QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 1.	Is the ship Connestoga now owned by the government ?
2.	If so, from whom was she purchased?
3.	What price was paid for the ship, and what amount has been expended on her for repairs, alterations, etc?
4.	What is her speed, and is such speed as represented when ship purchased?
5.	What is the present condition of the ship and how many days has she been in actual service since purchase?
6.	What was the date of purchase?
7.	Is the ship Vigilant owned or hired by the government?
8.	If purchased, what was purchase price?
9.	How much has the ship cost the department so far, for hires, repairs, etc?
10.	How many days was the ship on patrol service outside harbours during year?
11.	What is the demonstrated speed of the boat, and is it equal to speed represented?
12.	What is the coal consumption of this ship oni maximum speed for 24 hours?
13.	Who recommended this boat and has she proven equal to service required?
14.	Does	the	government	own	the	boat
Fleur-De-Lis?
15.	What has been her cost in purchase price, repairs, etc?
18.	Has she proven suitable for coastal service under all weather conditions?
17.	Does the government own the boat Bay-hound?
18.	If so, from whom was she purchased, price paid, and amount spent on repairs, etc?
19.	Does	the	government	own	the	boat
Preventor ?
20.	If so, what purchase price was paid, and what amount has been spent on repairs, etc?
21.	Has the boat proved suitable for coastal service, or has she suffered damage while so engaged ?
22.	Were any of the crew injured in such service, and what were their names?
23.	Have original plans of this boat been changed, and does she differ from the above named Fleur-De-Lis?
24.	Is it a fact that this boat was unable to make the passage from Louisburg to Sydney, on a day when the motor boat Stumble In made such passage?
25.	What is gross amount expended on this ship to date, and how many days has she been in service at sea?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	James Playfair.

3.	(a) $70,000. Ship thoroughly overhauled, reconditioned and fitted out for patrol duty at owners' expense under agreement of purchase.
(b)	Cost of overhaul and repairs since date of purchase $8,915.
4.	(a) Fifteen to sixteen knots, (b) Yes.
5.	(a) First class; (b) 1928: 150 days, exclusive of boiler cleaning; 1929: 190 days, exclusive of boiler cleaning.
6.	December 9, 1927. Delivery taken May 13, 1928.
7.	No.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	Vigilant under charter to the Department of National Revenue during the years 1927, 1928 and 1929. Charter expired December 15, 1929. Total cost to the department for the period under charter, covering rental and repairs, etc., $70,321.53. Vessel returned to owners October 27, 1929.
10.	1927; 128 days. 1928; 198 days 1929; 230 days.
Note:	First on patrol July 26th, 1927.
11.	(a) Thirteen and one-half knots.
(b) No.
12.	Twenty to twenty-five tons for twenty-four hours at maximum speed. Average coal consumption per day in actual service, eleven to twelve tons.
13.	(a) Chief of the Customs-Excise preventive service, after the vessels had been thoroughly examined by technical officers of the Naval Service, Department of National Defence.
(b) Yes.
14.	Yes.
15.	(a) Contract price, including extras, $306,200.
(b) Repairs, etc., $350.
16.	Yes.
17.	Yes.
18.	(a) Sir Charles Gordon.
(b)	$25,000.
(c)	Cost of changing power plant from steam to Diesel and fitting boat out for patrol duty, $33,400.
19.	Yes.
20.	(a) Contract price, including extras, $295,490.
(b) $810.
21.	(a) Yes.
(b) Suffered slight damage to pilot-house and upper works during month of January, 1930, through being hit by a tidal wave.

Caughnawaga Bridge
22.	No.
23.	(a) No.
(b) No.
Note:	Some of top weight removed from
both vessels with a view to improving stability, having in mind ice conditions off the Nova Scotia coast in the winter season.
24.	No.
25.	(a) *300,607.
(b) 109 days to date.
Note:	This ship only taken over from
builders on January 4, 1930.


TATAMAGOUCHE, N.S. CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	Is there any customs officer at Tatama-gouche, in the county of Colchester?
2.	Is there any such customs office or customs
sub-office at Tatamagouche, in the county of Colchester? If not, when was the same abolished ?	.
3.	What was the revenue at this office for its last year?
4.	What was the annual salary of the officer in charge?
5.	What is the nearest customs office from which vessels may make entry to or receive clearance from Tatamagouche harbour?
6.	Is it true that baggage and luggage arriving at Tatamagouche from places outside of Canada must first be examined at either Amherst or Pictou?
7.	Is there any customs officer nearer to Tatamagouche than Amherst or Pictou who can examine baggage or luggage landed at Tatamagouche?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tatamagouche was closed as an outport of customs on the 1st March, 1929, and the postmistress was employed from that date to make collections on dutiable postal parcels.
3.	$782.33 import duty, and $420.25 excise taxes, collected from 1st April, 1928, to the 1st March, 1929.
4.	*200.
5.	The nearest customs office to Tatamagouche harbour at which foreign vessels may enter and clear is Malagash. During the fiscal years 1926-27, 1927-28 and 1928-29 no foreign vessels reported in or out at Tatamagouche.
6.	In addition to Amherst, Pictou and Truro, baggage for Tatamagouche arriving by rail may be examined at the boundary, and if arriving by vessel may be examined at the seaport of entry.
7.	No.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD-THOMAS MCIL WRAITH
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Does Mr. Thomas Mcllwraith hold a farm from the Soldier Settlement Board in Manitoba?
2.	If so, how much is his indebtedness as to this farm?
3.	Is he up to date in his payments to the Soldier Settlement Board?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Not now. Agreement was rescinded 29th of January, 1929.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


PROPOSED CAUGHNAWAGA BRIDGE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee forthwith to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Caughnawaga, and to empower the governor in council to authorize the Minister of Finance to enter into a contract with the corporation created to construct and maintain the said bridge.
He said:	May I be permitted to give a
word of explanation with regard to this notice of motion which appears on the order paper of to-day in the name of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Eliott). The reason the resolution appears at the moment is due to an oversight which I shall explain. It is not in consequence of any last minute efforts to put through a piece of legislation. In 1928 the late Hon. Mr. Robb, then Minister of Finance, sent a communication to the Minister of Lands and Forests of Quebec, in reply to tone from the Quebec government, in which on behalf of the government of Canada he undertook to cooperate in the construction of this bridge. I will read the letter because it will place the whole facts on record. It is as follows:
Ottawa, June 27, 1928.
My Dear Mercier:-
In reference to representations made by you concerning a proposed bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Caughnawaga Indian Reserve and some point on the Island of Montreal, I am writing to inform you that provided the government of the province of Quebec is prepared to be responsible for the financing, either by guarantee as to principal and interest or by cash advances, of two-thirds of the amount of debentures issued for the construction of such bridge, the Dominion government, in view of the fact that the bridge will connect with the south shore of the St. Lawrence river on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve, is prepared to introduce at the next session of parliament a measure to authorize the guaranteeing of the payments of principal and interest of one-third of the amount of the debentures authorized to be issued by an act of the Quebec legislature entitled "An Act respecting the Construction and Maintenance
Caughnawaga Bridge
[Stage Direction]
of a Bridge over the River St. Lawrence at Caughnawaga/' the total amount of such debentures not to exceed one million seven hundred thousand dollars.
Yours faithfully,
Jas. A. Robb.
Owing to the fact that there was some delay in the introduction of the bill at Quebec or need for its amendment, the matter was not proceeded with by the present administration; but at the beginning of this year I received from the Hon. Mr. Mercier, Minister of Lands and Forests, a communication enclosing a copy of the letter from Mr. Robb and reminding me of the undertaking given by the Dominion government promised in Mr. Robb's letter, and stating that the Quebec government was introducing the necessary legislation this session. I have since received a further communication that the legislation has been introduced and passed by the Quebec legislature. When the last communication was received, I was under the impression that our obligation in the matter could be met by an item in the supplementary estimates and I had my secretary so advise the Department of Finance. After the estimates were prepared, or rather during the consideration of them, it was discovered that a bill rather than a sum in the estimates would be necessary. What the government now asks of the house is permission to introduce legislation necessary to implement the undertaking given to the Quebec government.
His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I might well have desired that
this resolution had been introduced earlier in the session. I can quite understand the difficulties to which the right hon. the Prime Minister has referred. It is always very unfortunate that legislation of this character should be introduced in the closing days of the session when an election is not far distant, as I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) will agree. It seems to be quite clear that a promise was given in 1928 for work apparently that was to be begun the next year. The legislation does not seem to have been passed until 1930 by the province of Quebec, and presumably the obligation still continues. I suppose the theory is that when a promise is given by the crown

it must be implemented, whoever may have given it and whoever may have to carry it out. So I am not going to interpose any obstacles to the introduction of the bill, but when the bill is before us I may have something further to say once its terms are known.


Mr. MANION:: In what constituency is
this bridge?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Caughnawaga is in Laprairie-Napierville and Lachine is in Cartier.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Is the government going to follow this same practice with regard to the rest of Canada, especially the building of bridges in the province of Ontario? This resolution is outside the powers of this parliament because this is not an international bridge, nor an interprovincial bridge, nor does it affect navigation. Those are the only three grounds upon which this parliament can vote money for bridges. This is a purely municipal undertaking or a bridge between municipalities all in the same prov-nces-Lachine and Caughnawaga. The city of Toronto has had a contract with this government for seventeen years since 1913 for the building of a bridge across to the island at Toronto, and the government have backed out of the agreement although this order in council is enforceable in the exchequer court. There should be equality of treatment for all the provinces, and if the government is going to do this for the province of Quebec it should do the same thing for the province of Ontario, the maritime provinces and every other province. The British North America Act, as a matter of fact, does not allow aid to be granted for bridges that are purely municipal undertakings.


Mr. IRVINE:: I wish the minister would
explain briefly what justification there is for this parliament having anything to do with the building of this bridge.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Briefly, the reason why the
federal government is interested in the construction of this bridge is that the southern end^ of the structure is on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. We have spent considerable money on this reserve for the construction of a highway leading to the counties south of the St. Lawrence river and to the United States. We are forced to do this work on all the reserves where public highways pass through them, for the convenience of the public as well as for the convenience of the Indians. This matter first came to my attention in 1926 on representations made by the Hon. Mr. Robb. It was suggested that as the

Caughnawaga Bridge
Department of Indian Affairs was interested, a sum of money should be devoted towards the construction of this bridge. Negotiations went on with the Quebec government for some time, but no definite arrangement was made, although we did admit some responsibility. Later on, the Quebec government decided to give the construction of this bridge to a company and to charge tolls. They are now asking that there be a joint guarantee of the interest on the bonds which the company will sell for the purpose of getting funds to construct the bridge, and our share of the guarantee was deemed to be for one-third of the interest on the bonds.


William Irvine: Will this be a toll bridge?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. HEAPS:: What company is constructing the bridge?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
say.


William Irvine: It will be a private corporation?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will have to get that information from someone else. I am simply explaining how we are interested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the bill is before
us we shall be able to discuss the matter intelligently, and I would suggest that the minister defer his explanation until we have the terms of the bill before us and know exactly what we are talking about.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Elliott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 346, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Caughnawaga.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. ELLIOTT moved the second reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having the bill before us, we can now make some intelligent criticism. The statute incorporating the bridge company appears to have been passed in 1928 and the promise given by the late minister was to be implemented in 1929. There is no reason why the matter should not have been proceeded with. Apparently this is a private corporation, and if it is, I find it very difficult to bring my mind to the view that we should support it. I think that the minister should now give us a very full explanation, and if
possible a copy of the statute incorporating the company, for before we give the aid of this parliament to an enterprise of this character we should know what we are giving it to. The observations made by my friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) have a singular bearing on the matter if it is a private corporation organized for gain charging tolls on traffic and we are asked to give a guarantee or supply a part of the cost. I am sure the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to look into the terms of the act of incorporation of the bridge company, but that is an all important matter at the moment so far as this parliament is concerned.


Mr. CARDIN:: The corporation, organized under Quebec legislation, is a public corporation. It is not a private enterprise at all.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister explain what he means by a "public corporation "?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My colleague the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has a copy of the bill before him.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the necessity for
this legislation did not arise in 1928 or 1929, due to the fact that the bill incorporating the company-and I shall be very glad to hand to my hon. friend a copy-was passed in 1928 by the Quebec legislature. It did not provide for anything beyond vesting power in the company to construct the bridge and to charge tolls and for their regulation. The first part of the act sets out that it was in the interests of the cities, towns and villages situated in the district on the south shore of the St. Lawrence and of the cities, towns and villages situated on the island of Montreal and of the whole province to construct a bridge connecting the north and south shores of the St. Lawrence opposite the Caughnawaga reservation on lake St. Louis, and that to ensure the construction of such bridge it was necessary to create a corporation with the powers requisite for its purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why was that necessary?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a bridge over the St. Lawrence-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes.


John Campbell Elliott: -and it was necessary-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The privy council has
held that the bed of the river belongs to the province.
Caughnawaga Bridge


John Campbell Elliott: That is the practice, I believe, followed in the province of Quebec with regard to all bridges of this kind. That act contained no provision for the assistance which the province of Quebec was giving for the construction of the bridge. An act was passed this year-and I have a copy of it also -providing for the province of Quebec to assist in the construction of the bridge by giving a guarantee of this kind; that is, it is a toll bridge, and it is expected that at a very early period in the life of the bridge it will pay its own way; but in case of a deficit an assurance has been given by the province of Quebec to pay two thirds of the costs of operation and maintenance, interest on any sums borrowed for the purpose of construction and the sinking fund, less the tolls. It is possible that neither the province nor the Dominion may be called upon to pay anything; but in the early stages, the first few years at any rate, it is likely the amount of the tolls may not be sufficient to pay interest on the cost of construction, and expenses of operation and maintenance.


Robert James Manion: Who is putting up the money in the first place for construction?


John Campbell Elliott: The company.


Robert James Manion: Who are the incorporators?


John Campbell Elliott: The incorporators are set out in the act.


Mr. DUNNING:: There is no private interest in it.


Mr. CANNON:: They are appointed by the lieutenant-governor in council.


John Campbell Elliott: The act provides that:
The lieutenant-governor in council may authorize the issue of letters patent, under the great seal of the province, for the purpose of forming a corporation under the name of "The Corporation of Lake St. Louis Bridge" or under whatever name he may deem-


Mr. HANSON:: Who is to own the issue of the capital stock?


John Campbell Elliott: I think this will give my hon. friend the information he desires. Let me quote the act further:
Such corporation shall be composed of five members, appointed in accordance with section 2, for the objects hereinafter mentioned. The members of the corporation shall be appointed by order of the lieutenant-governor in Council. The corporation shall elect a president from among its members. The affairs of the corporation shall be administered by its members, three of whom shall form a quorum. Any member of the corporation may be dismissed for cause by an order of the lieutenant-governor in council.

Provision is made for filling vacancies. The act also provides:
Ihe corporation shall appoint its officers and employees, and fix their remuneration, subject to the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council.
As to the rest, the corporation shall be governed by the provisions of the civil code respecting corporations, and it may:
(a)	Have a common seal and alter it at will;
(b)	Appear before the courts;
(c)	Administer its property,-
And so on. The last paragraph provides that the corporation:
may adopt all by-laws, ordinances and rules necessary for its organization, government and management.


Robert James Manion: How do they raise the
funds to build the bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: Section 9 (e) provides
that the corporation may:
Issue bonds or other securities of the corporation and sell, exchange, pledge or give the same in guarantee.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Who will own
the bridge after the bonds are paid?


Mr. SPEAKER:: In order to facilitate answers to the questions being asked by hon. members perhaps it would be better to go into committee stage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Giving of its second reading to the bill involves approval of its principle. If, Mr. Speaker, our friends are content that the bill should go into committee with a distinct reservation of our objection to the principle of it, we are willing to expedite the business of the house. As I am at present advised, I fear this is a measure the principle of which I cannot approve.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the house ready, to adopt the motion?


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we have got into the habit of adopting resolutions without knowing what they contain. I have always understood that resolutions were intended to acquaint the house with the purpose of the bill which would follow. Certainly by adopting the resolution we signify a measure of approval of the subject matter of the bill to be introduced.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in the hands of the house. If the house thinks at this stage several questions may be put by hon. members, I am ready to forget the rules.

Caughnawaga Bridge


George Gibson Coote: I just want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I think the house should not be put in the position of having to approve the principle of a bill like this, so that we could get the bill into committee and secure information from the minister in charge of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suspect that I must have some responsibility for having suggested that if the bill were read we would find in print the terms of tthe proposed measure instead of taking up the time of the house listening to a verbal explanation and reading the bill afterwards. I assure the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that it was only with that object in view that I made the suggestion.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is decided on the second reading. If the house adopts its principle the bill is beyond our power. The private bills committee of this house has been considering the principle of the construction of bridges by private corporations at Sarnia, Windsor, Cornwall and in the Niagara district. The province of Quebec are to appoint the five members of the board to build and operate the bridge. The Dominion and municipalities by the Quebec Act of 1928 appoint no one. I't is taxation without representation. The day has passed when the provinces of Quebec and Ontario should maintain toll bridges. There are few such bridges left now across in the United States, and it is most unfortunate that tourists and persons entering the province of Quebec should have to pay a toll on a municipal bridge. I wonder what the tourists would think of such a system; they would wonder what kind of a country we live in when we go to the extent of exacting tolls which should never be charged for a bridge on a highway which is purely municipal. The province of Ontario has a Department of Highways in which during the last year they spent $11,000,000 or $12,000,000 on construction, and I can say at this time that that province is entirely opposed to the whole system of tolls. These bridge concession bills granted to private parties in the past three sessions have resulted and will result in making millionaires out of the recipients of such legislation.
In my view the subject under discussion represents a clearly municipal undertaking; it merely connects one municipality with another. It is not interprovincial in the legal sense. Neither is it international, running from the north shore of the St. Lawrence to United States territory, nor does it affect navigation. Those are the only grounds upon
which this house can vote money for the building of bridges.	_
In my opinion this is a political bridge with the object of pleasing the people in Laprairie-Napierville and Beauharnois where there have been some difficulties over the vegetable duties in the tariff. To attempt to pass this bill in the dying hours of the session is not fair either to this house or to the country. The provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, the maritime and the western provinces will be obligated to pay for this municipal bridge. This government should not give such a franchise to private corporations and thereby make millionaires. The government has come along and has stated that it would in effect build a political bridge on the five cent principle. This is what I would call a five cent bridge bill, because the five cent principle will certainly apply to the building of this bridge. The building of this bridge is a purely political proposition lodged on the eve of an election.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I would assist in
the discussion if I were to say that in the first place there are no profits to be made by any individuals in connection with this bridge.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The legislation you have
read does not so state.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My question was not
answered as to who owned the shares in the corporation.


John Campbell Elliott: There are no shares; this is under the authority of a commission appointed by the province of Quebec. The bridge is to be constructed, guarantees are to be made by the province, and the Dominion is to contribute towards deficits. The Dominion is to pay one-third and the province two-thirds of any deficits which might accrue each year.


Robert James Manion: What becomes of the
profits, if there are any?


John Campbell Elliott: They are used to reduce
the load, to pay off the sinking fund, and for maintenance. The tolls are used for the purpose of defraying the costs of maintenance and operation, and the interest on any loan which may be advanced for the purpose of construction and sinking fund.


Robert James Manion: Supposing there is a profit after paying off the original loan, what will become of it?


John Campbell Elliott: The tolls would be reduced. The province of Quebec retains control over
Caughmwaga Bridge

the tolls which are to be charged, and the policy is to reduce those tolls accordingly. The idea is to make it a self-sustaining proposition so far as possible.


William Irvine: Will the bridge ultimately be free?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is the corporation in this case the province of Quebec?


John Campbell Elliott: Appointees of the province of Quebec.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it publicly owned?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think I must call the house to order; the disoussion is irregular. We are discussing the principle of the bridge construction, and only one speech may properly be delivered by each member. There may be no cross-questioning, because we have not reached the committee stage.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the federal government represented on this board?


John Campbell Elliott: No, there is no provision in the a-ct to that effect.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (Calgary East):: It is very important at this stage to consider the principle of the bill. In this instance we have the province of Quebec entering into an agreement with another corporation to build a bridge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is really forming a corporation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But it is entirely the business of the province of Quebec. We as the Dominion parliament have no right to enter into an agreement which affects the province of Quebec and this other corporation. As the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has told us, because the enterprise touches an Indian reserve we have certain obligations. It may be proper for us to determine what our obligation is in that connection to the province of Quebec. By this bill we are obligating the Dominion parliament to pay $1,700,000 spread over a forty-year period, or about $42,500 each year.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has emphasized the fact that tolls will be available to pay the expenses of this bridge, and to pay the deficit and something by way of principal. In that connection may I point 
out to the minister that this matter is in the unfortunate position that the lieutenant-governor in council of the province of Quebec is allowed to set the toll, not the Dominion Railway Board, not the Quebec Commission. The Dominion parliament has no jurisdiction in the matter. I think the government would do well if it were to discount the forty annual payments of $42,500 each and have the obligation paid off. The day of toll bridges is past, and the public would not allow the province of Quebec to maintain a toll on this bridge. The bridge would no sooner be built and the toll charged, than the government of the province of Quebec, having sole jurisdiction in the matter, would allow the tolls to be discontinued.


Lucien Cannon: There are several bridges which have been constructed and in connection with which tolls are now being charged; we might take for example the bridges at Vaudreuil and Ste. Anne.


George Reginald Geary: I am not familiar with those bridges.
'Mr. CANNON: And what about the Quebec bridge? [DOT]


George Reginald Geary: I am surprised to hear that.


Lucien Cannon: Well, it is a fact.


George Reginald Geary: I am sure that this bridge
which is on a highway leading to the United States would not be allowed to remain as a toll bridge. I think we should reconcile ourselves to that making the future payments in cash, and be through with it. Here is a direct contribution to a more or less local undertaking. On what principle? I do not like to urge other local situations on the minister, but he knows that he has not implemented promises or engagements made on behalf of the government long ago, and I know that is not so through any contrariness on his part. There has been promised a very important bridge to connect the island with the mainland at Toronto. This undertaking was accepted by the government of Canada many years ago, but year after year the government has felt itself obliged to refuse to make an appropriation and I think we have a right to feel somewhat disturbed over the fact that other bridges are going to be constructed which have not been planned for so long. I do believe, Mr. Speaker, that if anything is to be done in this matter- and I do not think this is the proper time to do it-we should have more information and should be able to discuss it at greater length than we are able to do to-day. There should

Caughnawaga Bridge
be some definite arrangement as to these things. My hon. friend the Solicitor General named certain other bridges and told us that they are toll bridges. I know that toll roads are a thing of the past and feel that toll bridges also should be a thing of the past, except perhaps those bridges which are international or interprovincial.


John Campbell Elliott: The tolls are fixed by
section 17 of the Quebec act, and they are similar to the tolls paid on other bridges of a similar nature in that province. If my hon. friend has ever motored from here to Montreal he will remember that there are at least two toll bridges, one at Ste. Anne and one at Yaudreuil, between here and Montreal.


George Reginald Geary: May I ask the minister one
question: Does he approve of toll bridges on highways?


John Campbell Elliott: In answer to my hon.
friend, if it is a matter of getting a bridge or not getting a bridge, it is better to have a bridge on which you pay a toll than not to have a bridge at all. I am told that the distance which will be saved by the people in I think four or five counties, comprising a large and important and thickly settled district, will amount to thirty-five miles on a trip to Montreal. This bridge has been under consideration since 1910. Some years ago there was a movement on foot, in which the Canadian Pacific Railway interested itself very greatly, to have the bridge joined with the Canadian Pacific Railway bridge, but that plan never was carried through to completion. This way is looked upon by all the parties interested as the best solution that can be arrived at.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: During the course of this discussion there has been only one excuse advanced for a grant of this kind to a purely provincial undertaking and that excuse was advanced by the Minister of the Interior who said that the grant was required or made necessary because one end of this bridge is in an Indian reserve. This is an entirely new policy for this government to adopt. I have had occasion to endeavour to secure a grant for a cantilever section of a railway bridge connecting an Indian reserve in my riding with the mainland, which would cost only a few thousand dollars, but no grant has been made and no assistance given in spite of the fact that on that Indian reserve there is a town of some size under lease by the Canadian National Railways. At any rate, no measure of relief has been given to these other undertakings. It has been said that similar action was taken
regarding highways. I think I am correct in stating that in every case in Ontario the provincial government built the highways through the Indian reserve and only received permission to construct that highway, without getting any other assistance at all from the Dominion.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is wrong.


James Arthurs: That is my information, and I have never known of a case where that has been granted. At any rate I can see no reason why we should pass this bill for an undertaking which to my mind is entirely provincial and which should be regarded m that light.


Mr. M. J. MALONEY (South Renfrew):: According to the information given the house by the Minister of the Interior this matter has been under negotiation between this government and the province of Quebec for some time, but I believe this is the first hon. members of the House of Commons have heard of it. Now, in the dying hours of this parliament, and in the dying hours of this government, it seems strange indeed that such a measure should be brought in. It smells badly, and personally I feel that we should hold it up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was advised last evening by the right hon. Prime Minister that he thought the government was obligated to bring this measure before the house. At that time I do not think he had the particulars of the bill in mind any more than I had. The position, as has been indicated, is that this is a measure dealing solely with a local matter.
I wonder if the house realizes that this involves consideration of a method adopted as a matter of policy by the government of the province of Quebec in connection with the building of bridges; they provide that those who use the bridges pay for them. As a matter of provincial policy the province of Quebec has a right to do that, and the method it pursues is to create a commission, which is authorized to charge tolls which pay for the bridge, thereby relieving the general taxpayer of any charge for the general construction of bridges in the province of Quebec. That is a matter of provincial policy, and Quebec has adopted and utilized that policy in connection with the construction of bridges in that province. If the government of Quebec desires to continue that policy it is the business of that government; it concerns no one but the people of the province of Quebec, they having found that method advantageous
Caughnawayu Bridge

for their own purposes, and they should be permitted to pursue it in any way they please.
Now, however, we have a bridge which is to cost $1,700,000 at least, because the authorized debentures amount to that sum, and it is proposed to charge tolls to those who use the bridge in order that these debentures may be liquidated both as to principal and interest, the principal being cared for by sinking fund provisions made from time to time. Coming from Montreal to Ottawa with a four passenger car it costs about $2.25 in tolls. That is the result of this policy. I am not quarrelling with that policy, which is purely a matter for the provincial administration, but I protest against this parliament giving one dollar of money directly or indirectly for any toll highway or bridge in Canada unless it be an interprovincial or international undertaking, where the situation of course would be entirely different. That would be easily understood, but when you ask parliament to vote a sum not exceeding $42,500 per annum to take care of possible deficits in connection with the King's highway, I must say that I cannot bring myself to do it. A bridge is nothing more than a part of the King's highway projected over a stream or a gully or whatever it may be, and that highway in principle is free for use to all the King's subjects. The toll idea is very much exploded as far as the general use of highways is concerned, and has been for years.


Lucien Cannon: What about taxes to pay for the highway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; the taxes are of universal and general application.


Lucien Cannon: A tax is a toll.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All taxes are tolls, but taxes are imposed upon all persons whether or not they are users. In this case the users only are asked to pay. It is purely a matter for each province to determine for itself, and the province of Quebec having determined it in this way, that is their business.


Lucien Cannon: What about the Americans using our highways?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Americans pay at the bridge across which they enter this country.


Lucien Cannon: You are talking about highways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about tolls on provincial undertakings, and I excepted interprovincial or international bridges. The international bridge to which reference was made by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) and an hon. member to my 
right involves, of course, the taxing of those who come into this country. Tolls are imposed for two purposes; one is to enable a record to be kept of those who come and go, and the second is to ensure payment for the use of the facilities provided. The idea of asking this parliament, which represents the general body of Canadian taxpayers, to contribute towards any deficit which might arise by the application of a provincial policy is unsound. If this were an interprovincial or international proposition, there would be no difficulty in dealing with it, but to say that this parliament, the general body of the taxpayers of Canada shall be asked to miake a contribution towards paying any deficit which might arise between the amount necessary to pay the obligations upon the debentures and t'he amount received from tolls, is going too far and I regret that such a suggestion is made at this late date.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about an international highway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I favoured an international highway, and I hope that the hon. gentleman may in the fullness of time be ready and willing to give his vote for the construction of a trans-Canada highway wholly within Canada. But the bridges on that highway will not be toll bridges.
I have done everything possible to expedite this matter reaching the stage it has, but we will not permit this bill to go into committee to-day. It must proceed in committee tomorrow, and the following day will see the next stage of the bill. If this proposition was a free bridge without tolls, I would be open to argument, but I hope never to find myself in the position where I will ask the general body of the taxpayers of Canada to contribute towards a bridge solely within a province by way of a subsidy necessary to make up the difference between the annual charges on the undertaking and the annual revenue derived from tolls.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The sole reason for the introduction of this bill at this time as explained is to enable the government to implement an undertaking given in the name of the crown by the government of Canada to the government of the province of Quebec.
I realize that it is unfortunate that this measure should have to be considered at this late moment. However, the measure speaks for itself. The discussion which has taken place would seem to indicate that there is a disposition to regard the bill as being highly controversial. I stated last evening that the government would not wish to proceed with any measures which were deemed controversial

Shipping Legislation
and if it should appear, after allowing this bill to stand, that it is still to be regarded as being controversial, I would feel that we should not proceed further with it. For the present the bill had better stand.
I move the adjournment of the debate. Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to move a resolution requesting His Excellency the Governor General to transmit to His Majesty the King the necessary address in connection with the transfer of the natural resources of the western provinces, as follows: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house doth unite with the Senate in an address to His Excellency the Governor General praying His Excellency to transmit the joint address of both houses to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, relative to a measure to be submitted to the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to amend The British North America Acts, 1867 to 1916, in the manner set forth in the said joint address; in such a way as to His Excellency may seem fit, in order that the same may be laid at the foot of the throne, and have filled in the blank space therein with the word "Commons";
And that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the Senate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his seconding of this motion which speaks so eloquently for the equality of status between the two communities. It offers a significant justification for the observations which he has made.


Ernest Lapointe: As long as this condition exists by our own will, I do not object to it.


Mr. MacLAREN:: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the government to question No. 1 on the order paper, which I submit is a proper question and one not requiring very much clerical work. The sitting member surely is entitled to the information asked for, especially as these appointments are supposed to be nonpolitical in character.



DOMINION AND MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a
personal explanation and rectification. When speaking on Monday last to the resolution to approve of the report of the conference on Dominion legislation, I gave a quotation supposed to have been made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), as follows:
Since January, 1926, we have had representations in London at a peace parley. You would almost think that it was a six power instead of a five power party. We are gradually interfering in the affairs of Europe generally. . . . We are posing as a nation when we are not a nation at all.
Since I gave that quotation my hon. friend has conveyed to me the information that he did not utter those words. After investigation I found that the quotation had been obtained from a report appearing in the Montreal Gazette of April 9. Through a mistake, the statement had been attributed to my hon. friend when in fact the words were uttered on April S by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). I desire to make this rectification in fairness to my hon. friend, and I apologize to him for the mistake and I am very sorry if it has caused him any annoyance.



DUTY ON TEA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murray MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) if he is in a position to make any statement regarding a refund to be made to the dealers in tea.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I take it that my hon. friend is
referring to the request made by the importers of tea for a refund of the duty which they have paid?


Murray MacLaren: Yes.


William Daum Euler: A conference was had with
the tea importers but no definite answer was given. We are making certain investigations after which due consideration will be given and the matter will be disposed of.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
IMr. T. L. OHURCiH (Toronto Northwest): Mr. Speaker, shortly after the Easter recess the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-
Chinese on Besco Ships
[Stage Direction]
kenzie King) told the house that he hoped to be able to make a definite statement within two weeks as to the St. Lawrence waterway. Will that statement be forthcoming before the house closes?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will think this matter
over and let my hon. friend have a reply tomorrow. .
CHINESE EMPLOYED ON BESCO SHIPS On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):	Mr. Speaker, in
reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) with reference to Chinese employed on the boats operated by the Besco corporation. I would say that I have made inquiry and have discovered that four ships are operated under British registry. Fifty-six Chinese are employed on these vessels, over which we have no control other than to see that they do not enter Canada. The department has not approved since 1924 of the entry into Canada of persons of Chinese origin to join ships operated by the Besco or the Dominion Shipping Company. I may say that the Chinese who were temporarily admitted in 1924 were properly checked outward at the end of the season.
There is nothing in the Chinese Immigration Act to prevent vessels coming to Canadian ports from bringing with them crews of Chinese origin and keeping such crews on board such vessels until they leave Canada. Of course, if application is made for entry to Canada by an individual member of the crew, or of the whole crew, then the act immediately operates. The act requires the depositing of bonds and provides severe penalties for allowing persons of Chinese origin to leave a vessel without the consent of the proper official of the department. This provision, of course, is a safeguard against the desertion of members of the crews and the illegal entry of Chinese.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I correct in assuming that these vessels that ply between Montreal and Halifax or Sydney are operated by Besco?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. friend where they ply, but the registry is British and they are apparently chartered by the corporation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And they ply between two Canadian ports?


Charles A. Stewart: They may.
I presume they do.



CALGARY RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have a telegram this morning from the railway mail clerks in the city of Calgary stating that certain rearrangements have been made and they feel an apprehension that their seniority and standing in the service may be interfered with. I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether any arrangement that may be made will interfere with their right of seniority or not?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Nearly every year at this season when the timetables of railways are being changed, we have to shift railway mail clerks from one place to another in order to meet the requirements of the service, but I can assure my hon. friend that in no case will seniority be interfered with in bringing about this arrangement.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Or any other right?


Peter John Veniot: No.



UPPER ST. LAWRENCE PILOTAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: A few days ago I asked the government whether consideration had been given to the question of pilotage on the upper St. LawTence. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is now in his seat and I should like to know whether any request has been received by the government and whether any consideration has been given to the matter?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Several requests have been made in accordance with what my hon. friend has just mentioned. The matter is receiving consideration, but no decision has as yet been reached.



HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSIONAL EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: On account of the very short session, I understand the temporary staff of the Senate have been granted 120 days' pay for 99 days' actual work. I should like to ask: What about the temporary staff of the House of Commons? Would it not seem right that there should be no discrimination? I fancy the House of Commons employees work, if anything, longer hours than those of the Senate. I am thinking particularly of the Hansard amanuenses who are not of the per-

Conference on Unemployment
manent staff and who are working excessively long hours at, high tension. I would ask what can be done in regard to this particular class of employees?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter to which my
hon. friend has just referred is at the present time being considered as between the Speaker-and the government.


Thomas Langton Church: Cannot the Prime Minister give a more definite answer than that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to say, before the
matter is finally disposed of, that all of those who sit to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, are deeply appreciative of all the service that is rendered by the Hansard staff. It involves very long hours and sometimes very difficult work, especially when one has regard to the rapidity .with which my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) sitting right beside me sometimes speaks. Under those circumstances, anything that can be done to place the Hansard staff upon a basis of equality with those in the Senate will be welcomed, I think, by all of us, equality of status being very desirable as between the Senate and the House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to my hon. friend that what I had in mind was to call him into conference with the Speaker and myself in order to see whether we could not agree upon an arrangement that would be satisfactory to all. I do not think there will be any difficulty in reaching a satisfactory agreement.



BEAUHARNOIS POWER CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Gardiner: I
should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the plans in connection with the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company have been prepared, whether plans have been approved by him and where, if possible, anyone can have an opportunity of examining them.


John Campbell Elliott: The plans which have been approved are in the office of the Department of Public WTorks in the Hunter building and we shall be glad to show them to any hon. member.



CONFERENCE ON UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Abraham Albert Heaps: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to hold a conference on unemployment in the month of June of this year, as was stated in the house some weeks ago?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find in the supplementary estimates that the government is proposing to ask the house to vote the sum of $10,000 to enable a conference to be held in Ottawa as soon as may be possible after the general elections, in order to consider the question of cooperation in the matter of continuous employment as between the Dominion government, the provinces, the municipalities and other corporate entities. The idea is to have the conference as representative of interested bodies likely to be affected as possible; to invite to it representatives of industrial organizations and labour organizations as well as the leading municipalities and the provincial governments. The government recognizes, as I think I made clear when speaking on a previous occasion, that there is a problem of seasonal unemployment which occurs regularly in the Dominion, and it is believed by the administration that a conference of this kind might lead to such cooperation, as between those who have to do with work of construction and employment generally, as will be helpful in affording more continuous employment in the winter months than would otherwise be possible. I feel sure the house will give its approval to that appropriation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Arising out of the statement made by the Prime Minister, I should like to put a second question. At this conference which is to be held later on this year, will the government consider asking the provinces to inaugurate the eight-hour day for certain industries in the Dominion? I make the suggestion to the Prime Minister, because I observe in this morning's press the Premier of Nova Scotia was quite willing to have the government look into the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct
the attention of my hon. friend to the item in the supplementary estimates which is vote No. 426:
To provide for a conference of representatives of Dominion and provincial governments, municipalities, transportation companies and industrial and labour associations, to consider methods of cooperation in furthering continuous employment throughout Canada during the winter months, $10,000.
Chignecto Canal

The conference will be free to discuss any and all aspects of the problem of employment and unemployment.


Edward Joseph Garland: The government has on occasions during this session taken credit very properly for the introduction of the eight-hour day bill as applied to civil servants. May I ask the government now:	How many departments have accepted
that bill and applied it in their departments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding is that it has been made applicable to all the departments. It applies to civil servants generally.
CHIGNECTO CANAL On the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wish to ask the Minister of
Railways and Canals (Mr. Crerar) a question. As he is not in his place at present, perhaps if I put the question on Hansard, he can answer it later. Speaking at the Liberal convention at Amherst, Nova Scotia, May 21, Senator H. J. Logan spoke as follows re the proposed Chignecto canal, as reported in Amherst Daily News of May 22:
"The Chignecto canal survey is nearly completed, and a commission, of whom I know the names, is to be appointed to consider the commercial feasibility of the canal."
Senator Logan intimated that he did not desire to make the canal a political issue, but remarked that a Liberal candidate might find it possible -to do more for Cumberland county.
I was going to ask the minister if it is proposed to appoint such a commission, and if so, have the names of such commissioners been given to Senator Logan, and has Senator Logan been authorized to speak on behalf of the administration in the remarks that he made?
APPOINTMENT OF WILLIAM NEVILLE On the orders of the day:


Eccles James Gott: May I obtain from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the assurance that the informa-iton asked for in question No. 1 on to-day's order paper will be brought down forthwith? Very little clerical work is involved in it.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I must remind my hon. friend that this question is directed to the Chief Electoral Officer, and the only thing the government can do is to bring my hon, friend's question to the attention of that officer, who is responsible to the house and not to the government.


Eccles James Gott: Why has that not been done already?



SOCKEYE SALMON FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 344, respecting a certain convention signed the 26th day of May, 1930, between His Majesty in respect of Canada and the United States of America for the preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Convention confirmed.
Mr. McRAE:: Mr. Chairman, the natural resource which it is hoped that this treaty will restore, the sockeye salmon of the Fraser river, together with the industry resulting therefrom, is a major issue in the province of British Columbia and a very important question for the Dominion as a whole. It is hoped that under this treaty the Fraser river, a river which for many years was the greatest salmon stream in the world, a river the maximum catch of which at to-day's salmon value would probably exceed $30,000,000 or more annually, the finest salmon stream without question I think on the Pacific ocean, will be restored to its former greatness. That is the expectation of the people of my province. They have been somewhat disappointed with the long negotiations which have been carried on in connection with this problem. Last year I took a rather active part when the treaty came before the committee on marine and fisheries. The long experience which I had in the salmon business on our coast I felt rather qualified me to put my views before the committee at that time. I do not intend to delay the house very long, but I think it is opportune to refer to the present treaty, which I believe is a material improvement on the treaty that was submitted to the house last session.
In the first place, I think that the criticism offered last year as to loose draftsmanship is, in this treaty as I view it, entirely eliminated. This year's treaty appears to be more like the finished article.
The first important alteration in the treaty this year is the addition of section 1 of article I, which includes a very considerable addition to the territory placed under the direction of the commission. If time permitted I could explain to the committee the importance of this addition. Suffice it to say that I believe that this addition is absolutely essential if the efforts of the Salmon

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
Fisheries Commission are to be effective. Without this additional territory I believe their efforts would have been largely, if not entirely, nullified.
There is one other matter in article I, which I would like to have seen somewhat altered. It has to do with the extension of the northern boundary to Lasqueti island, which involves in the jurisdiction of the commission the fishermen who catch the northern run in that section. That is a matter in which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neil'l), who I regret is not in his seat is equally concerned. However, I make no serious objection because, after all, the boundaries as set must be very general. I have no doubt that in some cases it will be found when investigated that our sockeye salmon reaching the Fraser by the American route are not included in the present boundaries, and here I think will be found one section that should be omitted from the regulations of the commission being outside the area reached by such sockeyes. It is a matter affecting only the fishermen of the two constituencies I have mentioned, and I am prepared to leave it to the good intentions of the commission to deal with this matter fairly when it comes up. I am quite satisfied that the regulations they may prescribe based on their subsequent investigations will respect the interests of the fishermen in this particular section of the territory allotted to the commission.
Article 2. There is a change in this article which provides that the members of the commission shall be appointed at the pleasure of the respective governments. I think that is important. In the former treaty there was no such provision, and it was felt by some of us that the appointments would necessarily be for life. This change greatly improves this article.
Article 3. The third article in the treaty as submitted to the house last session received probably the most consideration. We contended that this article as then drawn involved, to some extent at least, the question of territorial or sovereign rights and would conflict with the power development of the Fraser river. I am pleased indeed to see that in its present form article 3 has been materially changed in both respects. As previously drawn we objected to the fact that the commission was empowered to "acquire" spawning grounds. I am pleased to see that this word does not appear in the new treaty. In this connection I wish to refer to the last paragraph of article 8 in the treaty of this year:
Each high contracting party shall acquire and place at the disposition of the commission any land within its territory required for the construction and maintenance of hatcheries, rearing ponds and other such facilities as set forth in article 3.
It might have been advisable to have made the matter a little clearer by providing that the improvements at the expiration of the treaty should belong to the high contracting party in whose territory they were located.
I might add that the Fraser river is the only fresh water included in the treaty, and consequently is the only section that is affected by this paragraph. However, the present paragraph is very good indeed and pretty well clears up the question. I notice that the paragraph refers to each high contracting party, and thereby the United States accepts the principle as well as Canada.
In article 4 it will be noted that the period within which the commission is empowered to limit or prohibit fishing is not limited this year. In last year's treaty it read:
That the commission is hereby empowered from June 1st, to August 20th, to limit and prohibit fishing, etc.
I think it highly desirable that the commission should be given unlimited power in that regard, particularly having regard to the division of the catch.
Article 6. There is a very important change here. In the treaty of 1929 this section read: That no action taken by the commission under the authority of articles 4 and 5 of this convention shall be effective unless affirmatively voted for by at least two of the commissioners from each country.
This omitted section three in last year's treaty.
In the treaty this year it will be observed that the approval of two out of three of the commissioners of each country is necessary before anything can be affirmatively voted on. This is a safeguard to both countries, and I think it is an assurance that the commission will be conducted along lines satisfactory both to Canada and the United States.
Article 7 has to do with the division of the catch. This has caused much concern among those interested in the industry. They have grave doubts as to the ability of the commission to divide the catch equally between the two countries. I think, this matter will have to be left to the good faith of the commission. It is about the only way I see of dealing with it. I am sure it will not be possible for any commission to make an exact division each and every year. I assume that in all fairness they will take the current year with the preceding year and endeavour
Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

to the best of their ability to divide up the catch equitably between the fishermen of the two countries over the period.
Article 10, I presume, is necessary on account of the inclusion in the treaty of the territory covered by section one of article 1. I think that will be found to agree almost, if not entirely, with the provision in the halibut treaty, and as such presumably it is acceptable to all interests. It is a marine matter that I do not feel competent to pass upon.
Now, from the practical standpoint, I take it that in negotiating treaties there must be give and take between both countries. Neither one high contracting party nor the other can get all it wants. We have had long drawn out negotiations in connection with a treaty for the great Fraser river, and it is my considered opinion that this treaty is now about as satisfactory as we can expect. Of course, the success of this or any similar treaty will depend almost entirely on the good faith of the high contracting parties. In any event we cannot be any worse off under this treaty than we are at the present time.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks the Fraser river has in the past been a wonderful stream. It has produced millions of cases of salmon. In fact, as described by a gentleman whom I met a few days ago, about forty-five years ago when he knew it, it seemed as though one could walk across the river on the fish, and I may tell hon. members that the river is a mile wide. What is the situation today? Through the lack of proper protection the fish in that stream have been almost exterminated. I refer to neither one political party nor another, but I wish to say in all kindness that the failure of the fishing industry on the British Columbia coast has been due largely to the fact that for the last quarter of a century it has been used as a political football. I make that statement advisedly, because for many years I was engaged in the business. I am quite sure there is nobody in our province and I hope there is no member in this committee who expects that this treaty can be put into effect without inconveniencing and discommoding certain interests. If we are going to bring about the restoration of the run of fish in the Fraser river we must have conditions different from what they have been in the past. I notice in this treaty a slight alteration from last year's treaty which is no doubt a proper one; I refer to the omission of the appointment of the commissioner of fisheries in the United States, as one of the United States commissioners. At the present time that position is held by Mr. O'Malley. I would like to say a 
word about Mr. O'Malley, because I think members of the committee ought to know something about him. I have no doubt that he will be one of the American commissioners on this treaty, and undoubtedly he is the best qualified man on this continent to deal with the restoration of salmon fisheries.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Who says that?


Alexander Duncan McRae: He has been responsible for the restoration of the fisheries in Alaska, and he has accomplished wonders. He had great difficulties the first few years because the changes he instituted in connection with the Alaskan fisheries were greatly resented by those engaged in the business. After a few years however when it became apparent that the life of the industry depended on the regulations he had put into effect, and when it became further apparent that the industry was going to be restored, the complaints ceased. To-day the fishing industry in those waters is practically restored to its former greatness, and Mr. O'Malley is accepted by the fishing interests, both men and corporations, as the necessary governor of that great industry. With Mr. O'Malley on the commission and with other Americans who will thoroughly know the business, I suggest to the government that in this particular case they make use of some of the many men in British Columbia who are familiar with the fishing industry, who know the business thoroughly and who are willing and anxious to give their time to assist in restoring this great natural wealth to the people of British Columbia.
In closing may I say that there will be many difficulties ahead of this commission; their task is a difficult one. As I have already said the business is of great importance to the people of my province, and to the whole Dominion. Complaints will arise without number, but I hope that both parties in this house regardless of which party is successful in the coming election will undertake to give to the sockeye salmon commission that assistance and support during the next sixteen years, which is essential to the success of this treaty.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I also was on the
special committee last session to which the original treaty was referred, and I presume I was placed on that committee because I have lived on the banks of the Fraser river for some forty years, and particularly during recent years I have been closely in touch with the fishermen on that river. It is true that there are not as many men engaged in the industry as there were some years ago; however, last year 1,473 licences were issued in

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
the Fraser river district; that means that there were twice as many, or over 2,800 men engaged in fishing on the Fraser river, because there are two men to each boat. About 400 of those licences were issued to Japanese. The number of Japanese engaged in the fishing industry has been greatly decreased and at the present time the large majority of fishermen in British Columbia waters are of the white race. That is a condition which no doubt all hon. members will agree should prevail. Last year I was somewhat critical of the treaty which was submitted to us, and in that respect I think I had the support of the fishermen of the Fraser river, because after I returned to New Westminster they held a meeting of their organization and at its conclusion by standing vote they unanimously approved of the stand I had taken. I am pleased to say that this year we have a treaty which is quite different in many important particulars from the one which was first submitted; I think there has been a great deal of improvement, and for that reason I do not think I am called upon to oppose the treaty. On the contrary, I think it represents a step in the right direction; I hope it will work out to the advantage of Canada and result more particularly in the restoration of the sockeye salmon run on the Fraser river. There was a time when that run was very extensive. In the year 1913 there was a pack of sockeye salmon on the Fraser river amounting to about 900.000 cases. The largest pack we have had since that time has been only about 60,000 cases. From those figures it is very easy to judge the extent of depletion, and what that depletion has meant to Canada and to those engaged in the industry. I do not wish the committee to understand that there is any real conflict between the fishermen and those engaged in the canning industry; I think they are both imbued with the same ideas and are both interested in the restoration of the run of sockeye salmon; it means a livelihood to the fishermen. Without the sockeye fishing I am afraid it would be very difficult for the fishermen on the Fraser river to eke out an existence.
Now, what is going to happen? I fear that this treaty will have a very injurious effect on the men who are engaged in the industry at the present time. It may be that as a result of this treaty, at the end of sixteen years, or later or perhaps earlier, there will be a partial or perhaps an entire restoration of the run that we previously had, but in the meantime these men have to carry on their work. They all have their boats, and these are not 2419-177
ordinary row boats; they are quite expensive gasoline boats which have expensive gear. The investment of each of these 1,473 men amounts to a great deal. I am afraid it is just possible that these men who are engaged in the industry at the present time are going to suffer to a great extent. The hon. member for North Vancouver has spoken of the division of the fish. That is covered by article 7, which reads as follows:
Inasmuch as the purpose of this convention is to establish for the high contracting parties, by their joint effort and expense, a fishery that is now largely non-existent, it is agreed by the high contracting parties that they should share equally in the fishery. The commission shall, consequently, regulate the fishery with a view to allowing, as nearly as may be practicable, an equal portion of the fish that may be caught each year to be taken by the fishermen of each high contracting party.
The great difficulty in that connection, as I see it, is that fishing is carried on in United States waters by means of traps. I am not going to take the time of the house to explain what these traps are like; suffice it to say that by the use of traps they carry on in American waters wholesale fishing. On our side of the line we have practically no traps; all the fishing is carried on by nets operated by the fisherman, and you might say on the Canadian side we have retail fishing. Under this treaty the difficulty is going to be for the commission to see that the Canadians will catch as many fish as the Americans. I am afraid that by the use of traps it will be much easier for the Americans to get their allowance, and I am afraid that the Canadians will not be able to get their share with the present methods in use.
Let me say just here that I would strongly deprecate the abolition of the gill net fishing on the Canadian side and the adoption of traps as the proper method of fishing. It would put out of employment a great many men and I think that is something we should not try to encourage. It may be said that there will not be so much difficulty in connection with the division of fish, but in that connection I should like to refer to some remarks made by the deputy minister of Fisheries last year before the committee. I would refer first to page 85 of the proceedings of Tuesday, May 28, 1929, and Wednesday, May 29, 1929, as follows:
By Mr. McQuarrie:
Q. The idea is that, in order to regulate and bring about this 50-50 division, the fisheries will be alternately closed on one side or the other, as the case may be? I want to submit to you-we will say, the Canadians are getting behind, as they usually do in matters of this kind, having in view the geography and the
nEVISED EDITION
Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

question of the priority of the American fishermen-it would require the Americans to close down their traps and seines, and in that event, could not the Americans say: "The escapement of fish is ample in the Fraser river for propagating purposes; we object to closing down because the Canadians have not enough equipment to catoh their 50 per cent"? Is that not one of the things which might come up?
A. That may be one of the main difficulties with which the commission will have to deal, but the federal government of the United States undertakes by this treaty to see that the regulations provided by the commission are carried out.
Then at page 95 there is another question by myself, as follows:
Q. What will happen if the Americans get more fish than the Canadians?
A. Well, Mr. Chairman, the duty of the commission will be to see that they do not. As I said a little while ago, the commission will have my sympathy. It will be quite impossible to say that we will get 50 fish on the one side and 50 on the other. It must be as near as possible that that be done.
Of course it will be difficult; I do not see how it is going to be done in any reasonable way. I am afraid our fishermen are going to suffer by this treaty. I am afraid this matter will work out in such a way that it will cause the adoption of traps in Canadian waters for the purpose of enabling Canada to catch its proper proportion of the fish. In that event what is going to happen, to our fishermen?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend like us to drop the treaty?


William Garland McQuarrie: No, not at all; I am just coming to a point which I think the Prime Minister will appreciate. What is going to happen to the fishermen who are now engaged in that occupation? There is no doubt it will assist other fisheremen who may be there in years to come, but as to the men engaged in that industry I am afraid they will suffer by reason of the fact that they are going to be prohibited for a certain number of years from catching sockeye salmon at all, or they are going to be prohibited for a certain period every year during sixteen years or longer from catching sockeye salmon, which is prehaps one of the most profitable branches of their business. As I say, I am interested in these fishermen and I am afraid they will suffer also in connection with other vari-ties of salmon, because when the catching of sockeye salmon is prohibited it may be necessary also to prohibit the catching of other varieties of fish which may be running at the same time. The sockeye salmon is not the only class of salmon that we have on the Fraser river, as of course is well known.

That matter was discussed in the committee with Mr. Found, and I would refer the house to page 92 of the evidence of the same proceedings of the committee. The following are the questions asked by myself and the answers given by Mr. Found:
Q. What about other varieties of fish during the close season for sockeye? There will be other fish running?
A. Not to any considerable extent; and that is the reason why the time is limited during which the commission is to take full control.
Q. Well, does not the cohoe season overlap the sockeye salmon?
A. To some extent; but not during this
period.
Q. That is, there would be no cohoes?
A. I would not say there would be no cohoes; but there would not be a large run.
Q. Cohoe fishing also will be prevented during that period?
A. To the extent that may be necessary to protect the sockeye.
0- When sockeye fishing is prevented, cohoe fishing will also be prevented?
A. To the extent that it will be necessary to carry out the regulations provided bv the commission for the protection of the sockeye.
Q. If sockeye fishing is prevented then, naturally, and necessarily, cohoe fishing will also be prevented?
A. That is why other fishing is prohibited.
Q. Yes?
A. Quite so.
Then on page 93:
Q. As to other varieties of fish-the pinks, for instance-will they be covered by the size of the mesh? Or will fish like chums and pinks be also prohibited when the fishing for sockeye is prohibited?
A. If the prohibition in the fishing of sockeye necessitates the removal of nets from the water, then, of course, the catch of other kinds of fish will be affected to that extent.
Q. So, it may be that all fishing-all salmon fishing will be prevented during those prohibited times?
A. That was the reason for limiting the control of the commission to the period that is mainly affected by this run.
Q. So you would have the chums and the pinks and the cohoes in the same class as the sockeye so far as prohibition is concerned during the period that the commission decides shall be a close season for sockeyes?
A. But the fact is that they are not there at that time in any considerable number.
Q. It will be so with those fish which are there?
A. Oh, yes.
It will be noticed by reference to the treaty that no fixed period is given as to when prohibition shall be effective. Under the terms of the previous treaty I believe that time was fixed as being from June 1 to August 20. Under the present treaty it is left wide open to the commission, and if it sees fit the commission may prohibit and prevent the fishermen from catching fish during the profitable season. The point I wish to make, and one

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
I think which will appeal to the Prime Minister, is that although this treaty may be of great advantage to Canada as a whole, it is possible that it may injuriously affect the men engaged in the fishing industry. I would suggest that the Prime Minister make a declaration that if such proves to be the case and it is shown later on that the fishermen have been injuriously affected by this treaty, then some fair and reasonable compensation will be made to the men. That is my only object in rising to-day. I think that proposal is a reasonable one, I think it is a fair and just one, because if any class is to be injured by a treaty of this kind entered into for the advantage of Canada as a whole, then I think they should receive some kind of consideration.
I have in my hand sessional papers No. 79, dated February 9, 1916, brought down upon the motion of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who took this same stand regarding the men engaged in the sealing industry and who were prevented from carrying on their occupation by reason of the Washington treaty of 1911 and the Paris regulations of 1893. This return contains the report of Mr. Justice Audette, who was then a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, and certain amounts were allowed as compensation to the men engaged in the sealing industry. It may be said that the salmon fishermen have no legal right to compensation. I will admit that, and I will admit also that this parliament can enter into a treaty which may effectively obliterate the occupation of any man and no legal claim for compensation could be made. This was the case in connection with the sealing treaty, but I would like to read a short statement which appears on page 25 of this return, as follows:
These claims, as has already been said, do not rest upon legal right; they originate from the benevolence, grace and bounty of the crown.
I submit that our salmon fishermen will be in a similar position and will be entitled to the benevolence, grace and bounty of the crown. I should like the Prime Minister to make two statements: first, that this country is not going to encourage or permit the catching of salmon by means of traps and, secondly, that if the fishermen should be injuriously affected by this treaty they will receive consideration.
Mr. ICING' (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I have been keenly interested in listening to the speeches of the two hon. members opposite, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). It takes me back 2419-177i
to last year when both of these hon. gentlemen intensely opposed this treaty being entered into with the United States. If I remember rightly, there was a desire at that time on the part of some members in this house to create throughout Canada an anti-American spirit, and for the purpose of creating such a feeling in this country our friends opposite were prepared to sacrifice the treaty in order that they could accomplish some political effect.


William Garland McQuarrie: I must take exception to that statement, and I do not think it should be allowed to pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no evidence for it.


William Garland McQuarrie: It is absolutely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


William Garland McQuarrie: And unfounded.


John Warwick King: I will complete my statement; my hon. friends have had almost an hour.


William Garland McQuarrie: I submit that that statement should be withdrawn.
. Mr. KING (Kootenay): It will not be withdrawn because I will follow it up with the evidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on with the evidence.


John Warwick King: My hon. friends challenged not only the desire of the people engaged in this industry, but they challenged their friends in the government of British Columbia. They challenged the opinion of the officials of that government, and put their opinion before the people as being contrary to the opinion of the officials in British Columbia, with the result that the treaty has been delayed for a year. They have undertaken to-day, by a discussion of the amendments which have been made to the treaty, to justify their consideration of the treaty.


Mr. LADNER:: I should like to ask the
minister whether he intends to carry on a debate along these lines. I had not intended to participate in the debate nor had other hon. members on this side. We are commending the treaty. We believe it is a good one. I was going to ask the minister whether, on reconsideration, he would not think it wiser under the circumstances to abstain in his remarks from partisanship, because otherwise there will be involved a really warm discussion in which most of us will have to participate.


John Warwick King: I am prepared to do that and to discuss the amendments to the treaty. I do not want to prolong the
2S04

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
discussion. The treaty is, I am sure, acceptable to the members of the house. The first amendment, which is a most important one, is that dealing with the extension of extraterritorial waters. That was brought about by the experience of last summer when it was found the fishermen moved outside of the prohibited limit and fished there.


William Garland McQuarrie: Did I not raise that
same point before the committee?


John Warwick King: That may be.
The effect of the second amendment is to give fuller power to the commission. The previous treaty limited the power of the commission in connection with the removal of an obstruction. It has been thought wise in the interval to amend the treaty so that the commission may have authority in our waters to remove obstructions if they see fit. We have also arranged under the new treaty that the commission may acquire lands for the purpose of developing the fisheries :n our territory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just where is that in the treaty? Perhaps the hon. gentleman will read it.


John Warwick King: It is article VIII of the treaty which reads:
Each high contracting party shall acquire and place al; the disposition of the commission any land within its territory-
_ Mr. BENNETT: Then what does the minister mean by saying that the commission shall buy land? The government buys it, not the commission. Read the agreement.


John Warwick King: The treaty provides that the government-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the commission, but the government.


John Warwick King: There is no difference, because we had an opinion of the Department of Justice last year, that when the commission went out of existence they had no control or ownership.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman know what he is talking about?


John Warwick King: I do. Let me have the floor.


Lucien Cannon: One assumes he thinks he does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be somewhat doubtful.
Mr. KING Kootenay):	Under the treaty
of last year it required unanimous approval of two commissioners from each party to concur in fishing regulations. That provision has

been extended so that it affects the regulations that may be brought into effect on the upper reaches of the Fraser river. I think those are the important changes in the bill,
I promise my hon. friends I shall not develop the argument I started out to do. I wish merely to say that the treaty is of great importance not only to the people of British Columbia, to those engaged in the industry there, but to the people of Canada on account of the fact that its restoration means an annual wealth of some $30,000,000 to the people of that province and the people of the Dominion as a whole. It is so important that from time to time various governments of 'Canada have undertaken to negotiate such a treaty and this is considered to be the best treaty that as yet has been negotiated or considered by the two governments. The other treaties were never brought into being, the Senate of the United States failing to agree to them and pass them; but it is understood that this treaty will become law, and if so, no doubt much good will come from it.
The hon. member for New Westminster spoke of the hardship that might be placed upon those who are engaged in the fishing industry on the Fraser river through the operations of the treaty. That has been well considered by the fishermen themselves and they realize, as they have realized in the state of Washington, that if they continue their occupation as fishermen each year as they have been doing in the past, it will not be long before that industry will disappear entirely. So it has been considered by them- and I believe they are in agreement on this point-that in the interest of the fishing industry and in their own interest some scheme or plan of this kind should be devised in order to restore the fishery. I have very much pleasure in thoroughly endorsing the treaty, and I believe it will be approved generally throughout Canada.


Mr. DICKIE:: Having been a member of
the fisheries committee which considered the treaty as it was submitted last year, and having, perhaps, severely criticized it in some respects, I wish to say that the remarks of the Minister of Health with respect to any anti-Americanism tinging the considerations of that committee or any thought of such a thing, is nonsensical and untrue. There was not one anti-American thought in connection with the consideration of that treaty. I approve unhesitatingly of the treaty this year. The other treaty as submitted to us contained clauses of which we did not approve. We reasoned them out and our hon. friends oppo-

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
site saw the point in our objections. Now we have a treaty which, I believe, is the best that can be devised and I am wholeheartedly in favour of it. My purpose in rising is simply to impress upon the government that the success or otherwise of the treaty will depend upon the personnel of the commission. The problems that the}' will have to consider will bristle with difficulties. Let there be appointed good strong men without regard to political persuasion, men that can resist the enormous pressure that will be brought to bear upon them, men of sound common sense, and in that case we shall rehabilitate the fisheries of the Fraser river. It will be one of the finest treaties ever entered into by the Dominion of Canada. People who live in the east do not realize what we have lost through the depletion of the salmon fisheries in the Fraser river. As a parting word, I implore the government to select good strong men for the commission and doubtless the people of the United States will do the same.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say one word in endorsation of what was stated by the hon. member for New Westminster? I am not going to discuss the treaty; I am wholly in favour of its passing. I think the people on the west coast and indeed, all over Canada will endorse it. Several years ago, when I lived on the west coast, I had come in touch with and developed a good deal of sympathy for the fishermen there. Very likely the coming into force of this treaty may work a hardship on some of them as individuals. It may be rather dangerous to establish a precedent that the introduction of new machinery or improved methods should give ground for complaint on the part of those who are injured by such new machinery or improved methods, yet since these things are in the interests of the whole community, I have never been able to see why some little help should not be given during the transition period to the people who are prejudicially affected. The big fishing companies can probably look after themselves, but there are many small fishermen who have through the years invested their all in boats and fishing tackle and it may not be easy for them to accommodate themselves to the new situation. I do not profess to have given sufficient thought to the matter to know how this end might be achieved, but I would urge the government to give some consideration to the case of these men as they may be adversely affected by the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The copy of the minute is as follows:
P. Walker,
Deputy Clerk, Executive Council. Certified copy of a Minute of the Honourable
the Executive Council, approved by His
Honour the Lieutenant-Governor on the 4th
day of April, A.D. 1929.
To His Honour
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council:
The undersigned has the honour to recommend:
That His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor be requested to convey to the government of Canada, through the Secretary of State, the strong sense of satisfaction and gratification felt by the government of this province upon learning of the conclusion in Washington of the Fraser River Salmon Treaty.
Dated this 3rd day of April, A.D. 1929.
"S. L. Howe,"
Provincial Secretary.
Approved this 3rd day of April, A.D. 1929.
"R. W. Bruhn,"
Presiding Member of the Executive Council.
Shortly after this order in council had been passed by the government of British Columbia, the premier of British Columbia gave an interview which appeared in the Vancouver Daily Province of May 23, 1929. It is headed, "Premier Tolmie Issues Statement," and reads:
In a statement issued to-day, Premier Tolmie said:
"According to our views and legal advice received after careful reading of the treaty, there is no provision there which either impliedly, or directly, contains any interference either territorially or in an administrative sense with, or surrender of, Canadian rights. The province was at all times completely represented and fully informed during the negotiations leading to the signing of the treaty with a view to safeguarding provincial rights.
"The Dominion conducted the negotiations, but conferred at all times with the province, which fully approved of, and has repeatedly endorsed the treaty.
"The restoration of the sockeye salmon fisheries of the Fraser river system is one of the greatest reclamation projects in which Canada and the United States can jointly engage, and cannot be consummated except under the terms of such a treaty as the present. The government of British Columbia and, I believe, the whole people of British Columbia desire that parliament ratify this treaty."
That is the treaty as it was when introduced in this house last year and referred to a committee; but it was afterwards withdrawn because of the discussion which took place, and because of the implication-I will put it mildly-which was spread abroad that in some way or another-to make use of words used by Premier Tolmie in referring to the matter -there was an implied surrender of some Canadian interest to the United States. Premier Tolmie made it quite clear that in his

opinion neither impliedly nor directly was this' the case; that his opinion given under legal advice was that it could not be found that the treaty contained any interference either territorially, or in an administrative sense with, or surrender of, Canadian rights.
Changes that have since been made in the treaty have been of relatively minor significance. The treaty itself was for the purpose of appointing an international commission with certain powers which would enable them to make regulations for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon industry. There have been some modifications, and I am free to confess that it is a satisfaction to the government that it has been possible to make modifications even if they serve no other purpose, so far as Canada is concerned, than that of bringing all parties into accord on a great international engagement such as the treaty is.
Possibly for purposes of record I should give to the house what the government understands to be the modifications that have been made. They have been set forth fairly accurately by the hon. member for North Vancouver in his remarks this afternoon, though with an emphasis, perhaps, that accords more with my hon. friend's desires in the matter than with the facts. The significance which he has attached to some of the modifications is, perhaps, greater in his own mind than it is in the minds of others, in the house, who have also given the matter careful study. Be that as it may, I will give the various modifications and leave it to the house and the country to judge for themselves as to the extent to which they are really significant.
The previous treaty did not cover any extraterritorial waters, as up to the time it was entered into no sockeye salmon fishing had taken place in such waters. Last year a number of United States and a few Canadian purse-seiners tried to meet the approaching salmon beyond the three mile limit off the entrance to Juan de Fuca Strait. They were successful. Hence it became obvious that if such waters were not placed under the control of the commission to be appointed under the treaty, their efforts could be nullified by the capture of the fish before they entered the treaty waters. The United States government proposed that these waters should be included, and this was agreed to. Article I has been redrafted accordingly. That, it will be observed, is a change due to representations made by the government of the United States, not a change to be credited to last year's committee or action on the part of any of

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
its members. The feature dealt with had not presented itself for consideration to the committee when it met.
I should perhaps inform the house that while the treaty was withdrawn for the time being in this country, it was also withdrawn by the government of the United States when before the Senate as a result of representations which had been made to Washington on the part of certain interests in the United States; more than one of the modifications that have been made in the treaty have been made at the instance of representations made ito Washington by citizens of that country. The one to which I have just referred is the first.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I correct the right hon. gentleman? When the treaty was withdrawn in Congress, Senator Borah stated that the reason for its being withdrawn was that they had agreed on a reconsideration of the treaty. That was in December.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly they withdrew it for reconsideration, just as we withdrew it to permit of further consideration; but they reconsidered it at the instance of representations with respect to certain features of the treaty made by their own people.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The record does not show that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And it does not 6how either that some hon. gentlemen from British Columbia, members of this house, got into conference with certain American citizens and sought to arrange modifications of this treaty through the avenue of Washington, rather than through the instrumentality of this parliament. That does not appear on the record either, but I believe nevertheless that it is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This parliament would not be the place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the place for Canadians to deal with Canadian legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Canadian government, not the Canadian House of Commons.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely my hon. friend does not think the citizens of this country ought to go to the United States in order to make treaties for Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, the Canadian government, not this house, could deal with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Article II of the previous treaty provided for the appointment of an international commission, consisting of three members from each country to regulate and develop the fishery, and, at the instance of the United States, it specified that one of the United States members would be the Commissioner of Fisheries for that country. The United States now wish this latter provision deleted. This was agreed to, and Article II has been modified accordingly.
This is another modification, not made at the instance of this country in any way, but at the wish of the United States itself to suit the representations that were made to the United States government by its own citizens.	_	. *	,
Article HI of the previous treaty limited the power of the commission in connection with the removal of obstruction to the ascent of salmon, to recommending such to the two governments, but it gave the committee authority to improve conditions for the ascent of salmon. In the discussion last year before the committee it developed that there was some apprehension that under this authority potential water-powers might be interfered with. Hence in the new treaty, the commission's power in this respect is limited to recommending.
It also developed in the discussion before the committee last year that there was apprehension that under this article, should the treaty at any time be terminated, the United States would have a property interest in any works established in Canadian territory by the commission in connection with fish cultural operations. The Department of Justice, however, gave the opinion that in such contingency the United States would not have any legal right, title or interest in any such works. It is also obvious that such a commission could not properly own property, as should the treaty be terminated the commission would immediately cease to exist. Hence the word "acquire" in the fifth line of article 3 of the previous treaty served no useful purpose and has been deleted in the new treaty. It has not been deleted because of some power which the inclusion of the word "acquire" would have given to the United States to exercise any control over our country. The position, in point of fact, remains identically what it was according to the advice which we had at the time and still have from our own Department of Justice.
In order to remove all possible doubt a paragraph has been added to article 8 of the treaty, which provides that the government
2S08
Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

of either country shall acquire and place at the disposition of the commission any land within its territory required for the construction and maintenance of hatcheries, rearing ponds and other such facilities. Any structures erected on said land will continue to vest in the government of the high contracting party by which the land was acquired, at the expiration of the treaty period.
Article 4 of the previous treaty limited the authority of the commission to the period between June 1 and August 20 in each year. Canada's original draft did not limit such power to any season, but it appeared that interests in the state of Washington would not agree to a longer period as they feared other fisheries might be interfered with by the commission. It has been realized, however, that the 50-50 division in the catch provided for by the treaty could not be properly controlled in the limited period, as while the run of sockeye in United States waters is usually over by August 20, it continues later in Canadian waters. The United States' objections have now been overcome, and article 4 of the new treaty gives the commission authority to regulate the sockeye fishery throughout the year. Again the change made has been to meet certain objections not raised by this country but raised by the United States.
Article 5 is not changed in substance, except to make it apply to the whole year.
Article 6 of the previous treaty required that the affirmative vote of two commissioners from each side would be necessary for any fishery regulation. There was no such requirement in connection with the development work in the upper waters. The discussion in the committee last year seemed to indicate that it would have been considered better if this requirement applied to all operations of the commission. This article has been modified accordingly. That is one change that has been made, though whether if the treaty had been left as it was the consequences in any particular would have been different is, I think, veiy much open to question.
Article 7 is not changed.
Article 8 is modified so as to provide for proper legislation to cover extraterritorial fishing, and also as explained under article 5. The latter part of the former article 8 is covered by article 10 of the new treaty.
Article 9 is new. It provides for the control of fishing in extraterritorial waters.
Article 11 does not differ from article 9 of the previous treaty.
Now, those are the changes, and as I say, anyone reading them will see they are quite 
minor changes considered in relation to the significance of the treaty as originally drafted and as originally introduced. However, let me say again, if it is going to relieve any of our friends from British Columbia of a certain embarrassment which they have experienced as a result of their attitude taken last session, why, the government is all the happier on that account.
My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) spoke of the possible temporary injurious effect the treaty might have on some of the fishermen engaged in that industry. The underlying purpose of the treaty is to help the fishermen. Whatever will help the industry will help the fishermen in the long run. My hon. friend has been kind enough to say that this treaty was for the benefit of Canada as a whole. May I say that while that is true, the treaty is essentially and immediately for the benefit of the province of British Columbia. The whole area within which this commission will operate will be in the province of British Columbia; to the extent to which the province will benefit by the treaty, and I think it will greatly benefit, to that extent the Dominion as a whole will benefit.
Might I suggest to my hon. friend that when he goes back to British Columbia he might make to the head of the government there, who is one of his own political faith, the representations which he has been good enough to make in this house this afternoon as to caring for the fisherman who may be affected by any temporaiy changes which may result from the enforcement of the treaty. I think that would be the appropriate government to which to make his appeal, and I shall be greatly surprised if he does not find Premier Tolmie sympathetic, and prepared to meet any situation that may arise from the cause indicated.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does that mean that
this government would not do anything to assist these fishermen if they were found-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This government has done everything in securing the treaty, and is doing everything in securing its enactment and providing for its enforcement. If when the treaty is in force representations are made to this government as to effects of its operation, those representations will certainly be considered on their merits.
May I say one further word in regard to one matter mentioned by my hon. friend from Vancouver North (Mr. McRae)? He spoke of the difficult problem which the commission

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
will have in carrying out the duties assigned to it under the treaty, and he expressed the hope that all parties would unite in giving the commission the support it should have. I heartily join with him in that appeal. I think it will be recognized that the treaty is for the purpose of preserving a great industry, one of the real assets of our Dominion, and without question the commission will have to be firm and strong in discharging the functions assigned to it. Certainly so far as the present administration is concerned, and so far as the party to which those of us on this side of the house belong is concerned, I think I can speak in the name of both, every effort will be made to strengthen the hands of the commission in the task which it undertakes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Before the Prime Minister takes his seat, would he be good enough to give an assurance that this government will not encourage the use of fish traps ip Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must thank
my hon. friend for his implied compliment of assuming that the government will be returned to office. I assure him that such being the case, we will do all in our power not to disappoint him in regard to any feature of the administration of this treaty.


William Garland McQuarrie: That does not answer my question at all, Mr. Chairman. As to the result of this election, of course that is for the people to say. I have one idea of what they will say, and the Prime Minister has another. I do not think, however, it is asking too much to suggest that a statement should be made in regard to the policy of the government as to fish traps.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have made a statement.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I rise to express regret that the Prime Minister, as the Minister of External Affairs, should have been disposed to view an international treaty in this way. The hon. gentleman has viewed it from a partisan standpoint.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What nonsense.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Prime Minister says no. The fact however is quite evident to those of us who know what has been going on. We can read between the lines of ithe remarks of the Prime Minister, and when we view some of his remarks which have appeared in type and consider the care with which they were recorded, it is clear to anyone who can read and can understand that the intention of those remarks and those recorded documents was of a partisan political nature.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that the remarks I recorded were from a statement handed to me by an officer of the department in response to a request to be advised as to the exact nature of the change. It was not a statement prepared by myself, and I never had a look at it until it was placed in my hands, and since then it has undergone no change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the Doctor Tolmie letter my hon. friend was talking about.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Prime Minister may not have prepared it himself, but the intended effect of the statement was to be entirely political and to affect the next election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The statement was to give the house exact information as to the modifications of the treaty, and in giving that information I merely complied with my duty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is talking about Doctor Tolmie's letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The letter speaks for itself; it is an expression of his beliefs from the Premier of British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About another treaty altogether.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: About the previous treaty, which the present one so completely reproduces.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The Prime Minister has stated that the differences between the treaties were of minor importance, but he takes great care to expand the degree of difference which exists with respect to every particular clause. Speaking for the members on this side of the house I want to say that their sentiments and desire were to view the clauses of the treaty between Canada and the United States in the interests of Canada, and to safeguard the great industry concerned. Had we been in a state of animated disturbance like my good friend the Minister of National Health (Mr. King), during his speech between last year and this year we might have developed the subject matter of the treaty distinctly along partisan lines. That, however, was not the intention of hon. members on this side of the house. The idea was to produce a sound treaty, and the fact that modifications have been made is indicative that changes were necessary. The fact that the Prime Minister was willing to let the treaty stand last year and bring it up this year during the last days of the session is indicative of the fact that he could not have had a full faith in the soundness of the treaty last year. Perhaps
Cockeye Salmon Fisheries

I should not put it that way, but I may say that at least he must have been satisfied that it could not have been put through last year. I regret the position taken by ithe Prime Minister when he uses this treaty to develop a bias of political partisanship where circumstances did not require and did not warrant such action. After all we are concerned with a public question highly important in international affairs and with the working out of the ideas contained in the treaty. It 'has constructive features and its operation might be beneficial to Canada as a whole, in which we as citizens and members of parliament are interested.
I commend the treaty; I believe the principles involved in both the treaties of last year and this year were sound, and that good will be the result. I reflect the suggestions made by some other hon. members that wisdom, discretion and care should be exercised in the presentation of our case to the commission, because we will not only be faced with important and difficult problems but we will be met by the best brains of the United States.
Section agreed: to.
On section 2-Inconsistent legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The manner of approach in dealing with international problems is of first-rate importance. When I read from Hansard of last year as to the manner in which we approached this problem, and contrast it with the observations made by the Minister of National Health and to a lesser degree the right hon. the Prime Minister, I am perfectly content that it be left to the public to judge as to whether we on this side of the house have approached this matter in a spirit of narrow partisanship. I have been attacked with great ferocity by one of the newspaper organs of the hon. gentleman opposite, the Vancouver Sun, for the position which I took last year in connection with the treaty. The treaty submitted last year has vanished, and another has taken its place; the treaty submitted last year was never discussed in this house. It was referred to a committee and in that committee it was discussed, the evidence was taken down and is recorded as a matter of history in the proceedings of this parliament. In view of what took place in the committee the right hon. the Prime Minister withdrew the treaty.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General
says no.


Lucien Cannon: I never said anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If hon. members will
look at Hansard


Lucien Cannon: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I did not say anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the Solicitor
General; some one else said it, but I thought it was he. It must have been someone sitting beside him. Appearances are sometimes deceptive and remarks do not always indicate with the greatest degree of certainty the individual who made them. On that occasion I think the Prime Minister took a very proper course. He said that he had taken such action for the purpose of enabling the matter to foe further considered. Hansard reports his remarks as follows:
We believe that it would be in the best interests of all people interested that it should be withdrawn because of the attitude expressed in the committee by some of the members from British Columbia-
At that time the right hon. gentleman read into the record telegrams which had passed between the 'premier of British Columbia and himself. The position which I took at that time is reported as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I think the conclusion at which the right hon. gentleman has arrived is a sound one in the premises. I do not know that that will strengthen his own opinion, but at least that is my view.
Then I made the following observations: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as we who sit to your left are concerned, with respect to all matters dealing with international relations we approach them in a spirit entirely non-political, or at least we endeavour to do so. It is with us not a question of Liberal or Conservative, not a question of the opposition or the government. I think we are all agreed that a satisfactory treaty is desirable. In view of the fact that the propagation of soekeye salmon takes place in the province of British Columbia and thiat the larger number of the salmon has heretofore been caught in American waters, it becomes of great importance that we should, if possible, arrive at some arrangement with our neighbours. A satisfactory treaty is therefore not only desirable, but is necessary for the preservation of the industry and the making available for food of this very valuable fish. But that a treaty is desirable does not make it imperative for a public man to accept as the last word any treaty that has been submitted; and there are acute divisions of opinions as to the desirability of this particular treaty. Some of the terois of the treaty are found upon analysis to be most undesirable from a national viewpoint.
The right hon. the Prime Minister made further observations, during which he read a telegram from the British Columbia Packers, Limited, and in the end I said:
Under these circumstances I congratulate the Prime Minister upon taking the course he has, which I think is in the public interest, wholly

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
devoid of any political consideration, and which will enable the public, by careful study and research, to ascertain fully what is involved in this treaty at this time. In that attitude vie approach the solution of the problem, and not in any narrow party sense.
The hon. Minister of Public Health has referred to the fact that there were differences between the federal party in this house known as the official opposition and the Conservative government of the province of British Columbia. There is no doubt about the fact that the government of British Columbia expressed its approval of the treaty in formal terms, and that the premier of that province was most anxious that it should be adopted. After parliament had prorogued I ventured to point out to him certain considerations which I thought should influence his judgment, to which his attention had not been directed at that time. Those matters were considered by him. In December last, in consequence of considerations, as the right hon. gentleman says, which appeared to the American Senate to be good, the treaty was withdrawn from the Senate where it had been sent for ratification. It will be remembered that when we were sitting here last year, on June 4, 1929, it was thought that the American Senate might decline to ratify or approve the treaty, but at any rate the treaty was withdrawn in December last from the Senate and thereupon a successful effort was made to negotiate a new treaty, which is the document now before the house.
May I point out that so far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, doubtless members of this house have seen an interview given by Premier Tolmie in which he stated that he had sent a telegram to me asking me to communicate with the Prime Minister before the treaty was signed, and make such suggestions as I thought desirable. I am bound to say that the attitude of the right hon. gentleman was one of great frankness. He received my expressions of opinion with great courtesy and I shall presently point out that I think the substance of the few suggestions I did make have been accepted. I certainly did not approach the right hon. gentleman at the instance of the premier of British Columbia in any party sense, and I am bound to say that he did not consider the observations I made in any party sense either. He thanked me for what I had said to him and I thanked him for the opportunity he afforded me to present the views which I held. More than that, he was good enough to indicate in a general sense what the contemplated treaty was, and the matter ended.
Now, the treaty that is submitted for ratification to-day in my judgment is being submitted in the form in which such an instrument should come before this house. Last year I pointed out that instead of a mere resolution being submitted it was the better opinion of the authorities, especially of Professor McNair of Cambridge University, who edited the last edition of Professor Oppen-heimer's book on international law, that any treaty which involved a charge upon the revenues of the country should be submitted to parliament by bill and not by resolution. When the right hon. gentleman the other day stated that he proposed to submit the treaty for the approval of this house by bill, I thought then and still think that he and the government are to be congratulated for having accepted not my opinion only but the opinion expressed by Professor McNair and the leading authorities as to the way in which a treaty should be considered by a parliament when it is desired to ratify it.
Now let us ask just a few questions with respect to the treaty, and in no narrow sense. The Minister of National Health apparently has not read the treaty with the care one would expect. There are certain very well defined changes between the document now submitted for ratification and the document which was before the house last year. One of the most essential matters, and the really essential matter about which a great deal of opposition was raised last year in the committee, was this: We did believe and held the view very strongly that it was not desirable that the commission should acquire property or purchase real estate. I stated my reasons with great frankness. This treaty meets that difficulty, and in my judgment meets it in a manner that should commend itself to every thoughtful Canadian. The concluding paragraph of article 8 is as follows:
Each high contracting party shall acquire and place at the disposition of the commission any land within its territory required for the construction and maintenance of hatcheries, rearing ponds and other such facilities as set forth in article III.
In my judgment that is the correct method under which an international commission should operate when dealing with problems which affect both parties. Instead of asking an international commission to acquire the property we say that the respective governments will acquire the property for the use of the commission, and what is the benefit of that? I think the benefit was acknowledged and admirably expressed by the reference made by the right hon. Prime Minister to the legal
2S12
Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

result that follows at the expiration or termination of the treaty. If the high contracting parties own the property, obviously any improvements made upon the property so owned will inure to the benefit of the party who owns the property, thereby relieving us of any difficulty as to whether or not the commission should own property upon which joint moneys have been expended; because it is contemplated that moneys will be expended alike by the United States and the Dominion of Canada and, that money being so expended upon the property of each of the nationals, it follows that the improvements so placed will become the property of the national that owns the land in question. Instead of the commission owning the land, as was contemplated last year, we now have the government acquiring the land for the use of the commission, thereby removing from the treaty one point about which we made the strongest possible statements in the committee, of which I was not a member, but when I say "we" I mean our friends.
That there was another point about which-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend leaves the point on which he has been touching, I assume he recognizes that the advice given by the Department of Justice with respect to the significance of the word "acquire" was correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That it did not mean anything?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That nothing further has been secured under this present treaty with respect to the point which my hon. friend has raised. The Department of Justice contends we would have been in the same position under the treaty as it formerly existed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I entirely differ; I think the right hon. gentleman has adopted the correct course by providing that the land does not belong to the commission but to the governments which acquire it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of Justice held that under the former treaty that result would follow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the distinction, in my judgment, is that the whole problem has been removed from the realm of doubt and now becomes a matter of certainty. In the one instance you say the government owns the property and in the other instance you said the commission owned the property, and it would be a fruitful source of difficulty if, after the expiration of the treaty, one of the con-
tracting parties should say "We have spent large sums of money upon this particular area of land that belongs to the commission, and we claim it to be ours." You have no longer left it in the realm of conjecture and doubt but have removed it from that realm and made it certain that the commission does not acquire or own the property but that the respective governments purchase and acquire the property for the use of the commission. It follows as an implication of law that any improvements made upon the land so acquired by either national or by anyone else shall inure to and become the property of the party who owns the land. That, it seems to me, is highly desirable, and I congratulate the government upon having made that change in the treaty, which I consider to be of the utmost importance.
The other point is one to which too much importance cannot be attached, namely, that there shall be two members representing each of the parties affected voting on any particular question before it can be resolved at all, either favourably or unfavourably. In other words, instead of leaving it to three members of the commission from Canada, with one American commissioner, to determine a question, there must be at least two members from the United States voting affirmatively with two from Canada before there can be any final action taken. Last year such determination as I have indicated was limited in its operation. It is now applied to every feature of the treaty, and I think no thoughtful Canadian will but agree that this is highly desirable.
Then there was the question of obstructions in the river. One of the questions which we did endeavour to press in the committee was that the Fraser river ultimately would become useful for the development of a great volume of hydro electric power and that we would have grave difficulties if we gave a commission composed of three foreigners and three Canadians the power to remove obstructions in that river. That power now has been taken from the commission. All the commission can do is to recommend to the national authority, namely the government of the country, the desirability of removing the obstructions and the respective governments of the countries assume the duty. Every Canadian desirous of maintaining friendly relations with a nearby country will rejoice in this possible source of difficulty having been removed. Instead of the commission being charged with the power to remove obstructions, such removal can be made only by the government of the country upon the recommendations of the

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
2S13
commission, thereby leaving the exercise of discretion to the government of the country whose territory may be affected. If there is any hon. member of this house who does not think that that is a distinct advantage, then I am sure he is not present this afternoon.
One other matter was referred to by the Minister of National Health (Mr. King), and one which could not have arisen had it not been that this treaty was rejected last year. That delay of nearly a year has been in the interests of Canada and I think of the United States as well. There are three distinct areas of water affected:	First, the fresh water of
the Fraser river; second, the coastal waters of both the United States and Canada, and third, the open sea-the Spanish banks. The jurisdiction of Canada and the United States over the last named body of water is, of course, no greater than the rights of other people. In other words, the Scandinavians may utilize those waters just as freely as do the fishing boats from Canada or the United States. The treaty gives us the privilege of police jurisdiction over our own nationals and in the exercise of that police power we can make certain that when other nations utilize these fishing banks the catch, which can be landed only in the United States or Canada, would be considered as contraband-using the word in the broadest sense-and would not be permitted to be landed. In that way the police jurisdiction would have affected the purpose intended. To remove the possibility of a difference in that regard, the language of the treaty has been modelled upon that of other treaties, and such offending vessels would be delivered to their own nationals to be dealt with according to the law of the country concerned.
I think we can approach this matter with a great deal of satisfaction, not only because the treaty is better in every sense but because it has made it more difficult for, shall I say, differences to arise between the United States authorities and our own. That is a consideration of the first importance, that the sources or possibilities of differences should be removed. I submit that the present treaty does that to a much greater extent than did the treaty submitted last year. In view of the attacks which have been so unjustly made by those who apparently do not know anything about the treaty, it can be said with pride that because of the treaty having been withdrawn last year by this government, and withdrawn by the American senate in December, a new treaty has been negotiated which removes from the field of international difficulties many causes which undoubtedly would
be a source of friction in the administration of the treaty. That being so, it affords me a great deal of pleasure, in view of the opportunity I had to make suggestions to the right hon. the Prime Minister and the sense in which he received them, although somewhat at variance with the observations made to-day, to commend the government for having negotiated this treaty. I express the hope that it will be ratified by the senate of the United States at the earliest possible moment.
I agree with the observations which have been made as to the desirability of the best possible commissioners being appointed. I trust that political considerations will not influence the government in the appointment of these commissioners. The United States government has been very careful in dealing with another treaty not to permit political considerations to influence appointments, and I hope that will be the case with this treaty. If that spirit is observed in the appointment of the commissioners, we will do a great deal to bring to its full fruitfulness one of the most important and valuable industries on the Pacific coast.
It is true that the fish are spawned in Canada ; it is true that they go out to sea, and it is true that when they come back fit for human food and seek again their original habitat, they pass by the territory of the United States, so that if great care were not exercised practically the whole catch would be made by them. This treaty provides that the catch shall be divided equally between the two countries, but therein lies one of the remaining sources of difficulty. How that matter will be worked out depends upon the common sense, good judgment and skill of the commissioners who it is hoped will exercise their judgment calmly, their power firmly, and their authority with discretion. When that is done I am sure that Canadians will rejoice that we have been able to secure more of the catch than has been the case heretofore, although it is clear that by reason of the fish having their birth in our country we should be entitled to at least one half.
I deprecate the efforts made by my hon. friend the Minister of National Health, and in a lesser degree by the Prime Minister, to suggest that there is a division of opinion between the premier of British Columbia and myself. They hoped, for reasons which are most obvious, to be able to capitalize that, but I hasten to assure both hon. gentlemen that any efforts they make in that regard will be fruitless and unavailing and that at the appropriate moment forces over which they have no control will be found to be allied in the
Maple Sugar Industry

future, as they have been in the past, with the party with which I am associated, for the purpose of maintaining its principles and securing a decisive victory at the polls.


Ernest Lapointe: That looks like politics.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am answering the hon. gentleman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 59, respecting the maple sugar industry.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister if the committee was unanimous in its consideration of this bill.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: With the exception of Clause 6, to which an amendment will be offered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Violation of provision.
Edward Joseph Garland: In connection with this bill, may I ask the minister whether all the changes proposed by the committee in regard to the different sections are now in the amended bill?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Use of certain substances prohibited.
William Richard Motherwell: The differences that have existed with regard to section 6 have been harmonized in an amendment which I beg to move as follows:
6. All articles of food other than maple sugar or maple syrup offered for sale and having a maple flavour not produced by the use of maple syrup or maple sugar must be plainly marked as containing imitation maple flavour, and in the case of public eating places where articles of food so flavoured are offered the menu or bill of fare must state that the flavouring used is imitation maple flavour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the hon. gentleman think that is intra vires of this parliament? I have had only a moment to look at the amendment, but the Minister of Justice will remember that under the egg grading statute a conviction was quashed on the ground that the section in question was within the jurisdiction of the province and not the Dominion. I have not had time to consider this, but I presume the minister has done so and is satisfied that it is intra vires.


Ernest Lapointe: The department has
done so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One instance that has just crossed my mind is that of walnut maple ice cream; 'how is one going to put on a menu "imitation flavour walnut maple ice cream"? Are we not interfering with provincial matters in dealing with menus in eating places? I have grave doubts on this point.


William Richard Motherwell: We endeavoured to safeguard it in every possible manner.


George Halsey Perley: How much supervision is it intended to exercise over the people who produce the maple sap in the first instance?


William Richard Motherwell: We shall come to that a few sections further on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 7 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On section 14.-Certificates of official analyst to be evidence.
Edward Joseph Garland: I simply wish to draw the attention of t'he committee to the fact that this bill was contentious from beginning to end because of its particularly restrictive character. The members of the committee, however, in order to secure some sort of unanimity, compromised on many of the clauses. The discussion was fairly full, but there still remains some consideration of the principle, if you like, of the bill itself, and especially of the power that is to be given to the inspectors. Under the bill they are empowered to enter and inspect at will, apparently of their own volition. I do not see in the bill any clause compelling the inspector to have grounds to suspect a violation before he may enter upon premises such as a railway car, a ship, a restaurant, an hotel or anything else Surely there should be in the bill some provision that the inspector must have at least grounds to suspect that something is wrong This clause provides simply that he may enter at will.

2S15
Maple Sugar Industry


William Richard Motherwell: I think clause 8
gives that power.


Edward Joseph Garland: Clause 8
reads:
Any inspector charged with the enforcement of this act shall be empowered-
(1) to enter at will and inspect any or all buildings of whatsoever character in connection with any manufacturing or packing plant, sugar camp or sugar orchard, and take samples of the maple products or any other products found therein, and to enter hotels, restaurants, retail or wholesale stores or warehouses and railway cars, trucks, boats or other conveyances where maple products or products resembling maple products are being manufactured or offered for sale or being carried or held for carriage,-
And so forth.


William Richard Motherwell: Does my hon. friend think that is too much power? It is usual to have it.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
meant by "at will"?


Mr. BROWN:: It should be noted that
the words "at will" apply only to manufacturing or packing plants, and not to hotels and restaurants.


Edward Joseph Garland: I cannot
for the life of me see where any differentiation can be made. The opening clause reads: "to enter at will" and the same clause continues to read "to enter." A lawyer can perhaps make the fine distinction.


Ernest Lapointe: The words "at will"
apply only to the first five lines. The meaning stops before "and to enter hotels."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Regulations.
George Reginald Geary: It looks as if we are going
to be so regulated and inspected that by and by we shall have no time to do anything but to be regulated and inspected.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17, 18 and 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Commencement of act.
George Halsey Perley: Would the minister tell me what clause covers the extent of the supervision the department intends to exercise over the farmers and others who actually produce the maple sap?


William Richard Motherwell: Clause 10, dealing
with manufacturing plants under paragraphs
(d)	and (e).


George Halsey Perley: That provides
that all the minister can do is to have a sugar bush registered.


William Richard Motherwell: If it is registered,
it is subject to inspection. We must have some supervision over the sugar bushes and the places in which the article is manufactured, so as to be sure that they are reasonably sanitary.


George Halsey Perley: All that this says is that the minister may require the sugar bush or sugar orchard to be licensed.


William Richard Motherwell: Then they will be
subject to inspection.


George Halsey Perley: Where does the
act give that power?


William Richard Motherwell: In section 8, and
then under section 16 we have authority to draft regulations consistent with the act prescribing the duties of inspectors.


George Halsey Perley: No one realizes
the importance of the maple syrup industry more than I do. I quite agree with the object of this bill to prevent spurious imitations of the genuine products, but when it comes to inspecting and regulating these little camps all over the country where the sap is being produced, I do not think it can be done satisfactorily. It is all very well to inspect large manufacturing establishments, but there are little places all over the country where maple sap is being produced, sometimes in very small quantities, and it seems to me that the minister is undertaking more than he can handle.


William Richard Motherwell: We do not anticipate that it will be necessary to visit and inspect all these little camps, but when we receive reports of insanitary conditions or of adulteration being practised in any of these sugar camps, we will make an inspection. My hon. friend will note the procedure set out in section 10(a) and 10(b).


Mr. PECK:: I had not previously had an
opportunity to read through the act, but I notice that in the definitions it is stated that maple syrup may not contain more than 35 per cent of water, and a gallon of maple syrup shall weigh not less than thirteen pounds, two ounces, and shall contain 277-274 cubic inches. Then section 4 says:
Any person who sells or offers, exposes or holds in possession for sale in Canada, or ships or causes to be shipped any maple sugar or maple syrup found to be adulterated or to fail to comply with the provisions of this act or of the regulations thereunder, shall be deemed to be guilty of a violation of this act.
2S16
Maple Sugar Industry

If the owner of a sugar bush produces a certain * amount of syrup and it does not contain the exact weight prescribed by this act, he is subject to a penalty of $300. I think that is going a great deal too far, I would like to know whether my understanding of the act is right or wrong.


William Richard Motherwell: He must bring the quality up to the required standard. This business has been exploited by various institutions for a great many years, and this is the first attempt that has been made to regulate the industry. The restrictions have to be of such a nature that they will eliminate the abuses and protect the genuine article. That is the object of this bill. There must be some provision regarding the quality of the product.


Edward Armour Peck: How are these people going
to tell whether the syrup they produce complies exactly with the provisions of this act or not? How are they going to test their product?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand that there will be no difficulty about it. Scientists have discovered ways of testing it.


George Halsey Perley: I am very
anxious that nothing but the real article should be sold as maple sugar or maple syrup, and so far as the manufacturing plants are concerned, the provisions are all right, but when it comes to regulating and inspecting all the little places where the original maple sap is produced, I would warn the minister to go very slowly. I think it is absolutely impossible for him to inspect these places all over the country.


Ernest Lapointe: What would the hon.
member suggest to secure the purpose that he himself says is desirable?


George Halsey Perley: I am in favour
of this bill but I would warn the minister against interfering with those who actually produce the original article.


William Richard Motherwell: We will go gently. We are always lenient at the start in connection with all these restrictive measures.


George Halsey Perley: I can understand that the large producers want this legislation. But the adulteration very seldom takes place where the sap is produced. It takes place afterwards, and again I warn the minister against attempting to regulate the places where the sap is produced in the first instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I direct the attention of the Solicitor General to sections 16 and 17, whereby the minister is empowered once more to make regulations and promulgate them. Those who violate them are liable to be fined $300, and to be sent to gaol if they do not pay the fine. Surely we should have the regulations published in the Gazette before they become operative.


William Richard Motherwell: They will be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Naturally, but I am
talking about notice being given. The Solicitor General was good enough the other evening to accept my suggestion with respect to another bill.


William Richard Motherwell: All these regulations are published in the Gazette.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But I want it stated in the statute that the regulations shall only become effective so many days after they are published, so that men will not be violating the law unknowingly. I have not prepared a clause, but the Solicitor General knows the sort of clause that I think should be added here.


Robert James Manion: How many inspectors of various kinds has the department appointed since the present minister took charge of the department? Has he any idea?


William Richard Motherwell: No more than were absolutely necessary. These inspectors will come under the Fruit branch.


Robert James Manion: It is a question whether all the appointments were absolutely necessary or not. Year after year, ever since the minister has been minister, he has been appointing inspectors. There has never been a year when he has not had three or four bills to appoint inspectors of one thing or another. This year, owing to his health not being very good, we have escaped bills of that nature until the very end of the session. Of course,
I am very glad to see that the minister's health is better, as we all are. Can he tell the committee how many inspectors he has appointed since he became Minister of Agriculture?


William Richard Motherwell: If the hon. member will ask for a return, I will try and get the information.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid that if I did the next government would have to bring it down.


Mr. KAISER:: Have we had any inspectors on this particular job before?

Maple Sugar Industry


William Richard Motherwell: So far as possible the present fruit inspectional staff will take care of this work. It may require one or two more inspectors; I do not know. It will come under the fruit commissioner, whose inspectional staff already looks after two or three different classes of commodities. We are now adding maple sugar to them.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This is essentially a question of the adulteration of food, and how does it happen to fall to the Minister of Agriculture to administer an act that should be administered by the Department of National Health?


William Richard Motherwell: When we get cases of adulteration of food, we submit them to the Department of National Health for analysis.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Is there any
recognized organization of producers of this product in the province of Ontario?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I know
of in Ontario.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then the minister has no official representations from the producer in Ontario with respect to the subject matter of this bill. Is there an oganization of that nature in Quebec?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, sir.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And have they
made representations asking for legislation of this kind?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me
that the troubles in the past have come, not from the producer but from those who purchase the product and then manipulate, adulterate and misrepresent it to the public. This legislation, I think, bears too severely on the producers.


William Richard Motherwell: I think not. My
hon. friend will notice that there is not even any fee charged.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not a matter of fee; the financial end of it is all right. But the farmer with a hundred trees in his bush must apply to the minister for a licence before he can make or sell his product.


William Richard Motherwell: If he exports or
sells it in interprovincial trade, but not otherwise.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If he sells to a
man who is going to export it, he will have to live up to these conditions. So the effect of 2419-178
this bill goes right back to the producer. He will have to comply with its provisions, otherwise his prospective purchaser will not take the product.


Mr. BROAVN:: He would not take it anyway if he did not consider it came up to the proper standard.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But the intending purchaser has the opportunity of inspecting the product. That gets me back to the point that the troubles in the past have not been with the producer at all but with the purchaser who manipulates and adulterates the product. Yet you are imposing on the producer handicaps and restrictions that are going to be very grievous and I think you will hear from those affected.


William Richard Motherwell: We will have to
suffer, but they will not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
the minister will have to suffer at all.


William Richard Motherwell: If we put through
any foolish legislation we will naturally suffer.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You have always a chance to change it as you did the New Zealand treaty.


Edward Armour Peck: Section 4 provides that any
person who sells or offers, exposes or holds in possession for sale in Canada maple sugar or maple syrup not complying with the standards prescribed by this bill shall be deemed to be guilty of a violation of the act. Any small farmer with a few gallons of maple syrup is forbidden to sell it unless it stands the test set out in the bill. How is the small producer going to test his syrup by these standards?


William Richard Motherwell: I understand there is a little instrument in use called a densimeter that registers the density of the syrup.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister's
deputy say that every producer has one of these densimeters?


William Richard Motherwell: No, but every considerable one has.


Mr. TUMMON:: How far does that go
"every considerable one"? A farmer with fifty trees may make a certain amount of syrup for his own use and sell a few gallons to a neighbour or to a town nearby, and he will be subject to these regulations.


Mr. COTNAM:: Are the small producers to be subject to all these regulations?

Maple Sugar Industry


Mr MOTHERWELL:: I think the complaint is that the owners of small sugar bushes will not be able to get 'the proper analysis of their syrup in order to protect themselves. As far as that is concerned, under the regulations of the Department of Public Health sugars have to be of a certain quality to comply with the food laws. There is no change in that respect whatever.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: But the reference is to the small producer Who makes sixty or seventy gallons of maple syrup, uses a small quantity for himself and sells the surplus. Are all these regulations to be inflicted on him?


William Richard Motherwell: Has my hon. friend any suggestion to make superior to this? We have been working on this bill for two or three years before the agricultural committee, but we are still open to suggestions.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Could the minister give us some idea of the number of inspectors he will require?


William Richard Motherwell: We will need only three or four in addition to the fruit inspectors that we already have.


William Ernest Tummon: I may be living alongside another farmer who taps a hundred trees in the spring. He makes four or five gallons of maple syrup more than he needs for his own use. Could he sell that surplus to me or to another neighbour without coming under this bill?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Suppose we go a little further, suppose the farmer brings his surplus maple syrup to a neighbouring market, will he be subject to these regulations?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Do you not think that is going to work a hardship?


Lucien Cannon: They have to sell pure syrup anyway.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: They are selling pure
syrup.


Lucien Cannon: Then they will not be bothered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Rodolphe Lemieux: When shall said bill be read a third time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now.
Mr. MOTHERWELL moved the third reading of the bill.
fMr. Cotnam.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, an effort will be made in another place to ensure that the regulations do not become effective until the expiration of some days at least after they have been promulgated in the Canada Gazette.


Lucien Cannon: I assure my hon. friend that that will be looked after.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. LUCIEiN CANNON (Solicitor General) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, to amend the Representation Act.
He said: Before the house decides whether or not we should go into committee I wish to point out to the house that it is the intention of the government when we reach the committee stage to delete from the bill as it now stands sections 1, 2 and 3. and in connection with section 4 we would leave the first paragraph and delete the remainder. In explanation may I say that we would like to pass the bill now, taking from it anything in connection with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but giving the Dominion franchise to the people who inhabit the mining area in the territory of Patricia, and that that mining area, which is wholly within the province of Ontario and the citizens of which vote at provincial elections, would be entitled to vote at Dominion elections in the district of Ivenora-Rainy River. The other sections of Patricia would be left as they are at the present time. That is they would not be attached or annexed to the adjoining constituencies, because I understand that there the population is not very considerable. We will attach the one section to Kenora-Rainy River because it is a mining area where several hundred electors, who vote at provincial elections, live, and we would like to give them the same privilege for the federal election.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, a more
barefaced, iniquitous piece of political legislation has never been placed before this House oi Commons in the dying hours of a session; never. No part of the province of Ontario exists which is not within an electoral district at this moment. The object of this legislation is to take from one electoral district a small area and give it to another for the benefit of the Minister of Labour, because there were a few votes given in favour of a candidate whom he supported at the last provincial election.

Representation Act


Lucien Cannon: Surely my hon. friend
wishes to be fair. This territory of Patricia is not within any constituency, and it is actually unorganized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Part of it is.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend says that
I want to take a section which is in one constituency and attach it to another.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: This territory is unorganized and the proposed legislation does not amount to bold robbery. I explained frankly to my hon. friend what we intend to do. Our object is to give the franchise to people who live there, and to people who want to have it. There is no robbery in that.


Ernest Lapointe: They will not vote anyway.


Lucien Cannon: The provincial government gives them a franchise. Why should we deny them what the Ferguson government gives them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point is that the
Northwest Territories of Canada have been given representation in this house only with regard to that part which constitutes the district of Yukon, and no other part.


Lucien Cannon: But this is in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will come to that. A
portion of this territory-


Ernest Lapointe: It is provincial territory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
The Northwest Territories are without any province; this district is within a province, and every part of the province belongs to an electoral district.


Lucien Cannon: No, not if it is unorganized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not matter
whether it is organized or not.


Lucien Cannon: It certainly does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no part of the province of Ontario which is not within an electoral district.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, certainly, Patricia is
not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no part of the province of Ontario under the constitution which is not within an electoral district.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend say whether those people are entitled to a vote?
2419-178J


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely the Minister of
Justice knows that the province of Ontario is divided into 82 electoral districts; every acre of land in Ontario is comprised in those districts.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is
right this is absolutely unnecessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: But I think he is wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let it stand, then.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will drop it.


Ernest Lapointe: Where is the political
iniquity, if they already have the right to vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The political iniquity would be in taking from one constituency-


Lucien Cannon: We know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every part of Ontario is in some constituency.


Lucien Cannon: Surely my hon. friend is
not serious.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Solicitor General
knows very well that the constitution of this country provides that the province of Quebec shall have 65 members in the federal house, and under the constitutional arrangement the province of Ontario has 82. My hon. friend did not look into the Representation Act. I have investigated this matter with extraordinary care, but not in connection with this particular bill. The map clearly shows, and the Representation Act makes it clear, that no part of the province can be excluded from some electoral district. That is the position in respect to it.


Lucien Cannon: In view of the stand
taken by the leader of the opposition, although I do not admit that this bill represents anything of an inquitous nature, I am satisfied that it should be dropped. Apparently the hon. gentleman considers that this is a contentious measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I certainly do.


Lucien Cannon: In view of that fact the
government is satisfied to drop it.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend is
right all those people will vote somewhere.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the pleasure of the
house that the hon. member have leave to withdraw the bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped.
Motion withdrawn.
Business of the Home



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, there are
some bills on the order paper which, as I said last night, are likely to be contentious, and with them we shall not proceed. It was thought that when the Solicitor General had made an explanation in connection with the last bill there might be no objection. However, as strong objection has been taken, the bill has been dropped. I am advised also that there will be some contention in regard to item No. 12 on the order paper respecting Bill No. 56, an Act to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act. Under the circumstances I ask for the consent of this house to have this bill also dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that the only point raised the other day was as to whether or not the provinces affected had expressed their desire that this legislation should be passed. I am advised that officials in one of the provinces thought it should not be, and as a result the minister is in doubt as to whether he should proceed with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My purpose
is to shorten as much as possible the present proceedings.
I direct the attention of the house to item No. 15, under government orders, the second reading of Bill No. 36, an act to amend the Government Harbours and Piers Act. I have been told that this bill may occasion controversy, and I ask for unanimous consent to drop it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped.
M. MACKENZIE KING:	I direct the
attention of the house to item No. 16, under government orders, the second reading of Bill No. 37, an act to amend the Copyright Act. This is a cumbersome piece of legislation and is contentious in many respects. If my hon. friends will agree, it also will be dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite agreeable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have only
one other matter before me; I refer to item No. 17 on the order paper, a resolution respecting the Government Employees Compensation Act. I am told that there is likely to be some controversy in connection with this resolution, and it had better therefore be left over for another session. In the cir-custances I ask for permission to drop it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not informed as to the details of this resolution, but I assume the statement of the Prime Minister is correct.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Dropped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would suggest that the house do now go into committee of supply. At this point, I think I should say a word to the house with respect to the present position of the order paper. We have now completely cleared the order paper of all business except what remains of supply to be voted. It is true that there is still a considerable amount of supply to be considered, and I realize hon. gentlemen opposite are anxious that no supply should be granted that should not be granted and that they should have ample opportunity to discuss the different items. Every facility has been offered by members on all sides towards enabling the government to reach the point where it may be possible to prorogue not later than to-morrow night. I realize that if we are to prorogue not later than to-morrow night there will have to be some further and final agreement between members in all parts of the house to make that possible. What I am now about to say is with the object of enabling every hon. member to see the situation as it actually is, with its important bearing on present and future matters which will have to be very carefully considered.
First of all, I have heard to-day from different sources that there was a rumour abroad that the government intended, if we did not complete supply by to-morrow evening, to ask His Excellency to dissolve parliament notwithstanding.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think anyone
took that seriously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was going
to say that if anyone took it seriously he could dismiss the idea at once. There is no thought of that kind in the mind of the government and there has never been any such thought. I stated at the outset that I hoped it would be possible for us to bring the proceedings of parliament to a speedy determination in an orderly fashion; that has been done up to the present, I think, in a remarkably orderly way, and I hope will so continue until the close. As hon. members know the government has desired to bring on the election as soon after prorogation as may be possible, for this reason amongst others: The period required between the issue of the writs and the day of polling is two months, and that is a long time. It was about a month ago, or rather, to be exact, near the begin-

Business of the House
ning of this month, that I announced to the house and to the country that there would be a general election this year and that dissolution would take place immediately after prorogation. The effect of that announcement has been that ever since we have had the campaign proceeding to quite a considerable extent outside of this house. If we are to have the election by July 28, which is the date on which the government has hoped it may be possible to hold it, it will be necessary to effect prorogation to-morrow night. If we do not manage that it is just possible that by some special arrangement it might still be within the power of the chief electoral officer to arrange for steps to be taken which will permit of prorogation on Saturday, but that at the present moment is not certain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At all events, we should err on the side of safety. If we do not prorogue to-morrow night then, as I explained on a previous occasion, the election cannot take place until the eleventh of August, for the reason that under the Elections Act the election must be on a Monday and the first Monday in August is a public holiday throughout the province of Ontario, a civic holiday in most localities. Everyone agrees that it would not be wise to have an election on that day. The alternative to having the election on July 28 is to have it on August 11. May I say that so far as the country is concerned, the business interests of the country in particular, I feel sure they would greatly prefer that the election be brought on in July rather than in August.' An electoral contest until it is over is an unsettling business, and as I have said we have been carrying on an election campaign now nearly a month. If that is to be extended another two months and then for a further two weeks beyond that time, it will mean that something like three and a half months, or over a quarter of the year, will have been taken up in electioneering. I do not believe hon. members themselves desire to have the campaign carried on for that length of time, and I feel perfectly certain that the country will feel that if such a condition can be reasonably avoided it should be done by having the election at the earlier date. Another factor which I think is im-* portant. to consider is that an election on August 11 will bring us into the period of harvesting in the west and in other parts of the country; that, I believe, would be considered unfortunate as far as the western provinces and other parts of the Dominion are concerned.
However, in the opinion of the government, there is another reason which I feel I ought to make very clear to the house why we should make every effort-and it will have to be by general agreement-to prorogue immediately. It is this: The whole purpose of bringing on the election at an early date has been to enable Canada to be represented at the Imperial conference and the Imperial economic conference which open in London on September 30. My hon. friend at the beginning of the session expressed the view that whatever government was representing Canada at the time of the Imperial conferences should have a mandate from the people which would permit its ministers to speak in the name of the country at these conferences. I think in that particular he is entirely right and in that the country will agree with him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out that it is going to be difficult, no matter what may be the outcome of the election, for Canada to be as well prepared for these very important conferences as she should be. There are one or two possibilities as to the outcome of a contest. The present administration may be returned; I hope it may. I will not go further than that at ithe moment, but if it is returned, I know from some experience of previous conferences and what they mean that it is going to take some little time properly to prepare for their proceedings. The ministers who are to attend, and the officials who will go with them, will need as much time as they possibly can get, especially after a general election, to enable them to have the work in such shape that Canada can be represented satisfactorily.
There is another possibility, which I hope is not going to be realized; that is that my hon. friend opposite may be returned to power. May I say that should he be returned to power he and the members of his administration will find the task of being in readiness for those conferences still more difficult. There will be the necessity of byelections, but there will be also the problem of forming a government and becoming familiar with the matters to be taken up at the conferences. I imagine little enough time will be permitted even under these circumstances, but there is a third possibility, which is that there may be some uncertainty as to the results of the election itself. May I say that I very much hope that that will not happen, but if it should happen-


Edward Joseph Garland: It will happen.
Business of the House

Mr. MACKENZIE KING.-that there is any uncertainty as to which party commands the confidence of the electors, then I would feel it necessary to ask His Excellency to summon parliament immediately in order to decide that question before any representation of Canada was made at the conferences. I do not believe that any other course would meet with the approval of hon. gentlemen opposite; certainly in such circumstances no other course would enable an administration to say that it had a mandate from the electors to represent Canada at the conferences. If we are to provide for that possible contingency it must be remembered that it takes something like forty days after the day of polling at a general election before the last of the [DOT]writs is likely to be returned; at least some such length of time has been the period in the past. It would in case of uncertainty take a day or two after the elections to know what the final result would be, and in case of any uncertainty as I have just said there would be the necessity of summoning parliament. Then there would be the time required for the procedure essential to the opening of parliament, and the time likely to be involved in the discussion which would 'follow, and in any such contingency I venture to say it will prove impossible, unless we prorogue to-morrow night, to have Canada represented at the conferences in September. If we are to have the elections on August 11, then it must be understood that in the event of there being any uncertainty in the results, parliament will be reconvened, but equally that there can be no representation of Canada at the conferences until they are well under way with their proceedings.
These facts can be verified for themselves by hon. gentlemen. I have brought this matter before the house because I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite have it in their .power to prevent prorogation to-morrow night. I wish to be scrupulously fair in this matter. The government has no desire to withhold discussion on any of the estimates. As I stated a few days ago, the estimates have been before parliament for two or three months and if there are any features which hon. members wish to have discussed, the government will bring those forward immediately so that they will not be left until the last minute. The government is prepared to bring forward the estimates for the purposes of discussion, in any order which my hon. friend and the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Gardiner) may suggest. We shall do that in order to ensure that matters in which hon. members are specially interested shall 
'be discussed at once. While I realize that there may not be an opportunity for the full discussion which hon. members might desire should take place, it must be agreed that the present situation is a little different from what would apply to any other session of parliament. The government has it within its power to carry the estimates, and I think they 'will be carried no matter how long we take in discussion. If my hon. friend should be 'returned to power, I am sure that he will be Very glad that we have earned them because 'he will find they are all necessary. However, the opportunity will be afforded for the next few months of discussion before the people, and I think that that should serve any purpose which would be served by additional discussion here.
Let me repeat, as a government we are, as respects the dates of prorogation and of the elections, in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. If we cannot conclude to-morow night, then the elections will take place, I hope not later than August 11, but certainly not before that date. If we prorogue tomorrow night, the intention of the government is to ask His Excellency for an immediate dissolution of parliament and to have the elections on July 28.
In the preparation of the supplementary estimates the administration has been careful to endeavour to exercise economy and discretion in what we have recommended to the house. It will be seen that care has been taken not to include items which might be regarded as having been included for political purposes. We have tried to keep the supplementary estimates as to purposes and amounts in a form which would commend itself to the house generally. Let me repeat, if any arrangement is to be arrived at as between the different parties in the house it can only b by cooperation on the part of all. In so far as the government is concerned we will do all that is within our power to further that cooperation.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On Thursdays I leave _
the chair without question put for the house to go into committee of supply, but following the remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I think it is only fair that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) should be permitted to speak.

Business of the House


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was quite content to make the observations I desire to make after you left the chair, but I rose only to say that I proposed to make a few remarks. The Prime Minister in his observations this afternoon indicated that a situation had been reached when we should decide whether the estimates that are before the house should be carefully and faithfully considered in detail or we should endeavour to secure prorogation by to-morrow night in order that dissolution may follow and a general election be held on the 28th of July. I cannot but think it desirable under our form of government that every possible opportunity should be taken by those who constitute an opposition or who sit in opposition to a government, to analyse its expenditures for the purpose of ascertaining just what the administration proposes to do with the money raised by the taxation of the people of the country. It is idle to say that on the hustings there can be a discussion of the causes for the expenditures. It is because of this fact that when supply is being granted, we ask questions, sometimes embarrassing for those who have to answer, for the purpose of ascertaining just how the country's business is being transacted. We can do that only in supply as our institution now exists. The right hon. gentleman, in his all-too-brief, but what let us hope, will be more extended, experience in opposition, will remember that he regarded it as important that he should study expenditures and criticize the attitude of administrations with respect to them. That after all, has been the duty of an opposition since the party system first began to develop. In other words, with the airing of grievances preceding supply, when the house goes into committee of supply for the purpose of determining what expenditures shall be made, it has a right to inquire and usually does inquire with great care as to how the money is proposed to be spent. That opportunity will not be afforded to the house if it prorogues to-morrow night.
On the other hand, as the Prime Minister has said, there may be in each of the departments certain large contemplated expenditures about which it may be possible to obtain information. I think the Prime Minister has, perhaps with some reluctance, reduced the demands in the supplementary estimates of those who sit behind him. At least, knowing human nature as I do, I think it would be very strange if he had not, and I can readily understand he experienced some difficulty in that regard, for the supplementary estimates, although amounting to $11,000,000, of which $2,500,000 represents a number of
items from the Auditor General's report and governor general warrants, have been reduced by, I should think, about 500 per cent from what the hon. gentleman was asked to accede to. To that extent he has endeavoured to reduce to a minimum the causes for discussion and dispute.


Robert James Manion: There is a further supplementary of $9,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amount was $20,000,000 altogether, but of that amount $9,000,000 arises in connection with legislation which the house has unanimously adopted. I think that is a fair way to put the matter.
I am not unmindful of the fact that business is in some respects dislocated during a period of a general election, but that is usually so when elections are held in days of buoyant revenues and large favourable balances of trade. Under existing conditions, however, which have been brought about by my hon. friends opposite, a little more difficulty in business because of an election will perhaps not be so perceptible. At any rate I think that is so. While we desire, as I have said, to criticize many of these items; while in fact there is one department alone regarding which I think the public interest would be well served if we took a week in discussing its estimates; in view of the position taken by the administration; in view of the provisions of the Elections Aot necesit&ting a contest being held on a Monday-the aot might have been amended if it had been done early enough, but certainly it could not be amended as the matter stands now because the whole machinery of the act is predicated upon an election being held on a given day of the week and all the computations of time are made from that date-in view of the possible effect upon business, and in view of the very earnest desire there is on this side of the house that this administration should be replaced at the earliest possible moment, we will continue to the best of our ability to expedite the business of the country; and unless some unforeseen circumstance arises or some revelations of startling Character appear when the ministers indicate what they propose to do with the people's money, we shall be glad to assist the government in bringing about the prorogation of parliament tomorrow. That is -the best that we can do under the circumstances.	.
I think that the right hon. gentleman will say that since we first discussed the matter we have endeavoured to the best of our ability to expedite the business of this parliament. We had hoped that by so doing there would be a greater opportunity afforded
Business of the House

for the discussion of the estimates; but I warn hon. gentlemen opposite that if they go to their constituencies and say that the opposition have acceded to all the expenditures that the government proposed, unnecessary though some of them may be, they will be confronted with the observations of their own Prime Minister this afternoon, who indicated that discussion of the estimates in detail would not be possible if dissolution of this parliament were to take place to-morrow. So choosing, as we do, dissolution rather than detailed discussion of the estimates, we will to the best of our ability assist in bringing about that end.
I do not know that I can usefully add anything further except to say that the views of those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, and who a few short weeks ago expressed their earnest desire for an early opportunity to present to the people of this country their views upon political matters, have been greatly confirmed by what has transpired since in their opinion of the insincerity and instability of the administration, and hope that the people may have an early opportunity to pronounce judgment upon a body of men who are no longer fit to govern the country.
^ Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia): Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues with regard to the possibility of proroguing to-morrow. In view of the fact that the date of the Imperial conference had been set, I think it would have been better if the Prime Minister had called parliament earlier; for we were two weeks later in meeting this year than in recent years. There was also the possibility of an election before the Imperial conference, and in view of those circumstances it might have been better not to have had such a long recess at Easter. Remembering also that this house has accented the proposal from this comer that some of the more important estimates should go to a committee of this house, a lot of the time of the house might have been saved if the wishes of the house in that respect had been carried out this session, and an opportunity would then have been given to discuss the more important estimates thoroughly. There are a few items in the estimates which my colleagues wish to discuss, but in view of the statements of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall do our best to expedite the business of the house so that we may prorogue to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I feel I should say to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and to my hon. friend the leader of the progressive group, speaking on behalf of the 
government, that we appreciate the manner in which they have cooperated with us in helping to bring the session to a speedy termination. Throughout there has been disclosed a willingness to cooperate towards that end, and I wish to express appreciation of it.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the three single leaders of this house mean in their references to the general agreement between the parties of this house, when there are still a few men left who are free to express their views without being commanded by anybody, and without being directed by a party leader or subject to party discipline.


Mr. QUINN:: Did you consult your followers?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh yes. I am in the happy position that I can speak in the name of the leader of my party, in the name of the whip and of all the inside and outside supporters. I can therefore always express the unanimous opinion of this party to you, Mr. Speaker.
There is a good deal in what the leader of the progressive party (Mr. Gardiner) has said. Everybody knew that there was to be an Imperial conference this fall. Everybody expected that there was to be a general election this year. I therefore agree with the leader of the progressive group that the government might have called parliament at an earlier date. On previous occasions I have pointed out the habit which governments, in this and other countries, but especially in this free and democratic country, have developed of late years of deciding matters altogether according to their own individual convenience without consulting the desire of parliament or even of the country. On the other hand, I agree with the three single gentlemen that the people are expecting at this juncture to have a dissolution of parliament as early as possible, and to have the political situation settled by an expression of public opinion. It has been stated that this parliament should be dissolved now in order that our delegates might go to the Imperial conference with a popular mandate behind them. That is the most serious reason, I think. On the other hand, it should be made clear once for all that the desirability of meeting the representatives of other portions of the British Empire at the Imperial conference should not come before the interests of this country. The first duty of the government is to the parliament of Canada, and the first duty of the parliament of Canada is to the people of Canada. Especially with such a program as we have, I think it would have been useful for the people

Supply-National Revenue
to have had a more thorough examination both of the budget and of the estimates, and especially of the budget. But let that pass. I think we should do our best to make it possible to prorogue to-morrow in order that we may have an election in the month of July. At the same time it should be made quite clear that the manner in which the estimates are voted in this house is entirely unsatisfactory, and whatever party is in power after this election, I hope that some means will be taken to prevent hours and days and weeks of discussion of trivial matters, and then the voting of millions of dollars in a few hours under the pretence that we are in a hurry and that this matter or that matter which is entirely outside the necessities of the situation demand an immediate decision. Parliament is primarily constituted to vote subsidies, and the primary duty of members of parliament is to examine eveiy item in the estimates so as to be able to render an account to the people they represent and to the people of Canada at large. I rose, and it is not the first time since I have been in this parliament, to protest against the manner in which the money of the people, because after all it is the people who pay for these expenditures, is disposed of by their representatives who are supposed to be here to look after the public interest.

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



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, and temporary buildings and rentals, $8,064,000.
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and in connection with the board of customs, and amount required to create positions, make appointments and pay salaries and expenses of dominion appraisers, investigators of values and claims for drawbacks. $1,327,940.
Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and legal forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds and uniforms for customs officers. $650,000.
To provide for expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and for preventive service and amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue; also to provide for the expenses of such officers and for the purchase cr charter of vessels, and for the purchase or hire of automobiles to be used in the prevention of smuggling or other offences against the revenue laws, $1,812,512.
Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice, to be disbursed by and accounted for to it, for secret preventive service: amount required to create positions and make appointments of officers for the prevention of smuggling and to investigate reported frauds against the revenue, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act. and the said positions and staff so appointed to be wholly excluded from said act, $60,000.
To provide for the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916, and the Income War Tax Act, 1917, and amendments thereof, and authority for this purpose to create positions and make appointments notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, and the said positions and staff so appointed are hereby wholly excluded from the operation of the said act, and salary of $8,000 for the Commissioner of Income Tax, $2,200,000.
To hereby provide, notwithstanding anything in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or any other act or law, for payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to A. C. Lacouvee, special customs excise officer grade 2, on the preventive service staff of the Department of National Revenue of an amount at the rate of $500 per annum to commence from July 1, 1930, and to continue thereafter until the death of the annuitant, $500.-Total, $14,114,952.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the information we were to get last evening?


William Daum Euler: I have the information here for my hon. friend. I will hand it to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports of the Dominion-further amount required for salaries of additional officers employed on account of institution of the eight-hour day, $677,000.
To provide for payments to Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon. Dilworth, Guilfoyle and Nash for services in connection with work arising from reports of the special committee and royal commission and in connection with special tax investigations, $3,000.-Total, $680,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that for the eight-hour day?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain it?


William Daum Euler: $3,000 of this supplementary item is to provide for payments to Messrs. Clarkson, Gordon, Dilworth, Guilfoyle and Nash; otherwise the vote is for the eight-hour day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is provision made for
some overtime also?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Mines

[Stage Direction]
For explorations, surveys and investigations, wages of explorers, topographers and others, $230,000.
For publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., $60,000.
For maintenance of offices and museum, expenses of special exhibitions pertaining to natural resources, purchase of books of reference, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $65,000.
For museum equipment, $15,000.
For purchase of specimens, $3,000.-Total, $373,000.
Charles A. Stewart: 
Murray MacLaren: Does that include the
topographical survey?


Charles A. Stewart: No, the
geological survey.


George Halsey Perley: Do peat operations conie under this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


George Halsey Perley: But the main
expenses are paid out of this vote, I take it?


Charles A. Stewart: No, we have qnlv $1,000 voted to take care of the situation at Alfred this year. The peat operations have

ceased for the past two years, as my hon. friend knows. We have not been able to arrive at a settlement with Peat Fuels Limited. The plant was in shape to manufacture peat, but we did not feel warranted in going into a commercial enterprise. The dispute was referred to the exchequer court; judgment was given the other day, but I have not the details.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the result?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed by the assistant deputy that the judgment is practically for the amount of our claim; although I believe it is not given in definite figures.


George Halsey Perley: Is the plant idle at this time?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
plant has not been operating.


George Halsey Perley: Has the minister concluded he made a mistake going on with those operations? I think we talked about it in the house several times. He was only experimenting; it was all right to spend a little money, but there should have been no attempt to make it on a commercial basis until he knew how it was going to turn out.


Charles A. Stewart: The dispute as to what amount -the company should pay the government for the time the plant was being operated by us and being put into shape has deterred the company and the department from operating the plant. However, Mr. Stinson, who seems to be the moving spirit in Peat Fuels Limited, has expressed the desire to go on. I think he intends ultimately to have his plans mature, and to operate this plant in conjunction with others.


George Halsey Perley: Does he think it
can be operated successfully?


Charles A. Stewart: He did not want to pay the government what we thought it should have.


George Halsey Perley: Does he think it can be made a commercial success?


Charles A. Stewart: He claims
it can.


George Halsey Perley: Is he running any other plant at this time?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think he is operating any plant. There is one plant in which he appears to be interested, and his statement to me is to the effect that a combination of the two would make a more profitable operation.

Supply-Pensions and National -Health


Charles Herbert Dickie: I see before me an item
lor the purchase of specimens. May I suggest the advisability of securing the true specimen of a free trader before the genus becomes extinct in Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: I may explain to my hon. friend that they are not found by geologists.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
tell us how much has been spent altogether on this peat bog?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed by the assistant deputy minister that 5300,000 has been spent. I wish my hon. friend to understand that I am speaking from memory. That amount has been spent by the Ontario and federal governments. Since we have operated alone we have spent $150,000. That figure is authentic, but I am speaking 'rom memory about the first amount.


Arthur Edward Ross: Did my hon. friend mention the sum of $150,000?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is an acknowledgment of the fact that the minister, despite the advice he received, pursued his course and wasted that amount of money.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, I would not say that. At this time I do not wish to get into an argument with my hon. friend, but to put it shortly I would not say it was wasted. I do not think any sum of money spent on experiments can be said to have been wasted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries:
Administrative	$1,056,000
Insurance	 40,000
Hospitals and clinics	 1,750,000
Arthur Edward Ross: I am not going to devote as much time to this matter as I had intended, but there are two or three things I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. minister. At the present time there are a number of ex-service men in certain hospitals, and these men are being requested by officials of the department to sign over their pensions, whether they be old age pensions or any other kind, and to go to the old people's home at Ste. Anne de Bellevue.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: (Kootenay): No; the men are not requested to give up their pensions. As my hon. friend knows, the man who is entitled to pension for disability is given pay and allowance. Then there is the man who
comes under the non-pensionable disability class who is a pensioner, and does not receive pay and allowance. Then we have a class of returned soldiers who come in and receive treatment. Is that the class to which my hon. friend is referring?


Arthur Edward Ross: No. I have before me at least three letters, and the letters contain the information that they have been asked to sign over their pensions and go to the old people's home at Ste. Anne de Bellevue. The three letters contain practically the same information, and state the fact that the same request has been made in each case.


John Warwick King: I know of no such cases. I shall he pleased to look into the matter if my hon. friend will give me the correspondence he has in his possession.


Arthur Edward Ross: It sometimes happens that when these hospital cases make complaints they do not thereafter receive the same treatment.


John Warwick King: What is that?


Arthur Edward Ross: I shall give these names to the minister and ask him to investigate the complaint.


John Warwick King: Very well.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is another matter I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. There has been quite a bit of complaint from Christie Street hospital in Toronto that the men receive the attention of the doctors only when the doctors are free from golf; that they go up for examination and wait in the room there until it pleases the doctor to finish his game of golf. I think someone should bring these complaints to the attention of the minister or the condition will continue. I know the minister is sympathetic, and if he wishes to do something to help the ex-service men he will bring this complaint to the attention of the doctors. Time and attention must be given to these ex-service men, yet it is a very common complaint-it has been made to me many times-that the men wait there for hours while the doctors who are on full or on part time are playing golf. Hours should be set and the doctors should be there when examinations are called.


James Arthurs: Before the minister
answers, I have a case in point along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Kingston. A man was in Christie Street hospital-according to his statement, which I believe to be correct-for twelve days, and he stood in line there hour after hour waiting for a chest examination. Eventually he was turned back
2828	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
and sent home without having been given any examination, X-ray or otherwise. I would think that was simply on account of the negligence of the doctors, because this man was sent down as a case for examination.


John Warwick King: I do not want to complain, but I think it is rather unfair to bring up these matters now. If hon. members had this knowledge previously surely it should have been submitted to the department. I cannot believe that men are held up at Christie Street hospital while the doctors are out playing golf. My information is that these men go on duty certain hours of the day and are continuously on duty during that period. I shall be very glad to look into the case suggested, but surely information of that kind should be transmitted to the department so that these things can be remedied. I am glad my hon. friend has brought the matter to my attention; I shall be able to advise him in regard to .the case of which he speaks.


James Arthurs: I might tell the minister that this complaint has been submitted to his department but received no attention.


Arthur Edward Ross: I have still another complaint. Perhaps the minister may not be responsible for this one, but at least he can bring it to the attention of the Board of Pension Commissioners. There is a great neglect of orphans. The position is this, that once an orphan reaches the age of sixteen he is immediately struck off the pension list, although there is a regulation which provides that if that orphan is attending college or going to school the pension may be continued. I think before the orphan is struck off the list some investigation Should be made. I know children who have practically had to leave school because the mother did not know this regulation was in the act. I think it would be only a small favour to grant that before a child is struck off the list the question should be asked whether or not that child is attending school, and if the child is attending school the pension should be continued. There are cases where the father has been killed and the mother dies and leaves one or two children. I think it is the duty of the Board of Pension Commissioners to look up these cases and see how they are provided for. I have come across three cases where no care was taken; the children were simply struck off and had to be cared for in one case by an aunt and in another by an uncle. I think it is only a very small thing that before these orphans are struck off the list, the department or the Board of Pension Commissioners should look them up, and I submit that suggestion without any further remarks.

Then there is another and perhaps rather more serious complaint about which I am sure the minister has knowledge. There is a situation at present down at the Plaza building where a certain employee is making use of his position there for political purposes. I have had three cases where applicants for pensions have come here, and as they made their applications and came into the other office, they fell into the hands of this employee who said, ''Here, you put your case in the hands of the defeated Liberal candidate, and he will see that you get your pension." I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this is going on openly to-day, and I am sure the minister knows the person who is doing it. It is well known to employees of the department and if the minister cares to have us do so we will give him the names of the applicants and the particulars of the case referred by this official to his Liberal friends. We are trying to keep out of this thing; we have a committee which deals with that work and Which is non-political, but the sooner the minister gets rid of an official of this kind the better for himself and for the country.


John Warwick King: I might say to my hon. friend that certainly it is my desire to have no officials of that kind around the department. Since I have been there, and I think since the department has been established, the desire of the minister and of the officials generally has been to keep the matter out of politics. I know that has been my desire at all times. I shall be glad to have the information to which my hon. friend has referred.
In regard to the children now under the care of the pension board, I shall be glad to bring the remarks of my hon. friend to the attention of the board. There is a provision in the act whereby the pension may be extended beyond the age of sixteen, and in many cases I know that action has been taken. In fact, in some cases the pension has been extended I think beyond the age of twenty, where the child showed exceptional capabilities at school and had a certificate from the superintendent. I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the board. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there is no reason why the commissioners should not make inquiry as to the condition of the children.


James Arthurs: There are certain departments of the government whose duty it is to exercise after-care with respect to immigrants coming to this country. I would think it far more essential that the Department of Pensions and National Health should exercise after-care with regard to orphans, but so far

Supply-Pensions and National Health
there has been nothing done along these lines We do not want to delay these items, but we could cite many glaring instances if it were necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for Kingston has brought up a matter which I regard as being of some importance, and the hon. member will give the minister the name in the case, which it is unnecessary to mention here. I am sure the minister will agree that if a soldier wrote a letter addressed to the Minister of Pensions and National Health and received no reply from him but received a communication from the defeated- Liberal candidate in his constituency, there is something wrong.


John Warwick King: Yes I would say there is something wrong if that is the way it happened. I do not know any case of that kind, myself. I try to reply personally to the soldier correspondents I have, but there are times when I am away and cannot do that. An application for pension naturally would be referred to the board for action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He applied for a form.


John Warwick King: That letter should have been sent to the pension board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and National Health-unemployment relief, $250,000.
Robert Gardiner: Could the minister give me any information as to the amount spent on unemployment relief last year?


John Warwick King: Yes, $517,947.


Martin James Maloney: Where was that unemployment relief distributed?


John Warwick King: That question
was answered the other day and a statement of detailed expenditures will be found in Hansard. I will have it looked up for my hon. friend and send it to him.


Martin James Maloney: I am quite certain that
the money was not expended in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan or British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Federal appeal board, $130,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Certain chest cases are being treated in the Vancouver hospital and they find the weather at certain times of the year to be quite damp. A request has been made for treatment at some point further inland where the weather would be drier. There are two cases of cancer who claim that
they have been recommended for treatment by radium but this has been refused by the department.


John Warwick King: Are those at Vancouver?


Arthur Edward Ross: No, one case is in Ontario. They claim that the treatment has been refused although recommended by the doctors. I do not know whether or not the department has adopted this attitude because of the expense. I asked a question of the minister if an order in council had been passed in this connection and he answered, no. I sent that answer to one of these cases and he replied that that had been the reason given for the refusal of treatment.


John Warwick King: I do not know
the case to which my hon. friend is referring. If the pensioner were within reach of an institution where such treatment could be given, I would be inclined to say that treatment should be given. Radium has not been installed in our hospitals and I do not think it would be wise for us to undergo that expense. However, I would be prepared to use the facilities available in Toronto, Montreal and the other cities of Canada if it is found that the pensioners require such treatment.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister will
consider these chest cases at Vancouver?


John Warwick King: A change is often made at the request of the man. Sometimes a man will want a transfer from the interior to Vancouver, and such transfers are made from time to time.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I hold in my hand the
report of the work done by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and I would like to know who is primarily responsible for the preparation of this report, and if the minister endorses the statements made therein.


John Warwick King: Yes, I do.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I should like to take up
about two hours of the time of the committee in discussing these health matters, but that not being possible, I would refer the minister to page 83 of the report where certain references are made to radium, as follows: The unusual and striking properties of radium as well as its use for the treatment of certain forms of cancer, have resulted in somewhat exaggerated notice having been given it in the daily press. For some years after its romantic discovery great hopes -were held that a wonderful therapeutic agent had been given to the medical profession and a trial was made of radium in an immense variety of diseases. During this period enthusiastic workers
2S30	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
announced wonderful results. Subsequently, and in the light of properly controlled clinical trials, the bulk of the results were negatived and at the present time the use of radium is severely limited.
The minister admits that he is primarily responsible for that statement which is at variance with the established medical practice of the present time. The report continues:
It is also better known now that radium is dangerous .and should only be used clinically, by specially trained radiologists.
On March 17th I had the honour of introducing a resolution asking for the nationalization of the supply of radium. Unfortunately, only a limited time was available in which to discuss that subject, but we were able to discover that the minister and his government apparently have very little interest in the public health of this country so far as the use of radium is concerned in the treatment of people afflicted with cancer. Shortly after this resolution was introduced, along about the last of April, Doctor Ellice McDonald of the Dupont cancer research institute, University of Pennsylvania, recommended to the American congress practically the identical method of handling radium and cancer cases that had been proposed to this house under the resolution referred to. I would recommend to the minister that he investigate this subject a little more fully. After July 28th next I am sure that we will have a government and a department of health which will give a little more attention to the needs of the public as far as health matters are concerned.
Mr. KING (Kootenay)):	There is a difference of opinion among professional men as to the use of radium. It is quite true that radium is being more frequently used, but the limitation of its use is much greater than it was thought to be. If my hon. friend will follow the clinical reports throughout the country he will find that the hopes of those dealing with this matter are not now as high as they were formerly.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: When the Radiological
Society of North America met in Toronto last December the claim was made in their report that fifteen per cent of the cancer cases in this country were curable by radium. That would mean that the lives of fifteen per cent of the 8,000 who are dying annually in this country could be saved if radium treatment and proper administration were available. That is the same percentage of expected cures in surgery, and yet the use of radium is in its infancy. The treatment is being carried on by men who are more or less inexperienced and who do not possess an adequate supply. Under those 
circumstances more harm than good may arise from the use of radium, and I asked in my resolution that the radium supply be nationalized in order that those afflicted could receive the treatment to which they are entitled.
Mr. KING (Kootenay)):	I do not intend
to go over the debate that has already taken place this session except to say that I believe the cures being obtained to-day are greater in number. However, I do not think that that is the case in the larger field to which my hon. friend referred.


Murray MacLaren: Was the total amount
of the vote under item 230 of last year expended?


John Warwick King: We exipended

Item agreed to.
Grant to Last Post fund, $30,000.


Robert Gardiner: How much was spent
last year?


John Warwick King: 



S20,000.

Arthur Edward Ross: Does this vote take care of nearly all the cases, or is there any necessity to apply to municipalities for assistance in the burying of veterans?


John Warwick King: As my hon. friend knows, these moneys are expended in the burial of ex-service men who have died in indigent circumstances. The burials are taken care of in the community under the Last Post fund which the government subsidizes each year.


James Arthurs: In what way are they
taken care of? For instance, if a man dies out in the country at some distance from a city, what provision would be made? Would any refund be made?


John Warwick King: In each province
there is a branch of the Last Post fund organization which is officered by certain individuals. If a death occurs in the country, application is made to the organization which advises as to its responsibility. If the burial takes place at the expense of the Last Post fund, the department will 'bear a portion, if not the whole, of the expense, depending on the circumstances.


George Reginald Geary: Is this service being extended? Is the department discovering more cases in which this service is required?

Supply-Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: We find that we
are expending more money under this vote each year.


George Reginald Geary: More persons buried?


John Warwick King: Probably. The
amount provided in previous years was not sufficient to meet the cost of burial and there is more than $4,000 of accounts outstanding. We have to provide for the erection of markers on graves. Markers are gradually being placed as funds permit, the cost varying according to the requirements of the cemetery in which the burial is made. At the present time the amount for markers to be placed and arrears of burial charges will require about $16,000.


George Reginald Geary: I only hope the fact that
this service is in existence is being made known in the outlying districts.


John Warwick King: We depend for
that more on the Last Post fund people themselves. Sir Arthur Currie is president and they have a secretary in Montreal. They have pretty active branches throughout the whole of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Health-the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietory or patent medicines, including the laboratory of hygiene, $163,500.
Mr. BRADY:: I would ask the minister to
explain lucidly but briefly the work that is being done by his department in regard to the very important matter of narcotic drugs.


John Warwick King: We have an
organization known as the narcotic division. It is officered by chief officer Colonel Shar-man, with assistant officers, clerks and stenographers under him. He is in charge of the work of that division and he cooperates with the mounted police force throughout Canada. He is also in close contact with the municipal and provincial authorities. We have of late confined our activities more to the larger trafficker under an arrangement with the provincial and municipal authorities, depending upon them to take care of the smaller trafficker. We have, I think, been fairly successful. There have been a good many convictions. In the early days, through the efforts of the provincial and other police, the number of convictions was high. They are as follows:
	Number of
Year	convictions
1922-23			 1,858
1923-24			 1.102
1926-27			 743
1927-28			 490
1928-29			 430
1929-30			 563
As regards our later convictions, we have been fairly successful in securing long term sentences. It was difficult in the earlier stages to get the magistrates to commit these people for long terms. On the 31st March, 1930, there were in the Westminster penitentiary 82 traffickers, many for five years and some for seven years. As stated in the 1929 annual report, whereas in the preceding year the number of cases in which the option of a fine was given largely exceeded those in which there was none, in 1928-29 the situation was reversed, and 240 of the 430 convictions resulted in gaol sentences in that year; one of seven years, eleven of five years, four of four years, eight of three years, nine of two years, and twenty-eight of one year and over. In checking up with the statistical department we found there were duplications in the same case and the number was reduced.


James Charles Brady: This is a subject of such
vital importance to Canada that I would like the minister to understand my purpose is really to bring out exactly what this branch of the department is doing. I find there has been an increase in the proportion of expenditures to prosecutions and convictions by the department in connection with this subject, I find, moreover, there is an increase in travelling expenses, a decrease in revenue, an increase in salaries, a decrease in the number of convictions. The department to-day has a larger staff dealing with this very important subject when, before, according to the minister himself, with a lesser staff it was more efficient than it is now.


John Warwick King: No.


James Charles Brady: I do not know-and the
minister can inform me-whether or not increases are proposed to be made in connection with the staff handling this matter. I honestly believe there is some kind of concealment by the department lumping convictions which are really obtained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with those secured by the department. In other words, a number of these convictions which the minister has mentioned really are the result of the work of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I have here figures which rdveal an extraordinary story which concerns the national life of Canada. I find that in 1921-22 the total revenue from licensed fees, fines and seizures was $29,832.82, and to January 31, 1929-30, $12,375.77. If those figures are not correct, I wish the minister would correct me.
2832	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: I would like to correct my hon. friend. He has given the totals, and I think he has the figures reversed. The figures are for 1925, $12,833.43, and for 1929-30, $14,240.77.


James Charles Brady: My figures are a little out, but not much.


John Warwick King: Just reversed.


James Charles Brady: The expenditure charged to the appropriation, not including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, was in 1921-22, $13,305.S3, and to January 31, 1929-30, $31,235.77. The civil government salaries, permanent and temporary, were $7,292.78 in
1921-22, and to January 31, 1929-30, $14,808.40. What about travelling expenses? In 1921-22 travelling expenses amounted to $704.31, and to January 31,	1929.30, to
$3,748.57. The total national health expenditure in 1921-22 was $21,302.92 and to January 31, 1929-30, $49,792.74.
I come now to the number of federal, provincial and municipal convictions for the judicial years ended September 30. They are as follows:
1922-	23	
$1,8581923-	24	
1,1021924-	25	
9971925-	26	
8351926-	27	
7431927-	28	
4901928-	29	
551
I cannot get the number of convictions for
1929-30. Now, one of two things is taking place to-day. In the report issued by the department, of national health, I find a statement which is not in accordance with the figures which I have given. On page 85 of that report there is this very important paragraph:
Such improvement, of course, is only relative and is to ,a great extent occasioned by the-increasing number of drug traffickers actually being incarcerated, together with a much greater cooperation with and control of the wholesale and retail druggists.
That is in contradiction of the figures which I have here, which show increased expenditure, a bigger staff, and a smaller number of convictions. In fact, it is difficult to ascertain with any authority just what the number of convictions is. The minister must admit that whoever wrote this report realized the gravity of the situation. There is something wrong in the department. Just three weeks ago I asked a number of questions with the purpose of eliciting information as to the actual situation. It is one that deeply concerns our national life, because opium and narcotic drugs generally are the ruination of many. I have not yet received an answer to my questions. I repeat, I find increased 
expenditure, a bigger staff, and a smaller number of convictions, and the public is convinced that the opium and narcotic traffic is on the increase. I would like to know from the minister just what the situation is.


John Warwick King: The figures which my hon. friend has been quoting are - not proper figures. I regret very much that the report which he asked for has not been tabled. I found it on my desk yesterday, and it was sent to the Secretary of State, and I thought it would have been tabled to-day. The figures in that report do not coincide with the figures which my hon. friend has quoted to-night; his figures are not correct. Of course, our expenditure and costs are increasing. We have been very active in control. If my hon. friend has any knowledge of the traffic or would care to go to Montreal and make inquiries, he would find that it was very difficult for him or anyone else to secure narcotics in the city of Montreal, whereas five or six or seven years ago there were recognized places throughout the city where men could go and get a supply without difficulty. That is confirmed by the fact that at that time you could buy crude opium for $25 an ounce whereas to-day it cannot be procured for $125 an ounce. We know from day to day from the correspondence in the department that the addict is having a more difficult time in securing a supply, and that is due to the activities of the department. It is true that our travelling expenses have increased, from $635.35 in 1925, to $4,881 last year. The small travelling expenses in 1925 did not aid in diminishing the traffic in Vancouver. To-day the officers of the department make not one trip, but two or three or four trips across this continent, and travel to different centres in the United States, getting in touch with those in control of gangs in that country. We also have men in the old country trying to tie up the threads of this traffic, in order that we may have control. I am pleased to say to the committee that of all countries that are trying to control this traffic to-day, Canada is recognized I think as having the best control of all.


James Charles Brady: Does the minister feel that the staff employed in this very important branch are really doing what they should do?


John Warwick King: Yes, they are
doing very well, I think.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: What work is being undertaken by the laboratory of hygiene?

Supply-Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: This department furnishes bacteriological, biological and biochemical data and reports on the qualities of foods, raw or manufactured; disinfectants; water supplies; sanitary conditions of shellfish areas and of shellfish; examination of diseased tissues, and determines the potencies of drugs, curative serums and vaccines.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pollution of inland waters and Public Works Health Act, $26,000.
Mr. SIMPSON:: Is this in respect of navigation?


John Warwick King: Our staff see that pure water is supplied at certain places to ships on the lake and river sections.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	[DOT]
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts-public health in other districts-Tracadie and Bentinck island laza-rettoes and leprosy generally, $210,000.
Mr. MadLAREN:	How many cases are
there in Tracadie?
John Warwick King: Eight.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This item calls for $210,000 for national health. A day or two ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) whether bovine tuberculosis came within his sphere or within the Department of Public Health, and he answered that both departments dealt with it. Therefore my remarks will apply not only to the national health department but also to the agriculture department. I cannot attempt to go into this question at the length I intended owing to the exigencies of time. I assume the Minister of Health has read the report of the Minister of Agriculture. If so, he read that in the province of Quebec 18 to 19 per cent of the cattle of some areas were found to be affected with bovine tuberculosis, while only 2 per cent of the cattle examined in other parts of the Dominion were found to be suffering from this disease. The records of the last seventeen years show that in no other area on this north American continent has the examination of cattle for bovine tuberculosis shown any approach to 18 or 19 per cent of the cattle diseased, with the exception of a small area in the District of Columbia. If the minister viewed this matter from a national standpoint, surely he would be alarmed at the situation in Quebec. In the year 1928, 23,000 cattle in Quebec have been found to be affected with bovine tuberculosis, and were slaughtered. This phenomenal condition cost the country $750,000 last year. The minister
knows there must be some explainable reason for this condition, and he should ask the National Research Council to investigate and report to parliament the causes. It may be due to bad housing of the cattle, if the condition exists at all. I do not believe it does exist, because I am satisfied in my mind that our method of tracing this disease is inferior to that followed by other advanced countries. The work is being done in a slipshod way, but I have not the time to go into that now. Bovine tuberculosis is communicated to man, and has resulted in many of the children of Canada being affected by bone, pulmonary and nodular tuberculosis. This appalling situation ought to arouse the concern and active interest of the Minister of National Health. When we bring his attention to this serious condition of affairs he tells us that the British North America Act has assigned health matters to the various provinces. I want to break down that theory that national health is confined to the jurisdiction of the provinces. Cases and conditions such as these, should surely convince anybody that we ought to have a national health policy.
I wrote the agriculture department of the province of Quebec and asked them whether they had examined any cattle in the province for bovine tuberculosis, and they told me they had been doing it for the last ten years, and in that period had examined 375,000 cattle, and the highest percentage affected was only 3 per cent. Contrast this percentage with the 18 to 19 per cent stated to have been discovered by the federal Department of Agriculture. These contradictory figures naturally *make us question whether this department is actually prepared to carry on its work. I say to the Minister of Agriculture that the research council should convince him and convince Canada as to the peculiar causes which obtain and which bring about such a staggering result. The minister should have his department checked up. I have asked how many men they have in the department whose duty it is to go out and examine the cattle, and they have given me five or six names. I have asked the officials connected with the United States government how many experts they used to examine the cattle in that country and I find where in this country we would have .nine they would have ninety.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health tp permit me to place upon Hansard a statement the preparation of which has caused me considerable effort. I have gained the information from the findings of royal comrnis-

2S34	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
sions in England and in various other parts of the continent to show the diseases actually transmitted to the children, young and older people from coming in contact with bovine tuberculosis.
Variety of Cases
Cervical lymph nodes	
Lupus vulgaris	
Scrofuloderma	
Bone and joint tuberculosis.. . Genito urinary tuberculosis.. .
Tubercular meningitis	
Pulmonary tuberculosis	
The following is the information which I have been able to gather:
The British royal commission investigating the prevalence of bovine infection in England and Wales analyzed 1,139 cases both in children and adults. Their findings are given as follows:
No. of Cases	Under 5 yrs. of age	All ages Per cent125	85.0% of 20 cases	48.0140	66.0% of 50 cases	51.052	58.3% of 12 cases	38.4514	30.2% of 96 cases	19.221	19.012	16.6275	1.1
Park and Krumwiede, of the New York State Board of Health, in a series of 1,042 unselected medical and surgical cases, dividing the cases into three age groups, found the incidence of bovine infection as follows:
(a)	Children under 5 years of age, 220 cases with 59 bovine strains isolated, or 26.8 per cent.
(b)	Children from 5 to 16 years of age, 132 cases with 33 bovine strains recovered, or 25 per cent.
(c)	Adults, 16 years and over, 689 cases, with 9 bovine strains recovered, or 1.31 per cent.
A study of 2,516 cases of various forms of tuberculosis reported in the literature up to 1914 compiled by Wang, of the University of Edinburgh, gives perhaps the most comprehensive idea of the amount of bovine tuberculosis in man existing in western Europe, the British Isles and the United States. He found that, dividing the eases into three age groups, the incidence of bovine infection is as follows:-
(a.) Children under 5 years of age, 614 cases, with 199 bovine strains isolated, or 32.4 per cent.
(b)	Children from 5 to 16 years of age, 591 cases with 171 bovine strains isolated, or 28.9 per cent.
(c)	Adults, 16 years and over, 1,311 cases with 38 bovine strains isolated, or 2.9 per cent.
For the past three years a study has been carried out under the auspices of the National Research Council into the incidence of tuberculosis in children in the Toronto area, where regulations require pasteurization of milk.
There is a migration of sick individuals from outlying districts into the hospitals in this area. A study has been made of cases in these hospitals and particularly in the Hospital for Sick Children. In addition to this, a study has been made of tuberculous children living in other towns and villages in Ontario. The following is a summary of the study showing the incidence of bovine infection in children:
		Human	Bovine
Bone and joint tuber-	No.	Type	Typeculosis	65	63	2Tuberculous meningitis .	32	31	1Renal Tuberculosis.. .. Pulmonary tuberculosis	26	25	1(laryngeal Swaibs) .. Tuberculosis of lymph Nodes (cervical and	16	15	1mesenteric)	
[Mr. Kaiser. 1	16	4	12Tuberculosis of tonsils. 7	5	2
Tuberculosis of adenoid
(pharyngeal tonsil). .4	3	1Tuberculous pleurisy ..	2	2	0
Of 199 strains of tubercle bacilli from 168 children studied, 30 strains recovered from 20 different patients proved to be of bovine origin. All of the children from whom bovine tuberculosis was recovered came from districts where pasteurization of milk is not carried out. In the Toronto district, which is a pasteurization area, not a single ease of bovine infection was brought to light. As a result of this investigation. it is concluded that 12 per cent of surgical tuberculosis in children, leading to operation, disablement, and occasionally death, may be controlled by the simple process of pasteurization.
Certain cities in Canada and the United States which through research have taught their people to pasteurize milk have absolutely banished the diseases, conditions and deformities which follow bovine tuberculosis. I think it is the business of this department to educate the people of our country as to how they may escape the conditions caused through this disease. The Department of National Health should become more national in character and should exert greater effort to teach our people how to fight disease and disaster.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration medical inspection, $300,000.
Mr. MANIO'N:	I would like to ask the
minister why we have an immigration medical inspection which is costing the country S300.000. It is as high this year as it was last year, despite the fact that there is no immigration, and the government has taken the attitude that the whole immigration problem is being handed over to the provinces. In view of those facts I think the item should either be cut out or materially cut down.
Mr. MALCOLM:: I would like to answer
the question directed by my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion). This matter

Supply-Pensions and National Health
was discussed this afternoon with the Acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart). The acting minister stated that he thought we had better leave this item so that it would come up for discussion when the conference is held with the provinces, as it may be possible that we may agree to carry on certain services for them. The agreement is that we do not need to go on with this service, and the vote could be dropped, but in case we undertake certain services for the provinces the minister stated he would like to have my support.


Robert James Manion: I would like to say, with
all due respect to the remarks of the minister, that there is no doubt whatever we will not have an extensive immigration into this country this year. With conditions as they are there is no doubt we will not need anything like the amount of immigration inspection we have had in the past, and taking into account the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I think the item should be cut in two.


John Warwick King: No, it should not be cut at the present time. We required the vote last year, and the work done was of a very excellent and useful character. Of the 160,000 people examined for immigration to Canada from Great Britain and the continent, 10 per cent were rejected and not allowed to come to Canada. We are all familiar with the policy which was introduced in 1927 wherein we decided that rather than try to check people coming into this country who were not physically or mentally fit we would place our own officers in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe to make examinations at certain points. We took that action with a view to overcoming the difficulty which had been experienced by the United States authorities. To correct the difficulty under which they were labouring they established the port at Ellis Island. We in this country were faced with two alternatives in connection with protecting our Canadian people against the entrance of foreigners who were physically or mentally undesirable; we had to establish on an island or elsewhere a place on our shores where we could hold them for the period during which they could be properly examined, and if found unfit they could be sent back, or we could place our own officers on the other side. The United States government, faced with the same problem, requested the British government to give them permission to place United States officials in Great Britain, with the intention of eliminating the trouble they had experienced at Ellis Island. Their request was granted and we have heard of no more 2419-1794
trouble. We undertook a plan some years ago in conjunction with the transportation companies. Our officers were sent to Great Britain and to the continent. At first there were difficulties, because the men were not experienced. However, I had the pleasure last year of visiting some of those men and generally speaking I think the service is of an excellent character and of great benefit to the people of Canada. It is true that the immigration will be less, and I have instructed the officers of my department to retire these men as retirements come before the department, and to allow the vacancies to exist on the staff. There will be further retirements in the future, because we do not intend to keep more men than necessary. However, we have an officer at Danzig, and when we withdraw him we will require those people to go to Rotterdam. We have an officer in Paris, and as that city is the clearing house for southern Europe he will be allowed to remain there. Then we have our officers in Great Britain.


Robert James Manion: When are any of them
due to be retired?


John Warwick King: None of them is
due to be retired, but of their own will some of them will retire. The attraction by way of salary is not very great, and we have had a number of retirements since they went over there. As I have said, instructions have been issued not to fill vacancies.


George Halsey Perley: Where is the
estimate of the number of immigrants expected this year?


John Warwick King: I do not know
that I have that information before me. We receive reports from time to time, but I have not the figures before me for the present year. From day to day there are people going into those offices for examinations in order that they may be allowed to come to this country. That is true in Great Britain.


George Halsey Perley: I fancy the Acting Minister of Immigration could give us that information. What is the estimated number of immigrants expected to come to Canada this year?


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if
I can give that information, but I shall ask the deputy minister whether he can give us the figures.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened with interest to the explanation given by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and I must say that I have no quarrel with his statement as to the good work being
2836	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
done by these men. The fact remains, however, that when the work is not there to be done the men do not have to do the work.


John Warwick King: They will be withdrawn.


Robert James Manion: And if they are withdrawn the item does not require to be fully passed. I have given the minister a chance to reduce the vote, and if he does not avail himself of the opportunity I will move that the item be reduced by 8100,000.


John Warwick King: And in so doing I think my hon. friend would make a great mistake.


Robert James Manion: I am giving the minister
an opportunity to cut down the vote. He admits the item is not fully necessary, because he says when the retirements take place the positions will not be refilled. He has told us that retirements are taking place right along, and no doubt retirements will continue to take place.


John Warwick King: Some of them.


Robert James Manion: As they are not going to
be replaced, the full amount of this vote will not be required. I also take the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who admitted the amount probably would not be needed, but suggested that it should be left in in case of emergency. Emergencies can be met when they arise. I wish to move that this item be reduced by $50,000. My hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Per-ley) has suggested that amount to me, and I am content to accept the suggestion. I would be pleased if the minister would accept the amendment because it would be an indication that he is not simply stubbornly trying to stick to an item which he knows is not necessary.


John Warwick King: I am convinced that my hon. friend does not understand the nature of the situation. There will be some immigration through the port of Rotterdam, and we have an officer at that point. Does my hon. friend suggest that the officer should be withdrawn? There will be people coming through Paris; I wonder if my hon. friend would have the department withdraw the officer at that point. We have had three officers at Glasgow, and there will be many people coming through that port. The same is true at Liverpool and in the central part of England, and until we know what the reduction is in immigration and the places where the reduction will take place, I do not see how we can reduce our officers very much.

However, I have told my officers that where vacancies occur they should not be filled until we know what is going to happen in regard to migration to this country. I think the $300,000 last year was practically all expended, and I do not think we can close these agencies. You cannot close the agency at Glasgow or the agency in the north of Scotland; if you do you put the people there to very great inconvenience. I would suggest to my hon. friend that it should be left in the hands of the department to make the reduction. We do not want to spend money unless it is necessary, but we wish to retain this service at a very high state of efficiency, because I believe the people of Canada should be protected and the people of the old country should be protected as well.


Robert James Manion: I have listened to the minister with every desire to be agreeable, and I am not making this proposal in any desire to embarrass the minister or the service, but I still submit that in view of the attitude taken by the government itself; in view of the attitude taken by the Minister of Immigration himself, when he said there was not going to be any immigration so far as the Dominion was concerned but that it was to be left to the provinces, I submit that this item is not necessary. The minister himself has proved that the item is not necessary, because he says that when these men retire he is not going to replace them. I further point out to this committee that as this session has been going on proposal after proposal has been made that this government should assist this country in various ways. For example there was a highways proposal, but the government voted it down and would give nothing for highways. There was an unemployment relief proposal and the Prime Minister made his famous, or infamous, statement that not a five cent piece should be given for the relief of unemployment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Robert James Manion: Yes, he did. I know the Prime Minister denied it the other evening, but all his supporters heard it and surely they cannot deny it. He said he would not have a five cent piece given for the relief of unemployment in any province in which there was a Conservative government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert James Manion: I stick to my point, because there is no doubt about it whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it in Hansard.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is not what it says in Hansard.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Robert James Manion: I challenge my hon. friend to read what the Prime Minister said, which is on page 1227 of' Hansard. I know it so well because I have looked it u,p and quoted it so often. He said he would not give a five cent piece for the relief of unemployment in any province where there was a Conservative government.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort): No, he did not; he said he would not give a five cent piece to any Conservative government to use for their own purposes.


Robert James Manion: I will read what he said, in just a few moments.


Mr. POULIOT:: Can I explain it?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order, pleace. Surely this discussion is not relevant to this item.


Robert James Manion: I cannot agree with you, Mr. Chairman; surely it is relevant.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend knows that a further reference to a debate which took place during this session is out of order.


Robert James Manion: If it is out of order then I cannot quote it, and the point cannot be decided at the moment, but I have the words right here.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would just like to save the time of the committee-


Robert James Manion: You will not make headway by this sort of thing, because I do not intend to be intimidated into sitting down. In regard to your asking me if this question is relevant, Mr. Chairman, I submit that it is entirely relevant, because we are discussing the expenditure of the money of this country, the expenditure of the sum of $300,000, which I sincerely submit is not necessary at the present time. I submit that half of that amount would be ample. I submit that if the minister is sincere in his statement that he is not going; to replace these men, there will be no necessity for $300,000 in this item. If he wished to play the game fairly he would have moved the reduction himself, and I shall be glad to sit down now to let him move it if he wishes.


John Warwick King: No, I do not wish to; this is the item of the department for these services.


Robert James Manion: Then you can keep your seat; I will finish my remarks first. I was stating that since there was not a five cent piece for unemployment, for highways or for teohmioal education, then surely we should not
spend $300,000 for a service which the Acting Minister of Immigration himself says is out of business at the present time. I believe he is right; we do not want immigrants in Canada at this time, with conditions as they are at present; we do not need them. We have trouble enough, with a government such as this, to find work and wages for the people here now.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think in justice to myself I should be permitted to read this statement of the Prime Minister, because a number of hon. gentlemen have said that the Prime Minister did not make any such statement. I will read it, and the people can judge for themselves. On April 3, 1930, the Prime Minister said the following words which are found at page 1227 of Hansard:
Mr. Mackenzie King: May I conclude what I have to say? So far as giving money from this federal treasury to provincial governments is concerned, in relation to this question of unemployment as it exists to-day, I might be prepared to go a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have Progressive premiers at the head of their governments-
Some hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Mackenzie King: -but I would not give a single cent to any Tory government.
Mr. Bennett:	Shame!
Mr. Stevens:	Shame!
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Do my hon. friends
say "shame"?
Mr. Bennett:	Yes, shame!
Mr. Mackenzie King:	What is there to be
ashamed of?
Mr. Stevens:	You ought to be ashamed of
that.
Mr. Mackenzie King:	My hon. friend is
getting very indignant. Something evidently has got under his skin. May I repeat what I have said? With respect to giving moneys out of the federal treasury to any Tory government in this country for these alleged unemployment purposes, with these governments situated as they are to-day, with policies diametrically opposed to those of this government, I would not give them a five-cent piece.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if hon. gentlemen opposite can get any satisfaction or any contentment out of that statement they are perfectly welcome to it. I can assure them they are not going to get much satisfaction out of it during the next election.


Malcolm McLean: This was not the quotation given by my hon. friend from memory; that was quite different.


Robert James Manion: I could not quote it word for word, but I quoted the substance and sense of it. However, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted my point and I again offer to the minister or to any of the ministers the privilege of moving the amendment themselves. I show
2838	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
my sincerity in this way, but if the minister will not agree to move the reduction himself I am going to move a reduction of $50,000 in this vote.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we will gain very much by discussing the estimates in a heated manner. It is quite true, I may say to my hon. friend, that immigration will be greatly reduced but it will not entirely cease from Great Britain or from the preferred countries. There are always people coming forward, although it is true they are not coming in such large numbers as formerly. I may point out to my hon. friend that many of these agreements are still in existence. We know that the agreements with the British government for child immigration, for the domestic movement and for the nominated movement do not expire until the end of this year. The railway movement expires on May 31; that is for labour, but of course- it would not be fair to say that the medical inspection officers have very much to do with that movement. I would think that the number of medical men now employed could be reduced, but I had this difficulty before in the interior estimates and in the immigration estimates, to know just how much we might reduce these items. I will say for the information of the committee-and my hon. friend knows it as a matter of fact-that the money voted for this purpose cannot be spent for any other purpose; that is, it cannot be diverted to some other use. It is voted specifically by the house for this purpose and must be spent in this way or remain unspent. It is not wasted; I mean it cannot be diverted, because we know it is the feeling that very frequently sums are diverted for other purposes when they are voted for specific objects called for in the estimatea It is very difficult to know just how much to reduce the service. I have the same difficulty in trying to estimate by how much the immigration service can be reduced.


Robert James Manion: The hon. minister is very
moderate in his attitude, and I know that if he gave his own opinion he would agree that $50,000 could be cut off this estimate without making any change in the service. The only trouble is that the minister who is attempting to put these estimates through the committee has adopted a stubborn attitude and refuses to make a reduction.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: I did not mean that disrespectfully, but the minister is adopting an obstinate attitude in the face of the reasons he gave himself that this service could be cut

down. If this reduction of $50,000 is made the service could be carried on for ten months. Long before that time has elapsed another minister will have to study out the managing of these offices. I am ready to withdraw my motion for a reduction if the minister will suggest a cut in this service. At the end of ten months if by any strange accident he is still in power-I do not think that will occur-I am sure that he could take $50,000 out of some other estimate.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend must realize that that could not be done. It is impossible to divert any estimate to other purposes; that is the object of voting money. There is a strong possibility that this item could be cut down, but I doubt very much if a reduction of $50,000 could be made. I would say that a fairer amount would be $20,000 or $25,000.


Robert James Manion: If the minister would
suggest $25,000 it would show good faith on his part.
M:r. STEWART (Edmonton) :	If any
amount is not expended it cannot be diverted to some other purpose; that is contrary to the act.


Robert James Manion: I will not quarrel with
that statement, but it is often done; it is worked out in some way and then replaced. Is the minister willing to agree to a $25,000 reduction?


John Warwick King: It is all right for imy hon. friend to suggest that because he has no responsibility and knows nothing of this
service.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the minister knows much more than I do.


John Warwick King: That is not a
fair statement from my hon. friend; I have *not treated him that way. These estimates are made up by the department officials and they have been carefully surveyed by the government. It is quite true that immigration may ease off but it will not cease entirely. It will be necessary to retain a staff at the different ports; either that must be done or the service must be abandoned. It is only a mere opinion to say that this amount can be reduced by $50,000 or $25,000.


Mr. SHORT:: How much was expended last year?


John Warwick King: The expenditure last year amounted to $287,000. If it will Satisfy my hon. friend, I will reduce the estimates by $15,000.

Supply-Pensions and National Health


Robert James Manion: There is a difference of
$13,000 right there.


Harry Bernard Short: And there will not be nearly the immigration this year.


John Warwick King: I would be willing to reduce the estimate comparable with the expenditure for last year.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many medical inspectors were sent overseas following the action taken in 1927?


John Warwick King: Twenty-eight.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many are
employed at the present time?


John Warwick King: About twenty.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where are they
stationed?


John Warwick King: We have to
maintain a service at Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal and throughout Canada. There are officers located at London, Bristol, Birmingham, Glasgow, Inverness, Belfast, Cobh, Paris, Antwerp, Danzig, Hamburg, and Rotterdam.


Arthur Edward Ross: The officer at
Liverpool should be able to do the work for Birmingham and other ports nearby. How is the minister able to direct these officers from Canada?


John Warwick King: A superior officer
is located at London.


Arthur Edward Ross: In considering these estimates, this department does not look like a department of health, it looks more like the game played by children in which they try to tag a tail on a donkey. Everything is tagged on to this department and it is only a combination and accumulation of tail-tags.


Robert James Manion: And donkeys.


John Warwick King: It is a service
department; if my hon. friend delights in using that expression, well and good.


Arthur Edward Ross: The department
should be rearranged. Just consider this item which reads:	,
The administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, including the laboratory of hygiene.
Then further down there is another item dealing with quarantine. There should be coordination and cooperation with the medical and health branches in all the provinces. There should be some understanding that in the case of epidemics the minister could step in and prevent the spread of disease from one province to another. In the case of an epidemic
in Ontario it is all very well for Quebec to put officers on the border, but that does not prevent the spread of disease in other ways. Perhaps, as the minister is to be transplanted and will not have again the experience he has had to-night-


John Warwick King: It has not been
a bad experience so far as I am concerned.


Arthur Edward Ross: -he may not have an opportunity to get the provinces together. There are some very important subjects which should be discussed with the provinces, such 'as radium, epidemics, and the upkeep of laboratories. Laboratories are conducted in many of the provinces, and it is found to be very expensive to operate those institutions. There is a large field open for the 'federal department in the coordination of this great subject of health; instead of having all these little donkey tails tagged onto it and calling it a department of health-we 'have too much respect for the name to call it a real department-it should do some real constructive work. I hope the minister or whoever succeeds him will have something better to offer as a department of national health than all these tail-tags.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say in answer to my hon. friend from I ort William. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kingston city on his very interesting suggestion in regard to the matter.


Arthur Edward Ross: Thank you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have a special liking for
the hon. member for Fort William, although I do not present him with a loving cup. I am, however, tired of hearing all the time about that five-cent story.


Robert James Manion: No doubt the hon. member is.


James Dew Chaplin: He is not the only one
who is sick about it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend from Lincoln it is easy to understand why the Prime Minister said that.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it was relevant for the hon. member for Fort William to say a word about this, I wish to say just one word also.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member is not speaking to the item before the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order, and it is this: that the hon. member for North Renfrew should have raised his point
^40	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health
of order when the hon. member for Fort William was speaking before. The hon. member was in the house and he was listening to the hon. member for Fort William.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member was also in his seat. If he wished to raise a point of order then, he should have done so.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought there was no
point of order in that and that is why I did not raise it. I remember very well that shameful disregard of health in refusing a mother's pension in Toronto when the Hon. Dr. Godfrey refused a mother's allowance. He wrote to one of his electors-


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I claim fair play.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. My hon. friend complains about the matter raised by the hon. member for Fort William. He will remember that the Chair pointed out that the matter that the hon. member for Fort William was discussing was not relevant to the subject before the Chair and asked him to desist from that part of his discussion. My hon. friend is not making matters better by introducing a new subject of a similar nature. I ask all hon. members to bring their remarks to bear more closely upon the item under consideration. Mr. Manion moves that item 227 be reduced by the sum of $50,000.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Venereal diseases, $100,000.
Ira Delbert Cotnam: I have a great deal of
sympathy for the Minister of National Health.
I do not think there is any medical man in the house, or for that matter, in the country, who believes the Department of National Health has been functioning as such a department should function in Canada to-day. The greatest asset we have, after all, is the health and happiness of our people, and surely there should be some arrangement whereby the federal Department of Health, could, as has been said so ably by the hon. member for Kingston city, cooperate with the provincial health departments and help to coordinate the work. Unfortunately, disease does not stop at provincial boundaries and, moreover, it is not confined by the limitations of the British North America Act. If, under the provisions of the British North America Act, the department is not able to cooperate with the provincial health authorities, the Department of National Health has no reason for existing. 
I woidd suggest that the minister call a conference of the medical departments of the different provinces and see whether some working arrangement cannot be devised whereby his department can cooperate fully with the provincial health departments.


John Warwick King: I am not going to take up any time in answering my hon. friend in regard to the conduct of the department. The work of the department is well known in Canada. My hon. friend, who seems to be so well informed must know that we have a Dominion Council of Health made up of the provincial boards of health or authorities representing the provincial governments and other health bodies throughout Canada. That council meets twice a year and brings about the coordination of which my hon. friend has spoken. I do not wish to do more than merely make that statement and leave the matter as it is, because I think the desire of the committee is to get on with the estimates.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Does this item provide for salaries and maintenance of quarantine offices in the different ports?


John Warwick King: That is under item 236, quarantine, which has been passed.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Who is the port physician at Halifax?


John Warwick King: Doctor Chisholm is acting. Doctor Graham resigned recently.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I had a question on the
order paper only three weeks ago, and at that time Doctor Graham was still in the employ of the department. Doctor Chisholm had not then been appointed. Was Doctor Graham asked for his resignation?


John Warwick King: No, I think he resigned on his own initiative.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Doctor Chisholm was formerly one of the roster doctors on the other side?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and national health - salaries, $210,185; contingencies, $69,000.
Mr. ESLING:: What portion of this amount for contingencies goes for travelling expenses for the minister? While the minister is looking it up, I would like to know what portion of his travelling expenses goes towards taking Liberal candidates and his Liberal supporters around the country in a private car.

Supply-Pensions
and National Health


John Warwick King: No portion is used for that purpose.


William Kemble Esling: Then it seems to me the minister must burn up an awful lot of gas. I find that for the past five years his travelling expenses amount to $20,950; we will call it $21,000. Considering that we are in session here for six months of the year, he can travel only the other six months, which brings it to about $4,000 for travelling expenses every six months. I notice also in the Auditor General s report a pretty good-sized automobile bill for the minister. I can find his automobile repairs for only three years, and the repairs during that period amounted to $2,317. In order to drive the car, the public is paying $8,438. In other words, in addition to his salary and his indemnity, the minister has charged up to travelling expenses, chauffeur and automobile repairs in the past five years the huge sum of $31,000, and I want to ask the minister now in all candour, does he think he is worth it?


John Warwick King: I do.


William Kemble Esling: This may be very humorous, but there is another side to it. The minister represents East Kootenay, where to-day 350 coal miners are out of work and the rest are working only half time. The city is feeding their children, and while these men are out of work the minister spends $31,000 in five years-and Russian coal is coming into the country too. Add to that $31,000 in five years, the minister's salary and indemnity of $70,000 and you get the sum of $100,000. Is it any wonder that the minister goes through my part of the country and calls for help! He says: I need help from British Columbia. He is the only Liberal member in this house from British Columbia and the main theme of all his speeches during his recent tour of that province was: Send me help. I venture to say Mr. Chairman, that there is nobody on this side of the house or on that who will dispute the minister's need for help.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quarantine-salaries and contingencies of organized districts; public health in other districts; Tracadie and Bentinck Island lazarettoes and leprosy generally - further amount required, $60,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Would the minister explain this item?


John Warwick King: This amount is required for the construction of a boat for our quarantine service at Victoria and for repairs to a boat at St. John harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
European war-further amount required,
Arthur Edward Ross: What is this required for?


John Warwick King: This vote is an increase over last year's on account of the legislation that was brought down this year. It is largely made up of an item of $6,500,000 for the restoration of pensions of those who commuted them some years ago. The balance is required on account of other pension amendments.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is all covered by the act?


John Warwick King: Yes.


James Arthurs: Is that $6,500,000 for the restoration of pensions for this year.


John Warwick King: It is to bring it up to 1931. There will be back pension and the amount necessary to carry them on through the year when they are reinstated.


James Arthurs: Then the minister admits that that amount was stolen during past years.


John Warwick King: I do not admit anything of the kind. I think it was unfair that the commutation should have been made some years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of pensioners (governor general's warrant of February 20, 1930), $300,000.
John Warwick King: This is to cover
the over-expenditure on relief. There is an item each year. It is very hard to estimate the amount.


Robert James Manion: Is this vote for unemployment relief?


John Warwick King: No, for relief to
pensioners.


Robert James Manion: I thought by mistake
something had been given to relieve unemployment.


John Warwick King: Undoubtedly
some of the men were out of employment.


Robert James Manion: Yes, a lot of them.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is this?


John Warwick King: This is a relief
fund for pensioners who are in distress during the winter months or at other seasons of the year.


James Arthurs: How much has been distributed in the last two years?
2842	COMMONS
Supply-Pensions and National Health


John Warwick King: Last year we
distributed $378,000; this year, $517,000.


Edward Armour Peck: What is the item for Bill 19?


John Warwick King: Vote 451, war
veterans' allowances, $1,000,000.	.


Robert James Manion: The increase of this relief from $300,000 last year to nearly $600,000 this year is one of the evidences, I suppose, of the prosperity which the ministers talk so much about throughout the country?


John Warwick King: No.


Arthur Edward Ross: The total amount
of money spent on this relief, is $550,000. Is this partly the reason why Bill 19 was put through?


John Warwick King: We hope Bill 19
will relieve many cases of distress during the winter months. These men will have a steady allowance throughout the year if they are unemployable and have reached the age of sixty. At present they accept odd jobs during the summer months and come into the cities during the winter. Some provision has to be made for this item.


Arthur Edward Ross: This $550,000 is
not paid to unemployable .pensioners. These men are actually out of work, no-job men.
Mr. KING (Kootenay) Some of them.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then there is a
large amount of unemployment.


Mr. FRASER:: The amount paid on unemployment last year was in the neighbourhood of '$800,000.


John Warwick King: No, $550,000
last year.


James Arthurs: These expenditures are distributed largely in the cities?


John Warwick King: Yes.


James Arthurs: A poor fellow outside
in the less populated sections has no means of knowing that he can get any relief.


John Warwick King: Yes, through the
legion they know very well. Fortunately in the smaller communities you do not find the distress that prevails in the larger centres.


James Arthurs: Quite true; but a man
in the country might be in equally as distressed circumstances as another man in a large centre without knowing that any relief was available.


John Anderson Fraser: Through what agency does the minister distribute this money?


John Warwick King: The departmental officers, but in some cases we have asked the mayor to administer the funds. In the larger centres we have our own officers and investigators.


John Anderson Fraser: How does the minister think unemployed people out in the country would know of this fund?


John Warwick King: It is well known among the legion officers and the soldiers throughout Canada.


John Anderson Fraser: Does the minister distribute the money through the officers of the legion?


John Warwick King: No, but they know of the fund.


James Arthurs: No, they do not.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not question that the minister believes what he is saying, but I want him to understand that this is a new thing to me. I have a branch of the legion in my own town and I will guarantee they never heard of it. At what points were these amounts distributed?


John Warwick King: I can give the
information by provinces:	Alberta, $11,333;
British Columbia, $71,759-


John Anderson Fraser: At what particular points in the province was this money distributed?


John Warwick King: I have not the
information at hand but it could be ascertained in the department. .


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister should know, I think, that this fund is paid out through his district officers in the large cities. It is a large amount of money, but only a few cities get the benefit.


John Anderson Fraser: If that is the case I protest. The whole proceeding is most unfair. Why is not the unemployed man in the outside districts as much entitled to relief as his unfortunate brother in the large centres?


John Warwick King: I do not think
my hon. friend understands the situation. This relief is paid to pensioners, and you will find that in the winter months the main body of that type of men are in the large centres, and that is necessarily where most of the relief is paid. We have communications from time to time from small country districts advising us of some person or persons who require relief. An officer is sent out, the cases are investigated, and relief given. We do not

Supply-Trade and Commerce
advertise that we have millions of dollars to give away. Usually when people are in distress they make their wants known, and if possible they are relieved under this provision.


Harry Bernard Short: It is not generally known,
even in rural districts, where the legion have their organization. Am I to understand from the minister now that there is a fund of $300,000 available for cases of distress if application is made through the legion to his department.


John Warwick King: That is so.


Harry Bernard Short: It may be known in the
cities, but it is not known in the small places.
I do not think the legion knows of it in the small towns of Nova Scotia.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not think the manner in which this fund is distributed is fair to a province like British Columbia. The minister is just as well aware as I am that not ten per cent of British Columbia is organized into municipalities. Consequently in the unorganized districts there is no means by which men can get in contact with this relief.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Who decides whether a
case is deserving or not, the department officers or the legion in the locality?


John Warwick King: Our investigators
and executive officers in the vicinity.


James Arthurs: I again protest that the majority of cases in the outlying districts of Ontario or any other province have absolutely no knowledge that such a fund exists. Their sole dependence in the past has been upon the poppy fund, and in the majority of cases these men who deserve relief under this fund are compelled to go to the municipality. Tn many instances they have no knowledge that such relief as described in this vote exists.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Trade and Commerce-British and foreign news service, $32,000.
Harry Bernard Short: I ask for an explanation of this service. Does it refer to the advertising item which we used to have?


James Malcolm: No. This is for the British and foreign news service, and it has been carried on for some years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $235,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Why the large increase?


James Malcolm: On account of the preparation for next year's census.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Research Council, $500,000.
Harry Bernard Short: What is the explanation of the increase of $100,000?


James Malcolm: This increase is because of preparation being made for the use of the new building on its completion. There are more technical men being engaged to take over the new departments, and work is increasing in the laboratory. Rather than have an extra large increase in one year we are increasing it slightly this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian exhibit at the British Empire trade exhibition, Buenos Aires, $150,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What is this for?


James Malcolm: This is for Canada's
exhibit at the British Empire exhibition held at Buenos Aires. We are cooperating with the British Empire in the erection of a pavilion in that city. A fair is being held there in 1930 and 1931. This is a new vote, and it provides for the construction of a building costing $70,000, for the removal of exhibition material from London to Buenos Aires, freight thereon, travelling expenses and maintenance of the staff while the exhibition is in progress. The rental of the space will cost $30,000. As all other parts of the empire are joining with the mother country in displaying British goods to the people of Latin America we feel that Canada's part will be profitable and useful to Dominion trade.


John Anderson Fraser: I was wondering if some of us who might be out of employment after the election might get a job at this place.


James Malcolm: If I had as much faith as my hon. friend I should conclude that he would have the giving of the job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Exhibitions and fairs, including the sum of $143,870 required for the Department of Immigration and Colonization, $367,130.
George Halsey Perley: Why is the Department of Trade and Commerce including in this item an item for the Department of Immigration and Colonization?


James Malcolm: I would like to speak on this item, because it involves the question relative to medical services brought up by
2S44

Supply-Trade and Commerce
my hon. friend. In the Department of Trade and Commerce we maintain a service which costs $119,000. This service covers a warehouse at St. Catharines, of which Mr. Corkery is in charge. He collects the various fruit exhibits and puts them up in glass jars for the various Canadian exhibitions. We maintain offices at London, England, with a staff of four people. In Winnipeg there is a staff engaged in the collection of grains, seeds and other cereal products. In the collection of exhibits we spend about $50,000. During the past we have exhibited at state fairs in the United States of America. These samples have also been exhibited in Great Britain; I might say that the cost in connection with all these exhibitions has amounted to about $54,000. Exhibits have also been placed in all the windows of the immigration offices on the continent, in Europe and in the United States. The major portion of the vote is chargeable to the Department of Immigration and Colonization, because that department formerly collected the samples. However, when the exhibition branch was taken over by the Department of Trade and Commerce this work was transferred and remained chargeable to immigration. I discussed the matter with my colleague, the acting minister (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), to decide if it was advisable for us to continue to collect these samples, for use at state fairs and on the continent. We concluded that these exhibitions had a double value. They have a general advertising value to Canada. They advertise the Dominion, whether a man be interested in Canada from a tourist standpoint, from the standpoint of an investor or as an immigrant. It is quite possible that when the conference is held with the provinces as to the taking over of immigration the existing service may be continued. It may be that the acting minister may offer to continue to do this work for the provinces. It would be difficult for the general exhibition branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce to get along without this service, whether it is voted for the Department of Immigration and Colonization or for the Department of Trade and Commerce. If there is a saving to be effected as a result of a conference between the minister and the provincial authorities I can assure the committee that I shall be glad to reduce the vote if the result of the conference warrants such action.


George Halsey Perley: At what places on the continent do you have these exhibits?


James Malcolm: There are many of them in England. There are exhibits at Southampton, Liverpool, Bristol, London, Glasgow, Inverness and Edinburgh.


George Halsey Perley: Are there some on the continent?


James Malcolm: Yes, I think there is one at Paris. I am sorry to inform the hon. gentleman that I have not a complete list of immigration offices before me.


Harry Bernard Short: I should like to revert to item 341 and have the minister give some little explanation as to how this $250,000 for advertising in Canada and abroad is spent.


James Malcolm: I can tell my hon. friend exactly how it is spent. It is practically all spent on four advertisements, two advertisements a year in the daily press of Canada.


Harry Bernard Short: Advertising our natural products?


James Malcolm: No, advertising the
opportunity for foreign trade. There are two advertisements a year in the weekly press of Canada. We also advertise in a great many of the trade magazines pointing out the inquiries for goods which are of interest to that particular trade and which come each month from our commercial intelligence department. The whole purpose of this expenditure is to awaken interest in the opportunity Canada has for the sale largely of manufactured goods in foreign countries and to bring to the attention of industrialists in as clear a way as we can the inquiries made daily of our trade commissioners in the thirty-five offices we have abroad. This is really to supplement the work of our trade commissioners in getting the information they acquire to the Canadian manufacturer or exporters.


George Halsey Perley: Did the minister say this advertisement is put in every daily newspaper in Canada?


James Malcolm: Yes, without exception.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I rose a moment ago to ask the minister a question in respect to item 316. This provides for an expenditure of $367,000 in connection with exhibitions and fairs. Has the minister any tangible evidence of the result which these exhibitions bring to the country?


James Malcolm: I do not think there is any doubt about it. If I wanted to weary the committee I could read a great many letters which have been received by the department, but I shall not do eo.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Leon Johnson Ladner: I really wanted the frank judgment of the minister, from a business point of view.


James Malcolm: Yes, I would say to my hon. friend that although I had nothing whatever to do with it, Canada never received any better advertising value than at the Wembley exhibition. People from all over the world were astonished at the progress Canada had made in manufacturing and in other lines as shown at Wembley. I think in Mr. Turcotte, the head of our exhibition branch, we have a man of whom we should be proud. It seems that during the last couple of decades Canada always has been in the forefront in the quality of her exhibitions. Just at the opening of the Antwerp fair a week or so ago Canada was the only country which had its pavilion open on time. A good deal of press comment followed all over Europe to the effect that Canada's exhibition commissioner had been the only one to have his exhibit open on time. I do believe that the display of our products at international affairs has been of great benefit to the Dominion, and I think the money is wisely spent.


Robert James Manion: In regard to that publicity and advertising item, during what months are these advertisements published across Canada? Is there a special time of the year?


James Malcolm: Usually we run one advertisement in the early part of the year and one in the fall.


Robert James Manion: Has the early advertisement been run this year?


James Malcolm: Yes, there was one I
think in January.


Robert James Manion: So that in all probability it will not be necessary to run one during the election?


James Malcolm: No, I do not think there will be another one this year.


Mr. HARRIS:: I should like to direct the
minister's attention to item 310, which provides for the expenditure of $1,625 in connection with the International Customs Tariff Bureau. I should like to know just what that has reference to, and also once more I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which I have brought to his attention in previous years. It is this:	What are our
trade commissioners doing towards stopping the practice of continental manufacturers of sending their goods to England and then having the same goods find their way to Canada under the British preference? That is the first part of the question. The second part
is this:	With goods of continental origin
finding their way to the British market, and with the same commodity manufactured in Great Britain and shipped to this country under the British preference, the minister knows that this leads to bootlegging in these goods. In my judgment there is a good deal of bootlegging in merchandise which originates on the continent and which finds its way to Canada under the British preference. In the event that it does not find its way here it supplies the home market in Great Britain, which in turn supplies this market with goods of British manufacture. I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last year, and I bring it to his attention again this year and ask what is being done.


James Malcolm: In reply to my hon.
friend I would say that the point of course is important in trade, but it is hardly relevant to this item. The trade commissioners of Canada are not charged with any duties such as he describes. Their job is to sell Canadian products. He is complaining about a condition which exists whereby continental manufacturers take advantage of the British preference by shipping via Great Britain. I think my hon. friend knows that we have a clause in our customs tariff which compels the man shipping goods under the British preference to take an affidavit to the effect that the goods are 50 per cent British content to enjoy the preference. That is purely a matter for the customs department.
My hon. friend wished to know something about the contributions we make to the International Customs Tariff Bureau. The International Customs Tariff Bureau at Brussels was founded as the result of a convention, signed at Brussels on July 5, 1890, by thirty-nine countries, including Canada. The purpose of the bureau is to translate and distribute, to the various states supporting it, the customs tariffs of the world, with amendments thereto which may be enacted from time to time. To maintain this bureau countries are classified according to their respective volumes of trade and assessed accordingly. At the outset Canada was placed in the third class, for which the contribution was $600. In 1929 Canada, on account of her increased trade, was advanced to the first class, and the Canadian contribution was raised to about $1,319. This amount was increased by 10 per cent, to provide for the superannuation of the few bureau employees. This item is to provide for the translation of the customs tariffs of the world, so that we may have them in our own language. '
2S46

Supply-Trade and Commerce


George Gibson Coote: I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to item 303. Last year a bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture provided for the erection of a seed warehouse in Saskatchewan, and at that time the minister said that whenever the seed growers in the other two prairie provinces were ready for it he would be glad to do the same thing for them. The seed growers in Alberta say they could not afford to pay the interest charges on a building similar to the one constructed in Saskatchewan, and they have asked that some additional storage facilities be provided at the government elevator at Edmonton, which could be done at much less cost. I just wanted to ask the minister if the matter has been decided upon by him, whether his department is in a position to take this action, and whether there is money available for it in the estimates.


James Malcolm: In reply to my hon. friend, although this really is a matter more for the Department of Agriculture, I may say that representations were made to the Department of Trade and Commerce along the lines suggested by my hon. friend, to the effect that we might put an annex on the Edmonton elevator to clean seed grain. The officers of my department felt that attaching a seed grain warehouse to a commercial elevator was not the best way to get good seed. It is difficult for a commercial house to clean seed grain properly. My officers recommended strongly that it would be more advisable to erect a separate building and that the Department of Agriculture Should look after the work. I see no reason why the general handling charges should be loaded with the cleaning of grain for seed purposes.
I advised my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture that we did not feel like going on with the work; we thought that it should come under his department. I would assure my hon. friend that the superintendent of the elevator at Edmonton is prepared to go ahead to the best of his ability with the cleaning of grain, but he cannot guarantee as clean seed as would be produced by a separate plant.


George Gibson Coote: That is being done now?


James Malcolm: It is being done now and he will continue to do it to the best of his ability.


George Gibson Coote: That will continue until some other arrangement can be made?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the minister a trade agent in Russia?


James Malcolm: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the minister any source of accurate information regarding conditions existing in that country?


James Malcolm: I think it is well known by members of the committee that accuracy of information regarding Russia is rather difficult to obtain. I presume my hon. friend is interested in the wheat grown in that country. We ship to Mediterranean ports-16 vessels have left Canada said to be for southern Russia-and at the same time wheat is being shipped from northern Russia. I am told that Russia is selling coal to Cardiff, while Cardiff coal is going into northern Russia. My hon. friend can take the press reports for what they are worth.


Robert James Manion: And they are selling coal to Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hesitate to detain the committee at this stage, but I feel that I must say a word or two upon this question. There is nothing more important to the Dominion of Canada than the wheat production of other countries. Wheat is the one basic wealth which we produce annually out of the soil of Canada; it is one of the most important factors in the financial and industrial stability of this country. I am not easily alarmed in matters of this kind, but I must say that I am alarmed at the reports in this connection. For fifteen years I have been hearing of the threat of Russia to the wheat markets of the world; it has been held up before me as the great bugbear or ghost to be feared, but it has never materialized.


James Malcolm: Would my hon. friend permit the committee to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again in order that the Prime Minister may make a motion to continue the sitting of the house?
Mr. GARL4ND (Bow River): This discussion will continue?


James Malcolm: Yes. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from committee of supply this day.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to move that this
house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock to-day. I have an understanding with the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. leader of the Progressive group that it will be agreeable to them to sit until one o'clock.
I understand also that that will be agreeable to other members of the house.
Mr. SPEAKER- Mr. Mackenzie King moves that when this house adjourns at eleven o'clock it shall sit again this day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the correct
motion; the hour should be changed from eleven o'clock to one o'clock to-morrow.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will repeat the motion
as amended: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie King:
That this house shall not be adjourned at eleven o'clock to-day but at one o'clock a.m. to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Edward Joseph Garland: When the
committee rose a moment ago I was stating that up to this time I had not been unduly alarmed about this situation. However, I find information coming forward, the authenticity of which I cannot vouch for, and I find myself in the same position as the minister. There appears to be a strong belief that in a great section of Russia there has been instituted what might be called a revolution in agricultural operations. I am informed that five years ago some three hundred mechanics were sent from that country to Cleveland and other cities in the United States to study the construction and repairing of tractors. These men returned to Russia and established schools for education in the use of tractors for farming purposes. I am informed that at the beginning of this year there were some 2,000,000 households-that is a unit used as the standard in agricultural matters-in Russia who were under this collectivized system of agriculture. I am informed that on April 1 of this year there were some 14,000,000 households in the scheme, and from 54 to 64 per cent of the tilled land is now alleged to be collectivized. Collectivizing means the organizing of the
country into artels, under the guidance of a peasant committee. Upon that committee is a representative of the Soviet government, a farming expert and an expert accountant. All this appears to have commenced about eighteen months or two years ago with the first experiment being held on a farm which was called the giant farm, under the management of a man named Yourkin. This farm was operated so successfully that the Soviet government became interested and attempted a compulsory organization of the peasants. That was subsequently abandoned as not being the best type of organization, it being found that men who were forced to join were guilty of sabotage or else refused to work. The result was that this scheme was put upon a voluntary basis, and I am informed that the change met with instantaneous success.
I have obtained most of my information from an article which appeared in an English paper known as The New Leader. The article in part reads as follows:
With anything like fair weather, it seems quite possible that the Russian grain crop this coming year will go over the top with a surplus to shake the markets of the world.
This has not been without effort and considerable cost. Yesterday, under my window, marched to the sound of a band the ranks of 1.500 Moscow students, mobilized out to organize farm collectives. The upper two classes of all the agricultural colleges in the land, and the upper class of all agricultural high schools, are being hurled in this first week of March from their desks into the rural districts. Some months ago they were preceded by 25.000 factory workers, the most skilled and the best organizers. The young communist league of the ward of Moscow, where I live, has adopted a township to the north of Moscow, and has sent out hundreds of its chosen youth to organize work in the collectives there.
For the seed collection is only the first sign of success. Now the program of work must be organized, fitting the backward individualist peasants into modern grain production on the factory system. Methods of accounting must, be set up. so that each peasant knows his tasks and his share of the harvest, and sees that he is treated equally with his neighbours. Every piece of farm machinery of every kind in Russia must be got out of -warehouse to the soil in the place where it is most needed.
This gigantic job is being done in the first few weeks of March for more than half the entire peasantry of Russia.
The figures at the end of that month were that 14,000,000 households were enrolled in this single collectivized area and divided in turn into small subdistricts called artels. The organization is one of the most amazingly comprehensive and intelligently conducted I have ever heard of, and far exceeds my wildest dreams of a cooperative commonwealth. I say to the minister that if this
Supply-Trade and Commerce

thing is only one-tenth successful, it will mean that Russia will again be a tremendous factor in the markets of the world. We cannot prevent that, but we should know about it from authoritative sources which cannot be questioned. As I said at the outset, we are going entirely upon articles, some emanating from Russia, others from visitors to Russia and others from possibly guesswork, but I have two or three of these articles under my hand, and they all tell the same story; they all talk of this great scheme. For exemiple, the Labour News, printed in Washington, D.C., says at page 6 of the issue of Saturday, April 5:
The harvest this year in Russia will be the most historic harvest that ever occurred since the prehistoric harvest when man first learned to cast seed on the soil for his food. The harvest this year ushers in a new form of farming, which differs so completely from the old that it must either fail in famine, or begin the farm revolution the world over. To-day the latter alternative seems likely.
The 30 days from January 20 to February 20 of this winter saw a revolution in Russia compared with which the ten days that shook the world was a mere bagatelle. In those 30 days 40 per cent of all Russia's peasants joined collectives, throwing land, horses and implements, into a common pot and planning together for ploughing and sowing. On January 20 only 17 per cent had joined the collectives; by February 20 it was 59 per cent. On January 20, only 55 per cent of the horses were yet collectives; on February 20 it was 44 per cent.
I am informed there are ten or eleven million work animals in the collectivized area, and out of that number more than 8,000,000 are now pooled in the common pot that is spoken of in this article. The article continues :
But how will these collective farms plough? What kind of a harvest will they get? Can fourteen million individual households be merged in one month into a factory form of farming-mass production of grain? That is the number that have joined collectives. The first answer came on March 1, when it was shown that collectives had brought into their central barn the staggering total of 130 million bushels of grain, which they were busy exchanging for cleaned and selected seed of the Department of Agriculture. This fact made it possible for the state to release nearly an equal amount from its reserves to give seed to regions where last year the crop failed.
This is. however, only the beginning. Fourteen million households must be listed on a working schedule, assigned their jobs each day under elected field managers. All implements in warehouses must be rushed to the fields; all local implements must be repaired. To help in this fight 25,000 of the skilled and organized factory workers have been hurled into the villages for the past three months, assisted by 100.000 disciplined red army men. They are followed now by a mobilization of 90 per cent of the farm experts of the nation.

It is most interesting to note that all these stories carry the same basic facts, namely, that the agricultural scientists of Russia are being mobilized and thrown into this tremendous scheme. This man Yourkin, of whom I spoke earlier, was a man who studied this idea on the Campbell farm. Campbell who has the greatest single farm in the United States, at that time the greatest single farm in the world, was taken to Russia and he there gave them information regarding the operation of a gigantic farm of this kind. Some two years ago Yourkin took over the operation of the first experiment of this kind. The description of that is as follows:
Last year Yourkin was director of the Gigant, the biggest farm in the world, three times as big, as Campbell's. This year he has a job which completely dwarfs last year's: he is managing the farming of half Russia. Over
200.000.	000 acres of farmland in Russia have come during the past winter under collectivization. This is the farm that Yourkin manages!
The total wheat acreage in western Russia at the present time is 24,000,000 acres. In this we have a suggestion of collective operation of
200.000.	000 acres. In no manner does this mean that acreage will be sown to wheat, but I am informed that the most intelligently organized areas are in the best wheat districts of Russia. I do not want to suggest to the committee that we should become unduly alarmed about this situation, although frankly, I am alarmed about it; but I say that we should be in a position to secure accurate information, and I would urge upon the minister, with all the earnestness I can command, that he undertake in some way to see that Canada has that information which is so vital to her, and that we have it in a way and from a source that cannot be questioned. As to how he can get that information I do not know, and I would not dare to venture any particular or specific suggestion; but it occurs to me that he has in Canada organizations now operating in agriculture, some of which would be glad to cooperate with him in this matter. If any means could be found whereby he could send an agent or secure an agent being sent from this country for the purpose of finding out all about this scheme, he would be only doing his duty. I am sorry we have no definite information about it. I realize that is because we cut off trade relations with Russia some years ago.
I am not going to argue at the moment that those relations should be restored. Personally I feel they should be; I think it would be in the trade interests of Canada that they be restored under certain restrictions with regard to propaganda. We are missing a lot of good business by not restoring those trade relations.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Relations between the two countries would be better if trade relations were restored, but the thing of chief importance to me at the moment is the possibility of this tremendous volume of wheat being suddenly thrown on the markets of the world to their complete demoralization. That would be bad enough, but to have it happen without forewarning would be disastrous to western Canada and a very serious matter to the whole of Canada. If we are forewarned, we shall be prepared for the catastrophe, mentally, if not otherwise. We may not be able to take any direct steps to offset it, but I feel we are at least entitled to accurate information as to the condition of affairs in Russia.


James Malcolm: I can assure my hon.
friend I would like very much to be able to Secure accurate information as to what is being done in every country in the world, if that were possible; but in the case of Russia I believe he will agree with me that when one gets an optimistic statement from Russia, one can never tell whether it is propaganda or a bear attack on the market. Anybody who has followed the wheat market in Liverpool will recall that on more than one occasion the Liverpool market was brought down several shillings a quarter on account of information from Russia. The cry of "wolf!" has gone out so often I have Ceased to be alarmed about the 200,000,000 acres of which my hon. friend has spoken. The most authoritative statements that I have heard made about Russia, or rather, statements made by men whose judgment is, I think conservative and reliable, are to the effect that Russia has to some extent entered on the venture which my hon. friend points out, namely, industrialized agriculture. Having failed deplorably in the operation of her industry to attain any mass production, she seems to have now turned her endeavours to industrialized agriculture.


Edward Joseph Garland: Where did the minister get the information that Russia had failed deplorably in regard to industry?


James Malcolm: I told my hon. friend
[DOT]that I got information from men whose opinions I value but whose names I do not wish to make public, that Russia has failed deplorably in trying to organize her factories, *but that she has turned with some success to the organizations of her coal fields and probably of her agricultural areas. I have been informed that Russia is not particularly interested in the growing of wheat in the southern areas, but that she is taking a very great interest and sees possibilities of better 2419-180
returns in growing cotton. That would seem to be borne out by the fact that a great deal of wheat is now going to Mediterranean ports and, supposedly to Russia. I cannot join with my hon. friend in being so fearful of what Russia may do to the Canadian wheat business. Russia may be a factor and will be a factor in producing very good wheat, but I doubt very much if the condition which my hon. friend points out will obtain.
As to sending someone to Russia, as my hon. friend suggests, we have not at the present time any trade relations with Russia. There is very little that we can buy from Russia. Lumber, coal and wheat are her three principal commodities of export, and those three aTe also commodities off export from this dominion. It is true that we can sell Russia some manufactured goods, and we are doing so, to the extent of a few million dollar's *worth in recent years. But there is very little trade in return. In the case of a country like Russia, where payments seem to depend on the trading country's ability to lend Russia money, I am not so enamoured of opening trade relations with Russia as my hon. friend. I would like to see more stability in Russia before I would recommend any such step to the government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I understand the minister to say that he does not ipropose to take any steps to find out more *accurately about conditions there?


James Malcolm: I did not say that I
\vould not take steps, but I have no intention of opening a detective agency to find out what is going on in Russia.


Edward Joseph Garland: I did not
suggest that.


James Malcolm: If my hon. friend can
tell me how I or anybody else can make a survey of Russia except through the ordinary business channels, I shall be glad to hear from him. My hon. friend agrees with me that in the past five years probably three out of four *of the statements that have emanated from Russia have been simply propaganda. Some *of the statements may be truthful, but to pick out the truthful ones is a gamble. I have *heard so many contradictory statements made by people who' have been in Russia. Some of them I have found to be correct, but three out of four have been wrong. I have no intention at the present time of sending an *investigator to Russia to find out what effect Russia's program is going to have on Canada's trade. It may be advisable in the future, but I do not think it is advisable at the moment.

2S50

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edward Joseph Garland: I aim disappointed in the position taken by the minister, because I have usually found him very reasonable. I am disappointed, but I should not be surprised, because I remember that last year he made a speech in this house in which he said that his department was interested in finding markets for manufactured goods but not in finding markets for grain.


James Malcolm: I never said that.


Edward Joseph Garland: He said that products of that kind find their own markets. I can quote his words in Hansard.


James Malcolm: What I said was that our trade commissioners had no facilities for marketing grain, that grain was sold on the exchanges of the world, and that our trade commissioners in their offices had no opportunity to sell grain. My hon. friend knows that, and that is exactly what I meant when I made that statement.


Edward Joseph Garland: On March
14, 1929, the minister said on page 948 of Hansard:
The department of trade and commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets; but we are interested in assisting the sale of manufactured products.


James Malcolm: I stand by that.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
exactly what I said the minister said, and he said he did not say it.


James Malcolm: No. Hansard will show what I said.


Robert James Manion: Wheat has not found its
own market this year very well.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am going to ask the minister once more to consider this situation. I agree with him that we have been fooled with the cry of "wolf" for thirty years, if he likes, but that was in the days when the peasants of Russia were under the rule of the czar, when conditions in that country were deplorable, when the peasant was a downtrodden wreck of citizenship, poverty stricken and starving for the most part, his grain and foodstuffs taken from him to pay for taxes, and with nothing left to live on but brown or black bread. Since that time I am informed from many sources, not just by one or two travellers, that conditions have vastly changed. Read some of the most modem works on Russia and you will find that there is a changed mentality amongst the people. They were in danger not long ago of a partial famine, and as a result we find

from one article after another, coming from a variety of sources, that agriculture is being organized. In view of that and the effect that it must have on the welfare of Canada, it is not too much to ask that the minister undertake to find out in some way-I do not care in what way-the truth for the benefit of those in this country whose living is in agriculture.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I just wish to endorse
what my hon. friend from Bow River has said with respect to Russia. If a year ago I had told the minister that to-day Russian pulp-wood would be coming up the St. Lawrence and landing at Canadian ports, he would have said that I had a mental aberration. Yet that is the fact to-day. There is no doubt that a lot of the statements coming out of Russia in recent years have been propaganda, but when we see Russian goods being sold in Canada in competition with our own, we are faced with facts, not propaganda. To-day we find Russian pulpwood selling in Canada, and Russian coal and lumber. What are we going to do if Russian wheat is sold in large quantities in England next year? We are almost entirely shut out of continental markets for our wheat, and England is about the only market we have left. If Russia should take that market from us, and there is a serious danger of that happening, what are we going to do about it? Since we are maintaining a department of trade and commerce and have trade commissioners all over the world, it seems to me that this is a subject that we should inquire into right now. The minister should be able to secure information through his trade commissioners, and with accurate information before us we can adjust ourselves to conditions as we see them arise. The Russian farmer has a very much lower standard of living than the Canadian farmer, and if we have to face Russian competition in Great Britain and the outside world, it may be a most disastrous thing for us. The sooner we know what the actual situation is, the better. I would press on the minister the absolute necessity of inquiring into the situation so that we may secure the best information possible.


James Malcolm: I would like to say in reply to my 'hon. friends as to the work of our trade commissioners, that I meant just what I said last year in discussing the work of the trade and commerce men in the field. We are not exercised over the marketing of wheat because we have no control over wheat. The pool in this country sells its own wheat.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
and it controls 60 per cent of Canada's crop. The rest of the crop is sold when in the opinion of the owners of the wheat the price is advantageous. I defy any hon. gentleman to say that he can represent Canada in Liverpool and can persuade any miller to buy wheat on any other basis than the day's prevailing price for the grade of a Canadian certificate. The market is so well established that I do not think anybody could persuade the buyer to pay a cent more for a grade that he wanted or to buy a grade that he did not want. We have looked into this situation. There are countries where our trade commissioners have done everything possible to assist, and have cooperated with the agents of the pool; but those countries have not the great buying power of Britain. We are interested in the marketing of anything where we can help, but wheat is a commodity in which it is particularly hard for us to be of active assistance because the owner sells only at the moment he thinks the price is as high as he can obtain.
As to the Russian situation, two things have been pointed out by members who have spoken; namely that Russia is likely to grow a lot more wheat, and that- the Russian people are raising their standard of living. I think everybody realizes that in the days before the war when Russia produced and exported a considerable quantity of wheat she was not a large consumer of her best grades. Now we are told Russia will be a very substantial consumer of those grades. These statements must be judged one in relation to the other. I am informed there will be some Russian wheat come out of northern Russia, and I am told also that there will be a market in southern Russia for as much wheat as northern Russia will export. As a matter of fact, of nineteen boats in all that came from Russia to Canada with coal or pulpwood, sixteen were chartered to take wheat back to Mediterranean ports.


Edward Joseph Garland: Exactly.


James Malcolm: Where their ultimate
destination is I do not know.


Edward Joseph Garland: It is not Russia.


James Malcolm: I am also informed that southern Russia at the moment is very short of wheat and that wheat is likely to go in there. All these statements from Russia are more or less rumours, and to investigate the actual conditions there is a very difficult matter. Canada broke off trade relations with Russia in 1927; therefore we cannot at the present time send trade commissioners to ask 2419-1801
their statisticians to supply us with information. Calculations have been made by various agencies, and we are trying to get from these sources authoritative information that may be of assistance to our wheat growers. In a word, we are watching the situation, and from what I know I do not see the disaster facing us that my hon. friend thinks is imminent.
I do not believe Russia will be such a tremendous factor in the wheat market this year as has been reported.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps the minister might get information from the British government. I offer the suggestion to the minister for what it is worth. I understand they have reestablished trade relations with Russia.


James Malcolm: I do not think official
relations have been reestablished.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have an idea, Mr. Chairman, that the minister should know more about it than I do-


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have reestablished
quasi diplomatic relations.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I
suggest to the minister that he take the matter up with the board of trade department of Great Britain and find out whether they think there is any truth in the reports which have been in circulation. I am only anxious to help the minister get the best information. If he cannot send a man there himself I ask him to take it up with the British authorities.


James Malcolm: I am trying to get information, but I may tell my hon. friend frankly that the reports are very conflicting. We get information from our trade commissioner in London which he secures in various ways, but the reports emanating from Russia are so contradictory that the authorities in England are not inclined to attach much importance to them. I do not think we can place full credence in some of the reports, because nothing would be so much to the personal advantage of a man who wished to depress the market as to circulate rumours that Russian grain was coming in in large quantities. As I said before, you can never tell whether these statements are authentic or mere propaganda.


Harry Bernard Short: A few minutes ago the minister said that Russia was increasing her trade in coal. Has he or the government taken into serious consideration doing anything to prevent the importations of hundreds of thousands of tons of Russian coal to the detriment of the coal industry of Nova Scotia? The minister says there are no diplomatic rela-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
tions between Russia and this country. If that is so there is certainly a very undiplomatic trade going on, because he and his government must be well aware that not a few cargoes, but hundreds of thousands of tons of Russian coal are coming into this country and are being sold at a price below that at which Nova Scotia can land her coal in Montreal. I think the minister or his department should give very serious consideration to the question of why one of the natural products of this country should be displaced by coal imported from Russia which is mined with prison labour.


James Malcolm: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Well, with very cheap labour -labour that lives at a standard very much below what our miners live or what we would want them to live. This is a very serious question, and it is increasing in gravity all the time. Certainly the minister's department or the government should do something about it.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I want to direct a few
questions to the minister with respect to coal. I brought the matter to his attention in connection with the first importations of coal from Russia in 1928. At that time he thought very lightly of it and told me it would not amount to anything. I then also spoke to three of his colleagues, the Minister of Mines (Mr. Stewart), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) and the then Minister of Finance Mr. Robb. The only one who took any interest in the matter was the late Mr. Robb. Now, I want to point out to the minister that this coal has continued to come in in increasing quantities. As I say, it began in 1928. The importations largely increased a year ago, and to-day we have hundreds of thousands of tons coming, as the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short) has just said. This matter was dealt with a week ago when I asked a question of the Minister of Mines who is now in his seat beside the minister. His reply then was:
There has been some coal carried from Montreal as far west as Cobalt.
Then he made this astounding statement:
It has been coming dn under the subvention granted to the movement of Nova Scotia coal, but I am informed that only a small amount has reached Cobalt. It is not expected that ;he importation of Soviet or Russian coal will ixceed 300,000 tons.
I think the Minister of Mines was under a misapprehension when he made that statement. He had an idea, due to imperfect knowledge of the facts, that that coal would not compete with our coal. Indeed he said that it did not affect the importation of anthra-

cite coal from Great Britain, the proof of that in his mind being that the importation of anthracite from Great Britain was increasing and the importation of American anthracite was decreasing. For the moment I am not particuarly interested in the question of the relative increase or decrease of anthracite coal from Great Britain or the United States, but I am interested in the class of coal to which I have referred and of which I have a sample in my hand. I may say that I showed this coal last week to the Minister of Mines. We have here a coal which comes as a result of a very great improvement in Soviet mining conditions and scientific treatment of that product. These people have set for themselves the mark of 300,000,000 tons as a yearly output, and judging from the progress they have made in the last few years it is not unlikely they will reach that enormous output within a short time. This coal may be considered a by-product of anthracite coal. May I point out to the minister that when the first cargoes of Russian anthracite coal came out they consisted of totally unprepared run-of-mine anthracite, and it proved to be a fine fuel. As analysis proved, it is superior to any anthracite of which I am aware, and in that statement I include the anthracite from Scotland, Wales and the United States. It is higher in fixed carbon and lower in ash than the anthracite coal produced to-day in any of those countries, or any such coal which has been mined in those countries within the last twenty years. Last year the coal came out sized egg and nut, and this year it is coming in buckwheat sizes also. This Soviet coal is air washed and is beautifully polished, and entirely free from dust or other impurities. If not air washed it would be a waste product and would be thrown on the dump. It is brought out under a guarantee rate of freight not exceeding 12 shillings a ton with a guarantee to the importers that if the freight goes up to 14, 18 or 20 shillings the exporters will bear the difference between 12 shillings and any advance in freight rates up to 20 shillings per ton. In other words, Russian producers will contribute up to 8 shillings a ton to meet any increase in the freight. The coal can be air-cleaned for say five cents per ton. Twelve shillings in our money amounts to $2.88. If sold on the Montreal market at $3 a ton the producers will come out even, indeed have a small profit of say seven or eight cents. Nova Scotia cannot place run-of-mine coal on the bunkhead for $3 a ton, to say nothing about transporting from Nova Scotia to Montreal. Now I ask the minister, what is the government

2S53
Supply-Trade and Commerce
going to do about it? This coal is now actually going into the interior of Ontario, and the Minister of Mines stated it is being transported west from Montreal under the subvention rail freight granted to the moving of Nova Scotia coal.


Charles A. Stewart: I am sorry if Hansard interpreted my statement in that way.
I did not read my remarks, but if I made that statement it is not the fact. Soviet coal does not enjoy the subvention granted to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coal. The payment of subvention is dependent upon the coal coming from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from our own field.


Harry Bernard Short: Why did you make the statement which appears in Hansard?


Charles A. Stewart: Hansard must have misinterpreted my remarks, or if I made the statement my hon. friend has quoted I should have changed it.


Thomas Cantley: I am glad to have the correction, but in all fairness I would like to read the statement made by the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend has read it.


Thomas Cantley: It is as follows:
There has been some coal carried from Montreal as far west as Cobalt. It has been coming in under the subvention granted to the movement of Nova Scotia coal, but I am informed that only a small amount has reached Cobalt. It is not expected that the importation of Soviet or Russian coal will exceed 300.000 tons. Perhaps the total will be about 150,000 tons.
That is the statement made by the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I wish to make a correction to the effect that there is no coal moved under the subvention, except Nova Scotia coal.


Thomas Cantley: I want to point out to the government that this Soviet coal which is coming out here to-day can be sold at a small profit even if sold for S3 a ton. It is offered freely at $6 a ton, and if a buyer could be found who wanted it in large quantities I am quite satisfied he could obtain it at a much smaller price. The exporters have demonstrated that they are in a position to sell it at as low as $3 a ton, delivered at the port of Montreal.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: There is no mining cost in connection with it. Did my hon. friend say there was $2.88 freight?


Thomas Cantley: I wish someone would interpret to me what the hon. gentleman is saying; I am anxious to answer, but I cannot hear him. However, I do not know that it makes very much difference.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman has said that we are including mining costs.


Thomas Cantley: What is the use of saying that? I have given the cost of the coal delivered at Montreal.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend stated there was a charge of 12 shillings for freight.


Thomas Cantley: I have already pointed out that it is a by-product, and if it did not come out here or find a market elsewhere it would go to the dump. However, by air washing it as they can do at a cost of about five cents per ton they are able to offer it if necessary as low as S3 a ton and are freely offering it for $0 in Montreal. They are able to offer this fuel at a much lower figure than that at which we can produce and sell Nova Scotia coal on the same market. Is that clear?


John Gordon Ross: It is clear enough, but you have said it is waste coal, and you have said that it will compete with the very best grade of anthracite.


Thomas Cantley: I say the coal would be a waste product if not classified and air washed, which is done, and exported to this country, and we are foolish enough to allow them to do it. This is a better fuel than any bituminous coal that is mined in Canada, or can be produced anywhere in Canada.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. gentleman said it was better than the best.


Thomas Cantley: It is a better boiler fuel than any bituminous coal mined in Wales, the United States, Canada, or anywhere else, and what are we going to do about it? When the first carload of Soviet coal reached the United States during the fall of 1928 it was refused admission. The collector of the port of New York appealed to the government at Washington as to how he should deal with the situation, and as a result Washington promptly placed on that coal a duty of $2.84 a ton. The ship there was diverted to Montreal and there discharged the cargo free of duty. Cargo after cargo has come out since, and it is expected that three or four hundred thousand tons will come out this year. I appeal to the government, and I want to know what the government intends to do.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
The miners of Nova Scotia and the Alberta coal miners are interested and demand action from the minister; and I want to tell the minister that probably before members of this house reach their homes this Soviet coal will have reached the city of Winnipeg. Hon. members need not express doubt about it, they may depend that it will be there and very soon unless there are effective steps taken to prevent it. One of the members of the British House of Commons, who is thoroughly familiar with the coal trade, iD calling attention to the matter, recently made the statement that the men who produce this coal are working for a rouble or say 18 cents per day. The Soviet coal producers have spent enormous sums of money within the past five years in perfecting their methods of treatment of this coal with the result that they have a product which is coming to this country today in large volume and apparently the government is powerless to deal with it, although they have had three years in which to consider the situation and meet the difficulty.


Charles A. Stewart: I regret very much that I did not previously correct the statement in Hansard, to the effect that Russian coal was moved under the subvention, which in fact applies only to Nova Scotia coal. I wish to make that correction at this time, and make it perfectly clear that it is not true. There is no coal except the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coal moved under the subvention, either on the railway, the steamships, or by combination of rail and steamship. The subvention applies to it only and never was intended to apply elsewhere. With resper to the statement of my hon. friend, that he is not concerned about the importation of Russian anthracite-


Thomas Cantley: I did not say that; I did not say I was not concerned. I said I was not concerned as to whether the relative quantity [DOT]of British or American coal was greater or less. The importation of this coal overshadows the whole question.


Charles A. Stewart: AH right, I shall accept that statement. I have been making some inquiries in recent days since my hon. friend raised the question in the house and the conversation I had with him in respect to this particular product, and the fact is that we are importing more British anthracite coal than ever before; it is constantly growing. The falling off is in the United States coal, so that there is evidence that the Russian anthracite is supplanting the importation from the United States. With respect to the product about which my hon. friend complains and the

importation of which he fears will grow to large proportions, I am making careful inquiries with a view to seeing whether or not the duty now imposed against the American product can be applied against importations from Russia.


Harry Bernard Short: The duty is only 50 cents on the American product, is it not?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: There is no duty on
anthracite coal from any country.


Harry Bernard Short: A duty of 50 cents will not prevent it.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but
there are other means which can be adopted whereby duty can be charged.


Thomas Cantley: Undoubtedly there are
other methods. My complaint against the minister and the government is that they talk about other methods, but for three years they have allowed this coal to come into Canada and have done absolutely nothing. Two years ago they scouted the idea that there was anything in it all; only one minister at that time exhibited any interest whatever. The quantity imported has been increasing, and unless something very definite is done to meet the situation you will find half a million tons of this coal coming into Montreal and large tonnages to other parts of Canada as well within the next year. As a matter of fact this coal is being sold down in Halifax now; the importation is not confined to Montreal, and within a few months, and before the frost comes, you will find it in Winnipeg. What are you going to do about it?


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: I am
very sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not take as seriously as I thought he should the remarks of the hon. members for Bow River and Mackenzie. I have made a study of the Russian situation as it affects the British market for our wheat ever since it has been my privilege to be in the House of Commons, and I must say that I am alarmed over this situation. Usually I take a very optimistic view of these things, but I am alarmed now. We know that our wheat did not move last fall and that we did not get a pro rata part of the importations of wheat into Great Britain, and the one real reason for that was because we were not buying a sufficient quantity of British goods. There were two delegations came over from Great Britain to try and arrange better trade agreements or understandings between Canada and that country, and after those delegations

Supply-Trade and Commerce
were more or less turned down Great Britain went to the Argentine and practically took the entire crop. In return they gave goods.
I have several photostatic copies of editorials and articles which appeared in the Manchester Guardian, which very forcibly state the situation with regard to the Canadian wheat in the British market, and eveiy article shows the necessity of our taking more British goods. Nearly every article makes reference to that 50 per cent clause which went into effect on February 1, 1929, and which shut out the major portion of cotton textiles and some manufactures of copper. As I have said before, this was the last straw that broke the camel's back, and if these conditions are not remedied in the near future we will have another crop on our hands and the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway will be reporting another loss of S21,000,000. I have here a short statement which appeared in the Toronto press, as follows:
The reduced wheat crop, and its failure to move normally, resulted in a loss of $21,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway, E. W. Beatty, the president, told newspaper men to-day. Less than half of this, however, will be made up when the wheat does start to move, which Mr. Beatty expects will be next month.
This statement appeared on February 27, but the wheat did not begin to move until recently. The statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on March 14, 1929, has been read already; the minister said he was not interested in the marketing of wheat, which would find its own level in the markets of the world.


James Malcolm: I did not use those words, and I cannot allow my hon. friend to say that we are not concerned in the market for Canadian wheat. I said we were not exercised, and I think my hon. friend should be fair enough to use the word I used.


William Russell Fansher: When
I spoke of the minister I spoke of him as the head of the Department of Trade and Commerce, and I will read the exact words:
The Department of Trade and Commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets; but we are interested in assisting the sale of manufactured products.


James Malcolm: Quite so.


William Russell Fansher: It is quite all right to be interested in the sale of manufactured products; several million dollars worth of manufactured products go to Great Britain and to Russia from Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said a few moments ago that we would have to take
something in return if we exported to Russia, and the Minister of Finance has made that statement several times during the course of this session. If that be true-and no one doubts it-of necessity we must take more goods from Great Britain. That is absolutely necessary if we expect Great Britain to take from 300,000,000 to 350,000,000 bushels of our wheat to relieve the Canadian market. We must take that much in goods from Great Britain.
I do not wish to delay the committee, but I could give statistics to show that up until the last few months we were taking less than half the amount of goods from Great Britain that would compensate for this amount of wheat. That balance of trade must be looked into. The more we pry the foreign markets open for manufactured goods the more we will have to take in return to pay for those goods, and it is just a question of whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is going to interest himself in the marketing of our wheat as to whether our next crop will be in any better position than the last one.
I do hope he will seriously consider the remarks of the hon. members I previously mentioned and interest himself in finding out the Russian situation, and interest himself very seriously in seeing what can be done in regard to the marketing of our wheat because it will not find its own market any more; it must be merchandised. When Great Britain has come to the place where she has to resort to bartering, trading her goods for other goods, we must be up and doing in order to get in on that market. The situation is too serious to pass over.


James Malcolm: Does not my hon. friend know that the whole basis of this year's budget was to let Great Britain sell us more goods so that we could sell her more wheat? My hon. friend realizes that.


William Russell Fansher: I will tell the minister that all the articles put on the free list from Great Britain do not amount to the snap of my fingers when compared to the damage done by the 50 per cent content regulation.


George Reginald Geary: Surely no one could suggest that the budget is going to remedy this wheat condition; surely my hon. friend the minister who has just spoken does not think that the English trade with Canada will be greatly increased by the new budget. If my hon. friend wants to change that balance of trade and get the credits right, let him shut out American goods; let him raise the duty on those goods and divert the trade in reality
2S56	COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
from the United1 States to Great Britain. He cannot do it by the miserable little gestures that have 'been made by this government in connection with the British preference. No one in this house seriously thinks for one moment that that is going to make any difference to amount to anything.
I am a little concerned about my hon. friends here to my left; they are getting to the same point as hon. gentlemen opposite and are finding out that they must rely upon protection after all, even if it is upon wheat. Apparently they want the minister to take some steps to protect them against inroads of Russian wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


George Reginald Geary: I have heard it said that
they do not want any more farmers in the west because those farmers will produce more wheat and the prices will be brought down.


William Russell Fansher: I do
not think the hon. member quite caught my argument. I claim that the 50 per cent clause is an extreme one; if it were changed to 40 per cent British Empire labour and materials, as regards cotton and copper manufactures, it would remedy the situation.


George Reginald Geary: I understood the point my
hon. friend was trying to make. I would suggest to my hon. friends that they call upon their gods, the old god of free trade. That is a faith they have been holding to for many years. Surely if we follow that theory the countries of the world should take advantage of their opportunities and grow what they are able to grow, .spread their products throughout the world, bring down the prices, and thus bring about that cheapness of commodities which is the desideratum of free trade. But I do not think my hon. friends really want cheap wheat, and I do not blame them in taking the stand they do. They want to obtain a profit; they do not want the consumer to obtain the cheapest wheat possible, neither do they want their market interfered with.


George Gibson Coote: If it were not a sacrilege,
we would call upon the gods across the way to give us free trade. If we had free trade in the goods which we have to purchase, then we could meet this competition from Russia with the prices we are obtaining for our wheat.
A vote of about $750,000 appears under the heading of commercial intelligence service. All we are asking is that the government spend some of that money in an endeavour to obtain accurate information regarding the wheat situation. Surely the wheat producers [Mr. Geary.j
are entitled to know just what is happening. If it is necessary to meet this competition from Russia we may have to come back here and ask for free trade in certain things, but I do not want to be led away into a discussion on free trade. The minister must have some idea of the amount of money expended by Russia in the purchase in this country of agricultural machinery, and he must know that that machinery is being purchased for one object onfy, the growing of wheat. We are asking that we receive some service from the commercial intelligence service branch, and I think we are entitled to that. In his opening remarks the minister led us to believe that he had no way of obtaining reliable information; the information which he was able to get was not reliable, so why bother with it.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) made the statement that the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) would not help to move Canadian wheat. There is no doubt that it is helping to move Canadian wheat. Because of this budget the people of England have had their attention drawn to the situation, and they are demanding more and more that Canadian wheat be supplied. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Fansher) is going to try to sell 350,000,000 bushels of wheat to England, when she cannot use more than 225,000,000 bushels. The present situation in this country has not been caused by the competition of Russian wheat. During the war and for some time following the end of the war, wheat prices were high and many additional acres of land were brought under cultivation. Wheat prices have since fallen, and the acreage must be limited. Although we maj' have competition from Russia, other countries which have been competing with us in the growing of wheat will have to get out of that business, and then the market will be as it was before. Russian competition existed before the war and it will exist again, but the wheat farmer of western Canada, with his improved methods of farming, can compete in the growing of wheat with anyone in the world. He can grow a better wheat and he will find a market for it.
_ Mr. KENNEDY: I understand the minister has taken the position that it is impossible to obtain reliable information regarding Russia. There is a committee in the old country which has upon its membership some of the Labour members of parliament. That committee has been studying trade relations as between Great Britain and Russia and they

Supply-Mail Subsidies
have issued a pamphlet in which they claim that the statistics coming from Russia are absolutely reliable. The sooner we make it our business to obtain all the available facts, the better it will be for us. I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce should bend every effort and use every resource at his command in order that we may be supplied with reliable information.


James Malcolm: It is not necessary to go to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in order to obtain reliable information as to the possible wheat competition from Russia. Broomhall publishes a report which is available on every exchange in western Canada, and which contains very reliable information. I say again what I said to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), that I cannot find anything in the best authorities which would justify the extravagant statement that Russia this year is going to flood the wheat markets of the world. I believe she is going to be in production but I do not believe it will be to the extent stated by my hon. friends.


William Russell Fansher: In answer to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I would state that the Financial Post reports that Russia put 84,000 tons of wheat into Great Britain during the months of December and January.
. Item agreed to.
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions Atlantic Ocean
Canada and South Africa, service between, $150,000.
Canada and Newfoundland, service between, $35,000.
Eastern Canada and Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine service between, $120,000.
Pacific Ocean
British Columbia and Australia, service between. $92,400.
Canada and New Zealand, on the Pacific, service between, $100,000.
Prince Rupert, B.C., and the Queen Charlotte islands, service between, $21,000.
Vancouver and the British West Indies, service between, $36,000.
Vancouver and ports on Howe Sound, service between, $5,000.
Vancouver, and northern ports of British Columbia, service between, $24,800.
Victoria, Vancouver, way ports and Skagway, service between, $25,000.
Victoria and west coast Vancouver island, service between, $15,000.
Local Services
Baddeck and Iona, service between, $10,500.
Charlottetown and Pictou, service between, $40,000.
Charlottetown, Victoria and Holliday's wharf, service between, $5,000.
Dalhousie, N.B., and Carleton, Que., service between, $3,000.
Grand Manan and the mainland, service between, $33,000.
Halifax and bay St. Lawrence, service between, $3,600.
Halifax, Canso and Guysboro, service between. $9,000.
Halifax, LaHave and LaHave river ports, service between, $6,000.
Halifax and Sherbrooke, service between, $1,500.
Halifax, South Cape Breton and Bras d'Or lake ports, service between, $5,000.
Halifax, Spry bay and Cape Breton ports, service between, $6,000.
Halifax and west coast of Cape Breton, service between, $6,000.
Mainland, Miscou and Shippegan, service between, $2,000.
Mulgrave, Arichat and Petit de Grat, service between, $15,000.
Mulgrave and Canso, service between, $30,000.
Mulgrave and Guysboro, calling al intermediate ports, service between, $14,000.
Murray Bay and North shore, winter service between, $32,900.
Newcastle, Neguac and Escuminac. calling at intermediate ports on the Miramichi river and bay, service between, $4,500.
Parrsboro, Kingsport and Wolfville, service between, $5,000.
Pelee island and	the	mainland,	service
between, $11,000.
Pictou,	Mulgrave and	Cheticamp,	service
between, $11,000.
Pictou, New Glasgow and Antigonish county ports, service between, $1,000.
Pictou,	Souris and	the	Magdalen	islands,
service between, $50,000.
Port Mulgrave, St. Peters', Irish cove and Marble mountain, service between, $10,350.
Quebec,	Natashquan	and	Harrington, and
other ports on the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, service between, $85,000.
Quebec or Montreal and Gaspe, and other ports on the south shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, service between, $60,000.
Rimouski and Matane and points on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence, service between, $50,000.
Riviere du Loup and Tadoussac, and other north shore ports, service between, $15,000.
St. Catherine's Bay and Tadoussac, service between, $5,000.
St. John and Bear river, and other way ports, service between, $2,000.
St. John and Bridgetown, service between,

St. John and Digby, service between. $15,000.
St. John, Digby, Annapolis and Granville, service between, $2,000.
St. John and Margaretville, and other ports on the bay of Fundy, service between, $4,500.
St. John and Minas basin ports, service between, $5,000.
St. John and St. Andrews, calling at intermediate ports, service between, $4,000.
St. John, Westport and Yarmouth, and other way ports, service between, $18,000.
St. John and Weymouth, service between, $1,500.
Summerville, Burlington and Windsor, N.S., service between, $500.
Supply-Mail Subsidies

Sydney and bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between, $25,000.
Sydney and Bras d'Or lake ports, and ports on the west coast of Cape Breton, service between, $18,000.
Sydney and Whycocomagh, service between, $16,000.
Trois Pistoles and Les Eseoumains, service between, $1,000.
Grant to the province of British Columbia for the improvement of the mail service on inland waters in that province, $3,000.
Inspection of subsidized steamship services, $5,000-Total, $1,276,050.


Robert James Manion: I suppose we are dealing with all these items together?


James Malcolm: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I mentioned these subsidies for local services to the minister some time ago. They amount to something like $1,000,000. As regards the St. Lawrence river, many subsidies are paid to one company. I understand that Clarke Brothers are receiving something like $300,000. Many of them are quite heavy, but there is one to which I would like to refer, as follows:
Rimouski and Matane and points on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence, service between, $50,000.
This item was passed as an order in council on December 20th of last year. Instead of the government waiting until the matter came into the house, for some reason an order in council was passed to grant this $50,000 subsidy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How could they do that?


Robert James Manion: I do not know, but they did it in any case. They put it on the list by an order in council providing a subsidy, not for one year but for ten years. A strange thing is that this session in the provincial legislature at Quebec there was a proposal that the same company receive $50,000 for ten years also on the same service. This was fought in the Quebec house and the period was finally cut down to five years. This company, then, is receiving $100,000 a year for this service, and I am informed on very good authority that the same service was carried on in the past for $12,500 a year under a subsidy given not for ten years or five years, but by the year. The minister shakes his head.


James Malcolm: I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend the explanation.


Robert James Manion: Let the minister give the explanation and then I will continue with my remarks.


James Malcolm: I will give the explanation after my hon. friend has finished.


Robert James Manion: I am giving the facts as I have received them from people in whom I have confidence. They may be wrong; the minister may dispute them, but I have under my hand some of the returns, copies of some of the letters written by the minister's department, and so on, and I have studied the matter carefully. That is the statement. Moreover, I am told-and I will give the name of the company in this case-the Des Monts Shipping Company of Quebec offer to give, for $10,000 a year, the same service for which $50,000 a year is being paid by this government and $50,000 a year by the Quebec government. By the way, I might mention that the subsidy given by the provincial government was not given as a subsidy but was brought in as a bill, so that, although we have nothing to do with the provincial government, this emphasizes the great friendship the provincial government and this government have for these people.
It is true the Clarke's, I am told, deny that they own this company. The name of the company is The Lower St. Lawrence Transportation Company, but I am informed that the Clarke's, who get altogether, including this sum, $300,000 a year in subsidies, own about 95 per cent of the stock. I am also advised- and I am giving the minister all the facts I have-that the two boats together that are carrying out this service are not equal in value to the subsidy for one year. It is true that the improvements-and this I did not get from the people who gave me the original information; I got it from one of the officers of the company just yesterday-that are being made on these boats, are to be completed some time next year, and I am informed that when the boats are improved they will be very much more valuable than they are now and will give a much better service. But in the meantime, although the improvements are not to be completed for a year, or until some time in the summer of 1931, the subsidy is being paid. It is stated by my informant-and I will conclude with this-that the total at the outside for this service should not be more than $15,000 a year between the provincial and the Dominion governments, instead of $100,000 a year. He stated also that the same coast route is served to-day by some seven vessels, including Gaspe County, Gaspe Trader, Miron, Annie Nodeau, Tremblay and a couple of others, without their receiving any subsidy at all. I have stated the whole matter very briefly. I have taken all these reports which I have, amounting to some tens of thousands

Supply-Mail Subsidies
2&39
of words, and condensed them into a very brief statement of the facts, as they were given to me. I shall be glad to hear what the minister has to say in reply.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend from Fort William has apparently fallen into the hands of someone who did not have the full particulars regarding this service. This is really an amalgamation of three services, and I am free to say to the committee that I was the instigator of the amalgamation of these various companies. There were three very indifferent services being given on the St. Lawrence.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Had the three services two boats?


James Malcolm: There were three separate services.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that they are exactly the same boats.


James Malcolm: Will my hon. friend allow me to finish my explanation? Owing to the development on the north shore and the desire of the people on the south shore to take advantage, by way of opportunities for employment and the sale of merchandise, of the development work of the large paper companies that were going in, we were approached by boards of trade or received communications asking us to institute a good service. We had wanted to get commodities from New Brunswick and Nova Scotia more cheaply into northern Quebec in order to give the maritime provinces an opportunity to compete. There are no railways and no good roads through this rapidly developing area and the people are entirely dependent on water service. I had been approached by various people who had little auxiliary schooners like some of the vessels my hon. friend speaks of, to grant a subsidy. I think we had in all four or five appeals for subsidies. During last session I had to provide for a service with good boats across the St. Lawrence and on up to the various points of call. I shall be very frank with my hon. friend as to the Clarke Steamship Company, before I tell him how this amalgamation was brought about. This is the first service in which I have had anything to do with the Clarke Steamship Company which is affiliated with the other companies in this service. The other services they have are the Quebec, Montreal and Gaspe service for which they built a splendid boat called the New Northland, for which service they got $60,000 a year. They extended that to Comerbrook.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much did she cost?


James Malcolm: About $300,000. They operate the Gaspesia too on the service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They got 20 per cent of the value of the boat as a subsidy.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend must allow 10 per cent for depreciation and maintenance. These services were installed before I came to the department, and had been in existence for a number of years. There is also the Quebec and Harrington service, carried on by the North Shore and the Voyageur. That is an $85,000 subsidy. The service is extended to Comerbrook fortnightly. Then there is the Murray Bay and north shore winter service, for $32,500. On this service a good deal of money was lost because of ice conditions. I consulted the people who were performing these indifferent services, and asked them whether they could make an amalgamation of the various interests and provide a high class boat which would cost about $250,000, also using the boats that are there at the present time. I suggested that if they would provide an adequate service, and the province of Quebec would pay half of the cost, as it was primarily a business of the province of Quebec, although we were interested in giving Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia products an opportunity with proper facilities to get into that area, I would consider a term contract. That was the proposition I made to the various interests in the lower St. Lawrence. Mr. Clarke was interested and so were a number of others. I left the matter with those interested to see what could be worked out. They worked out a service and after considerable bartering, we finally agreed that we would pay half of this service if the provincial government would pay half.
The representations made by the hon. member for Fort William do not take into account what is given by way of service. The services are all increased in frequency. The new service to be performed by the Lower St. Lawrence Transportation Company replaces the following services:	Rimouski, Bersimis and Pointe aux Outardes; Rimouski, Pointe aux Outardes and Trinity Bay; Matane, Trinity Bay and Seven Islands.
The Manicouagan will make three trips a week instead of two, and will be remodelled and improved.
On the Rimouski, Pointe aux Outardes and Trinity Bay route, there is the steamer Mayita. This was formerly operated by the Rimouski-Saguenay Navigation company under subsidy, between Rimouski and Pointe aux Outardes only. The Mayita will make three trips a week instead of two, will
Supply-Mail Subsidies

perform a regular service to north shore ports as far east as Trinity Bay, and will be replaced on the opening of navigation in 1931 by a new ship with a speed of from eleven to fourteen knots.
On the Matane, Trinity bay and Seven islands route, there was no subsidized service formerly, ibut applications for subsidy have been received frequently in past years from the Heppell Transportation company, the St. Regis Paper company, La Cie de Commerce Maritime de Matane, the Quebec and St. Lawrence Navigation company and Capt. Theodore Piuze.
The Heppell transportation company and the Rimouski-Saguenay Navigation company, have been absorbed by the new Lower St. Lawrence Transportation company.
We have had other applications for the service between the north and south shores from various people. When I took this step I can assure my hon. friend that I was acting much in my own interests, to relieve the pressure from people who wa'ntqd subsidies. There were many small services, and there were many requests for more. I can assure my hon. friend that the contract which was drawn up with the Lower St. Lawrence navigation company is dependent on the vote being passed by this house. If parliament does not vote the money, it cannot be paid. I do submit, however, that the provincial government went carefully into the matter. My hon. friend said that the vote was opposed in the provincial house; I did not know that. I know that the subsidy was to be 50 per cent provincial and 50 per cent federal. I contend, after having looked into the matter very carefully, considering the service they are called upon to perform they will not make much money out of the subsidy they are receiving. My hon. friend also said that someone had offered to perform this service for $10,000. We have had other applications for services between the north and the south shores, from $10,000 down to $5,000. The Des Monts company has just one boat the Savoy. Others who offered to perform the service had no steamer at all, nothing but a schooner.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to delay
the house, and while I do not question the minister's explanation from his own standpoint, I would point out that while he said that I had got into evil hands-


James Malcolm: No, wrong information.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid that the
minister got into the wicked hands of those who are getting this subsidy. Before going

any further, let me say that I am not opposing this service in any shape or form, and I do not wish to be considered as opposing it I want these people on the St. Lawrence to get this service, but at the same time I submit that these facts have been given to me by a gentleman who I believe is pretty well informed; he has given me copies of letters of a most interesting kind which I shall not take up time to put on Hansard. He admits a number of facts which the minister has stated. For instance, the minister says that two services have been amalgamated into one. This gentleman admits that, but he says that it is the same service which last year was getting $12,500.


James Malcolm: That is quite incorrect


Robert James Manion: It is his word against the minister's.


James Malcolm: I can show my hon.
friend the contract.


Robert James Manion: The minister has proved
himself wrong in some cases. For instance, he says that this company has agreed to build a new boat, and it is on the basis of that agreement that they get this $100,000 subsidy. The boat will not be built until July 1931, over one year and two months from now, and yet the subsidy is being paid now with no better service being performed. Again, according to the minister's statement, this boat is to cost $250,000, and they are getting a subsidy of $100,000, or nearly 50 per cent of the cost of the boat.


James Malcolm: That is not a relationship that works. The cost of operating a service like that is very high.


Robert James Manion: But they have other
traffic. I venture to make this assertion, that the minister can get all the boats he wants built in this country instead of going to England, if he will offer a subsidy of nearly 50 per cent of the cost of the boat.
There is another strange thing, which I forgot to mention before. There were no tenders called for this service. There are in this section of the river a number of shipping companies, the Des Monts shipping company and the Bras d'Or shipping company, to mention only two that come to my mind, and a great many others giving service down the St. Lawrence, but not one of them was called on to tender for this luscious plum, and all were willing to perform the service. I have copies of letters on my file protesting against tenders not being called for. Instead of call-

Supply-Mail Subsidies
2S61
mg for tenders, the government did not even wait for the house to meet but passed an order in council to give this subsidy for ten years.
The minister says that he was not aware that there was opposition in the Quebec house to the subsidy. May I enlighten him? It was proposed in the provincial house in the first place to give a subsidy of $50,000 for ten years, but due to the opposition of the member for Hull, Mr. Guertin, the subsidy was granted for only five years. I submit that the minister ought not to grant this subsidy at least until the boat that is to be built is performing the service. I think it is most unfair to the province of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada that this company should be getting a subsidy of $100,000 between the two parliaments for the service that it is giving at the present time. The minister does not choose to answer. I would ask him why tenders were not called for.


James Malcolm: There are certain inferences there. The Clarke Steamship Company had some interest at the lower St. Lawrence. If my hon. friend will look at the map, he will see that this service crosses from the south shore of the St. Lawrence to the north shore, giving a service to a great many ports on the upper St. Lawrence, which is already served by the Clarke Steamship Company by one of their other ships. I am not a great believer in vested rights, but we have given to the Clarke Steamship Company the service on the north shore, and the Clarke Steamship Company will lose by reason of the competition of this service from the south shore. The service is a great convenience to the travelling public who otherwise would have to go to Quebec and take the boat down the St. Lawrence, or go across to some other point and take the service existing there. I am quite prepared to say to my hon. friend that the interested parties were well approached and had been asked to try to form one amalgamation in the lower St. Lawrence, because I wanted to have one strong company formed and the service put in the hands of those who would put on good boats. We have had people applying for the service who had only an auxiliary schooner. We had applications from people who were not in the transportation business at all. I may say to my hon. friend that the demands the department is making on the Lower St. Lawrence Navigation Company will entail an expenditure on the existing boats of about $35,000 or $40,000, with a 50 per cent greater frequency of service. The existing boats will be scrapped next year
when the new boats come on. I am told by the officers of my department who have drawn the contract that we are insisting on ' harder terms than were first put forward. I think my hon. friend will find that it is not a bad service.


Robert James Manion: I think the service is as
good as they were getting, possibly a little better. But this company takes over the same boats. The minister says they are going to expend $30,000 or $35,000 on the boats and are going to build another boat, and on the strength of that he has tied the government up to a ten year contract by order in council. I submit it is not good business. I do not quarrel with his opinion that these companies might well amalgamate and form a stronger company; but the amalgamation simply amounts to the uniting of a couple of small companies into a bigger company using the same boats, and instead of getting $25,000 they are getting $50,000 from this government and $50,000 from the provincial government for giving practically the same service. I repeat, it is bad business. I submit it is not fair that a company that is getting $250,000, mostly from this government, should be handed another $50,000 for a service such as this under the conditions I have described.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What authority has this government by order in council to make a contract for a subsidy for ten years?


James Malcolm: I cannot give my hon.
friend any answer as to the authority, but I know it has been the practice for a great many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What?


James Malcolm: It has been done quite
often.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has never been the
practice in any country that I know of except by bill or ratification of the contract by parliament.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend does not appreciate the fact that all these contracts are subject to the estimates being voted yearly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point.
The contract was made by order in council. What authority can there be for that being done? Surely there must be some regard for legislative authority. Here is an order in council made for ten years and then an estimate is brought in. My hon. friend from Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) will remember
2S62
Supply-Mail Subsidies

[DOT] that when he was a plain medical doctor the rafters used to ring with the talk of the way the country was being run by order in council. , Surely there must be something wrong in this.


James Malcolm: I am informed by my
officers that it has been the practice for many years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What authority is there
for making a ten year contract by order in council?


James Malcolm: The estimates have to
be passed each year.


Harry Bernard Short: The contract for the service between Pietou, Souris and the Magdalen islands at $50,000 was made by order in Council?


James Malcolm: They all have to be.


Harry Bernard Short: That subsidy is being paid into the Eastern Trust Company to the credit of the bondholders. Those interested sold the bonds to the public of Nova Scotia on the strength of having that subsidy contract for ten years. That was the practice by this government. I do not think any other government made a contract for ten years for a subsidy of $50,000 a year and gave the parties an opportunity to go out on that guarantee and raise money to build their boats.


Robert James Manion: And pay them a year's subsidy in advance to build the. boat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot do these things by order in council; there must be legislative authority to do it. The government get over it by saying: We do not bind ourselves for more than one year, but we fill in ten years or whatever sounds good to the person exploiting the subsidy.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend knows parliamentary procedure better than I do. But how could we do it if we did not pass an order in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: By coming to this parliament.


James Malcolm: We do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, only a year after.
Suppose something happens to the government?


James Malcolm: Well, if my hon. friend does not vote the money next year-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then there is an action in the exchequer court for damages.


James Malcolm: There is a clause in the contract to that effect. It has been going on for years.


Robert James Manion: I move that this item be reduced by $25,000.


John Frederick Johnston: Which item?


Robert James Manion: The service between Rim-ouski and Matane and points no the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence, $50,000. I do not expect to carry the amendment. I am simply moving it to see if the minister will not accept it, because I believe he realizes that this deal is not fair to the people of Canada.


James Malcolm: I wish I could agree with my hon. friend, but I cannot. I am not as familiar with the item to-night as I was when the contract was made, but at that time I gave it some thought and considered that it was a fair agreement in the interests of the lower St. Lawrence development. This item is backed by the boards of trade of the whole area. I have had more representations made to me on behalf of this item by supporters of my hon. friend's party than on behalf of any other service. The item has been very carefully considered for six months, and in the face of the information I have received and the advice of my officials I could not cancel the contract. I must support the item.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend knows very well that boards of trade will always support anything that they think will give them more service. I am not saying this in disrespect of boards of trade generally, but I have had some experience of them and I know they are very quick to pass resolutions if asked by somebody interested in getting what they represent to be a better boat service. Therefore I do not depend veTy much on such representations. I am not by any means suggesting that the service should be lessened; on the other hand I submit that if it is necessary the service should be carried on as well as, and better than, it is being carried on to-day. I am not opposing any measure which would give that section of the St. Lawrence a good service, because I am familiar with that part of the country and I have a very great affection for that old part of Quebec which, in my opinion, is one of the most charming parts of Canada. For that reason I would not do anything to interfere with it, but I do not know why good service could not be given for much less money under such circumstances as these.

Supply-Mail Subsidies


John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Manion moves
that the item relating to service between Rimouski and Matane and points on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence be reduced by $25,000.
Amendment negatived.


Harry Bernard Short: I would like to ask for information in reference to the mail service between St. John and Weymouth. In connection with this service there is a contract with the Eastern Coastal Steamship Company. It is an amalagamation of a number of companies operating many small steamers out of St. John to the bay of Fundy ports. I am told that this service is not being operated this year although there is an amount of $1,500 in the estimates for it. Can the minister give me further information in regard to it?


James Malcolm: I am informed-


Harry Bernard Short: I will give a further explanation.


James Malcolm: I am informed that the boat was sunk at a time after the estimates were prepared, and the company is not prepared to go on with the service at the existing rate.


Harry Bernard Short: That is not the case. The boat which operated on this service was lost last winter, and in connection with it the lives of several of her crew were lost. However, she was not operating on that service last year, nor has she operated since the Eastern Coastal Steamship Company took over the service. They were operating a very much smaller boat from Weymouth, touching at Sandy Cove, Little River and Freeport on Long Island, connecting with their larger steamer, the Keith Cann, which operated the service between St. John and Yarmouth. This was purely a freight service. They transferred their freight at Freeport to this small boat, the Wanda, and she touched at Little River, Sandy Cove and Weymouth. This year they have withdrawn that service, and the sum of $1,500 for the service which they were giving during the season of navigation was a fair sum. I think the department should insist that they carry out their contract. This is a company somewhat similiar to the company mentioned by my hon. friend; there was an amalgamation of practically all the coastal boats around the Bay of Fundy and they are getting an increased subsidy on the Keith Cann service in connection with which the ship Keith Cann operates between St. John and Yarmouth. The subsidy to that service last year was increased to $5,000, and there is
no reason in the world why they cannot operate this small boat from Freeport to Weymouth, and take care of the ports which have airways been served by this line. I should like an explanation.


James Malcolm: My deputy informs me that the boat which was on the service was lost.


Harry Bernard Short: But the boat which did that service last year is not lost.


James Malcolm: Their contract has expired, and I am informed the contractors refuse to renew it unless they get $2,000 for the service.


Harry Bernard Short: Well, the department increased the payment for the service between St. John and Yarmouth to $5,000.


James Malcolm: Several years ago.


Harry Bernard Short: No, last year. It was increased last year to $5,000, and to my mind that is a very large subsidy for the service which they are giving. There is no reason why this company could not operate a small service from Freeport to Weymouth, connecting with the service running from St. John to Yarmouth and stopping at Freeport. They would give the service if the department insisted upon it, because they are receiving subsidies for every port along the bay of Fundy.


James Malcolm: I would like to get a boat to perform that service, but my deputy informs me that a boat cannot be secured.


Harry Bernard Short: They have the ship Wanda which operated last year.


James Malcolm: The owners of that boat have refused to give the service for $1,500.


Harry Bernard Short: Why not increase the
amount?


James Malcolm: We will endeavour to
get the service.


Harry Bernard Short: This boat service represents the only connection that these people have with the outside world.


James Malcolm: I appreciate the need
for the service.


Harry Bernard Short: I think the minister should give some assurance that the service will be continued. Take $1,500 off the Yarmouth-St. John service; it was increased to $5,000 last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Supply-Mail Subsidies


Harry Bernard Short: No, it is not carried, and it Vancouver and the British West Indies, will not be carried until I have some satis- service between - further amount required! faction.	$13,800.-Total, $118,027.26.


James Malcolm: I assure the hon. gentleman that I shall do my best to induce these people to put on a service at the amount voted, if I can possibly do so.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why is the subsidy to the service between Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence increased $7,000 while that between Halifax and Bay St. Lawrence is decreased $1,200?


James Malcolm: This subsidy was increased from $18,000 to $25,000 in consideration of two round trips a week to Bay St. Lawrence in the winter months. There was a demand that this service should be continued twice a week during the whole winter. The increased service was asked for by the fishermen and strongly supported by the Department of Fisheries, as the best fishing season is in the fall.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The subsidy for the service between Halifax and Bay St. Lawrence has been decreased by $1,200.


James Malcolm: It is not really decreased, it is a matter of book-keeping.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When is the hon. gentleman going to deal with the Australian and Chinese subsidies? I have a telegram which states:
Melville Dollar advises his company has maintained a minimum monthly service to Japan and China for over eight years associated with C'ougblans, therefore in arranging for subsidy to China these Canadian firms should be protected and given opportunity to participate or tender.
That is in connection with the subsidies to service to China and Japan.


James Malcolm: That is the next item to be considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mail Subsidies and Steamship Subventions To authorize insertion after the word "Australia" in the item for British Columbia and Australia, in the schedule of the appropriation act based on the main estimates, of the words "and/or China."
Canada and British East Africa, service between, $96,250.
Charlottetown, Victoria and Holliday's wharf, service between - further amount required, $2,000.
Grand Manan and the mainland, service between-further amount required, $1,250.
Ile-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements, service between, $2,500.
Sydney and Bay St. Lawrence, calling at way ports, service between - further amount required, $2,227.26.
James Malcolm: We simply wish to add to the description of the item the word "China" in order to give the company the option of calling at China.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Had you not better put in "Japan" as well?


James Malcolm: No, not Japan. This service, which has been carried on by the Aus-tralia-British Columbia Shipping Company, has been able practically to double our shipments of lumber since it has been in effect, but during the last three or four months it has been very difficult to market any lumber in Australia, and it would almost appear as though we would have to add other ports of call. I discussed this matter with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and he thought it advisable to put on a complete new service to China. We would like to offer to this existing service the right to make two or three calls at China as an experiment in connection with the suggestion of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre. It is a very difficult matter at the moment to market any lumber in Australia, due to the difficulty of getting payments and also to the fact that there is about a six months' supply in Australia at present, so we are suggesting the addition of these words.
I had word from the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to-night, and probably the leader of the opposition also had word, on behalf of the Dollar line. I looked into the matter and considered it before I decided to bring this matter to the attention of the house. The Dollar line is shipping practically all American lumber to China, and they have not been taking Canadian lumber to any extent. Our desire was to get a Canadian company with British ships to take Canadian lumber in the meantime. If the experiment works out it may justify a separate service to China. The Robert Dollar line is an American service and should not interfere with this experiment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trade and Commerce-salaries and contingencies, $635,755.
Harry Bernard Short: The minister might give us
a little explanation as to the increase in this item.

Supply-Post Office


James Malcolm: One of the main reasons is the increase which is noted in the statistical department, amounting to about $95,000, to provide for the new census. A large staff has to be taken on for this work, and there is a large expense in connection with stationery and machinery as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Post Office-outside service-salaries and allowances, $18,632,694.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $17,267,000.	,
Miscellaneous, including $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances to employees injured while in the performance of their duties, or to the dependents of employees killed while on duty, such payments to be made only on the specific authority of the governor in council, $1,286,675.
Yukon Territory, $150,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
on previous occasions we have had some discussion in reference to these items and this year the Postmaster General has lumped his estimates under about three headings. Our discussion was principally in connection with the first item of salaries and allowances, and under that we discussed the question of rural mail service and other matters. I suggest that in order to make some progress we should turn to page 72, which gives these different services more in detail, and deal with the services as they are set out there. If it would suit the minister I would suggest that he deal with the item of $6,500 to provide for the payment of royalties to R. Hill, patentee and holder of patents on conveyor and distributer equipment used by the Post Office department for mail handling purposes, and make an explanation with regard to that item.


Peter John Veniot: Before proceeding with an
extensive installation of conveying and mailhandling machinery the department endeavoured to obtain standard Canadian manufactured equipment, flexible in construction and noiseless in operation. Not only have the desired results been obtained, but the installation has been completed at a saving of not less than $90,000 as compared with the cost of American stock conveyors previously purchased by the department. The work was let by public tender from time to time during the last four or five years. As regards efficiency of operation it may be mentioned that in the large postal terminal in Toronto, where the installation includes about 3,000 feet of conveyor in daily operation, there has not been 2419-181
a single delay due to mechanical causes since this equipment has been put in.
The use of the patents covered by this vote was obtained at a minimum charge, and the related equipment is of a type which is not duplicated elsewhere in postal work. It embodies time-saving features and so on, and the results of this system may be seen to best advantage in the Toronto postal terminal, where practically all the actual mail handling has been mechanized. The building is open for inspection.
This gentleman is not a regular employee of the department; he is a part-time employee as mechanical architect and engineer in charge of the installation of machinery in the large terminal at Toronto as well as in other large offices in Canada. Under the statute we have the power to pay a certain percentage, and I believe this payment of 86,500 is to be the only payment which will be made for the use of this invention.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will tell my
hon. friends opposite that they are not going to make any speed by shouting "carried." I want some more information. Is this gentleman a civil servant?


Peter John Veniot: He is not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When was he
first employed by the Post Office Department?


Peter John Veniot: My information is about three years ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was his salary when he entered the employ of the department?


Peter John Veniot: 


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And in what
capacity was he employed?


Peter John Veniot: As mechanical engineer, on a temporary basis.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was that salary of $3,400 for all of his time?


Peter John Veniot: For nearly all of his time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This gentleman is a public servant receiving a salary of $3,400, occupying a position which requires him to devote his whole time to the public service?


Peter John Veniot: He certainly is. I cannot understand the objection of the hon. gentleman.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to know if that is a fact. For what patents are these payments te be made?

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: For the use of labour saving machinery which this gentleman has invented and handed over to the postal department for use throughout Canada. This gentleman is employed on certificates renewed by the Civil Service Commission every three or four months; he is not a permanent employee.
Mr. .STEWART (Leeds): Was it part of his duty to go to the United States and investigate machines of this type?


Peter John Veniot: We have sent him to the United States.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would like to have more particulars concerning these patents. Were patents obtained in the United States previous to their being obtained here?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a good machine.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a pretty good machine; it is working quite smoothly.


Peter John Veniot: My information is that this machine or one similar to it has been patented in the United States by this gentleman. The one we have here i3 a machine of an improved type.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were those American patents taken out since he entered the employ of the department?


Peter John Veniot: I am not in a position to answer that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the committee should have that information.


Peter John Veniot: I believe they were.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Here is a civil servant receiving a salary for his whole time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Eight hours a day.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and in the course of his employment he obtained certain information through the inspection of machines in the United States which enabled him to take out a patent. It is proposed to pay him annually the sum of $6,500 as royalties upon these machines. I wonder if the committee really understands the situation. This man is paid as a civil servant. In the course of his duty he becomes familiar with certain machines patented in the United States, and he takes out certain patents while employed by this department. It is proposed to create the precedent of paying him annually, in addition to his salary and the expenses which he incurred in connection with these trips, the sum of $6,500.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member must
realize that this man is a temporary employee. Were he a permanent employee of the department we could expropriate his patent.


James Dew Chaplin: That could be done now
under the common law.


Peter John Veniot: He is a temporary employee whose employment is renewed every three or four months. I contend that this man having patented machinery which saves the postal department of Canada $90,000 per year, is entitled to something for his work. Not only is he entitled morally, but he is entitled under the law which governs these matters to a certain percentage of the value placed upon his patent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is not,
and it will not be carried for a few minutes. Were his expenses paid during his trips to the United States?


Peter John Veniot: No, not when he went to
the United States on his own research.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was his salary
paid during those periods?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Mr. STEV  ART@Leeds: I understood
the Postmaster General to say that this man came into the employ of the department some years ago.


Peter John Veniot: I said about three years
ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And he has been there ever since.


Peter John Veniot: No; I understand there have been times when he was not employed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. minister understands that to be the case.


Peter John Veniot: I am sure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the committee should have more information as to the actual time this man was not in the employ of the department.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the resolution
carry?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have asked for additional information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.

Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I am desirous of giving all the information possible, and I do not like this calling out of "Carried, carried" when the hon. gentleman is not satisfied with the in-, formation he has received. If this item is allowed to stand I will endeavour to obtain the details for my hon. friend. Had I been made aware that the hon. gentleman was going into this question in such detail I would have had the information this evening.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from committee of supply this day.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 1.00 a.m. (Friday).
Friday, May 30, 1930