and family. The board seizes the semi-annual interest payments to apply to the loss which has been incurred in consequence of the repossession of the property and its sale to a civilian.
I was surprised to learn that that condition of affairs exists, because I do not think it
exists in respect to any other group of soldiers. I wish the minister would see whether this discrimination cannot be corrected. I do not believe it is fair; I do not think there is any justice in it. At this time some claims are reverting even to the third generation. Where will it end? In some cases many families will be involved, and the difference to which I have referred is not sufficient at the present time to do more than pay the interest on the claim against the Indian ex-soldier or his descendants.
I am quite aware that soldier settlement on that reserve is at present administered by a branch of the Department of Indian Affairs; yet I feel that the responsibility rests upon the board, and if the minister will give the matter consideration I shall be pleased.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be glad to do so. I am not personally familiar with the facts mentioned by the hon. member, but the matter will be looked into.
Mr. O'NEILL: In rising to support the remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, I was of the opinion that this measure would extend the privileges to everybody, and that the condition would be the same as it was before. But from the minister's explanation it would seem that only a certain class are to benefit. For my part I should like to see it extended to all of them. Those who had the privileges before, should continue to have them. Supporting the hon. member for New AVestminster, may I say that in the interior of British Columbia we have conditions similar to those he described in the Fraser valley.
I have one particular instance that came to my attention. A piece of land was taken up by one of these soldier settlers. To date he has paid in the neighbourhood of $1,100, including his bonus and interest charges, but he still owes more than what he has actually paid. If he let go of that land, it would bring in the open market only about half what he owes on it. He made a payment last year of $50 or 860, but the interest on the money he owed was more than his payment. The result was that although he made a payment, at the end of the year he owed more than he had at the beginning. I do not think this man would continue to pay the charges on this land were it not for the fact that when he took it up he gave the soldier settlement board a mortgage on his homestead. That is why he is struggling to make the payments; if they are not paid he will lose his homestead.
Mention was made by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Only to-day I
Soldier Settlement Act

was speaking to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) about a matter, the particulars of which I have here on my desk. A certain man purchased a piece of land from the soldier settlement board and later on sold it to a third party. The party of the third part took advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. He appeared before a board of review and had his indebtedness to the settlement board reduced by some $2,000. This reduction applied also to the payments due by the party of the second part to the party of the third part. The whole thing has reached a point where I simply cannot understand it. The only thing that can be done is to refer it to a lawyer to have it untangled. I would not want to see this act done away with; but at the same time there is no doubt that many people are taking advantage of it, and the very people whom the act was intended to help are being penalized. I do not know just how a question like this will be settled, but I certainly would like to see this resolution apply to everyone and not to just a particular class.


Mr. McINTOSH:: North of the North Saskatchewan river in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan there is a goodly number of soldier settlers. Many of these men have been in there for years and they are vitally interested in any legislation which may be enacted in Ottawa. They feel that if legislation is enacted to help in the meeting of their payments, even then the problem will only be half met. They believe, and I think rightly, that even if that is done there is still a long range problem to be settled, the problem of how many of these soldier settlers will be able to remain on the land if some help is not extended-not forthcoming.
It would appear that year by year the number' of soldier settlers on the land in that part of the province-I assume the same is true of other parts of the province and also of other provinces-is gradually being reduced. These men are being dispossessed, and the result is that those who are still on the land are beginning to feel somewhat discouraged. They are all of the opinion that the department should do something to alleviate their distress. This must be done if these men are to remain on the land and get any benefit from the moneys they have paid to date.
A few years ago the soldier settlers in that part of the province organized a soldier settlers' union. I encouraged that because I felt that if these soldier settlers were fully organized they could yearly draw up a bill of complaint-a	petition of grievances-and
present it to the authorities in the different areas. In turn those complaints could be
[Mr. O'Neill.)
presented to the department with the possibility of action being taken to redress their wrongs. But they feel that with all their attempts at organization, with all their efforts to benefit their lot, they have not a very safe hold on the future. Consequently they are looking to Ottawa for action.
After reading this resolution, I have come to the conclusion that the department would be well advised not to discriminate in any way. Bonus payments should be allowed to every soldier settler, whether or not he is paid up. These men would thus be given a chance to remain on the land and be more satisfied than they are at the present time. I agree with those hon. members on this side of the house who have said that on first reading of the resolution they believed that it was to be extended to all soldier settlers, not just to those who are in arrears. I believe that is the understanding among these soldier settlers throughout the west. I ask the minister if it would not be possible to modify the resolution so that when the bill is brought in, it will be as beneficial and non-discriminatory as possible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How much did it cost last year to administer the soldier settlement board, and what were the returns from the work?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am afraid I have not that information at the moment, but I shall try to have it when the bill is before us. Ordinarily that would be asked for when the estimates for the soldier settlement board were before the committee for consideration.


Malcolm McLean: It has been said that this resolution is similar to the one passed two years ago, and I should like to ask the minister if he will consider withdrawing this and making it fit the bill which he says is going to be introduced, or whether he will change the bill to fit the terms of the resolution we are now discussing? If we pass a resolution that is exactly the same as the one we passed two years ago, I think we have a right to look for the same type of legislation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The resolution is not quite the same.


Malcolm McLean: There are three words different. The first is the addition of "further." That is "further" to the reduction in the interest from seven per centum to five per centum, and then there is the designation of who shall receive the bonus payment. In March, 1936, we were dealing with contracts and payments that were at that time "subject" to the bonus being given, instead of "at

Soldier Settlement Act
present subject" in the resolution before us. So that while I did express some doubt as to the legal meaning of these words, I can see no difference whatever, and I do not believe -that the law officers can prove any difference.
I had an unhappy experience with the law officers of the crown who drafted certain soldier settlement amendments some years ago. In 1928, an amendment was passed in the special soldier committee, the purpose being to provide that no homestead crown land entered upon by soldier settlers at a date subsequent to their receipt of the latest authorization of a loan from the board could be seizable or could be held for debts incurred before entry was made. The law officers of the department and of the Department of Justice so garbled that simple amendment that after it had been sent back two or three times from that committee, and after they had assured us finally that it was good law and good legal English, it came to the house and half a dozen legal men,	among them the	then leader	of	theopposition, who is in the same position today,	attacked it, with	the result that	the
whole amendment had to be returned in an effort to make it abundantly clear just what was intended.
I will admit, therefore, that I come to the house	rather prejudiced	against the	draftingdone	by some of the	law officers	of	the
crown. In this instance I claim that the resolution is in all its essential features the same as the one we had two years ago, and if we pass it we have a right to assume that the minister will introduce a bill similar to that which was brought in on the basis of -tlie resolution which was passed in 1936. On the other hand, I would have no objection to having the resolution withdrawn, if it is merely descriptive of the bill that is to follow, on the understanding that it will be reframed in accordance with the bill which it is proposed to bring down. But the department cannot have it both ways. Either the resolution is the same as the one we had before or it is different. If it is different, very well; in that event the bill will be different. But if the resolution is the same, then-perhaps, like one hon. member from British Columbia, I do not easily grasp these things-I must confess that I cannot see the difference.


Alan Webster Neill: The government has set its hen on duck's eggs and now proposes to give us chickens, and we do not want chickens.


Joseph Needham: This resolution is not
tackling the problem that the soldier settlers are up against; it is not giving them much hope for ultimately liquidating their obligations. I agree with many others who have
spoken that the soldier settler is getting discouraged. He has worked hard and tried to meet his obligations, but the problem is too great for him. I was talking to one man last fall and he presented a case which perhaps is a little peculiar. It is this. Two young fellows took over a section of land, half a section each, sixteen years ago. They put up their shacks and went to work; they paid to the municipality in taxes over $4,000 and to the soldier settlement board over $5,000, and now they owe more than they did at the start. Analyse that situation from the standpoint of what that land was bringing to the crown before these men took it over, and see where they stand now. Before that land was taken over, it was crown land that was rented for pasturage and it brought in $25 a year. In the sixteen years, had it remained under the crown, the crown would have got $670 from it. As a matter of fact they have got over $5,000. To put the matter another way, if it had continued as pasture land it would have taken over 200 years for the crown to receive the amount it has actually received to date from that land. These settlers have been there sixteen years; they owe more today than they did when they first went on the land and, as they say, they would have been beter off on relief; for they have worked sixteen years for the country for three meals a day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend mean to say that soldiers paid for crown land-that they paid the government of Canada for crown land?


Joseph Needham: In meeting their obligations.


Charles Avery Dunning: What obligations?


Joseph Needham: In connection with the
land they took over from the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: But no crown land was
charged for; that is a certainty.


Joseph Needham: It was school land, I
suppose. It was land they took over from the board anyway.


Charles Avery Dunning: School land? That is
a different matter; that belongs to the province. Crown land, in the ordinary sense, no soldier settler has paid for at any time.


Joseph Needham: It was taken over from the board sixteen years ago, and that is the situation.


Mr. POOLE:: Over ten years ago this land belonged not to the province but to the federal government.


Charles Avery Dunning: What land? School
lands?
City oj Ottawa Agreement


Eric Joseph Poole: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: School lands were always held in trust by the dominion for the province. To-day they are administered by the province. It was never crown land in the sense of being available for homesteading.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Crerar thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize the Minister of Public Works on behalf of His Majesty to enter into an agreement to pay to the corporation of the city of Ottawa the sum of $100,000 for the year ending July 1, 1938.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. CARDIN:: This resolution provides purely and simply for the introduction of a bill authorizing the Minister of Public Works to extend for another year the agreement between the city of Ottawa and the Department of Public Works. The agreement provides for a payment of $100,000 to the city of Ottawa as compensation for fire protection of buildings belonging to the government and for water used in sprinkling in the parks and on certain streets under the control of the federal district commission. This agreement was concluded as far back as 1920. It was then for a period of five years. In 1925 the amount of $75,000 which had been provided in the agreement of 1920 was increased to the present sum of $100,000. Since that time the agreement has been renewed by legislation passed at each session of the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to delay the passage of this vote, but there are two or three features of it which I think parliament should understand. The agreement is between two parties: the king, represented by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who has just spoken, and the mayor and corporation of the city of Ottawa; the vote is $100,000. The agreement began away back in 1920, on March 13. It is a subvention to the city of Ottawa, and it started in this way. There was a meeting at Niagara Falls

of the Union of Canadian Municipalities the year I was president. I read a paper dealing with subventions in other countries by governments-for the state and federal capitals of Australia and all over the world. At that time the late Mr. Fisher, who was born in Toronto, was mayor of Ottawa. On March 13, 1920, as mayor of Ottawa, on behalf of the corporation, he made an agreement with the government. It was said at that time that the agreement was to spend $75,000 for what was known as sprinkling the streets. It was a lot of money to grant for that purpose; I do not know whether there was a general election in sight at the time or not. The "sprinkling" amounted to very much less in fact.
But the item grew. We are in a building under the control of the Speaker, who keeps it very clean, but if you step outside the door you are under a federal district commission; yet it is all in the city of Ottawa. The vote was expressed to be for a sprinkling system. Sprinkling what? For cleaning certain streets of Ottawa. When the minister was asked in 1920 how much was to be voted, he said, $75,000. That is a lot of money for sprinkling. The next year the vote came up they amended the information; and they said, "Oh no, it is just along the lines of the union of municipalities report, and provided a subvention in exchange for services rendered by the municipality to the capital of the country." What were those services? Fire, police protection and other services. It may be remembered that Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposed to make this city the Washington of the north. Now they are going to make Washington the Ottawa of the south.
This vote is a most improvident arrangement, because, under constitutional practice, every vote must have a principle. The principle in this case is all wrong. I am not opposed to Ottawa, I should be glad to see this city get everything that is coming to it; but when one looks into this agreement, and adds to the amount of this vote what the federal district commission are now spending on the park system of Ottawa, it runs into a very large sum of money for capital and maintenance. Nearly half a million dollars is voted direct by this parliament to the city of Ottawa for purely municipal institutions- parks and playgrounds and the rest-and on capital account and purchase of properties, tearing down buildings under this agreement and also through the federal district commission-$257,000 through the commission.
What is this agreement? Of what does it consist? How is the amount of the vote

City of Ottawa Agreement
computed? First of all $75,000 was asked for; then it was increased by thirty-three and one-third per cent to $100,000. For what? When they started, the agreement was to sprinkle the streets. Then the federal district commission was established, a federal commission for the city, besides this agreement. The vo-te was marked up to $100,000, and when you look into the principle of the thing, what is it? A direct subvention, contrary to the British North America Act. I doubt if this agreement would stand in the law courts.
In spite of all that has been said in the last two days about the condition of our municipalities, it is proposed to vote the city of Ottawa a straight cash grant for doing nothing more than is being done by every large city and town in Canada of over forty thousand people that have federal exempt property of many kinds but that get nothing. New federal buildings have been erected in many cities. Why should the government not pay those cities for water supply, police protection, fire protection for federal exempt property throughout Canada? In my opinion there should be equality of treatment. I do not oppose the agreement merely for the sake of opposing it. But what is the value of fire protection and the sprinkling system to the government's buildings here? The fire protection amounts to very little in case of a big fire. We know that in 1916, a few years before this agreement was prepared there was a fire here which destroyed the old parliament buildings because there was not sufficient pressure, no adequate water supply, although there is a fire department. Why, they have as large a water supply at Fort Erie as they had in Ottawa in 1916 when that fire occurred. Fire engulfed the whole parliament buildings; the new ones cost eighteen million dollars, and we cannot step outside without having a commission to fix up the cleaning of the pavements.
The principle of this bill should apply to every city and town in Canada if it applies here. For example, as my report at the union showed, in Australia the city of Sydney, New South Wales, and other state capitals get a subvention. That is how Mayor Fisher conceived the idea of this particular agreement. In Australia they maintain the police force and the fire department; the grant was formerly a million and a quarter dollars and is now two million dollars in exchange for services rendered in these cities to the federal and state governments of the day.
I repeat that I want to find out the principle of this vote. I do so especially in view of the present condition of real estate in our
cities, as pointed out in the last few days in the course of an argument which has been a real contribution to the subject. Under the present Minister of Public Works federal buildings have been built all across Canada for sums ranging from $10,000 to 8100,000, in cities where the revenues are very small. Why should these municipalities not receive, on the same principle, subventions in exchange for federal exempt property and services? They do everything that Ottawa does under this agreement in connection with fire protection, police protection, and water supply. In the city I come from they spent fifteen to twenty million dollars on a duplicate water supply, largely to give the citizens a high pressure system in the down-town district where the government has erected a million dollar federal building and is collecting in that one building revenues of $110,000,000 in customs and income taxes.
Why should Toronto not have the same consideration? We come to the second clause in the agreement. I shall be through in a minute, Mr. Chairman. I have no wish to delay the vote, but there may be other speakers. Why should other cities not receive the same treatment? Why should Ottawa receive a vote of $100,000 when, right in this same city, we are maintaining a whole second parks system through the federal district commission at the expense of the taxpayers all over Canada? This vote is paid out of income. The moneys to be expended under this agreement will come out of sales tax and income tax. Why should the taxpayers be charged with these expenditures? The industrial worker has no protection; he is losing his home. Why should Ottawa not pay its own bills for its municipal services? Why should it receive the equivalent of two or three mills on the dollar under this agreement as well as through the federal district commission? If we look at the work done by the federal district commission we find, in the western section, it includes Island park, Rideau canal. Echo drive, Dow's lake park, Confederation park, lake Flora park, Val Tetreau park, Central park, Bronson avenue and Somerset street parks, and then there is the eastern section, making a total of $115,000 of an appropriation, with maintenance charges as well. They cover the whole city. Not only that, look at the federal expenditures on capital, tearing down buildings and all that sort of thing, running into millions of dollars, while other municipalities have to look on, and Ottawa "gives us the laugh."
The principle is wrong. Why should the income taxpayers of Quebec and Ontario have
City of Ottawa Agreement

to pay for this? The agreement is improvident. They do not give SI00.000 of value. Why do they not clean the streets? Look at the number of people injured; look at the state of the streets right in front of the door of this building on Wellington street, such that no one can walk on the pavement without danger. We have to have here in Ottawa three duplicate street cleaning services: first, the Department of Public Works; second, the city; third, the commission, and fourth, Mr. Speaker, if necessary, could go out himself with a few of us and clean the streets and walks in front of this building.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: I shall conclude in just three or four minutes. I am not criticizing the city of Ottawa at all; I want it to have equality of treatment with the rest of Canada. This is a very fine city, and I worked with the municipal officers for many years. What I object to is the federal and provincial governments refusing to contribute to taxation for municipal purposes. For example, for many years the city of Toronto had to build curbs, roads and sidewalks all along federal and provincial property, and this government did not contribute a cent towards the cost. I do not -blame the city of Ottawa for getting an agreement under which they will obtain 8100,000. I would not care, if services were given, if they got half a million, and if the other Canadian cities were treated in the same way. They have a very fine school system here; they have fine hospitals and an excellent health service, but they get nothing from the federal authorities. The service rendered is not limited to fire protection and water works. These things concern the health of the people, but the city does not get a cent from the federal government.
They have cured all that in England. You have to go to the British cities to get good government. Look what Joseph Chamberlain did for the city of Birmingham. He spent a fortune there. The government of Canada is not doing anything for the people who live in the larger municipalities, or, for that matter, for those who live in rural places. I used to know the late Mayor Fisher of Ottawa. He went to Jarvis street collegiate. He prepared an estimate amounting to 8886,455, as what the city of Ottawa should have received from the federal government. He included $77,000 for water rates; S2,000 for sprinkling the

streets, $57,000 for income tax, because some high government officials were exempt from municipal taxation; $482,000 for property tax; $226,000 for business -tax, and $3,000 for property leased to the dominion government. In some ways, of course, that calculation would not be fair, but at least they are entitled to what they spend.
I do not wish to reflect on any of the city officials here. I have known some of them for many years. This city has very fine officials, who work for small pay. There is efficiency here. It is true that there is not sufficient hotel accommodation, but that will come.
I would not object to a proper federal district commission for this city, but I hope the day is coming when we shall not tear down any more public buildings. Let us wait until the depression is over. I believe we are spending too much money, when one considers the eight per cent sales tax and the condition of the farmers and those on relief.
I certainly believe there should be a better break all over Canada for the municipalities, by both the federal and -the provincial governments. Why should the municipalities have real estate loaded up the way it is? If a man owns property, he has to pay fifty per cent of the cost of his own roadway, his sidewalk and his local improvements. He has also to pay for federal municipal works, and he has to help provide all these social services without which the people cannot get along. Why should he have to add to his local taxes to pay for local improvements, roads, sewers, sidewalks, waterworks, and all that sort of thing right in front of federal property? The old Grand Trunk paid taxes. In one municipality which I could mention that company was a large taxpayer, but to-day in Toronto the Royal York hotel does not pay any municipal taxes. This is unfair and unjust, and with all these exemptions how is a municipality to live? The municipalities are starving to-day, so much so that they have not a dollar with which properly to repair public buildings, build new schools, construct proper hospital accommodation, help the medical profession in the fine work they are doing, and maintain clinics. They have not a dollar for these services, which are largely maintained by the municipalities. In a rich country like Canada I think the dominion government should come to the help of the overburdened municipalities and pay in all cities for the services rendered. At the present time all these services are carried on through taxes imposed on property owned by you gentlemen and all the rest of us who have invested in real estate. This situation has been cured in England, in the United States, in Aus-

City oj Ottawa Agreement
tralia, in New Zealand, in France and in many other places. The municipalities are paid for the service they render.
You cannot expect the city of Ottawa to give adequate fire protection for a building like this if they do not get some proper compensation for it. I think the agreement speaks for itself. There is both federal and provincial property here. I can tell the committee about the case of the normal schools in London and Toronto, as well as the model school which takes up a whole block on Gerrard and Church streets. The city of Toronto had to build a sidewalk around that property; they had to build a roadway, and the province would not contribute a cent until Sir James Whitney in 1906 changed that principle. He said the Ontario government should be big enough to help the municipalities by paying for the city services rendered.
The only object I had in speaking on this motion was to try to get a fair deal for the municipalities. I have always been a great admirer of the city of Ottawa. I like the people here, and there is a great deal provided in the way of municipal services. I do plead for the municipalities. Mine is a national argument, not a provincial or federal one.


Mr. McCANN:: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Broadview has been rather more generous to the city of Ottawa in the remarks he has made since having his dinner than he was in those before six o'clock. As I listened to his argument prior to the recess, it was that Ottawa was not entitled to this amount of money for services rendered because other cities, in which there were federal buildings, were not being treated on a similar basis.
I hold no brief for the city of Ottawa although, like all hon. gentlemen here, I am a part time resident of this city. Having lived in this section of the country all my life, I know the needs of this city perhaps better than do some other hon. gentlemen. I know that business men and property holders here are by no means satisfied with the arrangement which is made by the federal government from year to year. That agreement was brought about, I suppose, by compromise and because of the fact that Ottawa city officials feel that they cannot do better. I do not regard the $100,000 a year that is paid to the city of Ottawa as a bonus or a subvention. You are paying in part for services rendered. You are paying for sewers, for roads, for water service, for police protection, for the sprinkling of the streets, and so on.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the biggest objection is based on the fact that you remove so much very valuable property from the assessment roll. The present policy of the government in regard to the beautification of this city is indeed laudable, and I am glad to see that they are taking the long view with reference to making the capital of this country a city of which we may be justly proud. There is no very severe criticism in Canada of the amount of money spent by the federal government with that object in view, but I submit that the present policy practically divides the city into two parts. If in the centre of the city large federal buildings are to be erected for governmental purposes, and if a space is to be given over for parks, we are going to have east, west and south of that area two business sections. It is an old axiom with reference to real estate that property lying adjacent to valuable property will be valuable. That does not hold in connection with the very valuable buildings which are being erected by the government.
For purposes of business, I would say that the presence of government property on business streets, as is contemplated with the erection of the post office at the corner of Sparks and Elgin streets, is detrimental to and lowers the value of the business property adjacent to it. The people who come to do business in this city in government offices are not the people who are going to carry on a large commercial business with the occupants of the buildings along Sparks street in the vicinity of the post office. I would say that the property of people on the opposite side of the street is reduced in value immediately a post office is erected at the corner of Elgin and Sparks streets. I would say the property opposite would depreciate in value anywhere from twenty-five per cent to fifty per cent, unless at some time or another that property, too, was taken over by the government.
In view of these facts, I think the government could afford to deal much more generously with the civic authorities in Ottawa than it has heretofore. A new principle has been accepted, and is being put into effect by the Ontario government with reference to the property which they hold and in which they do business. It has lately been proclaimed by the premier that they propose to pay taxes on those properties in which they have their liquor stores. They see the reasonableness of the demand which has been made by several cities and municipalities that, as the liquor stores are carrying on a

City of Ottawa Agreement


Mr. HEAPS:: I have listened with a great
deal of interest to the two hon. members who have preceded me. I believe every hon. member is anxious to deal with the utmost fairness with the city of Ottawa, and all are anxious to see Ottawa become a worth while

capital of a great dominion. But I certainly cannot follow the arguments which have been presented by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. For instance, he has told us that the Ontario government are content to pay taxes on the liquor stores they control in the various parts of the province. I have not heard that the Ontario government will pay taxes on the hydro utility, an organization which does a fair amount of business in Ottawa. I do not know, for instance, that the Ontario government makes any contribution towards the taxes of Toronto, the capital city of Ontario. I know of no provincial government which makes a lump sum contribution to the capital city of any province for the services it receives.
I am not using these observations as an argument against the measure submitted to the committee, but I am speaking in answer to the statements which have been made. Further, I have not much sympathy for the plea on behalf of the business men in Ottawa, the description of the hardships through which they are going, or the deterioration of property values in the city. I say that, because I think there is no city in the dominion which has been better off in the past seven or eight years, taking it all in all, than has been the city of Ottawa. It has not suffered one part of what other cities have suffered in the past few years, in connection with meeting its municipal obligations. They have been extremely well off, compared with nearly all other municipalities in Canada.
On the other hand, if one were to take away from Ottawa all the improvements for which the government has been responsible, there would be very little that the city could show that it has done towards making the capital city a worthy capital for the dominion. Having had some experience in municipal affairs, perhaps I might be permitted to say that there is not that civic pride in Ottawa which I should like to see the people have towards making Ottawa a worthy capital city. If one takes away the parks and driveways and public buildings controlled by the federal government, what is there to show what is being done by the city?
I am not making these statements as an argument against voting the amount indicated. I wish the government to deal with the utmost fairness with the city of Ottawa, and I am not opposing the granting of $100,000. I want to see Ottawa a worth while capital, but I also want to see her own people become a little more sympathetic, as indicated by their future action, towards the activity of this government in trying to make Ottawa the city it should be.
MARCH 3, 1938	ion
Supply-Transport-Airways
I am aware of the complaints that have been made in the past when buildings have been torn down. In my opinion, the tearing down of some buildings has been a good thing for Ottawa. I remember a few years ago when the confederation park was first started. There was a great outcry because property was being expropriated by the government in order that this park might be set up in the centre of the city. I do not know the exact sum spent in this connection, but it was up in the millions. The old Russell theatre as well as other buildings were torn down, and the complaint was made that we were reducing the assessed value of the city. In my judgment, when a city is made more beautiful and more attractive to those who live in it and who visit it as tourists, the property values are enhanced, not reduced. That is exactly what the government has done here in Ottawa. I have been coming to Ottawa for a number of years, and I am anxious to have the government continue to try to make Ottawa a worthy capital of the Dominion of Canada, but I should like to see a little more cooperation in this regard on the part of the people of Ottawa.


Mr. BLAIR:: Ottawa is situated in the
province of Ontario. When large buildings are built here at the expense of the other provinces, I wonder if they do not sometimes feel that a federal district should be set up here like they have in the United States and in Mexico. Such a district would be controlled by the dominion government. I do not know how this could be brought about, but if it has been done in other countries it can be done here. Then the other provinces would feel that this was part of their own territory, instead of it being a part of Ontario as at present.


Mr. KUHL:: This resolution is an example of the many anomalies that exist in our present constitutional position, just alluded to by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. Canada claims to be a self-governing unit, so why should we not have a federal district under the control of the federal government, as is the case with the district of Canberra in Australia? In giving evidence before the special committee on the British North America Act, Doctor Beauchesne mentioned the creation of a federal district during a discussion on the need of a new constitution for Canada. On page 132 of the evidence he is reported' as follows:
If we have a constituent assembly and if we discuss the making of a new constitution,
I think it should provide for a federal district.
I think it is an anomaly that dominion affairs should, to a certain extent, be subject to pro-
51952- 64$
vincial authority. I would suggest that we have a federal district taking in about twenty-five square miles on each side of the Ottawa river.
And then on page 133 we find the following statement by Doctor Beauchesne:
If there was a federal district, in order to make that federal district attractive in a big country like Canada, I would suggest the creation by the government of a national park of 75,000 to 100,000 acres to the north and northwest of the city. I would suggest that as much as possible of the country round about the Laurentian hills be included in order to make the park beautiful and attractive.
That is a worth-while suggestion and the people of Canada should be made aware of the situation. If that were done, I believe they would demand that this and other anomalies which exist should be cleared up. All of our national matters should be arranged in accordance with our status as a nation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 31, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the Corporation of the city of Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-Construction and improvements including lighting and radio facilities (capital), $1,722,400.
Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote was discussed at great length on the last occasion it was before the committee.


Thomas Reid: I should like to make a correction in connection with certain remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) on Thursday last when this item was under discussion. I am sorry the hon. member is not present when this correction is being made. At page 804 of Hansard he is reported as having made a statement which I endeavoured to correct the following day. I was called to order before I could complete the statement I wished to make on that occasion. With reference to the two air fields the hon. gentleman said:
I am not blaming the minister personally. I would not accuse him of doing this. I know there was considerable pressure brought to bear
Supply-Transport-Airways

on him from the minister for British Columbia and from the hon. member for New Westminster.
I wish now to make a few remarks with regard to that statement. When I made the correction the other day, I disputed the statement and described it as false and untrue. I never at any time brought any pressure to bear either upon the minister or upon the Minister of National Defence in connection with this or any other emergency landing field. The situation was this, if I may briefly explain it. These two sites, that at Chilliwack and the Langley Prairie site, had been contracted for and had been under negotiation some time prior to the election of 1935. When the present government came into office, the matter was still under advisement in 1936, and it had been suggested to the then minister, under whose department it was at that time, that is to say the Minister of National Defence, that these sites should be looked into, because it was felb at that time that as far as the Langley Prairie site was concerned, it was not the best one available in the district. When this was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Defence, it was pointed out by his officials that the field had been chosen after careful flights by competent airmen of the department. I differed with the point of view of the airmen and as a matter of fact I still differ with them. That, however, is aside from the point at the moment.
The fact is that the negotiations had proceeded so far-at least the information given me by the minister was to that effect-that the title deed had been taken from one of the parties, a Doctor Saunders, who had agreed to sell his farm as an airport at S200 an acre. Not only had he given the deed over, but he had sold his buildings and contracted for another farm in the Sumas prairie, which is in the Chilliwack electoral district; and the department felt that it had then gone too far to stop. Hence, I understand, the negotiation was finally completed some time late in 1936. I am not sure of the exact date, but I want to make the record clear. Ar that time, that is in 1936, I protested against the emergency field being purchased at that point, and still do; but I found, as I have stated, that prior to 1935, beginning in 1932, the late government had taken steps to acquire property not only in Chilliwack but in Langley Prairie and that the emergency field at Langley Prairie would probably not have been proceeded with had it not been for the fact that the deed for the property

had been handed over to the government and Doctor Saunders had sold everything he had and acquired a farm elsewhere.
That is the only interest I took in the matter at that time, and I take great exception to the remarks made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, who made the accusation, stating that he knew that political pressure had been brought to bear by the Minister of National Defence and by myself. When a member of this house says that he knows something, I think he should be asked to produce proof. I would not state in the house that I knew unless I was prepared to back up that statement. On the floor of the house I have made statements which I have always been ready to back up, and I say that the statements which I am now making are absolutely correct in so far as any actions of mine are concerned. At no time did I bring any pressure of any kind to bear upon any minister in connection with these emergency landing fields. I am glad that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is now in his place, because I wish to tell him that I did protest verbally to the then Minister of National Defence, under whose jurisdiction the two landing fields were, that the Langley airport site was not the best available in my district; but that statement, I believe, was not corroborated by the officials of the department who have to do with the choosing of these fields.
As regards the other site at Chilliwack, my information is-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that it would have been gone on with at the time the matter was under the Department of National Defence, but for the fact that it had been brought to the attention of the department that the taking over of the site there involved a dyking charge running over twenty or thirty years, and the department was not willing to recommend to the government that such charges on that site be incurred. As time went on, the jurisdiction and authority over these airport sites changed from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport, under whose jurisdiction they now are.
I wish to make this frank statement to the committee now, and I am glad that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is here and I can correct him. I repeat that at no time, either by word or inference, did I ever bring pressure of any kind to bear upon the department or the minister or any minister either to go ahead with the airport site at the present site or to interfere with the one in the hon. member's own riding, the one in Chilliwack. I trust that this explanation, which I have made honestly and sincerely, will be accepted by the hon. member.

Supply-Transport-Airways


Mr. BARBER:: As a member of this house I am in honour bound to accept the statement of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), and I am very sorry if the information I received, upon which my remarks were based the other night, was groundless. I am bound to accept, and I do accept, the statement of the hon. gentleman that he did not in any way use his influence in connection with the establishment or development of the airport at Langley. What I did particularly try to point out the other night was that the airport at Chilliwack, which was clear of fog conditions, was chosen by the officials of the department. I had nothing whatever to do with the choosing of it. The officials of the department flew over the site and surveyed the land from a plane. There was another field which some thought more desirable, being closer in, but owing to air currents they did not think it would be satisfactory.
The hon. member has referred to dyking charges. The option taken on the 160 acres at Chilliwack was 116,000, and apparently, at the time the option was taken, the dyking charge had been overlooked. On going into the matter they found that the total capital charge for dyking amounted to $50 an acre, and it was thought, as I discussed the matter with the present Minister of National Defence, that some arrangement could be made between this government and the government of British Columbia with a view to having a reduction in that capital charge. But even if that reduction had not been made, the total charge would have been $24,000-$16,000 for the price of the land and $8,000 to take care of dyking charge.
Even if, in the development of this field, a few thousand dollars more had to be expended, say a total of $30,000, there is quite a difference between $30,000 for a 160-acre port and $90,000 which is being expended on a 90-acre port in the fog district within ten or fifteen minutes' flying of Vancouver. So I tried to make it quite plain that some discrimination might have taken place; that the port which was more desirable from the standpoint of air men themselves was set aside, and that the other one the government has continued to develop. I accept the word of the minister that a lot of this expenditure had been made previously and was handed to him when he took office. A considerable portion was made under the defence department. But the substance of the complaint from the people out there, including many of the air men, is what I placed before the committee the other night and which I repeat to-night.


Howard Charles Green: What is the policy of the
government with regard to assisting in the construction of airports which are not on the Trans-Canada airway? Many of the large cities of Canada are not on that airway, and some of them, no doubt, will be served by feeder lines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have a particular vote
for that assistance, vote No. 390. If the hon. member would not mind, I would prefer to discuss the matter under the proper vote.


Howard Charles Green: There have been reports
in the paper that the government have purchased 600 acres at Patricia bay, which is on the southern end of Vancouver island, and there is some question whether this property is to be used as a base for transpacific flying or is merely for defence purposes. It is involving an expenditure of, I believe, several hundred thousand dollars. Would the minister explain to the committee what that airport is for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That expenditure is entirely for defence. It is in the defence department estimates. I know nothing of the details.


Howard Charles Green: It is not to be used fot
civil flying?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Denton Massey: On Monday last I asked
on the order paper, under notices of motion, for the production of papers and-
-all correspondence exchanged between the ministries of public works, labour, transport, or other departments of government, and the city of Toronto, in connection with the building of the Toronto airports on the Toronto island and at Malton.
That motion was passed as an order for return. The reason I asked for those papers is, as the minister may imagine, that there has been a great deal of discussion among those who are air-minded in Toronto as to the value, from the viewpoint of practicability, of the Malton airport. There was quite an agitation on the part of many who knew a great deal about flying and its hazards to have the Toronto flying club field on Wilson avenue enlarged and made fit for an emergency field for transport planes. The decision, however, was in favour of Malton. Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee what part the Trans-Canada airways played in that decision, and upon what the final decision was based? How was it that Malton, as far away from Toronto as it is, was selected rather than the flying club field which is immediately adjacent to the city and within twenty minutes by direct road of down town?
Sup-ply-Transport-Airways


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will understand that the airports in Toronto are the property of the city. The department was asked to advise on certain matters. We reported on every field that the city of Toronto asked us to report upon. We prepared estimates of cost and reports as to the feasibility for flying. After these reports were in, the city of Toronto made their choice, and after they had done so we granted such assistance as we could grant under the order in council which governs contributions to municipalities. I should like to make it clear that the choice was that of the city of Toronto, and that this department was responsible only for advice as to physical conditions and estimated expenditures for development of certain properties that it was asked to report upon.


Denton Massey: Did the department recommend the choice of Malton?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The department did not
recommend anything. It simply gave the facts?


Denton Massey: Is the minister fully satisfied that Malton is the better of the two airports, from his point of view as being directly concerned with the operation of the Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say which is the better, because I never studied the matter from that angle, but I can say that we regard the Malton field as potentially the finest airport which has ever been built on this continent. It seems to have everything.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Hear, hear.


Denton Massey: With all due deference to the opinion of the minister, and the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), which has manifested itself on so many occasions, there is an opinion, which is at times extremely vocal, that the Toronto flying club field is the better of the two. We are faced now with two rather unfortunate circumstances at Toronto in connection with our air field. The one on the island is, after all, on an island; and the other evening in this chamber the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) was directly concerned at the thought of the use of a chain ferry for the transportation of passengers to and from the airport. It is obvious that an island airport has its disadvantages from the point of view of accessibility when there is a connecting tunnel or a bridge. We in Toronto possess the advantage of having an island upon which an aerodrome can be erected, and when one considers the experience in Boston, a city
0>Ir. Massey.)
the minister well knows, with its excellent airport suitable for both land and sea planes immediately adjacent to the city, we are pleased to have the airport in a similar situation, but there is some little concern voiced about efficient transportation to and from the island. The minister has explained that that is a matter for the city of Toronto to solve. We are also faced with another awkward situation. The Malton airport is at least forty-five minutes away from the centre of the city of Toronto, away out in the county of Peel.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: In the bush.


Denton Massey: On the other hand, the
flying club field is at most twenty minutes from downtown, connected by a very broad highway most of the way. May I ask the minister, if there should be a great rush of traffic as a result of the new air line necessitating a change in the future, would the choice again be that of the city of Toronto or would it be that of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, in view of the feeling that the inconvenience caused passengers by having this field so far out justifies a port nearer the city? Surely we have the experience of Buffalo just across the lake to keep us free from an error similar to the one that was made there. One has to drive for forty-five minutes from downtown Buffalo to reach the aerodrome, and now that city is faced with the obligation of establishing its airport nearer to the city, at very heavy cost. We are hoping that the Trans-Canada Air Lines will be successful. If this is so, then the Malton airport will prove to be too far from the city, and then perhaps we shall have an airport near Toronto itself. If such should be the case, would the minister inform the committee whether the Trans-Canada Air Lines would be prepared to share at least part of the cost of doing what many feel should have been done in the first place, or must we assume that for many years to come this airport at Malton will be maintained?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am unable to answer my hon. friend's question, for the reason that my mind cannot comprehend a city having two expensive airports which would give any consideration at all to building a third. If my hon. friend can contemplate Toronto with three large airports, I shall take the question under consideration and tiy to answer him at a future time.


Gordon Graydon: This is one of the few occasions on which I disagree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). I must take this opportunity to point out to

Supply-Transport-Airways
the committee, and particularly to the minister, that if any surprise or concern was felt in the city of Toronto or elsewhere as to the suitability of Malton for an airport, that concern and surprise were not shared by the citizens of the banner riding of Peel. May I also point out one of the erroneous statements the hon. member for Greenwood made in the course of his remarks; he said Malton airport is forty-five minutes from the centre of Toronto. If the hon. member took pains to find the exact travelling time he must have done it on a bicycle, not by modern fast forms of transportation. As to the means by which some hon. members from the city of Toronto travel, I have no particular information, but in travelling time Malton is much nearer to Toronto than forty-five minutes. Having ridden with the hon. member for Greenwood on a couple of occasions, I would say that perhaps fifteen minutes, or twenty at the outside, would be enough for him.


Denton Massey: May I say to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that I appreciate his comments with regard to my suggested prowess as a driver. May I assure him that I referred to the Malton airport as unfortunate in its location not because it is in the county of Peel, but because the county of Peel is so far from Toronto.


Harry James Barber: I notice by the press that planes crossing British Columbia between Lethbridge and Vancouver have been forced to cancel several trips owing, I believe, to cloud conditions. Is it the opinion of the minister or his officials that this difficulty can be overcome by flying at higher altitudes, or shall we be up against it for all time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In the last few days every plane from Mexico to Alaska has been grounded. One plane unfortunately would appear not to have had as good weather reports as we have, because it went too far into the clouds, sought to turn back, and has not been heard from since. I think the fact that our results have been what they are is due to the accuracy of our weather reporting and to the good administration of the line generally. This unfavourable weather was a local condition; our people located it and kept the planes from getting into trouble.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions as to the construction of this airport and on what principle airports are constructed. With all due respect to the hon. member for Peel, I would say that he certainly put it over the city of Toronto, except that he did not have anything to do with it, did not know anything about it, and I doubt if he knew the airport
was going there. I have a return here to an order of the house, and I know the three eminent gentlemen and famous soldiers who approved years ago the airport on the sand bar on the west end of Toronto island. Major Handley Page is a man of the highest authority, General Ray Collishaw, M.C., D.S.O., is a young man bom in British Columbia, one of the leading airmen in the world to-day. The late Colonel William G. Barker's name is known to everyone; he it was who brought down seventy-four planes and won the Victoria Cross in the great war. I took them out on a tour of the harbour improvements many times and to see the proposed sites for an airport. No one ever complained about tall buildings. I have a great respect for the present minister, but I should like to know whether the construction of these airports is being carried out on the same basis as the mistakes made at the western entrance to Toronto harbour. I have here the correspondence laid on the table by the minister, and I am surprised that there should be such a lack of business methods on the part of the present government in connection with this airport at the western end of Toronto harbour, linked with another one in the country at Malton which, in my opinion, is entirely unnecessary. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is concerned in this, having to find the funds for all this expenditure.
It will take a long time to travel between Malton and Toronto in a motor car; you will find yourself served with blue papers and white papers, going through five or six municipalities trying to maintain their police forces by fines. This return shows the log-rolling and politics brought into play to get them to cancel that agreement made by the late government of a million dollars for a tunnel and airport. The former minister was a competent minister; the delay getting the contracts let was owing to financial conditions. Some of the Liberal candidates in the city of Toronto and Ontario at the last election took part in this rescission campaign, and in getting the present government to make a scrap of paper of the former government's bargain made with the harbour board and the city, which has spent so much on the harbour.
Let me tell the minister not to mind who his advisers are to-day; these men who approved that airport are distinguished airmen whom I named, who fought in France and Flanders and Italy and obtained decorations. They surveyed the western entrance site and lake there. The present minister is not to blame, but I am surprised that the government took such spendthrift action. I should
Supply-Transport-Airways

like those who are speaking about the heavy taxation for the boards of trade and chambers of commerce of the country to read this return and see the political log-rolling that took place. There has been about $150,000 wasted on the tunnel; they might just as well have thrown into Toronto bay the cost of abandoning this contract. The city and the harbour board could sue the government today in the exchequer court. I was on the Toronto harbour board for twenty years and chairman for some years, and I have the opinion of legal experts that the government is under a contract to build two bridges there, and is liable to the city and the harbour commission for the damages they sustained through the cancellation of that tunnel work.
Has any improvement resulted from either a military or commercial point of view by going out to this remote place? No. I have seen airports in many other cities which show that this talk about the menace of high buildings around Toronto is a myth; there are just as many in other places. I accompanied these officers and many others. I knew them for tears; we went over the ground at the island daily, in bad weather and good, and they were of opinion that that was the logical place. I may not know as much about this problem as the ministers' experts-I know some of the gentlemen and have great respect for them- but the Bordeft government established a Royal Air Force centre in Toronto; 18,000 cadets and mechanics were trained there during the war and British officers came here as instructors. I have spoken to many of these men; many are decorated men, and their opinion is the same as that of the officers I have mentioned, that the island was an ideal place.
What is there at this place called Malton? You have to build roads and all kinds of things which will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The city of Toronto is spending money out in the country for the benefit of surrounding municipalities, and the government compelled them illegally to do this. With all the suffering there is in the country to-day, the government is going too fast with these expenditures. Toronto is the only city I know of that is putting up this capital sum to be a link in this Canadian service. What other municipality is doing this? Is Montreal? No; Montreal has not been asked to do what Toronto has done. There are plenty of buildings around the harbour at Montreal. Something ought to be done about this matter; it ought to go to some committee of this house to be looked into, including the abandonment of the work started by the former government. The com-

mittee will see the unbusinesslike methods of the present government in the handling of this airport problem in the Toronto district, where they virtually coerced the taxpayers into spending what will amount to a million dollars before they are finished.


William George Clark: Are the
Brockway and Blissville air fields to be finished this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; it is the intention to proceed with that work this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-operation and maintenance including lighting, radio and meteorological services, $910,669.
Howard Charles Green: Apparently this item includes the inspection service. Just what inspection services does the government supply? That is of great importance now that we are opening up our airways across Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This voite is for the operation of the physical properties having to do with our airports. It has to do with the cost of operating the airports themselves, the meteorological service, the radio beams and all the auxiliaries to flying as far as ground facilities are concerned. There is nothing here about inspection.


Howard Charles Green: Which vote does cover the inspection service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Item No. 385, covering air service administration, which was passed a few days ago.


Howard Charles Green: What inspection services are supplied by the department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, we have six districts across Canada, with two inspectors in each district. Those inspectors inspect the logs of the planes, watch overloading, check the airworthiness of the machines, examine pilots and have general supervision over all flying in their districts.


Howard Charles Green: Do they also cover the flying in the north country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Entirely. They inspect landing fields, approve routes and have everything to do with safety in flying.


Howard Charles Green: I notice an increase of about $100,000 in the vote for temporary assistance. Would the minister explain that?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase in this vote is due to the fact that we have more facilities to maintain now. As we build more airports and extend our operations further, of course the operating expenses of the airports in-

Supply-Transport-Airways
crease. The vote is larger this year because we are making provision for the inauguration of the eastern end of our service to Montreal and Toronto this year.


Howard Charles Green: Does the vote include any expenditure in connection with the transatlantic service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None at all.


Mr. LENNARD:: I notice that this item is partly for meteorological services. Will the minister explain why meteorological services are included in this vote when item No. 391 is a vote for meteorological services?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The vote for meteorological services generally is for the services that have been performed for a great number of years, but the meteorological services included in this vote are those pertaining directly to the airways. It includes the cost of a teletype service connecting the fields and forecasting centres along the route, as well as spot observers. It is simply the services directly pertaining to this route. Of course the airways have the benefit of all the observations that are paid for under the other vote as well.


Mr. MARSH:: I note that this vote is increased by $52,000, and after looking at the items which are included I am not surprised at that. I note that the minister is paying due attention to what might be considered one of the prime requisites of safety in flying, by making plans for proper meteorological service. I see that there is to be one controller, a climatologist, six weather forecasters, eight meteorologists, several meteorological observers and a clerical staff numbering a score or more, all of whom are necessary. I assume that this meteorological service will include barometric readings, charts, weather maps and information regarding the storm routes and channels.
There are a number of questions I should like to ask. At what places will this equipment be centred? Will it be located at the various airports across the country, and in addition will there be stations at points where, because of the geological formation of the country, it would appear advisable to locate a meteorological station? Also, will there be a meteorological station at Hamilton? I do not ask that question because of any selfish motive on the part of the city of Hamilton. The meteorological bureau in Toronto, which forecasts weather for Ontario, can do so with, we shall say, about seventy-five to eighty per cent success in coverage of the province as a whole. But down in the Niagara peninsula, due to the fact that it is at the tail end of about three storm routes, the forecasting in connection with weather is not more than about fifty-five to sixty per cent correct. And in saying that, I do not cast any reflection on the meteorological bureau at Toronto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: While Toronto is the headquarters for the entire service, we have forecasting centres particularly for aviation at such points as Vancouver, Lethbridge, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Kapuskasing and Montreal, and later on there will be a forecasting station at Moncton. I assume, when the line pushes west from Toronto, there will be a forecasting station at Windsor as well. At the forecasting centre, maps are drawn at two hour intervals, and the forecasts which the pilot needs, when he is under the control of that particular centre, are telephoned to him according to the weather which is interpreted for that locality. That is, when the pilot is near a forecasting centre, he is controlled by the weather reports from that station, but of course all weather reports are sent on the teletype from coast to coast. The teletype also carries reports from the United States and spot observations along the route of the Trans-Canada line, so that the forecasting is available not only locally; the weather maps cover the whole country as well.


John Allmond Marsh: I assume, then, that there will be other weather stations apart from the airports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes. We have had a very fine meteorological service in this country for many years. The airports are a special service in addition to the usual meteorological service. But we have meteorological stations controlling the agriculture and weather maps service, and service to ships at sea, which is more or less independent of this service.


Mr. BROOKS:: I notice in the year 1937-38 there was an item of $12,400 for expenses m connection with the training of pilots, and the awarding of the Webster trophy. This year it has been dropped. Does that mean that there will be no competition for the Webster trophy in 1938-39?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That award was a joint vote between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport. By agreement with flying clubs we have made different arrangements. I am advised by my officers that the award will be continued, and that the vote was to pay for the expense of judging the candidates for the award. That is being taken care of in the civil aviation vote, as part of the departmental expenses. Although the vote is different, the result will be the same.

Supply-Transport-Flying Clubs


Harry James Barber: In connection with lighting and radio service, are all the fields in the west, and particularly in the mountain section, to be lighted and supplied with radio service, or just certain fields?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What we describe as the
hundred-mile fields-as a matter of fact they are a little closer together than that-will be completely lighted. Those fields are regarded as essential in twin-engine, highspeed flying. The intermediate, or thirty-mile fields, which are not main fields, will have boundary lighting, but the runways will not be lighted to the extent they are lighted on the main fields.


Harry James Barber: What about radio?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The radio beams are located at intervals of about one hundred miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to aeroplane clubs, including grant of $5,000 to the Canadian Flying Clubs Association, $60,000.
Howard Charles Green: This is one vote which I think the minister might increase. The other day he said that the training of pilots and ground crews in Canada was on a rather haphazard basis. I suggest to him that if a larger grant were made to these clubs; if more aircraft were given to them, and if new clubs were established, this might go some distance in overcoming the present difficulty in training pilots and ground crews.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The training clubs are on a
better business basis to-day than they have ever been. The way to encourage training clubs is not necessarily to give them large grants, but rather to give them such help as they need to run their clubs efficiently. We find that by following that procedure we are getting efficiency in the clubs.
This vote is the same as was given last year. With the help indicated in this vote the clubs are working into first-class financial position; some in the larger centres are becoming quite affluent. If we doubled or trebled the vote, I doubt if we would get any better service than we are getting to-day. I know of no club which has not sufficient equipment for its work; in fact, some have more equipment than they really need.
Some discussion has taken place as to whether or not the clubs are willing to give more advanced training. We do not want all the clubs to have advanced training, but we think an advanced training school for certain districts could be organized. I have told the clubs that if they can work out practical arrangements which would be satisfactory to

themselves and to officers of this department, we would then consider a further grant to help them in the next step in flying. I may say that the grants to clubs have varied from the sublime to the ridiculous. The following list will indicate the amounts which have been
given:
1927-	28
1928-	29
1929-	30
1930-	31
1931-	32
1932-	33
1933-	34
1934-	35
1935-	36
1936-	37
1937-	38

After a good deal of study we have come to the conclusion that these clubs can function very well on about $60,000 a year, until some further advanced training is undertaken.


Howard Charles Green: If the clubs should cooperate, as the minister suggests, and if they set up more advanced training schools, is the vote large enough?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If a conclusion is reached
before parliament prorogues, we may consider additional aid; but if not, the grant will have to stand for this year. There is no great urgency in the matter.


Howard Charles Green: How are the clubs divided? How many are there in the different provinces?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is the Aerial Club of British Columbia, the Brandon Aerial Club, the Brant and Norfolk Aerial Club, the Border Cities Club, the Cape Breton Flying Club, the Calgary Aerial Club, the Edmonton and Northern Alberta Club, the Fort William Aerial Club, and other clubs at Halifax, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener and Waterloo, London, Moose Jaw, Montreal, Ottawa, Regina, St. Catharines, Saint John, Saskatoon, Toronto and Winnipeg.


Howard Charles Green: Does the government take steps to help in the promotion of clubs, or are they started by groups of individuals in different localities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The association of flying
clubs has an efficient secretary in Mr. Ross, who looks after that part of the business very well. I know that with his help there is no trouble in starting a club.


Mr. LOCKHART:: I noted the minister made reference to the different clubs throughout Canada which are receiving assistance. May I join with the hon. member for Vancouver South in urging that increases be given. The matter of financing is part of the difficulty of municipalities which are mak-

Supply-Transport-Airports
ing a real effort to maintain flying clubs in their districts. Many municipalities have been making large contributions to these clubs. Just recently I received a communication to the effect that because of the relief situation it may be necessary to raise the tax rate in my own particular locality. If this vote were increased, I think it would prove encouraging to the clubs and enable them to provide better facilities. It would also be of some assistance to the municipalities which may be contributing from $1,000 to $1,500 or $2,000 to these clubs. Could the minister not consider making some increase in connection, with those clubs which are being assisted by the municipalities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I imagine the main difficulty my hon. friend finds with his club is that it is situated only thirty miles from Hamilton. Perhaps there is not sufficient distance between the two cities to permit both clubs to prosper. Our reports indicate that the hon. member's club is doing very well, and I know he has contributed a good deal himself to its success. He takes a great interest in the club. I say again that the way to make these clubs efficient is not to give them large sums of money. The hon. member's club is in good financial shape, and it is being kept that way because everyone is on his toes. You will find many people ready to take up a plane if it does not cost anything.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not think the minister got my point. Municipalities are finding it difficult to-day to strike their tax rates. I just received a notice from my own city to the effect that unless some adjustment was made in the relief situation, it would be necessary to increase the tax by three to four mills. That municipality is contributing to the airport at which many pilots have been trained.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Could my hon. friend state what his city contributes to the club annually?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I do not know the exact amount, but I know they are paying a good portion of the rent and making other contributions. During my term in municipal office the hangars were completely remodelled and other assistance was given. All these contributions help to raise the tax rate. I was wondering if further assistance could not be given in some way, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for contributions to assist municipalities to improve existing airports or provide new airports, $800,000.
Harry James Barber: What is the basis upon which, assistance is given to municipal airports?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We found that practically all the cities along the Trans-Canada air route had civic fields in various stages of completion. Vancouver had spent a great deal of money on a field, and the same was true of Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge and other cities along the route. But practically none of these fields was up to the standard required for high speed planes. Most of the fields were put into operation in 1928 and 1929 when landing speeds of aeroplanes were much lower. Many cities were not in a financial position to put the fields into the shape necessary for high speed flying, and a policy was laid down whereby the government agreed to give assistance to those fields necessary for a Trans-Canada service. This was in the form of a grant of one-third of the investment made by the city in its field; or if that contribution was not sufficient, then the government would join with the city by paying twenty-five per cent of any further investment made in the field. The government contribution is in the form of a grant, the ownership of the field remaining with the city. This aid is confined to fields required for the Trans-Canada service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understood the minister to say the other evening that the Trans-Canada service would have its eastern terminus at Moncton, and Halifax, Saint John and Charlottetown would be dependent upon private service. Would this vote provide any money for air fields in large centres like Saint John, Halifax and Charlottetown? It would seem to me to be rather unfair if those centres were left to their own resources as far as the providing of air facilities is concerned. I have nothing to say with regard to the controversy which is raging in certain sections of the maritime provinces over the report that the airport is to be at Moncton; I simply want to know if these centres will receive consideration under this vote.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been a good deal of misunderstanding over my statement. As I said, it is the intention to extend the Trans-Canada service to all the principal centres in the maritimes. Whether this service is undertaken by government or private operation, it would still be Trans-Canada service and those cities would qualify for this grant. We are in negotiation with three of them at the moment and one was assisted last year. Similarly the cities in the Saskatchewan loop, such as Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Prince Albert and North Battleford will be part of the Trans-Canada service, although the service will be given by private rather than by government operation.
Supply-Transport-Airports


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Why is it called a feeder service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because we do not run around that way in going to the coast.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I mean at the eastern end.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You can call it what you like, but the fact is it is a trans-Canada service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The services from Halifax to Moncton and from Saint John to Moncton were called feeder services the other night.


Mr. McIYOR:: Through the efficiency of the Department of Transport we shall soon have a fine air field at Fort William. Our city council are most enterprising and enthusiastic and they have great visions for the future. A by-law was recently passed to provide $40,000 for this purpose, but a local paper at Ottawa had the amount as $400,000. The amount increased greatly in the passage of the news from Fort William to Ottawa. We appreciate the advertising which we received from the Ottawa paper, but I wanted to make this correction.


Mr. BETTS:: I should like to commend the department for increasing this vote by $300,000, but in my opinion we are still far behind in the pace we should set in developing our air transportation. There is no country in the world with such an enviable record as Canada as far as the exploits of flying men in the war were concerned. There is no country where private enterprise in the development of aviation has gone ahead as fast as in Canada. But there is no civilized country in which the government has hung back more lamentably. A grant of $800,000 for the assistance of municipalities to improve existing airports or to provide new airports is merely a drop in the bucket. As far as this type of transportation goes, we are still in the backwoods. Sums of money are being spent on public buildings and other public enterprises which had far better be diverted into the Department of Transport and devoted to this very item. I would ask the minister not to grow weary in well-doing but to press onward and go in for more development and help the municipalities, providing for better air fields everywhere, because that is money which will pay big dividends in the near future.


Mr. LAWSON:: I would refer back to the question asked by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) in order that I might have a little clearer picture in my mind of the basis of these grants. Am I correct in my interpretation of the minister's answer?
iMr. Howe.]
Let me assume that the municipality has spent $300,000 on an air field. The department decides that it is to be a landing field in the trans-Canada system and that it needs further moneys expended upon it for the purpose of bringing it up to the required standard. Does the department thereupon automatically advance to the municipality by way of grant an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $100,000 without the municipality first putting up any more money?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; we survey the needs. Take an airport such as my hon. friend has mentioned where $300,000 has been spent. If we find that it needs the expenditure of another $100,000 to bring it up to standard, we grant the city the full $100,000. If $200,000 is required, we grant $100,000 on past work and another $25,000 against the city's $75,000 for future work.


James Earl Lawson: And the same rule will be applied to all municipalities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: All municipalities that we
require for our services.


William George Clark: Fredericton, the capital of New Brunswick, is situated near the main Trans-Canada line. Will this contribution apply to that city when the situation there warrants it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I dislike giving snap judgments on such a situation, but if Fredericton will write to the department we shall go into the matter, send our engineer down and have the field looked over.


Howard Charles Green: In connection with an earlier item I asked the minister whether he could tell us the policy of the government in regard to assisting cities that are not on the Trans-Canada airway. I asked what assistance would be given in the construction of airports in such centres, and was told that I should have to wait until this item came up. Can the minister tell us now what the policy is?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not lay down blanket policies for situations we know nothing about. If my hon. friend will mention some specific situation, we shall look into it and see what help can be forthcoming, but we have no general policy for situations of that kind. Our staff is so busy in this particular work, which we hope to finish this year-the work of getting the Trans-Canada under way-that we can not spend much time on these other problems. If my hon. friend has one particular problem in mind, we shall be glad to look into it.


Howard Charles Green: I have not any one particular problem in mind. At any rate, the depart-

Supply-Transport-Airports
ment has not laid down the policy that it will help only those cities that are on the Trans-Canada airway or on certain feeder lines?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have not laid down any policy that excludes any project; but if there is an urgent case where help is needed and if such help is justified by the activities, we shall look into it, and under such circumstance? perhaps we might be able to give assistance.


Howard Charles Green: Whether it is on the Trans-Canada airway or not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


James Earl Lawson: Are there municipalities in which the department will require fields for Trans-Canada airways, in respect of which there has not been money already spent by the municipality upon a landing field? If so, what would be the policy with respect to grants to such a municipality? Suppose you were going to create a new airport.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have one fairly close to home. We have formed no policy with respect to it but are using the military field. The Ottawa situation is the only one I can think of, and I assume that is the one my hon. friend has in mind. I do not know what the outcome will be.


Mr. DUFFUS:: It has been reported that negotiations have been going on for the purchase of a property near the city of Oshawa. Is that for civil or national defence purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is not civil purposes and I have no knowledge of it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In the discussion that
has ensued with respect to the $800,000 item for assisting municipalities in the matter of air transportation, the hon. member for London made a statement the intent of which was that we were not progressing perhaps as satisfactorily as we should as a young nation as far as air development is concerned. I would call the attention of the committee to the position as it existed when the opposition as a government were in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It will take only a
minute or two.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I should like to have
order, Mr. Chairman, if there is such a thing. In 1930 when the Liberal party was defeated
at the polls, we had an air mail service from Moose Jaw through Saskatoon and North Battleford to Edmonton. The new government had been in power for only a very short time when that service was scrapped and never renewed. Meanwhile, on the basis of that service, the city of North Battleford, as a young centre, went to work and spent a good deal of money in developing an air field, providing for requisites in a local way in order to adapt itself to the new trend in air transportation.
This government has been in power about two years and during that time has taken hold of the air transportation situation in a progressive way. All I need do to prove that statement is to refer to the record put on Hansard a day or two ago with regard to the northern feeder service in Saskatchewan. As I pointed out, in that province the feeder air line service, with Regina as the base, will be in operation in a few months, and that feeder air line service will have a five-city tie-up-Regina, Moose Jaw, North Battleford, Prince Albert and Saskatoon. That is a splendid beginning. We expect that further developments will take place; that the air connection which we have lost between North Battleford and Edmonton will be regained in the near future, and that as a city we shall have continuous contact with Edmonton and other points into the fai north. In so far as the present government is concerned, it should be commended for the policy it has adopted and the progress it has made in air transportation not only provincially but nationally.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the hon. gentleman
tell us whether this transportation in the north has been carried out by the government or by private concerns?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The feeder air line service has been earned out by private companies encouraged by the non-disruptive combination policy adopted by this government.


James Earl Lawson: It does seem a far stretch from the discussion of a national air transport service to air mail contracts prior to 1930. The remarks of the hon. member for North Battleford compel me, however, to call to the attention of the committee the fact that the service concerning which he has spoken was not an air mail service wherein and whereby planes were owned by the government or by the people of the country. What the hon. gentleman is referring to is the fact that when the Conservative government came into power in 1930, it found itself
1022	COMMONS
Supply-Transport-Meteorological Service
in the position of falling revenues with a depression already started, and loaded with air mail contracts made by the previous government with private corporations at fabulous prices. I cannot speak with certainty with reference to the contract to which the hon. member referred, but I can speak with certainty regarding one contract to carry mail from the city of Toronto to the city of Buffalo. The contract was so improvident-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You are talking about only one contract.


James Earl Lawson: Well, I cannot talk about more than one at a time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Evidently.


James Earl Lawson: The hon. member was talking about only one. That contract was so improvident that it was costing the government of this country fifty cents per letter in addition to what was paid by the person who had to put stamps upon the letter. Under those circumstances, the previous government found it necessary to curtail those air mail services. It was not a question of curtailing the national development of a national airways service.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is all out of order. We are discussing at the moment aids to municipalities. Could we get back to the subject?


Mr. ESLING:: Has the minister received any plan and proposal for a feeder landing field at the city of Nelson, which is the capital of the Kootenay country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very difficult to find a field around Nelson. We have examined the situation, but we have not given up hope; we shall look into the question further, and if there is a possibility there, we shall pursue the matter.


William Kemble Esling: This city of Nelson is an ambitious city. In order to provide a proper field it is necessary to build a river wail and to reclaim a considerable area of land. In such a case, could the city be assured of one-third of an expenditure up to the sum of $100,000, under this present policy of municipal aid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think this is hardly the place to go into a large project of that kind. The building of an air field for Nelson is a half million dollar project anyway, and it requires a good deal of study. I shall be glad to take the matter up with the proper authorities at Nelson when the proper time comes.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister give an explanation as to the amount of money that has been paid to the city of Vancouver in this connection? We understood last year that $160,000 would be paid, but I believe that amount has nof yet been paid.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We decided that an expenditure of $90,000 was sufficient to put the Vancouver airport into the shape required for our work, and we granted Vancouver that sum last year.


Howard Charles Green: Has that money all been paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is any more to be paid?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If further improvements are required, Vancouver is entitled to a further grant on the basis of the money the city has spent.


Mr. STEWART:: I notice that there is an increase of $300,000 in this item over the corresponding item of last year. Has the minister any details of the directions in which he proposes to expend this increase?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have made a general
survey of the work that we think is required, but it is hardly down to the point where we can detail it. This is a blanket vote, but we think about $800,000 will do the work which we are trying to do this year; that is as near as we can survey it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is the airport at Hamilton, Ontario, one of those under consideration to be improved under this feeder system?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We sent a contract to Hamilton as a result of negotiations, and the good people of Hamilton are holding it unsigned, as far as I know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
Meteorological service, including allowance of $400 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $426,000.
James Earl Lawson: Is the allowance some
special remuneration in addition to the regular salary, or what is the purpose of it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is made to a civil servant who has been doing this work for many years. He is very highly trained in it, and by arrangement with the department concerned we allow him $400 for the work.


John Allmond Marsh: Does this item of $426,000
include the meteorological service that we have been getting from year to year, or does it concern the air service only?

Supply-Transport-Radio


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a vote for the services that we have been providing for many years. It provides the weather reports, the services to agriculture and the service to ships at sea. It covers about a thousand observation stations at various parts of Canada, the cost of wiring in information, the cost of compiling it, and the cost of wiring it out to the points where this service extends.


John Allmond Marsh: And this will be available
for use of the air service and can be harnessed to fit in with your needs for this work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Both services are run by
the same organization. The director of meteorology is also the director of the weather service for the Trans-Canada. But the service that is specifically for the Trans-Canada is not included in this vote. It is included in the vote we passed two or three items earlier.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Why, on page
212 of the estimates are the amounts shown as $426,000 and $416,800, and on page 46 the totals are shown as $426,500 and $417,800? Is that a typographical error, or what accounts for the difference of a thousand dollars?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It must be a typographical
error. The proper amount is $416,800.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: I do not understand that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to be a typographical error. The correct amount is $416,800.


Denton Massey: There are two other items
in there.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: That is what I cannot understand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have not the same book as the hon. member has. The vote for this year is $426,000. The vote last year was $416,800. Is that what my hon. friend is referring to?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total of the details
of this vote on page 212 is $426,000, and the total of the vote itself on page 46 is also $426,000. There is no error as far as I can see.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: Quite so, but
the following item of 1937-38 is $417,800, and on page 212 the figure is given as $416,800.


Charles Avery Dunning: The Kingston observatory is included in the one case and not in the other. It is shown as a separate item; it is not an error at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Kingston observatory, $500.
Denton Massey: Is this the only observatory that receives a grant, and if so, why not others?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the inception of the
meteorological service arrangements were made with the Kingston observatory to do certain scientific work for the weather bureau, and that work has been maintained by Kingston since then. It is a very old vote, and we continue to make Kingston a grant for that service.


Denton Massey: Does the Dunlap observatory make any contribution to the service at all?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We work very closely with the university of Toronto. Practically all our advanced students are graduates of that university; our staff give courses at Toronto and we interchange equipment. Certain of our equipment is located in the university of Toronto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio division-
Administration of the Radiotelegraph Act and regulations, $100,775.
James Earl Lawson: I want a good deal of information about this.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is not the one the hon. member is looking for.


James Earl Lawson: No; but I should like the minister to be good enough to make a distinction for me here. This is for administration of the Radiotelegraph Act and regulations. Item No. 395 is for suppression of local electrical interferences. When I turn to the details I find that under item No. 393 there is apparently a chief inspector and so many inspectors, and similarly in item No. 395. Does this first item relate to the cost of dealing with the inspection of stations other than individual receiving sets and interference with them, and does item No. 395 deal with interference with the individual receiving set; what is the difference between the two?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote, item No. 393, is for the administration of the Radiotelegraph Act, which has to do with all matters affecting the administration of radiotelegraph, ship to shore communication, and use of wave lengths over the whole dominion. For instance, the broadcasting corporation administers everything connected with broadcasf:ng, but it is under the Radiotelegraph Act as to the distribution of wave lengths. The administration of the allocation of wave lengths between
Supply-Transport-Radio

private broadcasting, communication with airplanes, point to point radio communication, shore to ship radio communication, and radio direction finding, comes under the Radiotelegraph Act. It is the duty of this department, under this vote, to carry out the regulations and provide all inspection facilities and the technical services required to administer that act.


James Earl Lawson: Then this item does not deal with the inspection of individual radios?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at all, no.


James Earl Lawson: Would the minister be good enough to give the reasons for the increase in this item? Is it merely statutory increases?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Restoration of statutory deduction, S3,413; statutory increases, $1,170; sundry promotions, $930.


Mr. McLEAN (Simcoe):: I intended to ask the minister a question under an item further down, but his remarks prompt me to ask it under this item. Is it the intention to broaden the regulations and requirements applying to freight ships plying on the great lakes? At present I believe the shipping act requires that ships of 5,000 tons gross or more have wireless sets and an operator on board, and even those ships may be exempted under certain conditions.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will allow this item to pass, the item he wishes to discuss is No. 394, direction-finding stations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations, operation and maintenance, $634,324.75.
George Alexander McLean: May we expect that these regulations will be extended? Certain happenings in recent years indicate the necessity of having them extended and stiffened. Hon. members will recall that a year ago last fall a ship, the Sand Merchant, was lost on lake Erie with all on board, a crew of nineteen, under circumstances which would indicate that if there had been proper ship to shore communication those lives probably would not have been lost. Again, during the past season the Calgadoc, a ship which ordinarily plied on the great lakes, was lost with all on board somewhere in the vicinity of Newfoundland. There was no ship to shore communication and nothing was known as to what happened to the ship. Particularly in Ontario a large number of men are occupied in manning freight ships that ply

on the great lakes. Under the best of circumstances their occupation is extremely hazardous. They are in a less favourable position than many other labouring men in that during their working season they are scattered on boats all over the great lakes, and after the season is over they are scattered all over the province' in small groups. They have no strong organization, and so many of them are out of work and so keen to get jobs on the ships that it is difficult for them to speak for themselves with any degree of force in connection with regulations relating to safety. Under those circumstances I think the time has come when the regulations under which freight ships operate ought to be revised.
I have information from some officials of the department that experiments are being carried out in connection with telephone communication from ship to shore and that it is intended to have a conference with authorities from the United States with a view to having uniform regulations applying to Canadian and United States ships on the great lakes. I know a large number of seamen and their families in Ontario would like an assurance from the minister that the department will take up at an early date the revision of the regulations affecting the conditions under which the seamen of Ontario operate, especially on freight boats on the great lakes, in order that when these ships get into trouble, as they often do during the bad weather, these workmen may have some chance to preserve their lives.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are giving constant study to that problem. A year ago last autumn we put into force for the first time a provision for compulsory wireless operators on freighters of 5,000 tons and over. Since then we have been trying to solve the problem of the smaller ships, and I think we have arrived at a satisfactory solution. We have established radiotelephone receiving equipment at our principal ship to shore stations along the great lakes, and have made arrangements whereby a telephone instrument can be installed on the ship by which connection can be made to the nearest ship to shore station, and then with automatic connection over the Bell telephone system to any point we wish. A great many companies have installed these sets voluntarily. The cost is about $500 per season. This overcomes the great difficulty of requiring wireless operators on ships, which meant considerable cost. The expense of a wireless installation and an operator was a considerable item for a freighter carrying a small operating crew. One difficulty we have

Supply-Post Once
is to get uniform regulations with the United States. The business on the great lakes is highly competitive, and we have always kept our regulations a little more stringent than those of the United States. We are having conversations at present which we hope will lead to the adoption of standard rules, which will enable us to make sure that freighters, down to a very small size, are required at all times to have communication with the shore.


Denton Massey: Would the minister be good enough to explain the activities to be carried forward under this item, in relation to those to be carried forward under item No. 388?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Item No. 388 covers simply the radio beams for the airways. These are the ship to shore direction finding stations that we have all along our coasts. This service is one of the principal aids to navigation to-day. We have the shore direction finding stations; radio beacons; radiotelegraph stations, which go up into the arctic, along the great lakes and on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. It is an extensive service which has been built up over a series of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Post offices, including salaries and other expenses of headquarters and staff post offices and supplies and equipment for revenue post offices, $14,624,470.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this the item that was under discussion last Friday evening?


William Daum Euler: It is.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have not very much
more to ask the acting Postmaster General, and perhaps he can tell me what I want to know. On Friday evening the acting minister gave some figures in connection with the new post office station "L" on St. Clair avenue west in Toronto, and also some figures in connection with the old station "L." At that time he made the statement that the cost per foot of space in the new post office was seventy-eight cents. As a matter of fact it is 78-8 cents, almost seventy-nine cents. During the same evening I made the statement that the Post Office Department could have had an additional 720 square feet in. the old post office. The acting minister gave the figures of the architect, showing that the ground floor space in the former post office was 3,775 feet and the basement space 1,880 feet, or a total of 5,655 feet. The department could have had an additional 720 square feet on the ground floor, with the 51952-65
same space in the baseme^, which would have given a total space of ',460 square feet. I believe the department ha^ 0n file a letter from the owners of the former post office building indicating that the department could have had the additional space for an additional $50 a month or $600 a year, which would have made the rental for the old building $5,400 plus $600, or a total of $6,000, which is equivalent to eighty cents a square foot.
So apparently the department went to all that trouble and inconvenienced thousands of people for about 1-2 cents per foot under what they were paying before. I know the minister is a business man; I have every reason to believe that he has been successful, and what I should like to ask him is this: Would he have liked any private person, let alone a government, to treat him as the Post Office Department treated the owner of that building? I am sure he would not. I think it was a shocking exhibition. I cannot find language to describe the sort of treatment that was accorded the owner of that property.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shabby.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall not use that
word. I like to use nice, genteel words, particularly to the acting minister. He is a business man, and business men do not usually treat other business men in a shabby manner, so I shall not use that word in talking to the hon. gentleman. But I repeat that I do not believe there is a business man in this country, unless he did it for some very, very strange reasons which he would not like to disclose, who would treat another business man as this government treated the owner of that property. The building was constructed in accordance with plans which, if not prepared by the department, were o.-k.'d by the government when the present administration was in power previously. It will cost the owner a large sum of money to change that splendid building from use as a post office to use as anything else. The main door is in the centre of the building. It will have to be pulled down and the whole front wall pulled out in order to reconstruct the building for other commercial use, and I believe that is being done now.
The acting minister should tell the committee why this outrageous treatment was meted out to a Canadian citizen. The minister would not do it. I would not do it. Why did the department do it? It certainly was not to gain a few additional feet of space because, according to the figures I have quoted,

they could have iad a total of 7,460 square feet in the old bu.Iding, and according to their own figures they vent into a place where they have only 8,671 feet, so that is a mere bagatelle larger. In addition they went into a building that has only two outside walls, back and front, whereas the building they left had three outside walls. There must have been some other reason behind the action taken than the desire for a little more space. I also understand that a petition was circulated. I did not see it; it was taken around while I was in the old country, but I believe the petition was signed by the large majority of the merchants in that community. I am further sure that if they had gone to the residents of that community whose children did go to the old station " L " on St. Clair avenue, west of Oakwood avenue, they would have found the citizens of the community would have signed a petition against moving it. Certainly there is little excuse for changing the post office from west to east of Oakwood avenue.


William Daum Euler: In reply I can only reiterate what I said the other evening when these estimates were under consideration, except perhaps to add that there seems to have been a difference, not of opinion, but as to certain facts. I said the other evening that under the old contract we were paying for the former building at the rate of ninety-five cents per square foot, and that the new contract is at the rate of seventy-eight cents.
Mr. MacNICOL; It is 78-8.


William Daum Euler: Make it seventy-nine, and be generous about it. Then, much to my surprise, the hon. member said that the additional space had been offered free by the owner of the former building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To-night I said $50 a month.


William Daum Euler: To-night he has corrected it to the extent of saying that the proprietor asked an additional $50 a month. That was an important point in my mind, and I had inquiries made. The result is that I find there is nothing whatsoever in the department *which offers the space either free or at any definite figure. That being the case, I simply have to assume that if he offered the additional space, and did not indicate the figure of $50, it would be offered at the same rate we were paying, namely ninety-five cents per square foot. Under those circumstances we were getting new premises at the rate of seventy-eight cents per square foot. The fact that we obtained a very large additional space of 3,016 feet, which gave us 8,671 feet in the new

premises, as compared with 5,655 in the old; the fact that the department needed more space at that point, and the additional fact that we were getting it at seventy-eight cents instead of ninety-five cents per square foot, would seem to be sufficient reason for making the change. I am afraid I can add nothing further.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I quite appreciate that had the acting minister been the Postmaster General, he would have done as any other business man would have done, namely, have inquired if the owner of the building had more space available. Had the Postmaster General looked up the correspondence which took place when the former Conservative government was in office, he would have found on file letters from the owner offering an additional store space, 18 by 40 feet, or 720 square feet. As I said before, it was only a night or two before I went away that I heard of the proposed change. At that time the owner came to see me to find out if I knew anything about it. I said I did not, but I would telephone the Minister of Public Works. I believe I wired him and, following that, wrote him, to get the information.
Apparently at that time no contract had been signed. I understood from the owner at that time that sooner than lose the government as a tenant-because, paying regularly, the government is a good tenant-he would include the store with the post office at the same money. I took the trouble on Saturday morning last to write to Toronto to find out if I was right in making that statement. I received a letter back from the owner telling me that he would have asked $50 more.


William Daum Euler: He would have?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes.


William Daum Euler: But did he? Did he actually make that offer?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know. Did the government ask him if they could have more
space?


Mr. FACTOR:: Does he own the property which the hon. member says he offered to rent to the government?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The government has been his tenant for ten years, since the building was built under the direction of the former Liberal government.


Samuel Factor: Extra space?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. I am sure the hon. member for Spadina knows the building well; I refer to the one at the corner of Appleton and St. Clair avenues. The former post office

Supply-Post Office
faces on St. Clair avenue. It is on the northeast corner. Then, east of the main entrance, in the same building, is a store. I know that the former government, while in office, was offered the whole building, and I am surprised to hear the acting minister say that no inquiry was made of the owner as to whether or not they could have more space.


William Daum Euler: I did not say that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear that. Did the government inquire?


William Daum Euler: I do not know.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do the officials know?


Samuel Factor: May I interrupt the hon. member to tell him that the owner's solicitor had seen me, and had told me that the owner of the old post office had no further space to give to the government.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, but I know the
hon. member for Trinity-I mean Spadina- knows as well as I do-


Samuel Factor: I am not the member for Trinity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He knows as well as I do that it is one building. In the first place the government rented part of the building, and they left the store on the right side of the front door. The hon. member for Trinity knows that well, because he lives out there.


Samuel Factor: I am not the member for Trinity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: For Spadina, then.


William Daum Euler: I do not know that much is to be gained by continuing this discussion. I am sure the hon. member will accept my answer when I say that I have asked for all the correspondence there is in the matter and it discloses that there is nothing in the department to indicate that the owner of the first property ever offered the property either for the additional amount of $50 a month, or free. The hon. member now admits that it was not offered free. I would say this without attempting-to use a vulgar term-to pass the buck, if there were any necessity to secure a new space it would not be the Post Office Department that would enter into negotiations; it would be the Department of Public Works. But I would still say that in the final analysis the department required more space, and that it received more space at a less price per foot than we were paying before. That is my final answer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot let the acting minister get away with the statement that he received more space at a less price per
foot, basing his statement on his figures of a few moments ago, namely 78.8 cents and ninety-five cents. As I have said, with the additional part the department could have had, the price then would have been eighty cents per foot, or 1.2 cents more per foot.


William Daum Euler: I have no knowledge that that was ever offered to the department. I do not question the hon. member's word when he says he had a conversation with the owner, and that he was told that an offer had been made at $50 a month extra. But so far as I know, the department has no knowledge of that offer, and I think it would be fair to assume that if he wanted to rent us more space, naturally he would be asking the same rate per square foot as he received for the space we already had.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The acting minister would not treat anybody like that. He is too square a man to treat anybody like that- after having a tenant for ten years to just-[DOT]


William Daum Euler: Did the hon. member say I was a squarehead or a square man?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said "a square man." I would not say anything unkind about the minister.


William Daum Euler: I am sure the hon. member would not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But I would not treat anybody like that, and the minister would not, either. I have quite a number of tenants, and certainly I would not expect to be treated like that by a tenant, nor would I treat a tenant in that way. I say this is one of the shabbiest transactions between the government as a tenant and the owner of a building I have ever come in contact with, and I do not believe for a moment that more space is all that was behind this.


Abraham Albert Heaps: From what I have heard of this discussion I would not be surprised if there was a nigger somewhere in the woodpile.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Half a dozen.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was thinking of only one.
If that nigger could be discovered, I think we would find written across him the word "patronage."


James Earl Lawson: In whitewash.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think something should be said about patronage while we are discussing this particular vote. I am very much opposed to patronage and I think the less hon. members
Supply-Post Office

have to do with it, the better it would be for them, the better for the House of Commons and the better for the country as a whole.


Charles Avery Dunning: And for the ministers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And for the ministers. I cannot understand why hon. members should be so anxious to have patronage bestowed upon them. Some hon. members may say that I am not on the government side and do not realize the pressure to which they are subjected; they may say that I am freer to speak than they; but there have been one or two occasions when a little patronage has been offered to me and I was happy to have nothing to do with it. I do not think patronage brings any friends to a member. I think the member who tries to dispense patronage to his constituents or to his friends ultimately makes more enemies than friends.
Patronage has a demoralizing effect upon the public life of the country and I for one would like to see it absolutely abolished. I know the minister will realize that I am not speaking in a personal way. I do not know of any minister who has been more anxious to do away with the evils of patronage than the minister who is taking charge to-night of the estimates of the Post Office Department. For years, whenever a change in government occurred, whether from Liberal to Conservative or Conservative to Liberal, the question of patronage in the Post Office Department has always come up. I remember in 1930 and 1931 when there was a great outcry from members of the Liberal party about the many changes made in the postal service. I quite agreed with them that those changes were entirely unjustified and were not in the interests of the Post Office Department.
There is one particular form of patronage to which I desire to direct the attention of the minister at this particular time. I do not believe the minister or the officials of the department can give efficient and sound administration so long as patronage is handed out by hon. members to their constituents or friends. I am informed that in the post offices in the principal cities certain persons are permitted to sell stamps to the public. I am told that these people get this privilege through patronage. I cannot understand why private individuals should be permitted to come into a public institution to sell stamps. The stamps are sold to these private concerns, as they might be termed, and they in turn sell them to the public at a slight profit. I am informed further that the stamps purchased by the government, stamps produced by the government, are purchased through

these contractors who make a certain profit on the sale. To me that is almost unbelievable.
Has the minister any information in that regard? I have been told that this condition exists in most of the large cities. Why should a private concern be permitted to sell government stamps in a government building? If this condition does exist, I should like to know if the minister intends to take immediate steps to see that it is ended. The government should sell its own stamps in its own buildings.


Mr. SPENCE:: I happen to know the owner of the old post office referred to by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). The man was in the same business in which I was engaged for many years. I consider that the action taken was one of the most unscrupulous things a government could do. The acting minister may not be able to give a full answer, and I do not think we would expect him to. This building was built by Mr. Calderone at the suggestion of the Post Office Department in Ottawa at a considerable cost to suit their purposes. The change was not made by this government in order to save money; it was made to help some friends of my hon. friends who had two stores on the other side of the street a little further down which could not be rented at a reasonable price. Calderone had no opportunity to offer the government extra space. When we were in power he told us that he would increase the space if necessary and at that time we took a lease for three years.
I do not think any minister can rise in his place and defend the Post Office Department for the adtion taken in this particular case. This post office was built to the order of the department. I say that because the architect of the department in Toronto knew all about the specifications and plans. As the hon. member for Davenport has said, extra space ccmld have been obtained at a cost no greater than what is being paid to-day. Even if the cost were greater, this government should have done the decent thing. It makes no difference to me personally as I am no longer engaged in the food business, but I like to see everyone get a square deal.
I am not so down on patronage as my hon. friend to my left, but I believe the benefit of the doubt should be given when it does not cost any more. In this particular case it was a matter of helping friends of my hon. friends who had two stores that they wanted to rent and could not. Calderone will have to tear out the whole front of his store at a probable cost of $4,000 to $5,000 to make it

Supply-Post Office
suitable for business purposes. To my mind, the action taken was a most unscrupulous thing for a government to do.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain the manner of engaging help in the cities for the Christmas rush? At the last session it was suggested to the Postmaster General that soldiers engaged at Christmas should be engaged through the veterans' assistance commission. As the minister knows, honorary committees were set up in many cities under this commission for the purpose of trying to get work for unemployed veterans. As I say, we suggested last session that all soldier help should be obtained through these committees. Despite this suggestion and a tentative promise by the Postmaster General, very few if any of the soldiers engaged in Vancouver were engaged through the honorary committee there. I believe all appointments were made through the Liberal association. This is most unfair to the unemployed veterans and to these local committees under the veterans' assistance commission. The members of these committees serve without remuneration of any kind, and I suggest to the acting minister that the practice of which I complain should not be followed during the coming Christmas season. The department should go to these honorary committees and get the names of unemployed veterans, and there shotild be no interference at all by political organizations.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend inquires as to how the appointments are made for the Christmas business. I can speak from personal experience in my own riding, and I take it that the same thing is followed pretty well throughout. First of all, there is an eligible list which the civil service commission has, and which, as the hon. gentleman knows, is made up largely of returned men. In any particular post office where extra help is required, this list is drawn upon and when it is exhausted other sources must be found. In my own case, which I believe applies in probably all other cities-and I know of no such committee as my hon. friend speaks of; at any rate it did not exist in my own district-the practice that has been followed has been usually to apply to the soldier organizations to suggest others to supplement the eligible list when it has been exhausted. In some instances perhaps a few other men may be added. Perhaps I may be criticized for what I am about to say, but I for one would not say that absolutely in every instance a returned man must be chosen. The great majority of them are, of course, returned men, but it is quite possible that a man with a large family who has been out of work for some time might be taken on.
There may be instances where such men with large families are given jobs, one or two or three of them, and that would be justifiable. Otherwise the practice, as I have stated it, applies pretty well throughout the country.


Howard Charles Green: I am not complaining about some of the men engaged being civilians, but there are fifteen or twenty cities in which this government has set up honorary committees to try to find work for unemployed returned men, and in Vancouver there were over five thousand returned men registered with the local committee. We understood that the post office, in getting soldiers for employment at Christmas time, would go to that committee instead of obtaining the men through political sources. It is a bad principle to force men under these conditions to get political approval, and I would ask that the practice be changed during the next Christmas period.


Mr. HANSELL:: I wish to call the attention of the minister to a matter of some importance, and that is with reference to the hours in which the smaller post offices are open. About a year ago I believe the rule was changed. Some of the post offices had been allowed to close for half a day a week, and the rule was changed compelling them to remain open six days in the week. That new rule is working some little hardship on the small post offices, because I believe they are kept open for that extra time at the expense of the postmaster, and in many instances they are not rendering sufficient public service to warrant their being kept open for the full six days. There are some small towns that have a sort of civic half holiday once a week. These smaller towns are situated in farming communities and the post office might as well remain closed on these half holidays. I was talking to a postmaster on one occasion, and he told me that he remained open one Wednesday afternoon when all the stores in the town were closed and that he did busines to the extent of selling a three-cent postage stamp. This nevertheless necessitated his turning on electric lights about four o'clock in the afternoon, burning extra coal and incurring other expense. I would ask the minister, if that arrangement is to be continued, to leave it more or less in the hands of the inspectors and make the rule elastic enough to permit the post office to close for that particular afternoon if the officials so advise.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend could not
have been here the other evening when we discussed this same question. I have a good deal of sympathy with what he says. On that occasion I told the committee that the district inspector, in cases such as the hon.
Supply-Post Office

gentleman has mentioned, has authority to permit the closing of the office for certain periods.


Frank Exton Lennard: With reference to the
point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South in connection with extra help employed in the post office in Hamilton, there were 228 men employed, and the postal authorities there were instructed, before the men were hired, to employ veterans up to the number of fifty only. These names were to be obtained from the different veterans' organizations in that city, but the number was limited to fifty. It was not a question of how many veterans were out of work in that period. The names of the other 178 extra employees were obtained from another source, a political source.
With regard to the question discussed by the hon. member for Macleod, the position of sub-post offices, I may say that there are certain sub-post offices on the outskirts of Hamilton where, before these areas were taken into the city, the postmasters received seventy per cent of the sales. Now they receive only two per cent. In several of them the postmasters receive between $15 and $20 a month, and in addition to the great reduction in their remuneration they have been forced in the past two years to remain open on holidays. Not being on regular salary, they are not entitled to any superannuation, and I suggest that their case is one that the department should consider very carefully. It should make some improvement in the remuneration given them.


William Daum Euler: What sort of post offices is
the hon. gentleman referring to?


Frank Exton Lennard: I am referring to the
sub-post offices on the outskirts of Hamilton. Before that area was taken in, the postmasters received seventy per cent of the sales, and now they get only two per cent. Another thing I do not consider fair is that there is no parcel delivery, the parcels being all handled through the post office. They have all the heavy work they had before and the same hours.


William Daum Euler: They would not have the
same work in regard to first-class mails; they would have a letter-carrier service.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is that difference
of course, but they have to keep the same establishment for a longer period than before.


Major James William Coldwell: With regard to the
question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), the acting minister may not know of political patronage exercised in the Post Office Department; but
[Mr. Euler.)
from what we hear from time to time, Liberal committees at the present time have a good deal to do with post office appointments. Moreover, in constituencies represented by opposition members it is commonly stated-
I said this in the house last year-that the defeated candidates are consulted from time to time regarding post office and other government services in those constituencies. I notice that, according to the press, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) has asked to have placed under the civil service commission another group of employees in his department. I assume he realizes that political patronage, whenever or by whom exercised, is an evil.
I am asking the acting Postmaster General if it be not possible that in that department the groups of permanent officials now not within the purview of the civil service commission be placed under that commission; and with regard to post office appointments in the smaller communities and the provision of post offices, they also should be removed from any semblance of political patronage. I notice that one hon. member shakes his head. Well, in my constituency there is at least one post office located in a building which is a disgrace to Canada. Ever since I have been here I have taken up, as I believe my predecessor also did, this matter with the government, but somehow no improvement has been made. I refer to the Pike Lake post office in the province of Saskatchewan. I have visited it. It is a itiny shack, built of cardboard and lumber, and because of the condition of the building there is a smell of dampness and unpleasantness; yet it is situate at quite a popular summer resort. Patrons have petitioned and protested but nothing has been done. What influence retains a service of this description I do not know. I am not blaming the person who is looking after it, because the amount of revenue is small, but I say that other and better buildings in the neighbourhood should be used. I am. not thinking of any political appointment*. There are in that community Liberals, Conservatives and my own supporters, some of whom, of all parties, could provide accommodation of a better type. But whenever one speaks of these matters, one is told that the person to consult is the defeated candidate rather than the member.
That kind of political patronage is an evil which saps at the very root of efficiency in public service, and the sooner we get down to a business basis in connection with our government services, the sooner this parliament will be more respected than it is to-day. I believe that one of the factors which are undermining the democratic institutions of this

Supply-Post Office
country is the widespread use of political patronage, both provincially and federally; and the sooner we can get away from it- and the Post Office Department is a department where every effort should be made to clean out patronage-the better off Canada will be.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member speaks of a post office building which is quite unfit for occupation. The information I have is that the revenues are $65 a year. We pay the postmaster $100. So, if we want to regard the matter from the point of view of revenue, we can hardly afford a much better building than the one now in use. However, I am free to say that, whether or not the revenues are quite sufficient, every post office building should at least be a credit and should not warrant the description that has been given of the one to which the hon. member refers. I shall be glad to have an investigation made with regard to it.
The hon. member said something more, regarding patronage in the Post Office Department, that all these positions should be placed under the civil service commission. I believe that theoretically I would be inclined to agree with him; but when I point out to him that during the Christmas rush we employed from Halifax to Vancouver some 7,400 extra men for perhaps only a few days, I think he will admit that that is hardly an occasion for action by the civil service commission.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not mean that.


William Daum Euler: He also made reference to what has been done in the Department of National Revenue. As it happens, that department is merely regularizing by statute a practice which it has been observing for a long time.


Major James William Coldwell: A good practice.


William Daum Euler: These appointments have been made for some years by the civil service commission, and will continue to be made in that way.


Harry Gladstone Clarke: What was the total cost of the transfer of the business from St. Clair and Appleton avenues to a new location east of Oakwood avenue-the post office which, I think, was referred to a short time ago? I wish to know the total costs of all kinds, including painting and general expenses; also the terms of the lease of the old building which was vacated, the amount per annum paid on that lease, and th* total amount per annum that is paid for the new quarters. I understand that both of them are rental propositions. Also, what is the
length of the lease of the new premises; what was the remaining duration of the old lease, and why was the change made. I know the building fairly well, and it seems to me that the old place was well located, well established, giving good service, and doing all that could be expected. It is rumoured that this is another case of patronage. I do not wish to have too much of this patronage going on all the time in the Post Office Department.
In my own district, when I made an inquiry last year about the employment of the temporary staff of the Toronto post office, I discovered upon getting the names and addresses that people were hired from all parts of the country, not in Toronto at all. I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that the Post Office Department should rid itself of this terrible condition of patronage. Last year I made inquiries about a change of a sub-post office in my district, and I was informed that the reason was that the defeated Liberal member had the first say in placing or changing the site of that sub-post office. I was surprised to hear that. I did not think patronage dug as deep as that. As an innocent newcomer I was surprised. However, we learn as we go along. Perhaps the acting Postmaster General (Mr. Euler) will give the information.


William Daum Euler: The cost of the removal was $481. Leases were for five years respectively. The former space was 5,655 square feet, costing $5,400 per annum; the present space is 8,671 square feet, costing $6,840, and would have cost at the same rate as we paid for the other space, $8,280 per annum.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why does the minister keep saying what it would have cost, when the department made no inquiry? I might just as well say that if I had bought a certain suit, it would have cost me $125; but I did not buy it; I got one for $25. That is no argument at all.


William Daum Euler: If I paid $80 for one suit and wanted to buy another I would assume I would pay SS0.


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is not a question of suits; it is something else altogether, namely that the government was offered 7,460 square feet, and the acting Postmaster General says the department did not inquire-


William Daum Euler: I did not say that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I understood the minister to say the department did not inquire from the owner whether they could have more space.
Supply-Post Office


William Daum Euler: No; I did not say that; I said I did not know. But I am informed that they did not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have said that more space was offered to the former government when the lease was up for renewal, and I say now that had the government inquired as to whether they could have more space, they could have had another 1,440 feet and the cost would then have been eighty cents a foot and not ninety-five cents. At 1-2 cents a foot it will take a long time to save the $480 that the government spent in moving from one place to the other. In my humble judgment this shows very poor business methods.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I wish to add my protest to what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) as to the manner in which temporary help is employed at Christmas time in my riding. In London there is an honorary committee of the veterans' assistance commission, composed of eight or nine very busy men who have given a great deal of extremely unselfish and excellent work in classifying the returned soldiers in London and establishing a register of unemployed veterans. There is a paid permanent secretary, the only member of the committee who is paid, who is on duty there all the time. That is certainly the best body for selecting temporary help from amongst the veterans, and it should be used. It would be an encouragement to these men who are giving their services to help the returned soldiers and be far more satisfactory to the returned soldier than the present practice of forcing him to trot around to the defeated candidate or the Liberal committee and have his application o.-k.'d. That is manifestly unfair and improper. If the postal department cannot cooperate with the Department of Pensions and National Health by allowing this work to be done by these honorary committees of the veterans' assistance commission where they exist, it is a sad state of affairs.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to supplement the remarks of other hon. members who have spoken as to the existence of political patronage in the administration of the Post Office Department. I speak of what I know in the constituency I represent. A change has come over conditions there; I think that for a considerable time until recently the administration was not of that nature. I find that rural mail routes are changed without any cause, that a post office is moved from a store where it was well established for years and taken a mile or two down to a farm house, to the inconvenience of the patrons of that office. I find a temporary appointment made where a permanent appointment ought to be made, and returned soldiers passed over. I find that as election time draws near these people are approached, canvassed, induced and persuaded, and then if the right result is not obtained, after the election they are punished. I do not think the minister or the officials can be aware of what is going on, of the existence of these conditions; but what I am saying here I have said outside this house and I propose to say it outside the house again at the right time. What I am asking to-night is that when recommendations come along, they be carefully investigated and full information obtained, and that these changes be made on the basis of public service rather than petty political patronage.
Progress reported.


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