[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) presented the eighth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Mr. McPHEE moved that the report be concurred in.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Will the hon.
member explain what the report is about?


Mr. McPHEE:: On the 23rd of May, as
acting chairman of the banking and commerce committee, I presented the eighth and ninth reports, which were concurred in, as will be seen by Hansard of May 23rd, but by some oversight as will be seen by reference to the votes and proceedings at page 385, the proper entry was not made on the scroll.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Post Office-Outside Service-salaries and allowances, $18,632,694.40.
Mail service, including mail service by air, $17,267,060.
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.

Total, $37,336,369.40.
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I explained last night the reasons why this bonus was being paid to Mr. R. Hill. I think that my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Stewart) was under a misapprehension because if I mistake not he understood that this was to be a yearly payment. Am I correct in that?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I had not asked that question, but I proposed to do so.


Peter John Veniot: It is not a yearly payment, as I think I stated last night, but a lump sum payment which carries no further responsibility for future payments. The bonus was based on a valuation of the patent rights granted to the department. Those rights are generally valued by outside parties and a percentage ranging from 5 to 7 per cent of the value may be paid as a bonus for the right of the government to use machinery of that kind.
I wish to give a brief history of this matter and especially as to the employment of Mr. Hill. I think I led the committee a little astray last night as to the number of years he had been employed. My information is that Mr. Hill came to the Post Office Department around 1924 or 1925. He was formerly employed as an efficiency man with the Civil Service Commission, filling a position equal to that of chief investigator. When the time came for changing the railway and postal facilities in the city of Toronto, which made a complete change of the railway terminals as well as the new postal terminals, Mr. Hill was invited owing to his knowledge of such matters to become connected with the Post Office Department. It was necessary at that time to employ a person who had a good scientific knowledge not only of railway terminals but postal terminals, and it was then that Mr. Hill became connected with the department. His trip to the United States was in connection with railway as well as postal terminals. He was accompanied by the chief engineers of the railways interested and other officials, and his expenses were paid by the Post Office Department. Afterwards the knowledge secured from the investigation that he made in the United States was used in connection with both railway and postal terminals in Toronto.
May I add for the information of the committee that we have to-day at Toronto the largest and most up-to-date postal terminals in the whole world, and I speak with absolute knowledge of what I am saying. To Mr. Hill is due the credit for the installation of a system in Toronto which is equalled by no other place in the world. Up to 1927 or 1928 the United States had the best postal ter-
Supply-Post Office

minals in the world, Chicago and other places in the United States being looked upon as having superior facilities in that respect to any others in the world. I am glad to say that Toronto is now superior to these places, and the same system which has been adopted at the postal terminals in Toronto will be adopted also in Montreal. Montreal will be placed on a basis equal to that of Toronto. Throughout all this work Mr. Hill was the engineer or mechanical architect in connection with the laying out of these terminals. During that time he had perfected, or at least invented, machinery that was necessary in connection with the railway terminals and which could not be found in the United States. The machinery that we could have purchased in the United States would not have met the requirements at the larger postal terminals in the Dominion. Mr. Hill invented certain machinery which places Toronto on the basis I have referred to. He did not come to the postal department as a permanent employee because the salary attached to the classification by the commission did not warrant a man of his mechanical ability accepting a permanent position. Mr. Hill to-day is still a temporary employee of the department under certificates issued from time to time by the Civil Service Commission to continue him temporarily in the service as long as we need him. We will need him at least until the completion of the postal terminals in Montreal. Let me quote for my hon. friend's benefit section 17 of the Civil Service Act: In the absence of special authority of parliament no payment additional to the salary authorized by law shall be made to any deputy head, officer, clerk or employee permanently employed in the civil service in respect of any service rendered by him, whether in the discharge of Ms ordinary duties of office or of any other duties which may be imposed upon him, or which he may undertake or volunteer to discharge or otherwise perform.
It will be seen that it was not in violation of this section that Mr. Hill was granted a bonus. The bonus was granted, not for any additional services he had rendered but for the right of the department to use for all time to come the machinery which he had invented and patented both in the United States and Canada. This machinery, as I have said, is used in our postal terminals and other large offices.


Mr. HANSON:: Was not this man a full
time employee and were not his expenses fully paid by the department while he was working on this invention?


Peter John Veniot: They were.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then he was paid for his time while doing this work.


Peter John Veniot: No, he was not employed
by the department at night. He never applied himself to developing his invention while he was on day work for the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How does the minister
know that?


Peter John Veniot: From the records of the
office.


Richard Burpee Hanson: From hearsay?


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has no right to say that. I also know it from personal contact with Mr. Hill, because I was with him at nights looking over the work he was planning out, and I was also with him when he installed the system that is now in operation in the smaller offices for the distribution of mail. So I have first hand knowledge of his work in that connection. If the hon. member for Leeds requires any further information I will endeavour to get it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to thank the Postmaster General for the extensive explanation. However, he did not refer to the matter that I asked him especially about, namely, the particulars of the patents in respect of which this allowance is made. It appears to me perfectly clear that this is an atempt to do indirectly what legally cannot be done directly.


Peter John Veniot: No such thing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Here is a man employed by the Dominion who to all practical intents and purposes is a permanent employee. In the course of that employment and as a result of information which he obtained from inspection and examination of the machines in the department he gets a patent in some way. I am not going to question how he got it. Under ordinary circumstances if he were with a private corporation that patent, I submit, would belong to the corporation, and he would not be, entitled to any extra compensation. However, the minister has decided to give him this amount. I am glad to know that it is not for more than one year. While I think it is irregular .and contrary to the spirit of the act, that is all I desire to say about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Peter John Veniot: I do not want to get into an argument-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not either, but I want to place that on record.


Peter John Veniot: -but my hon. friend is dealing with rural mail routes, and he should distinguish between the rural mail route and the ordinary route, rural it is true, from office to office. Some of the routes mentioned by the hon. gentleman are round trips and are not what we call rural mail delivery routes, for there are only ten of those routes in the whole province of New Brunswick. I think he is referring also to the transportation from one office to another, and not to delivery along the line.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I am talking about rural routes proper.


Peter John Veniot: Until the end of last year there were only ten rural routes in the province of New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are seven rural free deliveries, and the average rate is away below $45 a month.


Peter John Veniot: I never made the statement that the average rate was $45 a month.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a misunderstanding about it, then; as a matter of fact the rate is altogether too low.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend may be quite correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: However, I do not wish to get into discussion at this stage of the session.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the condition which exists in mail deliveries to settlers in my constituency of Peace River. I suppose
it is difficult for anyone who has not been living in a new district to visualize what happens. I have no doubt however that some of the officials in the office of the minister have had communications regarding the need for post office service and mail routes in some of the new settlements.


Peter John Veniot: What is the name of the district?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There are three or four of them in the Peace River district. In connection with those districts there may be twenty-five or fifty families living from twenty to thirty miles from a post office. One applicant received. the reply that it would be too expensive to supply mail routes for those localities. I will admit the roads are not paved highways, but it seems to me that when there are about fifty settlers living twenty-five miles from a post office there should be some sort, of mail service. I think they have the right to expect this country to undertake development in their districts.


Peter John Veniot: Is that in the Peace River, North Vermilion section?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, it is northwest of Fairview.


Peter John Veniot: In the Peace River section we are considering a flying service, so that delivery may be made by air mail. Owing to the lack of roads required to reach these people the air mail is now under consideration, and I can assure my hon. friend everything within our power will be done to give service. In connection with the expenditures of this department during the last two years our object has been to give as much service as possible; I am not attempting to keep down expenditure where I find service is necessary for the welfare of the people. I can assure my hon. friend the matter will be investigated.
Supply-Post Office


Mr. GEARY:: Will the minister tell us if we have had the last word in regard to salaries of letter carriers? I understand there is to be a general reference to the Beatty commission in regard to all civil servants' salaries. The minister has stated that he will be willing to have the money recommended in order to make the increases. In that connection I wish to ask him if any amount has been set aside in the estimates for the projected increases in this branch.


Mr. YENIOT:: No.


George Reginald Geary: Then these men will have to wait until the report of that commission is received and this house takes action.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I may say that it is true that the question of the salaries of this class, as well as others, has been referred to the Beatty commission and if I am not mistaken the lower paid officials will receive particular consideration, and there will be the matter of fixing a minimum salary for them. There is nothing in the present estimates which enables us to pay them for this year's work, unless the commission in its report would recommend retroaotion to April 1st, 1930.


George Reginald Geary: Does the minister propose to abandon his efforts in this particular matter?


Peter John Veniot: I certainly do not; I shall make it a point to attend to the interests of these men and if it is at all possible I shall appear before the commission.


George Reginald Geary: But that may be a matter of a year or so. I take the word of the minister that he is anxious to do something, and that he recognizes the justice of the claim made by the letter carriers. In fact he has actually stated that their requests should be acceded to. If the minister were able to convince the Civil Service Commission in regard to the necessities of this particular branch, would he now be able to provide the money?


Peter John Veniot: Not at the present time, or through these estimates. It may be done by means of retroaction. The, putting into effect of recommendations by the Beatty commission would depend upon the policy of the government holding office at that time. So far as I personally am concerned, I shall certainly stand behind what I have already attempted to do for these men.


George Reginald Geary: The minister is obliged to say that reference to the Beatty commission shuts off any possible action along other lines?


Peter John Veniot: No.


George Reginald Geary: What other action does the minister propose to take?


Peter John Veniot: It does not out off action, but rather gives us more action, because the reference to the Beatty commission will be investigated and there will be a reference to the government. I feel fairly sure that from the expressions of opinion on both sides of the house in connection with this question the government will be disposed to do whatever is proper under the report of the Beatty commission.


George Reginald Geary: The minister has misunderstood me. He proposes to take no further action in regard to increasing the salaries of letter carriers, pending the report of the Beatty commission?


Peter John Veniot: That is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With a view to making further progress, may I suggest that the Hill matter to which we were referring is included in the item with which we are now dealing, the $5,000 for the payment of compassionate allowances. I have no objection to the passing of this item.


George Reginald Geary: There is a man by the name of Kirk with whom there has been some correspondence. He was arrested, tried and acquitted but he lost his job. In the meantime he has paid a considerable sum of money towards the superannuation fund, and he cannot get it back. He cannot receive superannuation because he is not in the service and, I suppose, never will be. Has the minister made any provision to deal with such cases as this?


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend drew my attention last year to the case of this man; I know he does not wish me at this time to go into the particulars of the case. Under the refund clause however this gentleman cannot receive a return of the amount of money which was coming to him. May I explain that this refund clause is under the control of the service, not of the government? The men pay 5 per cent into it; true, the government does add certain other percentages to the fund. We have to be very careful in the administration of a fund which belongs to the service, and I remember that last year I was asked the question whether I would recommend a compassionate allowance. In order to do that I would have to bring the matter before the treasury board and from the treasury board it would have to go to the council. I promised the hon. gentleman from Toronto South (Mr. Geary) that I would go into the matter, and when I did so I found that if we once opened the door we

Supply-Post Office
would have to open it to hundreds of men who knew when they entered the service what the consequences would be if for cause they should lose their positions. I discovered that if we opened up this case we would have to take the same action in connection with 'hundreds of other cases and in this way deplete the fund which the men should have to their credit. I refrained from recomending to the government the payment of a compassionate allowance, and that is how the matter stands at the present time.


George Reginald Geary: In the courts they said the minister had no right to dismiss this man.


Peter John Veniot: No, the courts did not find against the minister. If the hon. gentleman wishes to go into the details of that case and have them placed on Hansard we will do so, but I think for the sake of the individual himself that should not be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: The next item
I would suggest is the amount of S925 to provide for a telegraphic news service for the Magdalen islands during the winter months.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, Mr. Chairman ; do you realize that if you carry the resolution you carry the whole thing? We are going through these items and picking out the ones that are contentious.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I want to
ask the Postmaster General whether he has yet applied to his department the recommendations of order in council P.C. 670, requiring the eight-hour day?


Peter John Veniot: In reply to the hon. gentleman I may say that there is no need of applying it at the present time, because we have had it in effect for many years in the postal department in the large city offices, the classified offices.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask
what is the practice in regard to small city offices?


Peter John Veniot: In the small city offices,
or commission offices, the salary of the postmaster is made up of pay and commission. He employs his own help.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the eight-hour day does not apply?


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman should possess his soul in patience; I will give the information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can give the information just as well.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps I can give it a
little better.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should
like to get the information from one or the other of you two gentlemen.


Peter John Veniot: The postmaster has the
right to employ his own help, but the hours of the post office are regulated by the department, generally from about eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock at night. In cases where the office is open later than that overtime is allowed.


Edward Joseph Garland: In other
words, do I understand that the ten hour and sometimes the twelve hour day applies to employees working in post offices under the postmasters in small city and town offices?


Peter John Veniot: It may happen, and it may happen without our knowledge. It may also happen that the postmaster has divided off his staff, giving each so many hours during the period between eight o'clock in the morning and eight o'clock at night.


Edward Joseph Garland: In the event of the attention of the minister being directed to the fact that post office employees-and I use that term to include those who are hired by the postmaster-are in many cases working ten and twelve hours a day, will he see that the postmaster does not continue that practice?


Peter John Veniot: I will, so far as that order in council applies.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am delighted to know that, because I was to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to the practice in the post office in the town, or rather city of Drumheller, which I am informed now is an incorporated city. In that city I am told that employees in the post office at present are working some twelve hours a day and that sanitary conditions are such that with the long work days this combination results in periodical breakdowns of many of the girls working there. One of these at least, known personally to my correspondent, has to receive medical attention from time to time, and her doctor's advice is that the frequent breakdowns are the result of the long day and the unsanitary conditions. Even though this order in council only recently has been passed I think it is a disgraceful state of affairs that this condition should be permitted to continue. Certainly the minister must have known that in many of these smaller town and
Supply-Post Office

city post offices the postmasters, either with or without the knowledge of the Postmaster General but certainly with the knowledge of his department, have been employing men and women for ten hours or more a day, and in this case as I have shown, twelve hours a day. I sincerely hope the minister will keep his word and undertake to see that this practice ceases and that the eight-hour day applies to the employees of this post office.


Peter John Veniot: This is the first time my
attention has been directed to the Drumheller case.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, it is
not; I mentioned the matter during the unemployment debate.


Peter John Veniot: This is the first time my attention has been officially drawn to the Drumheller case with reference to complaints from the employees as to their hours of work. I know there is a demand for a new public building at Drumheller, but that is a matter for my colleague the Minister of Public Works to work out. However, I can assure my hon. friend that since the complaint now has been made openly in parliament it will be looked into and I will see what remedy can be applied.


Mr. LUCAS:: I understand there was a
revision in the salaries of the country postmasters when we adopted penny postage.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the Postmaster General say how these salaries compare to-day with the salaries formerly received when we had three cent postage?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know to what
class of office the hon. gentleman refers. For instance, if it is a small country office, at that time the postmaster received $60 a year as a minimum. Since the penny postage came into effect that minimum has been raised to $100 a year.


William Thomas Lucas: I refer to the offices in the
next class above that.


Peter John Veniot: In the offices of the next
class the salary of the postmasters are on a sounder basis. They receive a larger remuneration to-day, since the revision of the commissions, than was paid previous to the penny postage. Since we inaugurated the penny postage, in order to give more pay to these people we have put in a new system of commissions. We have come across several cases of apparent discrimination, but these have been honed out, if I can Use that term, as speedily as possible. In other cases where

complaints of that kind were made they were carefully and immediately looked into, and lately we have been in consultation with the executive officers of the postal association throughout Canada with a view to bettering their conditions in that respect across the whole Dominion. That applies to unclassified offices, if I can use that term, offices below the city office class.


William Thomas Lucas: Do I understand from the
Postmaster General that these salaries are higher to-day than they were previously.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, the superintendent informs me that upward adjustments have been made in all these cases. There are some people who claim that their salaries are less, but my hon. friend must distinguish between salaries and allowances. In some cases the allowances are taken to mean addition to the salaries. For instance, rentals, night work and forwarding allowances would come in that class. In many instances these forwarding allowances will be reduced because the number of offices to which mail is forwarded will be diminished in number owing to the introduction of rural delivery routes. Overtime and night work will be reduced owing to changes in train conditions for the delivery of mail.


John Frederick Johnston: While it is not considered to be part of the duty of the chairman, I would point out to the committee that there are some 200 items in the main estimates, and some 100 items in the supplementaries still to be passed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the
minister any practical way by which he could provide that all postmasters would be compelled to recommend and accept the eight-hour day for employees which they in turn hire?


Peter John Veniot: The department will go
fully into that question.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is the minister prepared to insist that some practical means be adopted to apply the eight-hour day to all employees in the department?


Peter John Veniot: The terms under which these things are regulated by order in council will be carried out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I want to assure the committee that I desire to cooperate in getting these estimates through as soon as possible, but I would like to make a few statements regarding the air mail.

Supply-Post Office
service. The amount involved by this item is $1,912,000, an increase of $712,000 over the previous year.
One or two days might well be spent in the discussion of this interesting subject. I have had certain returns brought down, one of which contained 760 pages of recommendations, contracts and correspondence regarding this service. It is a most interesting file, and it, together with other information which the Postmaster General has disclosed, should receive very serious consideration. It is impossible at this late date to do justice to this matter. It am not opposed to the air mail service; in fact, I have no hesitation in saying that it is most desirable that this service should be provided in the outlying districts. However, in the thickly populated districts such as between Montreal and Toronto and Montreal and Ottawa, where two railway companies provide rapid service, I do not feel that this large expenditure is justified; the cost of the service is out of all proportion to the revenue derived. The rate fixed by order in council for air mail is 5 cents for the first ounce and 10 cents for the second, which would amount to 80 cents per pound, or, if it were all based on the higher rate, $1.60 per pound.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is in
error there; it would amount to $2.60 per pound.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The return shows that the rate is 5 cents for the first and 10 cents for the second ounce.


Peter John Veniot: There are about 50 letters
to the pound.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are only
16 ounces to the pound.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: If the letter weighed only
one-quarter or one-half ounce, It would pay the 5 cent rate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was taking the rates given in the return; however, I will accept the postmaster's rate of $2.60 per pound. From the information which the Postmaster General has supplied I find that the service between Montreal and Toronto cost $97,420.80 for the year under consideration. The total mail carried weighed 7,724 pounds, and this works out at a rate of $12.61 per pound. I submit that that is extravagant and out of proportion to the service rendered. The service between Montreal and St. John, via Quebec and Moncton cost $14,246.05, to carry 1,118 pounds at a cost of $12.74 per pound. The service between Montreal and Detroit cost $13,071.85 to carry 18,401 pounds at a cost of $7.45 per pound.
In going through the files I find that most of these air mail contracts have been let without public advertisement. I think there is only one case in which that practice was carried out. This is in striking contrast with the manner in which the Postmaster General deals with rural mail routes. If mail is to be carried for ten or twelve miles, the contract is put up for tender. The lowest tenderer receives a contract which would involve an expenditure of $400 or $500. An air mail service contract involving an expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars is let without public advertisement or tender.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is not quite correct in that statement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Postmaster
General may make his statement after I am finished as I have no desire to enter into a controversy at the present time. Any one of these air mail contracts would be worthy of very careful study. For instance, a term is included in the contract requiring the contractor to report after each trip his revenue from passengers or other goods carried. I asked the Postmaster General what the revenue was from these different contractors and his reply is: "I have no information," although his contract with these carriers provides that on every trip they shall report the revenue in addition to carrying the mail.. That has not been enforced. In some cases this provision varies. With regard to carrying the-mail into the United States, there are certain services running between Montreal and Detroit and Toronto and Buffalo, and it is peculiar that the contract does not contain the provision that they are to report what they are carrying on those trips. These are all matters that would require a great deal of time to clean up, and I did desire to make a motion substantially reducing this vote and to explain in detail my reasons for so doing. I am satisfied, if I had an opportunity to do so, I could convince the committee that here has been waste; that there has been extravagance and that the public interest has not been safeguarded in connection with the air mail service. But that would take entirely too long, and I am not going to make that motion at this time.


Mr. DUPUIS:: It is too long already.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, I will continue a little longer. I am going to refer, just to satisfy the hon. gentleman who has spoken, to an editorial in the Moose Jaw Evening Times of Tuesday, March 4, 1930. I under-
2S74
Supply-Post Office

stand this paper is not unfriendly to the Postmaster General or to the government; in fact it is one of their supporters. I quote this editorial in part; it is long and I do not propose to read it all. In connection with one of these air mail services it states:
According to the present existing orders this will be the daily program. For some reason or other the powers thait be at Ottawa have decided that the northern air mail will be flown out of Regina. That it will cost the Canadian people at a minimum at least $12,000 a year extra, makes little difference, apparently, to the individuals who regulate these things. Regina's pride and hoggishness must be catered to. The politicians have so decreed. The Postmaster General and Hon. C. A. Dunning, Minister of Finance, may be able to explain why they are willing to throw away an extra $12,000 a year on flight mileage, but to the citizens of Moose Jaw it has no other meaning than "political pull" by Regina, regardless of the cost to the people.
No other view is taken in Moose Jaw of this wasteful extravagance than that the Regina politicians have brought undue and unfair pressure to bear on the Postmaster General to order that the pivotal point in the air service must be Regina, because such an order would mean that the Western Canada Airways would have to transfer their staff of mechanics and their terminus, now at Moose Jaw, to Regina.
In the intervening months until the Regina hangar has been built and the bog which surrounds it has been surfaced in some way to keep the heavy machines from becoming mired, the planes will be flown out of Moose Jaw. There will be weeks pass, when it will be absolutely impossible to land a three ton plane on the Regina field without its becoming mired. Then some time late in the summer the field will be surfaced, if plans are carried through. For two or three months, the Regina field will be safe, and then when the snow begins to fall and drift, hard-surfaced runways or not, it will be just as dangerous as it was the past six weeks.
Premier Mackenzie King surely cannot be countenancing this barefaced robbery of the public treasury by those who for political reasons of "bringing home the bacon" are flaunting all economic argument and the opinion of their technical advisers and the desires of the contractors' who are carrying the mail.
The discrimination which has been shown by the Postmaster General for political reasons in favour of Regina is most apparent. With the mail routed out of Regina, letters by air mail for Saskatoon, Battleford and Edmonton from Moose Jaw will be carried east forty miles and then back again over an equal distance over the route to Saskatoon. This duplication of flight mileage would be completely overcome, if the mail from Regina for Saskatoon, Battleford and Edmonton was carried through to Moose Jaw on the plane which arrives here at 12.10 midnight, and placed on board a plane for the northern cities at this point.
I could duplicate that with respect to other services. All I want to say, however, is that this matter must some time, sooner or later, be thoroughly investigated. In my opinion

it cannot be done this session in this committee, and the only course that I suggest is that next session this matter be brought before the public accounts committee and a searching investigation be conducted in connection with all these contracts.


Peter John Veniot: I court the fullest investigation under oath in regard to this matter. As regards the article which the hon. gentleman has read from the press, it is in reference to a row between Regina and Moose Jaw as to where the plane should land. The Post Office Department has nothing whatever to do with the matter. There is absolutely no duplication for which we are paying. Our contract is clear and distinct. I hope when the elections are over and we come back to this side of the house, my hon. friend will be returned if for no other purpose than to institute this investigation. I court it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those are very
like words that the Postmaster General has thrown out on previous occasions, and the investigations, when they were finished, showed that he was not justified in making the challenge. We found him wanting. Civil service discharges and refusals were investigated and it was found that the Postmaster General was openly defying the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Peter John Veniot: We have discussed that before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, we are prepared to discuss it again if the Postmaster General wants that.


Peter John Veniot: Not necessarily now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have endeavoured to be reasonable and moderate in my presentation.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, but my hon. friend
issued a challenge for an investigation and I accepted it.


Mr. MANION:: But the trouble is that the hon. gentleman will not be in his present position then.


Peter John Veniot: I will, and nobody else can refuse an investigation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman knows very well he will not be in a position to accept it. This is just an effort to get by. That, however, is the situation. As I say, I have not nearly exhausted this subject and when it is all investigated, the file I have under my hand will make a very interesting disclosure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital -Canadian Government Railways: To provide additional oar ferry, and facilities for car ferry service, between the mainland and Prince Edward Island (revote, $2,000,000), $2,500,000.
Robert James Manion: Who gets the subsidy for
that ferry?


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):: There is no subsidy. It
is a government car ferry.


Robert James Manion: There is a subsidized ferry running across there, and I thought this was it.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings)):	When will
that ferry be in operation?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The contract has been let
for the car ferry, and it is to be completed in July, 1931. I expect that it will be in service immediately after that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway and terminals: Construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost a-t $2,500, $5,900,000.
Robert James Manion: I think the minister should make a statement in regard to the conditions up there.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The question is a perfectly proper one; I had intended to do that. This vote is for the purpose of carrying on the work that has been going on during the past two years at Fort Churchill in the construction of terminal facilities, and to enable us to complete the ballasting on the Hudson Bay railway line from The Pas to Fort Churchill. The amount is divided approximately thus: 81,900.000 for railway purposes, and S3,5(X),000 for the terminals at Fort Churchill. The railway expenditure involves the building of section houses and some stations, but mainly it is for the ballasting of the line. The work at Fort Churchill is for the construction of the new grain elevator, for dredging and for building docks and also for bringing in a water supply to the town.


Robert James Manion: What are the prospects as to the first use of the line?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It is not intended to open the Hudson Bay railway for commercial traffic before the autumn of 1931. By that time the docking facilities will have been completed, the grain elevator will have been completed, and sufficient dredging done to let the sea-going vessels come into the dock. My deputy now advises me that the docking facilities will not quite be completed at that time.


Robert James Manion: Before the autumn of 1931?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Unless it is fairly early in the autumn, it would not be of any use until 1932; is not that right?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The elevator is expected to be finished early in September, 1931, or before, with facilities for the shipment of grain. Dredging sufficient to allow the boats to get in will also have been done.


Robert James Manion: It was for this elevator that Carter, Halls and Aldinger got the contract the other day, was it not?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes.


Mr. BENNETT:: I have suffered a great deal from misrepresentation by hon. gentlemen opposite in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and the opportunity is now afforded to enaible me to make a statement, which I propose to do.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Frankly I do not think I have ever said a word anywhere about the hon. gentleman's position on the Hudson Bay railway. Someone else may have done so, but I have not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is very gratifying to hear the minister make that statement. I had not the minister in mind; I was using the word in the plural not the singular, but I am grateful to him for that statement.
Last year when this item was under consideration we were discussing expenditures by day's work for the completion of the railway to Port Nelson, and I was attacked that evening just at the close of the session. Telegrams were sent out that I was endeavouring to prevent the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) was very solicitous about the welfare of his party. I came into this house in 1011, having lived in western Canada for some few years prior to that-a very considerable number of years as life is measured. I had heard of the Hudson Bay railway from the day I went there. It was common knowledge that on one occasion some forty odd years ago a telegram was referred to in a public meeting to the effect that the rails were on the sea to construct this line to the bay. In 1911, I was privileged to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and on that occasion I took the trouble to state my position with respect to the Hudson Bay railway, and' although it may be rather late to do this I feel that I should present the matter as fairly as possible and indieabe that at that time I was most anxious that the road should be completed. Without reading from the pages of Hansard, I said that the policy of the party was that the road

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
should be completed at as early a date as possible. The contract which had been awarded for a .portion of the road had not been proceeded with very far at the time of the election in 1911. The late Hon. Frank Cochrane, as Minister oif Railways and Canals, took the matter actively in hand, construction was pushed forward, and strange as it may sound to this house, the railroad was completed within 92 miles of Port Nelson at the time the- Liberal government came into power in 1921, so that ten years ago next fall the railroad was completed to within almost 92 miles of the bay. During the war the railway fell into a state of disrepair, but no action was taken to remedy that until 1925 or 1926. In the meantime the minister will perhaps recall that while he was a member of the Union government the matter was under discussion, but it was felt that conditions in the country did not warrant active steps being taken; but after the Liberal government came into power in 1921 the Progressive group, as the minister will recall, was most insistent that action should be taken, and while no vote was taken in this house it will be found that in 1923 the government of the day declined to take any action towards completing the road. The reasons given were that the conditions did not warrant the expenditure at that time. Apparently at that moment the present Minister of Railways and Canals 'himself shared that view. In 1926 the present Minister of Finance became Minister of Railways, and at the session of 1926, this matter was discussed at considerable length. The discussion will be found in Hansard of June 8 and June 9, 1926. The then Minister of Railways was asking for a grant to rehabilitate the road, and at pages 4191 and 4192 of Hansard, he said:
I do not want to complicate this particular vote-[DOT]
That is the vote for rehabilitation:
-because there will be a discussion of that later, but I think probably it -would be as well to have all the information on Hansard.
It is estimated that it will cost $6,153,000 to complete the railway. It is estimated that the harbour works at Port Nelson, including elevator accommodation to the extent of 4,000,000 bushels-I would ask my hon. friend to bear in mind that that is not yet decided upon, but the estimate does include provision for it-with accommodation in the harbour for ten ships at the same time, will cost $20,200,000.
And on page 4192 Mr. Dunning said:
Now, in connection with these figures I want it distinctly understood that I am not commit-ing the government to this expenditure. I anticipated being asked a question as to what the engineering estimates were with respect to the completion of the terminal at Port Nelson. I want, in this connection, to revert to my

previous statement: It is the policy of the government to complete this route as economically as possible in order to enable a fair trial of it to be made. While I have carefully gone over the figure with respect to the vote which is now before the committee and have carefully gone over the figures with respect to the cost of completing the 92 miles of railway, I cannot say that it has been possible to do the same thing with reference to the estimated cost of the work at Nelson.
Then on page 4193 in reply to a question, Mr. Dunning said:
Now we understand each other. My point is that so far as the testing of the route is concerned it is something which has been a matter of repeated discussion and repeated investigation from a theoretical point of view, for the last forty years1.
There is further discussion of the cost for the completion of the terminals at Port Nelson, and in the end this is what was said by the then minister as reported at page 4194:
It must be quite apparent to my bon. friend that investigation is required before one can determine precisely the aids to navigation which are needed. Previous information on the subject does not lead me to believe that any considerable expenditure will be necessary in connection with lighthouses and things of that sort through the strait, and the bay is open sea. Provision is made in the estimates which I have just dealt with for a lighthouse at the entrance to Nelson channel. There are related questions upon which I could give general information in a little time. I thought there would be a more or less general discussion which would give me an opportunity of feeding the information more gradually than I have been able to do so far.
The discussion was somewhat lengthy having regard to what the minister said, that is, that he was not then undertaking to complete the 92 miles to the bay but to rehabilitate the existing railway which terminated, I think, at mileage 332, although a part of the roadbed was constructed beyond that point. That is, he asked only for a grant for rehabilitation and he made a statement to the house, as I have read, indicating what would be necessary to complete the railway and the terminals at Port Nelson. In that regard it is important also to observe that that very day he was asked whether or not there was any intention on the part of the government to shift the terminals from Port Nelson to any other point, and he replied that such was not the intention of the government at that time. So that in June, 1926, the government had seen no reason to change the proposed terminals from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill or else-where; and in the spring of 1926, after the government had been in power for some years, the undertaking had not been proceeded with beyond the effort made in June to secure

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
the necessary capital to rehabilitate the road as constructed to within 92 miles of the bay.
In succeeding years appropriations were granted by parliament to complete the road, but before the road was completed the minister, on the advice of Mr. Palmer, changed the terminus from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill. In that regard the Right Hon. Mr. Graham, the former Minister of Railways, in another chamber indicated that on the report of the engineers it was decided to make Nelson the terminal before his government went out of power in 1911, and that when Mr. Cochrane after a personal visit to Port Nelson and Fort Churchill concluded that the terminus should be at Port Nelson, he did so on the reports of the engineers of his department. That is common ground, both from the observations made by Mr. Graham in the Senate and from the statements made in this chamber by the then Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Cochrane. So that the terminus selected by both parties on the report of the engineers of the department was Port Nelson up to 1926, when the now Minister of Finance stated the government had no intention at the moment to change the terminus.
At a later date, in consequence of investigations made by the government, the terminals at Port Nelson were abandoned on the report of Mr. Palmer, and the work on terminals at Fort Churchill was commenced.
Now, it must be abundantly clear that there is nothing upon the records of this house to which any member can point that at any time there has been any inclination on m3r part or on the part of anyone else to do other than the very thing the government itself said it desired to do-to investigate before acting. It was in consequence of that very policy being pursued that the terminus was changed from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill, for had the minister proceeded without further investigation and carried out the declared policy of the government in 1926, the terminus would have been Port Nelson and not Fort Churchill. But because the minister desired in the light of the information he had received that further opportunity should be afforded for investigation, that investigation did take place and the terminus was changed to Fort Churchill, with the consequent abandonment of the terminals that had been constructed at Port Nelson. The expenditures on those terminals, as the minister pointed out last session, amounted to a very considerable sum, $6,000,000. Those expenditures had been made largely by the hon. gentleman's predecessors in office, acting under
the authority of this parliament, with money that had been appropriated for the purpose by the House of Commons and Senate of Canada.
Now, it is quite clear-let there be no misunderstanding about it-that the terminus at Port Nelson was selected, alike by Liberal and Conservative governments, on the recommendation of the engineers of the department.


Mr. DUNNING:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says "No." His predecessor as Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Graham, said so in the Senate, whatever importance may be attached to his statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a very slight
difference. The selection was not made until after the Conservative government came in in 1911, but in this house the Right Hon. Mr. Graham stated on a subsequent occasion that the engineers' reports at the time he left office indicated that Port Nelson should be the place. That is the fact of the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and so far as
he was concerned Port Nelson was the place.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, he said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, so far as the
Liberal administration was concerned, Mr. Graham had determined that Port Nelson should be the terminus. The result of the election was that the actual choice had to be made by the successors of the Liberal government on the same reports that were before Mr. Graham, and upon which he was prepared to act.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is hardly correct,
because after Mr. Cochrane came into office-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: He made a trip there.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and further engineering reports were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, on the same reports, supplemented by personal investigation by Mr. Cochrane, and on further engineering reports.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So up to this point hon. members when they go out on the hustings in western Canada must realize-


Mr. VALLANCE:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one who would be only too glad to misrepresent the facts, I take it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
2S7S

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


John Vallance: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman accuses some of us of wanting to misrepresent the facts on the hustings. I ask that he retract that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said "Hear, hear" to my statement; that is exactly what he wanted to do, he wanted to misrepresent the facts.


John Vallance: You said this would be the issue in Saskatchewan and I said "Hear, hear."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I never mentioned
Saskatchewan. I said hon. gentleman would be only too glad to go out on the platform and make misrepresentations, and the hon. gentleman said "Hear, hear.",


John Vallance: No.


The CHAIRMAN (Sir Eugene Fiset):: The hon. gentleman said that one member here present would be glad to misrepresent the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman said "Hear, hear" and I said "There is one of them." If the hon. gentleman says he is not one of them, I accept his statement that it does not apply to him, and I am very glad to have this expression of repentance on his part. Perhaps no one in this house has been more misrepresented than I have in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. I shall take the sequence of events. What happened was that in 1912 the terminal having been agreed upon by both parties-mark you, 15 years after that and after an expenditure of about $6,000,000 had been made on the Nelson terminal-


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is missing one important feature in the sequence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The war?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, what is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: The Senate investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, there was a
Senate investigation.


Charles Avery Dunning: And a very important
investigation, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was an investigation by the Senate, but I do not think it was of any importance in determining where the terminal should be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh yes. On that particular point I assure my hon. friend that that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the statement of the minister, I attributed the change to the report of Mr. Palmer.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I be allowed to
explain? The Senate committee made a very thorough inquiry into the matter and strongly recommended that no further work should be done pending a further investigation of the comparative merits of the two ports.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Charles Avery Dunning: And a great deal of evidence came out before the Senate committee which had not previously been available to anybody.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the Minister of
Finance for reminding me at this point of the Senate committee. I had not intended to refer to it until later, but it serves my purpose to refer to it now. Between 1911 and 1926 a select committee of the Senate had investigated this matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: And work had stopped in the meantime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In consequence of the
war work had stopped, although it is fair to say at this point that my hon. friends to the left had very strongly urged that the work should be proceeded with during the sessions which followed the session of 1921; I think that point is clear. Shall we say, then, in consequence of the Senate report the then Minister of Railways retained the services of Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Palmer recommended that the terminal port be Churchill and not Nelson; the result is that the road is now completed with Churchill as its terminus, Nelson having been abandoned. That seems to be complete so far as that part of the operation is concerned.
My point is that in consequence of the action taken by the minister, whether it followed upon the report of the Senate committee or the general disposition of the government to investigate matters further, in 1926 the government was committed to Nelson. The minister was asked directly whether or not any other port was in mind and he answered positively and definitely that he had in mind no other port but Nelson.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend read it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I shall have to turn it up. I have before me Hansard of June 8,

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
1926, and I find that at page 4193 Mr. Rogers asked the Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of Railways:
Mr. Rogers:	My hon. friend spoke of "this
particular port." Has he in mind any other port ?
Mr. Dunning:	I may as well settle that question right now.
Mr. Lapointe:	Trouble maker.
Mr. Dunning:	The government has no intention of changing to any other port at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


John Vallance: May I ask a question? At the time that the railroad was being built presumably to Nelson, was the hon. gentleman in favour of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
has ears to hear he will probably have heard what I said with regard to the statement of my position when I came to this house in 1911, and moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. My utterances on that occasion were in the strongest and most emphatic terms. In 1906, in consequence of the very factors to which the hon. gentleman referred, I ventured to point out in this house that I was not favouring without an investigation the further extension beyond mileage 332. The other night the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) referred to my stand, and other hon. gentlemen in and out of this house have referred to my views. What I was doing was to place upon Hansard my views that the then government was well advised to take the course advocated by the minister to make investigations which were made with respect to the enterprise, following, as he said-and this is where I propose to speak of it-the investigation that took place in the Senate. I am not informed that much new information was afforded by reason of that investigation. The minister has stated that new information was unfolded, and I am prepared to accept his statement. However my first speech in this house in 1911 was in favour of the Hudson Bay railway, and that is before the hon. gentleman (Mr. Vallance) was in this house.


John Vallance: But in 1926 you changed your mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I have not changed my mind at all. The hon. gentleman might as well read my statement from Hansard; it would be better to do so here than on the hustings.


John Vallance: Page 4293 of Hansard, 1926 records the hon. gentleman as follows:
But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel. I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson.
That is the statement of the hon. gentleman as it appears in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what the minister has stated, only his statement was a little stronger than mine. He said the government had no intention of changing from Nelson.


Charles Avery Dunning: At that present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it was in consequence of the very factors to which the minister has referred that I stood in the House of Commons and said I was not prepared to do the very thing the minister said he would not do, namely to go beyond that mile until he had further information. The hon. gentleman says the decision of the Senate committee warranted his opinion. My opinion was based upon that and one other consideration to which I shall presently refer. I knew nothing of these ports. I did however know the late Minister of Railways very well, I was a supporter of his administration, and I had a report of the visit he made that summer to the Hudson bay. Although he had one artificial limb he visited the bay for the purpose of determining what action should be taken in the light of his personal observation. He took with him the necessary engineers and suffered much inconvenience on the trip. Upon his return he made a report, and as a result of the report construction of the road to Nelson was continued. In 1926 my hon. friend the present Minister of Finance was not prepared to change the opinion of the government as expressed by the expenditure of the money in question on the report of the engineers. In the succeeding year however the minister took the opinion of Mr. Palmer and Churchill was selected as the terminus. May I point out that but for the pause and investigation the road would have been finished through to Nelson, but because the minister saw fit to stop to investigate the road was not finished. This is exactly what I said I thought should be done, as the member has now read and which statement has been read from time to time in this house detached from its context in the endeavour to make it appear that I have been opposed to this enterprise, which attitude I know will not succeed as far as the country in which I live is concerned.
When I went west the Hudson Bay railway was one of the few undertakings which I thought would be of incalculable value to

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
western Canada, if the prophecies of those who had to do with it materialized. I was anxious that before spending money, especially after the war, there should be a full investigation. The minister himself took that view, and as a result and in consequence of the investigations made following the attitude he had taken, the terminus was changed from Nelson to Churchill and Nelson was abandoned. There are the events; "he that runs may read" and he who desires not to mislead cannot state it otherwise. It is a little longer distance from the end of the steel to Churchill than to Nelson and in 1927 the government began to construct the road to Churchill; since that time it will be found that no voice has been raised against it. It has been criticized by some as still not being the sounder choice; there are some people who still believe that in the end Nelson will be regarded as the better port. That is a matter of expert opinion about which I offer no view, but the minister has accepted the opinion of Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Palmer's opinion having been taken and he being an eminent man, you will observe there has been no questioning of it and the construction has proceeded with the unanimous support of this House of Commons. No voice of which I know has been raised against it, and I have heard no objection from any quarter. After the minister stopped work and went forward with his investigations-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, work was not stopped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, beyond the end of
steel.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, my hon. friend forgets that no work had been done for years. Work on the railway which was necessary in order to reach this terminus at mile 332 continued all the time. There was no stoppage of work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is rehabilitation,
and I was talking about work. The hon. gentleman must have known that. Construction is not rehabilitation.


Charles Avery Dunning: But you could not do
any construction until you rehabilitated the road.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am pointing out that
no reconstruction took place beyond mile 332 towards Port Nelson, because although in 1926 the hon. gentleman said the government still believed in Nelson, after that he thought it desirable to make further investigations and in consequence of his desire to make the investigations the construction towards Nelson was not carried on nor was the work of con-

struotion beyond mile 332 commenced or carried on until after Churchill had been selected instead of Nelson. I have just given the grounds upon which these conclusions were reached, because the government had made up its mind that it was desirable to have another opinion and they obtained that other opinion. The gentleman whose opinion was secured was put forward as a man of such eminence that the government felt itself warranted in abandoning Nelson, where an expenditure of $6,000,000 had been made and accepted Churchill, it being a little greater distance than it was to Nelson, from the end of steel. So Churchill is the terminal.
From that moment this house has given unanimous support, without objection on the part of anyone, to the pushing forward of that work with all possible speed, and every member who sits on this side of the house has been a party to the work being expedited in every possible way by the granting of money for that purpose. Now, will the hon. gentleman name one member who has made any objection to that.


John Vallance: Out on the hustings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said in this house; I
am talking about debates in the house.


John Vallance: You were referring to
statements we might make on the hustings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring to statements made in this house, and I shall come to the hustings in just a moment and give the details in that regard. Will the hon. gentleman name any member of the party which sits to the left of Mr. Speaker who has raised a single objection in this house with regard to the expenditures in connection with this work?


John Vallance: Some of those who did were left at home.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name one.


John Vallance: Donald Sutherland, with Harry Mullins sitting on the same platform with him and allowing it to go across.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. Donald Sutherland has not been in this house since 1926.


John Vallance: But he was running in that campaign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in 1926; he was defeated in the election of 1926. Just exactly what Mr. Mullins sitting on a platform had to do with the Hon. Donald Sutherland in North Oxford is a matter which might be somewhat difficult to explain. That is the

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
sort of politics in which the hon. gentleman indulges; if you sit on the platform with someone who makes a speech, thereby you are supporting that speech. The hon. gentleman, I doubt not, has gone to church, but it does not follow that because he did not get up and go out he believed everything the preacher said. However, his theory is that if you sit on a political platform where you may be invited, you are responsible for everything that is said.


John Vallance: I think I would at least assume the responsibility of getting up and saying I did not agree with what the other man said, rather than sit complacently by and allow it to be put across.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are various views as to manners; the manners of some people would induce them not to endeavour to break up a meeting by making a statement of that kind.


John Vallance: Both gentlemen were
speakers at the meeting that night, and Harry Mullins had the opportunity to contradict the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if Mr. Mullins did not contradict what Mr. Sutherland said it afforded an opportunity to the hon. gentleman to talk about something far removed from the merits of the transaction. That is all; that is the only benefit I can see accruing to him.
Now, let us proceed one step further. Since that time the government has been responsible for the enterprise. They commenced in 1926 and this is 1930. In 1926 the Minister of Finance, then Minister of Railways, was going to push this work through with the utmost expedition. He secured definite opinions from others before he proceeded to carry on his undertaking, and the result is that in 1930 we are advised that this work is not to be finished for commercial purposes until 1931. In other words, five years will have elapsed during the construction of less than 100 miles of railway to Churchill.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To make it commercially available.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, the railway is constructed, and has been for some time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is not available as such.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, it is; what I had reference to were the port facilities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will come to that. My hon. friend says the railway is completed 2419-182
and is available to run trains over and that he is talking about the port facilities. Well, this government came into power in 1922, eight years ago, committed to the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. They have not been able to build less than 100 miles of railway and establish terminals in that time. That is the story.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, it is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is it?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend's mileage is wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it less than 100 miles from the end of steel to Churchill?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is from mile 332 to mile 511.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How far was it from the end of steel to Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: It was 92 miles, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was the figure given in Hansard, and how far was it from the end of steel to Churchill?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: It was 180 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: The difference between 511 and 332.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is 179 miles, so the statement I have just made should be corrected.


Charles Avery Dunning: And the whole 332 miles had to be rebuilt.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already dealt with the question of rehabilitation. The reconstruction of 332 miles of road is not such a tremendous task as the minister would have us believe.


Charles Avery Dunning: In that country it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was a fine
country.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, the greater part of
the road is constructed through muskeg.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The greater part of the
road is constructed through muskeg, so the minister tells me now. As yet I have not been over that road, so I accept that statement that muskeg it is. I have looked at a great many photographs of the line up there, and some of the country I thought from the observations of the hon. member for South Battleford was country where wheat grew all the year round.


John Vallance: You never heard me say that. I want the leader of the opposition to retract that statement, because he never heard

2SS2

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
me make such a statement at all. Just because of the position held by the hon. gentleman in this house he tried to ridicule some of us from Saskatchewan, but I for one do not propose to allow him to do so. He cannot bulldoze me, either on the hustings or in this house, and I tell him so now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
would exhibit a little more light and a little less heat I think it would be desirable.


John Vallance: You need somebody to talk to you.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not see any reason
why the hon. gentleman should get so angry.


John Vallance: I am not angry; it is
righteous indignation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman,
there is no doubt about it being indignation, but there might be some difference of opinion as to the quality of that indignation. At any rate, I was not endeavouring to heap ridicule upon the hon. gentleman; I was only endeavouring to show how ridiculous some of his statements have been.


Charles Avery Dunning: But he said he did not make the statement which you attributed to him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I see.


John Vallance: I would like to invite the hon. gentleman to enter into a debate in South Battleford in order to see how much ridicule he could bring down upon himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is always very brave at a distance.


John Vallance: I am inviting you right to my home; that is as near as I can get.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With equal force, I might invite my hon. friend to come to Calgary or one of various other ridings in the country which I have to visit.


John Vallance: I would be glad to go.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that my hon. friend's presence would be welcome, but by that time his righteous indignation probably would be cooled off. That is not a commodity in great demand in that locality.
It will be recalled also that at a celebrated meeting held in Prince Albert the Prime Minister of this country put the building of the Hudson Bay railway upon a very high plane indeed, when he said: Give me members and I will give you miles. All you had to do was to increase the number of members and you would receive an increased number of miles.


An hon. MEMBER:: It worked out all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman says that it worked out all right.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I never made any statement of that kind at any time or at any place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After recess I will bring the statement made by the right hon. gentleman, as reported, and read it to the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You might tell us at the same time who the reporter was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman took his own reporters with him on these trips. It was the reporters who were with him who made the report of the meeting at Prince Albert. Presumably the report was accurate for those who accepted his hospitality would certainly not be so unworthy as improperly to report his meeting. After lunch I will put this matter on record.
' I intend to deal with this Hudson Bay matter even if the house does not adjourn in time for an election on July 28th; do not make any mistake about that. Men have been going around the country denouncing the leader of the opposition for the attitude which he took. I will deal presently with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), and the reference he made in his speech of the other evening to Mr. Clarence Graham. I will refer to the report of the speech of the Prime Minister so that there may be no question as to its accuracy.
It will be recalled that there was a meeting at Portage la Prairie, at which I was present. The presiding officer at that meeting was Mayor Burns of Portage la Prairie, who is now a candidate in the interests of the Conservative party. Upon the platform was Mr. R. C. Anderson, of Winnipeg. The government always has regarded that gentleman as being of great worth. He is president of the street railway company in Winnipeg and is interested in the electrical power development in that district, so no complaint can be made about 'him. The newspaper correspondents were supposed to be present. One of them met with an accident and could not get to the meeting. The next day I read in the Winnipeg Free Press a report indicating that I had made a pronouncement against both the Hudson Bay railway and the views of my leader. It took a long time and the expenditure of some time and money, but every newspaper in Canada which had carried that report subsequently carried a retraction.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Robert James Manion: But after the elections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But after the elections, after the injury had been done and after the effort to induce the people to believe that I had made a statement against the Hudson Bay railway had been successful. A radio installation had been made for the meeting and what I said had been heard in Winnipeg and various other parts of the west. I took the trouble to obtain the names of reputable witnesses who could vouch for what I had said, and I armed myself with everything which would be necessary in a court of law to secure the vindication to which I was entitled. The result was that the Canadian Press sent to every one of its newspapers a retraction of the statement which had been made with respect to that meeting. However, that did no good so far as the elections were concerned; they had been held. Despite the fact that Mr. Anderson had gone to Winnipeg and made a statement as to what I did say, the retraction was not made early enough to effect a redress of the injury which had been done.
In the northern part of Manitoba, where Air. Myers was running as a candidate against Mr. Bird, the misrepresentation as to what I had said was received by means of the circulation of a dodger containing the report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, a report w'holly false and certainly maliciously prepared.
What occurred at that meeting was this: I read from a statement which had been made by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, my leader. I read that statement without comment, word for word, because I realized that it was essential that I should not be subject to adverse criticism in connection with a matter about which so many people were interested and asking questions. Reading from that statement, in the exact wTords in which it had been made, I made my address at Portage la Prairie. The sequel shows the means resorted to in the midst of an election to endeavour to create a false impression.
I cannot refer to a past debate, but the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton the other evening appear in Hansard and they leave the impression that Mr. Bury of East Edmonton had felt that in 1926 I was opposed to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. This reference to Hansard will show that the minister himself proposed to go on to Nelson, the rehabilitation having been completed. Neither he nor the government had changed their attitude, but in consequence of further information-
2419-182}	^


Charles Avery Dunning: The minister did not
state that he proposed to go on to Nelson; he was then asking for certain money to rehabilitate the existing mileage.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is
becoming the champion hair splitter of the country. As reported on page 4193 of Hansard of 1926, he said:
The government has no intention of changing to another port at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: At the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the minister had in the back of his mind the idea of making a change at some other time.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend could,
if he wished to, quote the terms in which I presented the vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read it again:
Mr. "Rogers:	My hon. friend spoke of "this
particular port." Has he in mind any other port ?
Mr. Dunning: I may as well settle that question right now.
Mr. Lapointe:	Trouble maker.
Mr. Dunning:	The government has no intention of changing to another port at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: At the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would point out to the hon. member for Yorkton that the minister himself permitted a delay for the purpose of having an investigation made by Mr. Palmer, partly in consequence of the Senate investigation, which had been made prior to the time of the minister's statement.


George Washington McPhee: The question under consideration in 1926 was the expenditure of $3,000,000 for rehabilitating the road, and the question of a port was not being considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman realizes what he said the other day? I said at that time that we were in favour of the vote for rehabilitation but I was not prepared, without further information, to vote money to go beyond the end of steel. The minister said that it was not intended to do that, and he said that what he proposed to do and in fact what he did do, was to carry on investigations which ultimately resulted in the road being constructed to Fort Churchill, a distance of 180 miles, as against 92 miles to Nelson. That is the story. It being almost one o'clock, I will, when the house resumes, read from my files the record with respect to

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
the Hudson Bay speech of the Prime Minister whom I do not intend to misrepresent in any sense of the word. I intend to rely on the report given by the press at that time. That is the position with respect to Hudson bay and I challenge any member to contradict successfully that narrative of the facts in connection with it. There it stands, and I have nothing to apologize for in connection with my record since I came into the house in 1911 nor nothing to -withdraw from my statements as to the advocacy of this undertaking before I came into the house. It is not advancing the interests of hon. gentlemen opposite, when one has no opportunity to answer, to make the representations that have been made in times past as to my attitude and that of those who sit with me in the house with respect to this matter.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I have
listened carefully to my hon. friend's explanation of his position. There is one point I am not quite clear about. Was my hon. friend's anxiety with respect to whether Churchill or Nelson should be the ultimate port? Had he any doubt in his mind about the advisability of going to Nelson?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I endeavoured to explain, the then Minister of Railways and Canals, after he came back, discussed the matter with me very fully. He told me of the difficulties that subsequently were referred to in the report by Mr. Palmer. He told me also of conditions as he found them at Churchill. He said he felt he was bound to accept the opinion of the engineers.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is speaking of Mr. Cochrane?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. My memory is
there will be found on Hansard a statement of his that he entirely followed the opinion of the engineers. I confess to the Minister of the Interior that not having been there, depending wholly and entirely on engineers' reports, I was not and I am not now in a position, beyond those reports, to indicate whether Churchill is to be preferred to Nelson or Nelson to Churchill. All I know is that the then Minister of Railways acted on technical advice and the moneys expended at
Nelson were expended under that advice. The minister will find that all stated in the Senate discussions that took place in connection with the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know whether it would suit the convenience of hon. members to resume at two o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Say half past two.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We might say half past two and possibly it might be understood that we just continue in session until we finish passing the estimates; otherwise it will be very difficult to arrange for prorogation. I will make this motion if the Speaker will resume the chair.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move:
The when the house resumes this afternoon, it shall resume at half past two and continue in session until the business of the house is disposed of.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Canadian delegates to the conference on the Limitation of Naval Armaments-Mr. Mackenzie King.
Report of the regulations made pursuant to provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act-Mr. King (Kootenay).

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

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What were the total trade imports and exports, separately, between Canada and Great Britain for the fiscal years 1920. 1921, 1922, 1923. 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
2.	What were the total trade imports and exports, separately, between Canada and the United States for the fiscal years above mentioned?

Questions


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1. Canada's imports from and exports 1920 to 1930, inclusive, were-
Fiscal
years
1920		
1921		
1922		
1923		
1924		
1925		
1926		
1927		
1928		
1929		
1930		
to the United Kingdom, years ended March 31,
Imports	Exports to	
from	United Kingdom	
United	Canadian	ForeignKingdom	produce	produce$126,362,631	$489,152,637	$6,807,481213,973,562	312,844,871	1,383,800117,135,343	299,361,675	1,001,518141,330,143	379,067,445	851,081153,586,690	360,057,782	1,103,020151,083,946	395,843,433	1,324,615163,731,210	508,237,560	1,028,583163,939,065	446,872,851	1,146,233186,435,824	410,691,392	2,071,961194,041,381	429,730,485	1,930,456189,178,156	281,838,175	1,336,380
2. Canada's imports from and exports to the United States, years ended March 31, 1920 to 1930, inclusive, were-
Fiscal years
1921.
1922.
1923.
1924.
1925.
1926. 1927
1928.
1929.
1930.
Imports	Exports to	
from	United States	
United	Canadian	ForeignStates	produce	produce$S01,097,318	$464,028,183	$37,101,934856,176,820	542,322,967	18,378,969515,958,196	292,588,643	11,515,534540,989,738	369,080,218	11,267,503601,256,447	430,707,544	10,935,365509,780,009	417,417,144	9,767,499608,618,542	474,987,367	10,964,868687,022,521	466,422,789	12,912,441718,896,270	478,145,383	18,640,873868,012,229	499,612,145	21,654,942847,450,311	514,957,553	21,654,397CHIGNECTO CANAL Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Before you leave the chair,
Mr. Speaker, I might answer a question that was asked by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday on the orders of the daj' in reference to the Chignecto canal. As hon. members may recall, a resolution was passed by this house a year ago asking that a survey and an economic study be made of that proposal. The field part of the survey work has been completed and the notes are now being extended and studied. A commission will shortly be appointed to study the economic aspects of the problem. The personnel of the commission has not been determined, and no one was authorized to speak in that regard on behalf of the government.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DUFF

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to a question of
privilege. A day or two ago in the regular course of the mail, I received in my post office box in the House of Commons the two envelopes which I hold in my hand. These are the ordinary House of Commons envelopes, and although they are not addressed to me they came back to my post office box. One of the envelopes is addressed to Thomas Young, Esquire, Sydney, N.S., and the other to Fred H. Sullivan, Esquire, 1 Argyle street, Glace Bay, N.S.
Before I go any further, may I say that I absolve the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) of any knowledge of what has occurred in connection with this matter, but I think it is necessary for me to lay the whole facts before the house. Stamped on these envelopes to show the reason why they were sent back to me are the words, "Returned to sender," and the reason given for non-delivery in each case is that the persons to whom the letters were addressed
Pnvilege-Mr. Duff

were not at the addresses named. I am going to send you these envelopes, Mr. Speaker, in a moment, and you will be interested to know what they contain.


George Reginald Geary: Did my hon. friend read
the contents?


William Duff: Read the contents, does my
hon. friend say?


George Reginald Geary: I do not want you to read them. I asked if you did read them.


William Duff: No, but I looked inside and
found whom they were from.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is an offence under
the law to open a letter that is not addressed to you.


William Duff: Wait till I get through, and
then my hon. friend will see that I did what was correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nothing will make correct the opening of a letter addressed to somebody else. We cannot have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, involving the opening of a letter addressed to somebody else. Surely this house has not fallen that low.


William Duff: Somebody has fallen low when he deliberately used my frank and forged my initials on these two envelopes, and under my frank and under my initials sent out Tory literature in my name. I say that I am perfectly justified in bringing this matter to the attention of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the frank, yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Having stated that, I
would suggest to the hon. gentleman that his question of privilege is covered. But as to reading what is contained in the envelope-


William Duff: I did not intend to read the
contents, Mr. Speaker, but I thought somebody asked me to. All I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that this letter is signed by my good friend the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae), the chief whip of the Conservative party. I do not believe that he either had anything to do with sending out this literature under my frank, but I do say, in view of the fact that the people of Nova Scotia have received letters of this kind evidently, because if two have come back certainly more than two were sent out, that it is not fair to me as a Liberal member of the House of Commons from the province of Nova Scotia to have these letters sent out under my frank, and I want to protest against it


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nobody has the right to use the hon. gentleman's frank, but I am sure after what he has just stated that his electors will know that he never said what is in those letters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now a question of the privileges of this house, not the privilege of any particular member. I trust that the hon. gentleman will lay the envelopes on the table. Having laid the envelopes upon the table, they should be kept in the custody of the clerk. It may well be that initials which purport to be the hon. gentleman's are somebody else's. That is for the clerk of the house. In the second place, the opening of a letter not addressed to him by any member and a statement of the contents is an offence against the law.


Charles Avery Dunning: The frank and the initials purported to be his own.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had no right to open the letters knowing they were not addressed to him.


Charles Avery Dunning: How could he know until he opened them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said that there was a direction on the envelope where it should be sent if not delivered. His statement was predicated upon the assumption that he had not sent out those letters, and then to open them certainly puts this house in a very, very difficult position. I desire to dissociate myself and those with whom I am associated on this side from becoming parties to the opening of a letter that may be placed in my box or that of any other hon. member simply because the post office clerk assures me that it was my letter originally.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Apropos of what has just taken place, and to show exactly what is being done, let me mention that a few weeks ago a letter was addressed to the house of Olaf Hanson, the Liberal candidate in Skeena. He was not at home at the time, being either in Montreal or in the United States, and that letter was delivered to me by the post office. I retained it and made sure that Mr. Hanson got it even though I knew, Mr. Speaker, that the substance of that letter would not be a bit helpful to me.


Mr. BROWN:: How did you know?


James Charles Brady: I will tell you why. I know this for a fact, that when Olaf Hanson returned to Prince Rupert, every step that I advanced to better conditions in my constituency
(Mr. Duff.]

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
he took the credit for; and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that any man who opens a letter that is not addressed to him is doing something that is contrary to the law.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is a question of privilege involved here, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: This matter should not be lightly passed over by the House of Commons. I have here in my hand the envelope to which my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) referred, and I am prepared to go on my oath and testify that this frank is the frank of Mr. Finlay MacDonald who represents Cape Breton South.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, it is as clear as anything in the world. All you have to do is to look at it and see.


Mr. CANNON:: What is all the fuss about?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The fuss is about a member of your party opening a letter that did not belong to him. You would not have done that, I trust, and I trust you would raise some fuss about it if anybody had done it against you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the hon. gentleman to use the third person when referring to another hon. member.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough by no stretch of his imagination, and he has quite a good imagination. I fancy, could interpret this as being his frank. He has opened a letter addressed to a certain person, Fred H. Sullivan, Esquire, Argyle Street, Glace Bay, which is not even in the hon. gentleman's county.


William Duff: It was returned to my post office box.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You opened it
knowing it did not belong to you.


William Duff: How did I know?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You could see by the letter it did not belong to you.


William Duff: Not until I opened it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It is not your frank, the letter is not addressed to you, and exercising the ordinary courtesy of a gentleman you should have returned that letter, but you opened it.


William Duff: To whom was I to return
it?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: To the post office because you knew that letter did not belong to you.


William Duff: I know now, of course.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You opened a
letter belonging to somebody else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Order. The question of privilege has been stated, the answer has been given. Now, I leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I suggest that the wrongful use of a frank is a matter within Your Honour's control as Speaker of the house. Allegations have been made and in turn denied. The questions. I presume, are questions of fact.
I have not seen the frank, and I am not attempting to judge as to the correctness of my hon. friend's statement. I am merely remarking that it is a matter for Your Honour to deal with.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a matter for the Postmaster General to deal with.


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the house would be satisfied to leave the matter in your hands. I think everybody will agree that no member should open a letter not addressed to him; and if the hon. member for An/tigoniSh-Guysboro (Mr. Duff) did so, I am confident it was under a misapprehension that the letter was addressed to himself.


William Duff: I opened it thinking I had
sent it. It had my frank on it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It was not your
frank.


William Duff: I saw my initials.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a matter for experts to determine.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I will now summarize the position. In 1910 Sir Robert Borden made a speech at Halifax outlining t'he platform of his party, and later in the west elaborating that he used these words:
The Liberal-Conservative party has been committed to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway since 1896, when Sir Charles Tu.pper embodied it in his policy. It will be built by the next Liberal-Conservative administration without one day's unnecessary delay. It will be
2888	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
operated by an independent, non-political commission on behalf of and in the interests of the people, with full control of rates, and it will not be handed over to the control of any railway corporation.
That was reported in the press and amongst other papers in the Yorkton Enterprise of July 6, 1911, when Sir Robert Borden was making his tour through that section of the country. When the government of Sir Robert Borden met the house for the first time in November, 1911, the speech from the throne contained this paragraph:
The selection of the best route for the Hudson Bay railway is engaging the attention of my advisers, and an announcement will be made to you of the result of their inquiry.
I had the privilege of moving the adoption of the address in reply in the House of Commons on November 20, 1911, and in the course of my remarks I said:
It is, therefore, of vital importance in the minds and thoughts of those who produce grain in the west that no mistake be made so far as the terminals at Hudson Bay are concerned, and we rejoice that the speedy completion of the railway will be one of the matters which will receive the most earnest consideration of this administration. It is a matter in which the people in the west are vitally interested, that terminals shall be constructed there under the control of a commission, and that no private corporation will have an opportunity to unnecessarily control or dominate those terminals. That will obviate the necessity, of course, of our having to expropriate them, as we may some of the terminals at the head of the lakes.
I have already indicated the action taken by the administration of Sir Robert Borden, and the journey of Mr. Cochrane to that section of the country and the selection of the terminus for the railway. The war followed and operations were suspended, but it will be within the memory of this house, if it has followed what I have said, that the railway was completed to within 92 miles of Port Nelson and within 179 miles of Churchill when the present administration came into power. It will also be recalled that in 1926, when the present Minister of Finance was in control of the Department of Railways and Canals, further investigations were made which resulted in the terminals being changed from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill where the terminals mentioned by the Minister of Railways and Canals are now being constructed.
I think that makes the matter perfectly clear with one exception. Between 1911 and 1926 the Senate committee had investigated the whole question, and the answers I gave to the questions put to me in 1926 were made subsequent to that report. I do not now recall whether or not the Minister of Railways and Canals referred to the report in the course of 
his remarks, but all members interested in the Hudson Bay railway development will recall that that report was one of the factors, as the minister very properly said this morning, that brought about the further investigation as to whether Port Nelson should remain the terminus of the Hudson Bay line.
I have already recalled what took place in the election campaigns in the west, and I also desire to point out that the hon. gentleman from Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) the other day referred to an interview given by Mr. Clarence Graham a few days before-


George Washington McPhee: As reported in the western press.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not an interview at all. A few days later Mr. Graham telegraphed to me as follows:
Hansard May 14 contains McPhee's quotation of alleged interview by me. Have given no interview this year anywhere nor on any subject nor in any manner whatever made public comment on or reference to Dunning budget. Utterance quoted made addressing Cosmopolitan Club here as guest 5th instant.
That is the incident to which the hon. gentleman must have referred. It was at a banquet at the Cosmopolitan Club and had no reference in any way, shape or form to the budget. Mr. Graham followed that with a letter in which he asked me that the misapprehension be cleared up. I also referred to the fact that during the election campaign of 1925 the right hon. Prime Minister is reported in the Regina Leader of October 8, 1925, to have addressed a public meeting in Saskatoon on the day previous. The quotation from the Regina Leader is as follows:
The next question is, how soon will Mr. King finish the Hudson's Bay line? Will he ask for the necessary appropriation at the next session? I am not going to evade the issue.
I am not here to say that what I say will go, but I say this: Tou send me followers from Saskatchewan, let me have Mr. Dunning in the cabinet, and it will not take long to satisfy the people on this question.
A voice:	How many miles per member?
Premier King:	I am afraid if I said. "You
send me the limit and I will go the limit," Mr. Meighen might say I was trying to bribe you. 1 want to make the position clear. The go\ eminent wants to complete the road and to do it immediately. Let me also make this clear: how far we can go in that desire depends upon the complexion of parliament. Supposing alter October 29th such a calamity should happen that the Liberal party was in power but no Liberal followers from Saskatchewan. Do you think I could get the other representatives to do it?
A voice:	What about the Progressives helping you?
Premier King:	Let me answer that clearly.
When the Progressives take the attitude that

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
they will support us when we do what they want and we can go to blazes when we do not, you cannot get very far. You cannot get people to work together under that system. I have the greatest admiration for the motives of the Progressive party and am in sympathy with most of their policies as those of the Liberals are alike. But while I take that position my admiration stops when it comes to the methods.
I will not offer any comment whatever and just leave that extract as an indication of the policy pursued by the Prime Minister as outlined in his remarks at Saskatoon on October 7, 1925. Bearing in mind that at that time the railway was within 92 miles of Nelson and 179 miles of Churchill-query: How long will it take to finish it if in five years it has got to its present state? In five years the Minister of Railways instituted an investigation, changed the port from Nelson to Churchill, and began to construct the line. According to the present Minister of Railways it may be opened next year. Six years after the speech to which I have referred 179 miles will be completed, and probably trains will be running into Churchill.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not wish to develop any controversy in reference to this matter except in regard to my hon. friend's remarks as to the sequence of events. His remarks have departed somewhat from my understanding of the sequence, and I shall be very brief in my reply. I think my hon. friend will agree that his last remarks regarding the length of time will call for some reply. Chronologically the position is stated approximately correctly by the leader of the opposition. The first sod was turned on the Hudson Bay railway in 1910, and work continued on it throughout the war period. In fact work was not stopped until a month or so before the close of the war. At the time of the cessation of work the railway had reached mile 332, some 90 miles from Nelson and 179 miles from Churchill. At that time it was the intention of the then government to build the road through to Nelson, but for a number of years after 1918 no work was done on the railway. Trains were operated once a month and sometimes not that often for a short distance along the line only. In 1926 as my hon. friend has stated I became Minister of Railways and in that session on behalf of the government I asked parliament for a vote of 83,000,000 for the rehabilitation of the existing railway. When asking for the vote I stated plainly that it would all be necessary to rebuild the line. My hon. friend has spoken of the 332 miles as if in 1926 it would have been possible to begin building the remaining portion. As a matter of fact in 1926 it was not possible for a train to get anywhere near the end of the existing steel because in the years which had intervened between 1918 and 1926 the road-bed which was built originally on muskeg had completely disappeared over large portions of the distance, particularly from mile 200 to mile 332. As a matter of actual fact so far as practical purposes are concerned it has been necessary to rebuild the whole of the former Hudson Bay railway in addition to constructing the remaining mileage to Churchill. With respect to the five years to which my hon. friend has referred I would like in the first place to place before him the actual facts. The date of the debate in this house was June 9, 1926, and on that date not one dollar was yet available with which to do anything. Shortly afterwards my hon. friends opposite came into office for a short time. I did not resume the position of Minister of Railways and Canals until some time in October of 1926. It is now the month of May, 1930, and at this point I wish to remind my hon. friend that September of 1926 is not five years distant. I think as a matter of fact he said it was six years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said it would be six years next year when it is completed.


Charles Avery Dunning: It will not be that long;
I would point out however that it was not possible to do any work on the rehabilitation of the existing line during the year 1926. It was only possible to assemble materials in order that a start might be made on the rehabilitation in the year 1927. As a matter of fact in that year substantial progress was made. What had to be done? As I have reported to this house on previous occasions a complete new dump had to be built over the major portion of the mileage concerned.
I do not wish to refer particularly to my hon friend's Portage speech. I did not hear it, and I have no quarrel with his statement as to what he said. Under those circumstances I usually allow a man to state what he said, and am content to take his word for it. I take my hon. friend's interpretation in this particular instance. However, in reference to his remarks about the discussion which took place in this chamber on June 9, 1926, I think I owe it to myself to point out to my hon. friend that his remarks on that occasion indicated his position not as to the choice of ports-my hon. friend did not indicate anything about a choice between Nelson or Churchill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did he not; we shall
see.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not quarrelling with my hon. friend. His words are recorded on
2S90	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Hansard and they speak for themselves. He was referring to the feasibility of the whole route, and repeatedly be so stated. Until he had further assurances along that line he would not feel justified in voting for the extension of the railway one single mile beyond its present terminus, and he was satisfied to vote for the sum then being placed before the house for the reason that it contemplated only the rehabilitation of the existing mileage. In that connection my hon. friend referred to the expenditures which had been made, and at page 4293 of Hansard he said:
As a matter of business in an ordinary transaction most men would consider an expenditure of S3,000,000 somewhat large for the purpose of saving an investment of $20,000,000 amounting as it does to 15 per cent of the whole. I do not think it will be necessary to spend $3,000,000 for that purpose; less money than that will recondition the road and restore it to proper working condition. That is my view after hearing the estimate of the work that has to be done to put the road into shape.
And then after a reference to decayed ties, he said:
I therefore support the vote as it is proposed by the government. But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel. I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson. I say that because I have not adequate information that would convince me that the expenditure of the money necessary, some $29,000,900 or $30,900,000, would be in the public interest. We have no such data as would warrant a board of directors, in the ease of private corporation, speaking for intelligent, sober minded shareholders, in arriving at the conclusion that the expenditure now proposed was justifiable.
And as I have frequently observed, we in this parliament in relation to railway matters are in the capacity of shareholders. We are shareholders of the Hudson Bay railway. Speaking from that point of view I should not be prepared upon the information which has been submitted to us, to vote if I were asked to,-I am not as a matter of fact called upon to vote at the moment-in favour of an extension of the Hudson Bay raliway to the boy.
Then my hon. friend goes on:
My mind is open; I have no preconceived notions, no prejudices and no bias with respect to this question. On the evidence as I have read it-I have read all the evidence that has been available-'there seems to be a marked conflict of opinion. These points are apparent: first, that since the opening of the Panama canal and the movement of wheat from as far east as Maple Creek, and perhaps a little further, to the Pacific slope there is no longer that urgent demand for the movement of grain west of that point to the Hudson bay or Fort William. Rather the desire is to move it to Vancouver. In the second place it must be 
remembered that the population of the country is not expanding as we should like, and that any movement that takes place of grain toward Hudson bay must necessarily involve a corresponding diminution in traffic on the two roads that now operate. And the Canadian National Railway system cannot afford at this juncture to lose any traffic.
And then further on;
I do suggest to the minister that inasmuch as-if he is permitted to remain in his office as I trust fie will not be-
By the way, I was;
-he proposes to submit to parliament some day a vote for the construction of the road to Hudson bay, he takes steps immediately to demonstrate beyond any peradventure the feasibility of navigation in the straits.
And so on. Without quarrelling with my hon. friend, there may be some justification for those who understood his remarks to indicate doubt of the feasibility of the Hudson bay project as a whole. I say there may be in those remarks some excuse, and if proof of that is required I may point out that in that very debate one of my hon. friend's own colleagues at that time, the then member for East Edmonton, Mr. Bury, said in his address on page 4459 of Hansard of June 9:
Now, I cannot let that statement go unchallenged, because there is iat least one member-and indeed the bouse has heard another in the person of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett)-who does not believe in the project of the Hudson Bay route as a grain route. I cannot concede that it will be an economic grain route.
Evidently Mr. Bury understood my hon. friend the leader of the opposition as lacking belief in the Hudson Bay route as a grain route. I will admit quite frankly that my hon. friend's observations regarding what should 'be done from the point of view of investigation and so forth were good suggestions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were adopted, as a matter of fact.
Mr. DUNNING; As he himself pointed out this morning, they were suggestions which were acted upon, whether or not that was done because they were his suggestions. I really rose to my feet, Mr. Chairman, on account of my hon. friend indicating some criticism of the speed with which the work has been prosecuted since it was commenced. It is generally conceded among railway men and in the world of engineering that a very remarkable piece of work has been accomplished by the engineers and the staff of the Canadian National Railways in dealing with the work.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Mr. THORSON:: And by the minister as
well.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is very
kind to say that, but as a matter of fact the actual conduct of the work of rebuilding and extending the railway was in the hands of the Canadian National construction forces, and during my time as a minister I cannot but acknowledge the whole hearted and effective cooperation which I received from that organization in prosecuting the work. Far from it being delayed in any sense, I can assure the house and the country that it was expedited every minute of the time by the Canadian National organization. I can also say that the departmental staff in charge of the work at the port, labouring as they did for a number of years under the great difficulty of carrying on operations without a railway behind them, with no rail connection, with only a sea connection, in my judgment have done remarkably good work in advancing the project as far as they have. Certainly so far as I know the people of western Canada believe that the work has been sincerely pushed forward by those in charge of it to the full extent of economical possibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, there is
just one extract which I think my hon. friend might have read from my discussion of this matter which shows what was in my mind at that time. It will be found at page 4294 of Hansard of 1926, as follows:
Have a careful investigation made of all the circumstances-the nature of the port and the channel: the shifting character of the sand bars; the possibility of erecting proper docks; the availability of material for the construction of such docks: the cost of elevators; the time required in the movement of grain from Port Nelson to Liverpool; the dangers that would be encountered in transportation, so that the insurance rate might be determined; and other allied questions. All these questions could be studied at first-hand by men specially deputed to carry out the investigation.
This, I submit, is not an unreasonable suggestion to make at this time. I will concede that the minister is as desirous as any other hon. member to avoid any unnecessary expenditures. I believe my friends who support so strenuously this route are just as anxious as I am that public money should not be wasted, are just as desirous as any person could be that this route, if established, should be a success. But I do ask them to support the representations to the minister that we should not rush into this enterprise without having that measure of information, that extensive knowledge which private business men as directors of a well-defined body of shareholders would be required to have before they would recommend to their shareholders the expenditure of these sums of money.
I do this to-night because, fortunately, it is not that vote which is being considered by the committee
Previously, as the hon. gentleman has said,
I had given my unqualified support of the expenditure of the money required for the purpose of rehabilitating the enterprise, and I think the minister has done one other good service which I commend to one of the hon. gentlemen who interrupted me. That is this: The government itself has not been carrying on the contract. The contract was put in the hands of the Canadian National Railways, and the government as such has not been carrying on the work. The government merely put it in the hands of a first class contractor to carry into effect-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Technically.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not technically at all.
The hon. gentleman, when dealing with this matter, dwelt upon that fact at great length, but he will recall that the government said that the Canadian National Railways,. as contractors in this matter, were free to pursue any course they pleased and to employ whom they desired.


Charles Avery Dunning: Pardon me, not to pursue any course they pleased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mean any course with
respect to the work.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the specifications?


Charles Avery Dunning: The character of the work was agreed upon before the Canadian National Railways assumed the position of agent of the minister in carrying it out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it true that the Canadian National Railways assumed the position of contractors for this enterprise and did the work?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, they carried it out
entirely as agent of the minister and were so appointed, in the same manner as they have carried out work on the National Transcontinental and other lines.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were responsible for the completion of the work in the same manner as a firm of contractors would be?


Charles Avery Dunning: Scarcely that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the difference?
They had to do the work. Surely this job has not been political.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then if it is not political the Canadian National Railways are carrying on this work as contractors for the enterprise.
2892	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Charles Avery Dunning: You can call them contractors if you wish; that is not quite the actual fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not very much
difference anyway.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Did I understand my hon. friend to complain about the length of time taken by the Canadian National Railways to complete the work?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was complaining that
the government had not pressed the work forward, since the government has been in the position of being in control of the contractors. That is my position exactly.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: In view of the attacks
which we have had to meet on every platform in my province and in the Conservative press because of our support of the Hudson Bay railway project, I will take good care to publish and circula/te the remarks of my hon. friend to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very satisfactory.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I noticed that the minister made a public statement some time ago to the effect that the Crowsnest rates would be extended to Churchill. I wonder if the minister could give us some definite assurance on that point.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is misinformed as to the statement attributed to me. I have no recollection of making any statement that the Crowsnest pass rates would apply to the Hudson Bay line because there was no occasion for making such a statement and the matter never has been given consideration. However, I may tell my hon. ;riend that it will receive very serious consideration and personally I have no doubt that those rates will apply.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am not sure where I read the statement, but I definitely recollect reading something in the newspapers to that effect.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend has in mind the statement I made during my tenure of office as Minister of Railways, which was to the effect that by virtue of judgments given by the Board of Railway Commissioners in other cases there was no doubt at all that the Crowsnest. pass rates would apply, in my opinion. As the minister of railways has said, until the tariffs of rates are filed by the railway company with the Board of Rail-TMr. Bennett.]
way Commissioners and are approved, this matter cannot be said technically to have been decided upon. However, because of the nature of the judgments given by the railway board in rate cases of a similar character, there is no doubt that the Crowsnest pass rates for grain will apply.


Mr. COWAN:: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to direct the attention of the minister to a matter which I consider to be worthy of consideration. That portion of the Canadian National Railways, formerly the old National Transcontinental, running from the eastern boundary of Manitoba into the province of Quebec, is not subject to municipal and school taxation. The remainder of the Canadian National system pays full taxes, and I do not see why this other portion of the road should not be in the same position, especially with respect to the pioneer communities in northern Ontario. The towns of Sioux Lookout, Long-lac and Nakina are more particularly affected by this situation. I submit that it is unfair for the employees of the railway who live in these communities to have to pay municipal and school taxes which should be paid by the railway company. The employees of the railway in other communities receive the benefit of taxation paid by the company, and these people should be put in a like position. The town of Sioux Lookout, an important divisional point, offers a concrete illustration. The assessments in that community, outside of railway property, amount to something like $900,000, while the assessment on the railway property amounts to a little over $430,000. It will be seen that over one-third of the assessed value of the community belongs to the railway, and yet no taxation is paid. That condition should be remedied. This is a community of some 1,750 people comprising perhaps 500 families, and each family is forced to pay at least $50 to S60 more per year because the railway is not taxed. The assessments in Nakina in 1924 amounted to $96,000, while for this year they should amount to $120,000. Nearly one-half of the taxes paid in that community should be paid by the railway company. These same facts would apply to the towns of Hudson, Allanwater and Armstrong, but let us consider the case of Long-lac. In this community a certain portion of the railway property is taxed while another portion is not. This is a very anomalous situation. It is estimated by these communities, and particularly by Sioux Lookout that the railway owes them over $200,000 in back taxes. That is a considerable burden upon the people of that community. This government has had
2S93

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
nine years in which to consider this matter and has had ample time to remedy this situation. I submit to the minister that these taxes should be paid and that the arrears for the past nine or ten years should be adjusted. In lieu of that, compensatory allowances should be made to these communities until such time as the matter has been adjusted satisfactorily.


Robert James Manion: I desire to support the
contention of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I brought this matter to the attention of the committee some years ago,
I think on two or three occasions. At that time I was supported by my hon. friend and by other members from northern Ontario. I believe the government should consider the pioneer character of these northern Ontario towns which are having a difficult time under the best of circumstances.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This is the first time this
matter has been drawn to my attention. I can assure my hon. friends that it will receive my very earnest consideration, but at the present time I would not care to make any commitment. A reasonable case has been presented and I shall be very glad to go into it as fully as possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It could be handled in
the same way as other cases were handled, by agreement.
Mr. C-OTNAM: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to the question of seniority of certain conductors and brakemen formerly employed on the Ottawa division of the former Grand Trunk railway. Perhaps the best method of doing this would be to read a letter which I have received covering this point. It is as follows:
When the amalgamation of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern took place all the freight traffic was diverted away from the Ottawa division and a number of our men were thrown out of employment. New men were engaged on other divisions while men on the Ottawa division were without work.
We have been looking to the Brotherhood of Railway trainmen for the past six or seven years to effect a settlement whereby we would be given work according to our seniority. A settlement was put into effect April 1, this year (they could not have chosen a better date to put it into effect as we were worse off than ever). The engineers and firemen of the Ottawa division received a settlement. They were given their seniority and a larger territory to work on, also the agents and operators were given their seniority on a larger territory, maintenance of way men, water service men, shopmen and carmen have all been given consideration while we have been left to the Ottawa division with practically nothing to do.
We used to have as high as fifty crews in extra service comprising one hundred and fifty men, to-day we have only about four crews. As seniority is the foundation of all labour organizations and all other men affected have received their seniority we cannot understand why we cannot get the same. Yard brakemen who belong to our organization received their seniority; where there were two separate terminals they were joined into one.
The present settlement was made by the representatives of the men and our delegate accepted it. It turns out now that a lot of things went on he did not know about and we are going to have to suffer for his mistakes. The men of the former Ottawa division have protested this in a body to our labour union. Other districts which have profited by the amalgamation naturally want things to remain as they are and as they are in the majority they control the vote at our meetings. As it stands now men on this division with fifteen to twenty years seniority are without^ work and men with ten years seniority working on other divisions are employed. We consider this unfair and would like you to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Labour or Minister of Railways and could take up with the President of the Canadian National with a view of giving us justice. We have been patiently waiting for years for our organization to effect a settlement but their settlement is far from being any assistance to us. I am sure all men affected would be agreeable to a board of arbitration composed of railwaymen who would be neutral to all parties affected.
In view of the statements contained in that letter, I should like to ask the minister whether he will give me an assurance that this matter of seniority for these men will be taken uip with the president of the Canadian National Railways and adjusted at as early a date as possible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter is primarily
one for the management of the railways to deal with. I am not aware of the circumstances of the case that my hon. friend has brought up. It certainly has not come to my personal attention since I have been in the department. It is, however, a matter for the management of the railways to settle with the railway organizations. I shall be glad to draw it to the attention of the management of the railways, but I do not care to give my hon. friend any assurance that I will intrude myself into the management of the railways to tell them what they should do in this or any other matter of management.


Mr. MALONEY:: The statement of the
minister is quite in line with a speech delivered by the president of the Canadian National Railways in London in December last. The minister is, I surmise, a director of the Canadian National Railways.
2S94

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is misinformed ; I have not that distinction.


Martin James Maloney: Well, the minister
should be a director. Nevertheless, let me read a quotation from a speech delivered by the president of the Canadian National Railways, a man who is pulling down 875,000 of our good money every year. This is what he said in London, England:
Referring to the field with which I happen to have some familiarity, namely the railways, one makes a noticeable improvement in thought and method.
He was endeavouring to tell the people of England how to manage their railroads.
But in most cases I should offer a friendly criticism with respect to the organization of your railway systems. The interference-and 1 use the term in no provocative sense-of directors with respect to details must be abandoned. The chief function, as I conceive it, of a board of directors is vigilance.
The ideal situation is that which permits a board of directors to remain silent.
If the minister is not a member of the board of directors, he should be, and he should not remain silent. He should have a word to say with regard to the management of the railways of this country.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is my hon. friend
reading from?


Martin James Maloney: From Quebec, a journal
published in England in the interests of the province of Quebec. Has the minister ever seen it?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.


Martin James Maloney: He should. It is an
excellent paper.


Mr. COTNAM:: I hope the minister will
take into his serious consideration the matter, to which I have referred, because these men have no method of securing redress unless a little pressure can be brought to bear from some quarter. The men themselves have gone as far as they can go and it is time that someone with a little more authority should step in and see that these men secure the rights of which they have been deprived for the past few years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income -Quebec canals: Lachine, improvements, $7,400.
Mr.   RHEALTME@: I have looked through
the estimates and I fail to find any grant for the proposed two tunnels under the Lachine canal, one at Wellington street and the second at Cote St. Paul. The Montreal Tramways Company has already declared its intention [Mr. Maloney.l
to defray one-third of the cost, and according to a statement recently made by its chief executive, the city of Montreal by way of referendum will soon seek authoi-ity to proceed with the carrying out of those two projects. Its contribution would be a second one-third of the cost. I feel it my duty to renew my plea in favour of a grant representing the remaining one-third of the cost of those two tunnels. I would like very much to know from the Minister of Railways the policy of the government on this question.


Mr. GUERIN:: Just a word in support of
the representations of my good friend the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. We represent contiguous constituencies, both of which suffer very keenly on account of the fact that the canal separates one part of the population of Montreal from another. As hon. members are aware, Montreal is a place of some importance. It comprises one-tenth of the population of the whole Dominion of Canada and about 100,000 of that population are cut off from communication with the rest whenever the canal is in operation. This means practically every ten minutes during the day while navigation lasts. I would say that the canal bridges are open for from ten to fifteen minutes at a time, preventing all intercourse between the north and the south portions of Montreal. We see frequently several street cars, sometimes eight, ten or twelve, lined up waiting for the bridges to open and people going to business suffer acutely on account of the obstruction of the traffic. Navigation has become so active now that we cannot put up much longer with this terrible inconvenience. We had reason to think an amount would be inserted in the supplementary estimates. I can understand that the minister did not care to have the supplementary estimates appear too large, but we want to have some assurance that the government is going to come to our aid. We are in absolute need of this improvement j it must tske place. We are suffering on account of a canal which is a government institution. I leave the matter in the hands of the minister and I hope he can give some pledge or assurance that the government is prepared to come to our help in this regard.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In January, 1929, the department received a resolution from the clerk of the city council of Montreal asking if the department would be prepared to make a contribution to the building of subways at Wellington street and Cote St. Paul. That matter has been examined by the officers of

Supply-Railways and Canals
the department, and I find that such a contribution could be made by the federal government. The bridge at Wellington street across the canal and the bridge at Cote St Paul have been in operation for a very considerable number of years, the Wellington street bridge for thirty years, and the other for a little less than that. There is no doubt that the traffic crossing these bridges from the city of Verdun, and the district adjacent to Pointe St. Charles, is very considerable and interferes, as my hon. friends have pointed out, with the free passageway along the canal. Subways would undoubtedly be desirable. Our officers have made an estimate that the department could make a contribution of I should say approximately $1,000,000 for these two subways and still be no further behind than what it is costing at the present time to maintain these bridges and provide for depreciation and the other expenses incidental to their maintenance. If the subways were built, it would of course facilitate the passenger traffic to and from the city of Verdun, and would also greatly facilitate the passage of boats through the canal. I think I can say to my hon. friends who have made this request that the department will be prepared to make a contribution of $1,000,000, or at any rate I will say that I would be prepared to recommend such a contribution purely on the basis of its being a businesslike construction, as soon as the city of Montreal and the Montreal Tramways Company come to an agreement as to the amount which they will contribute to the building of these subways.


Mr. KAISER:: Has the minister ever heard of the Oshawa railway station?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The matter of a railway station at Oshawa has never been directly brought to my attention, but I have been under the impression that there was a railway station there.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Would the minister mind having a little conversation about it with Sir Henry Thornton? He visited the station a few days ago, and the people of Oshawa offered him the station as a present, if he would remove it to a pioneer museum. He declared that the station was too old for that and should be put in an archaeological department. Will the minister use his best efforts to see that either one or the other is done?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have no doubt that my hon. friend's observations will reach the attention and have the careful consideration of Sir Henry Thornton.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would like to refer to the promise made by the minister just a few moments ago. Does he think that that is a proper promise to make just prior to an election? If he were prepared to put the item in his estimates, all right; but I do not think it is a promise that should have been made.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend is wholly under a misapprehension. As I stated a moment ago, this matter was drawn to the attention of the department eighteen months ago.


James Dew Chaplin: That makes it worse.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let my hon. friend possess his soul in patience until I have made my explanation. The difficulty, so I am informed, has been that the city of Montreal and the Montreal Tramways Company have not been able to reach an agreement as to the contribution which they will make to these subways. The request was made of the government that an amount should be placed in the estimates as an evidence of the intention of the government to make this contribution when the other parties came to an agreement. But the item was not put in the estimates because it is not required until the other parties reach an agreement. When they do,
I am prepared to recommend that an amount equal to $1,000,000 be provided through the estimates of the Railway department on the ground that this is a business arrangement which will improve the service on the canal and improve the service to the residents of Verdun, and will not mean any additional cost to the government of Canada.


Mr. MacNUTT:: As subways are under discussion, may I ask the minister if he has received a memorial from the council and board of trade of the town of Truro, Nova Scotia, asking that a subway be constructed under the tracks at that place?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That matter has been before the Canadian National Railways, I am informed by my deputy, for some considerable time. Apparently there was some difficulty on the part of the town of Truro as to the precise location where they desired the subway. I understand that that difficulty has been settled and that they have notified the management of the railways where they wish to have the subway, and that arrangements are being made to have the subway built at an early date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
2S96
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Railways and Canals
Canals-staff and repairs, $2,891,500.
Mr. SIMPSON:: We have heard a great deal in the house during the last few days with respect to the long hours of labour of the men engaged in the steel industry in this country May I say that similar conditions have prevailed on the canals in this country for years? The men engaged on the ship canals have been working eleven and thirteen hours a day, and sometimes a twenty-four hour shift. So the government had not very good grounds to rest on when they insisted upon the steel industry changing the hours of labour of its employees, when they were maintaining on government works the hours of labour I have just mentioned. I presume the men working on these canals will be included in the new order that has been passed for the eight-hour day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is a vote in the supplementary estimates to provide for the establishment of the eight-hour day on the main St. Lawrence route where the traffic warrants it.
Mr, SIMPSON: Will that apply to the canal at the Soo where the traffic is practically continuous?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I cannot answer my hon. friend as to that at the moment. It will apply at the Soo if the conditions warrant. I do not know the amount of traffic passing through the Canadian Soo; my impression is the great bulk of it passes through the American Soo.


Thomas Edward Simpson: While that is true, it is accounted for by the fact that there are four locks on the American side and only one on our side. But notwithstanding that, quite a substantial portion of the traffic passes through on the Canadian side of the river. For years these men have been working long hours, while just across the river the men have been on the eight-hour shift for several years and are getting more money than our men. If any change is being made on the canal system,
I appeal to the minister to take care of the men at the Soo.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall be very glad to take it into consideration, and if the facts warrant the eight-hour day being applied, I will see that it is applied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-staff and repairs-further amount required for salaries of additional officers employed on account of institution of the eight hour day, $400,000.
Martin James Maloney: Where will the $400,000 be expended?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I explained a few moments ago, in answer to my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Simpson), that this vote is to apply the eight-hour day to our men engaged on the main channels of travel on the St. Lawrence route. He raised the point about it being applied to the Soo. I am going to make full inquiry, and if the facts warrant it will be established there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the hon. minister leaves his estimates I wish to ask him a question. At the present moment it is impossible for the travelling public to get to Churchill. There is a pass system-not railway passes- with respect to those who go into that territory. I should like some assurance from the minister that no discrimination will be practised. in affording facilities to all persons to go into that territory during the general elections.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I unhesitatingly say to my friend that there will be no discrimination. If he should find any I shall be very glad if he will bring it to my notice at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
National	Defence

militia services-topographic survey, $45,000.
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Taking the votes for this department generally, Mr. Chairman, will the minister explain the purpose of the expenditures, including the increases?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The expenditures have been practically for the same sort of services for which votes have been asked for several years past. The increase since 1926 of approximately $2,000,000 for militia services is largely in connection with three or four items such as the engineer services, which we have increased considerably in order to take care of depreciation and repairs to buildings; replacement of clothing and supplies on account of depletion in war stocks, and annual training, which as I have told the committee before, has been increased on the average from 9 to 12 days and from about 27,000 to 33,000 men.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the increases are expected to take care of training and assistance to officers in the upkeep of battalions, yet there is complaint that that is not being done. In 1926 the militia vote was $9,000,000 as against $11,000,000 in 1928. That additional money should pretty well take care of assistance to officers in helping them to maintain their units. Has there been no increase to them for this purpose between 1926 and 1929?

Supply-National Defence


James Layton Ralston: I am not aware of any
increase to officers, that is, officers commanding non-permanent active militia units.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is what I
mean. There has been no assistance given to those officers?


James Layton Ralston: No, I know of no increases. My hon. friend is talking of the regular allowances?


Arthur Edward Ross: I am asking if there has been any increase to these officers between 1926 and 1929?


James Layton Ralston: I say I am not aware of
any. My hon. friend knows of course that in most non-permanent active militia units the officers are contributing rather than getting something, and that has rather been a source of satisfaction to me to be able so to report to the house. Our officers, and even our non-commissioned officers and men, have in many instances been pooling their pay for what they consider the good of the service.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is exactly the point. We have understood that these officers would be assisted, but they have not, although there is an increase of $2,000,000 in the militia vote. This increased expenditure is not because of any increase in the number of men training. In 1926 the department trained 328 permanent officers, while in 1928 it trained only 411; other ranks in 1926 it trained 3,088 and in 1928, 3,175. There is a slight difference in that case. Officers trained at local headquarters in 1926 numbered 3,097 and in 1928-29, the figure decreased to 2,573. Other ranks trained at local headquarters in 1926, 21,481; in 1928-29. 19,754, showing a decrease. There was, however, an increase of those at camps. In 1926 there were 1.303 officers trained and in 1928 there were 1,610, showing an increase of 300; other ranks in 1926, 6,108 as compared with 10,248. So that after all I want to point out that if there are complaints in regard to the maintenance and upkeep of these battalions it is not because any great number have been added to the training in camp, because if you take the figures of those at local headquarters there is very little increase as compared with those trained at camp. There have been complaints that in spite of the fact that the appropriation has been increased by 82,000,000 these officers are not getting anj' assistance. In 1924 the estimates were SI 1,000,000 for this work and in 1929-30, they were 820,000,000. That would seem to give the minister quite an increase to assist in the military work and in the training of 2419-183
the units. There is also a continued increase in the special votes. There is a decrease in the adjustment of war claims; in 1926 the amount spent was 8148,000 and in 1928, $112,000, showing a decrease of 836,000. In 1926 in connection with imperial war graves the amount of S799.000 was spent, whereas in 1928 only $573,000 were spent, or a reduction of $226,000. There is a reduction in these extra items in the militia estimates, and it might be still greater even if the grant to assist the officers commanding the non-permanent units had remained the same. The minister knows as well as I do that there are complaints, and it is not fair to do no more than call attention to the insufficiency of the amounts these commanding officers are getting, and to give them credit for paying money out of their own pockets for the maintenance of their units, when as a matter of fact the department is getting an increased appropriation of two or three millions a year. The minister may be able to explain it, but so far he has not done so.


James Layton Ralston: The explanation lies in the fact that my hon. friend is mixing the total vote of the department with the vote for the militia service to which we are referring.


Arthur Edward Ross: No, I am not mixing it.


James Layton Ralston: My hon friend compared
$20,000,000 with 811.000,000. May I tell him that 820.000,000 has nothing to do with the SI 1.000,000; the figures are not comparative. The comparison is between something over $9,000,000 and $11,000,000 for militia services. In order that there may be no doubt about it I shall mention the services in connection with which increases have been made:
Administration. $20,000; cadets, $100,000; contingencies, $12,000; engineer services, $264,000; general stores. $526,800; manufacturing establishments. $167,000; non-permanent active militia, $615,000.
May I pause here to say that this last one is the vote from which any payments such as my hon. friend has mentioned would have to be made. The items of increases continue:
Permanent force, $160,000; Royal Military College, $10,000; topographic survey, $10,000.
In all there is a total of 81,884,800 increases since 1926-27. This is made up of three large items: general stores, $526,800; non-permanent active militia, $615,000, and a combination of permanent force and engineering service amounting to something like 8400,000. The only vote out of which any such assistance

Supply-National Defence

could be given as that to which my hon. friend refers, is the item of $615,000. May I point out also that instead of 27,000 men in 1926-27 there have been trained in the last two years 33,000, or an increase of 6,000 and there has been an increase in average days of training from 9 to 12. I should have mentioned in addition that the number which have been given special training courses has practically doubled in the past three years. We have tried to do all we could with that comparatively small item of $615,000. If my hon. friend has any other suggestions I should like to have them. I think the service has been looked after as well as could be done considering the amount of money which has been provided.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am not mixing things up. I have them all separated before me. In 1924 there was $8,821,000 for militia; in 1926, when the minister took over the department, there was S9,158,000. This year you are asking for S11,000,000, which is $2,000,000 more for the militia alone.


James Layton Ralston: No, not for militia alone.


Arthur Edward Ross: Those are the figures which have been taken from your estimates. I say there was $2,000,000 more for the militia alone.


James Layton Ralston: No, it is not for the militia it is for all these services-permanent force, Royal Military College, etc.


Arthur Edward Ross: As to the figures for training I have only been able to copy the reports, and I have stated what those reports show. I say that the increase of S2,000,000 should show something more in the matter of training and assistance to these officers who are trying to maintain their units. I am glad the minister has made the statement that between 1926 and 1930 the officers have had no increased assistance from the vote in regard to their maintenance.


Mr. MacLAREN:: In view of the statement that it is proposed to abolish the royal army pay corps, would the minister make a statement?


James Layton Ralston: Some time ago I had the whole organization of the department reviewed by Mr. Gordon Scott of the firm of P. S. Ross & Sons. One of the recommendations made at that time was that the army pay corps as a separate unit should be gradually dispensed with in view of the suggested changes in the accounting branch and the appointment of district accountants. If time permitted I should like to go fully into that, but perfMr. Ralston.]
haps I can indicate the general idea to the committee. It is that in the department, as far as the officers who are now administering it are concerned, the intention is as far as possible to utilize civilian services more generally but to use of course military services when the technical nature of the employment requires it, or in other words not to build up a large military establishment in collateral services. The situation which existed and which I may say still' exists is that the army pay corps and the accounting branch duplicate their work to some extent. The accountants branch has to keep the accounts of the department generally. The pay corps keeps certain accounts in connection with certain essentially military services which also have to be included in the accountant's books as well. The information for the pay corps in many instances has to come from the chief accountant's branch to the pay corps-for instance accounts for general supply. There seemed no reason to Mr. Gordon Scott for having these two sets of accounts.
The pay corps as we generally think of it is for the purpose of paying the troops, but in this instance they are keeping a lot of other accounts, as well. It was felt, however, that accounting was principally a civilian occupation, and not only Mr. Scott but my departmental advisers concurred in the recommendation. As yet no change in personnel has been made, but an instruction was issued that from March 1 the pay corps should come under the chief accountant's branch, and that is the situation at the present time. The idea expressed in the instruction from the adjutant general was that there should be as little as possible individual hardship worked on the members of the pay corps, and that the personnel as far as their qualifications permitted and vacancies exist would be absorbed in the civil organization. At present the only change which has been made is the transfer of the administration of the pay corps from the adjutant general to the chief accountant, looking forward to the time when it may be absorbed in the accounting branch. Naturally I am concerned with the dislocation which any administration change like this causes and I want to have it seen to that the dislocation be just as slight as possible.


Murray MacLaren: After all this is the
Department of National Defence, and one would naturally expect that as far as possible the developments should take place along military lines. From what the minister says,
I understand it is proposed to transfer the military pay portion of the service to the civilian pay force. To me this is regrettable.
I quite understand that there may be dupli-

Supply-National Defence
cations; I understand that it is desirable to improve the organization and administration, but I should have thought the pay branch would have been kept under the militia services and not put under a civilian branch. These different departmental corps aid in the efficiency of the department. Surely the minister does not suggest that civilian employees, without necessarily any military training, are as efficient as the permanently trained pay corps? That applies to the other branches of departmental corps. They are there for the purpose of efficiency and for training, and in the event of the forces requiring to take the field what would the minister do? He would be employing civilians.


James Layton Ralston: We would do exactly what we did in the last war; during the last war the civilians enlisted and went into uniform.


Murray MacLaren: They still had to go
through a process of training.


James Layton Ralston: Not so much for the
accountants.


Murray MacLaren: I submit that the pay
branch of an army, especially in the field, carries on a very important and complicated duty. Civilians are not enlisted men.


James Layton Ralston: Perhaps my hon. friend
does not understand the situation in the British army. I think probably during the war the Canadians were one of the few forces who had battalion paymasters; in the British army they had what they called field cashiers, civilians I understand, who came with the cash to a certain point, carrying the pay for perhaps a division, and who distributed the cash to the battalion commanders, who in turn distributed it to the company commanders, who, under the old British system as at present, as my hon. friend knows, paid their men. The company commander was supposed to be the father of his men, and if a man had a complaint about his pay or allowances, the pay parade when he came before his company commander was the time to make that complaint known. I should think if we ever have the misfortune to go into the field again that system might have a good deal to commend it as compared to the practice of having regimental paymasters such as we had in the last war. That is just an opinion. I mention the system to my hon. friend to remind him that it has been recognized elsewhere that the fact that a man happens to be in uniform does not necessarily equip him any better for cashier's work.


Murray MacLaren: But the man in uniform could do it with equal efficiency.


James Layton Ralston: But not because he is in uniform.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister does not mean to say that civilians should go into the field, not being under discipline and not being enlisted like any other officer, and that these men would be just as efficient?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is talking about a permanent pay corps. I see nothing especially advantageous in the system we had in the last war of having regimental paymasters. I think the company commander might be a better and more logical paymaster.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister does not suggest that the commanding officer should be responsible for the pay. We tried that out in the smaller units and it was an absolute failure. Whoever handles the cash should be under discipline, and should not be a civilian.


George Reginald Geary: But the paymaster was a
battalion officer; he was not on the pay corps. Now I should like to ask a question. As I understand it the training vote this year is about 825,000 more than it was last year for the non-permanent active militia?


James Layton Ralston: No, it is just the same.


George Reginald Geary: Then are we training fewer
men?


James Layton Ralston: No, I think not. It is
exactly the same amount this year.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am sorry I must bring up a matter now which may delay the committee for a few minutes, but I do not believe I can afford to let it go. I refer to a matter which I think is known to a number of members and to many officials in the department. In July last tenders were called for the supply of coal in Kingston. These tenders were received on July 19. There were three tenders for this coal in the city of Kingston, but on July 25 another tender was received from one of the companies and on July 29 a third tender was received. The result was that this tenderer was able to reduce his first figure of S12.22 to 812.12. No such opportunity was given to the other tenderers, and although the company which sent in the three tenders reduced the price by 2 cents and in another case by 10 cents, at the same time the company was enabled to raise the price on one quality of coal in order to make up for what was lost on the
Supply-National Defence

other two tenders. I submit, shortly, that this is a most unfair system; if a second and third tender is to be allowed in respect to these supplies, then every person who made a tender in the first place should be given the same privilege. There are certain regulations governing the weighing of the coal. When this firm had been permitted to submit the second and third tenders they should have been satisfied, but I find from the records of the department that this coal was not weighed on military scales. The payments have been made, the coal is in the bins, and we must let it go.
A third method of delivery was by truck. Weights were submitted for 8,800 pounds 8,700 pounds and 8,400 pounds, but it was finally discovered that the scales upon which this coal had been weighed had a capacity of only 8,000 pounds. It is to the credit of some official of the department that this discrepancy was discovered, and a certain amount of money was refunded. If that were done with a few truckloads, how much did the department suffer in the delivery of 1,500 cartloads which came in unweighed?
These tenders have been handled in a very unfair manner. I find that the department has two kinds of notices. One is sent to the tenderer when he is not the lowest; if he is the lowest and does not get the contract, he receives a different kind of notice. That is a most unusual method to be adopted by any department, and one which enables people to bid the second time. This matter should be investigated and had I known of it earlier I would have brought it before the house earlier in the session.


James Layton Ralston: When my hon. friend mentioned the other day the matter of the return, I made inquiry of the deputy just before he went away and I understood that the difficulty was as to the weigh bills. As my hon. friend knows, I arranged that he should be allowed to see the original weigh bills.


Arthur Edward Ross: I took advantage of that opportunity and it was from that examination that I discovered that the regulations had never been complied with. It was claimed that they possessed two or three signatures of the quartermaster, but there was not a single item of payment which was initialled by that gentleman. I might state that the man who was supposed to weigh this coal was taken away on the last day by the tenderer. There should have been a check made of the weigh bills presented by the tenderer, and military form No. 19 should have been used. However, that was not done in the case of about 1,100 cartloads.


James Layton Ralston: I thought the only matter in dispute was with regard to the weigh bills, and I asked the department and the commandant to give me a report in this regard. Therefore I ?.n unable to give my hon. friend all the facts which he desired. Two tenders were put in-


Arthur Edward Ross: There were three.


James Layton Ralston: My officer here tells me that two tenders at least were put in for delivery at two different places. One tenderer quoted a different price for each place and the other tenderer quoted a flat rate. Later on, without any suggestion either directly or indirectly from the department, a telegram was received from the tenderer who had quoted different prices for each delivery point quoting the lower price for both delivery points. This telegram was received before the time for receiving tenders had elapsed and the contract was awarded to that particular tenderer.
The report of the commandant regarding the weighing of the coal is as follows:
It is explained that, although M.F.B. 19 has not been utilized, nevertheless all of the coal was weighed on the government weigh scales at Kingston by a qualified representative of the commandant, R.M.C. in the person of E. H. West, caretaker, R.M.C., whose signature is appended to weigh bills, with the exception of those signed by the quartermaster himself. The other signature, viz., that of A. Cockerham, cleaner and helper, R.M.C., vouches for the actual receipt of each load of coal at the R.M.C. at the end of the journey between the government weigh scale in the city of Kingston and the R.M.C. grounds. The greatest possible supervision and care has been exercised over the weighing and cartage of this coal; the government weigh scale was daily visited by the quartermaster R.M.C. who personally witnessed during his visits the weighing of coal and has himself signed certain weigh bills, in addition to giving his certificate on the fact of the firm's account.
So long as the coal was weighed on government weigh scales and the weighing carried out -as has been done in this case-by a responsible and competent civil employee representing the R.M.C., it was felt that the regulations governing the receipt of coal were being properly and adequately carried out; importance was unfortunately not attached to the use of M.F.B. 19 to record weights, in fact the regulation governing this point did not come to mind when the forms supplied by contractor were taken into use. As soon, however, as it was pointed out by district auditor that M.F.B. 19 should he used, a supply of that form was immediately obtained from the D.S. and T.O.. M.D. No. 3. and is now being utilized, and will accompany the accounts for the balance of the coal still clue under this contract.
That is signed by C. F. Constantine, Brigadier, commandant, Royal Military College.

Supply-National Defence
I did not know there was any question except about the weighing until it was mentioned by my hon. friend to-day, but in view of what he has said the fullest investigation will be made.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would be very
sorry to see anything like that put over on any minister. The quatermaster was away at the time this coal was being delivered. His signature appears on only two or three of these slips. His initials appear on some corrected figures, but that has nothing to do with the weighing. I drew this to the attention of the commandant at the time but it was allowed to go on. I understand that the quartermaster was visiting in London on a holiday.


James Layton Ralston: The report states that
the quartermaster signed certain weigh bills.


Arthur Edward Ross: I went over the
1,500 weigh bills and I could not find one signature, and the department admitted finally that that was the case. The statement read by the minister was submitted before I made my examination, and the accounting department will admit that there is nothing to it. They assumed that the initials were those of the quartermaster, but they were not. I really think this is a very important matter, and I can assure the minister it is one I shall go into next session very thoroughly. I am going into it so thoroughly that I acquainted the commandant with what was going on. No effort was made either to confirm the statements made or to correct the condition. If you had to cut off as much as 700 or 800 pounds of coal from a truck, what did you lose with those 1,500 loads? It does not satisfy me to say that the coal is weighed. One receives a blue slip and the other a white one and it is found there are only about 150 white slips as against 1,500 blue. I am going to leave the matter there and say that this is a question we cannot let stand in this condition. I have not time to discuss it further now.


James Layton Ralston: I assure my hon. friend
I shall not wait until next session to deal with the matter.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I wonder whether
the minister would allow me to call attention to a matter that concerns discipline within his own department. I have already spoken to him about it privately. A year ago, when the estimate for cadet service was under discussion, I pointed out that some of the officers were very active in seeking to enforce military training in some of the schools in the vicinity of Winnipeg. The Minister of National Defence made this statement on June 4, 1929:
Mr. Ralston:	My hon. friend has said that
before. I have told my hon. friend from Calgary and I say to the hon. member for Southeast Grey very sincerely: if they^ can show any case in which there has been instigation on the part of officers, I will deal with it promptly. The whole principle of this is that it is optional with the school authorities. There are about 7,000 teachers who are instructed this year in physical training, who are not oadet instructors, but who are giving their classes the benefit of physical training and whose instruction is being paid for out of this appropriation.
Notwithstanding that assurance given by the minister on the floor of the house and further given to various groups of people in Winnipeg and Vancouver, we find the same activity being manifested by the officers who are in charge of cadet services. As an example of this, on March 6, 1930, I read the following letter:
Winnipeg, Man., February 5, 1930. Mr. F. A. Allden,
Secretary, School Board,
Winnipeg.
Dear Sir:
May permission be granted for a deputation of citizens to wait upon the school board on Thursday evening, February 6, when the management committee of that organization will be in session?
The delegation will deal with the introduction of cadet training in the schools and there will be at least five who wish to address the board on this important matter.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Geo. H. Gillespie, Lt.-Col.
So it would seem as if Colonel Gillespie, who was so prominent the year before and who, the minister had said, would not be permitted to continue this kind of work, has again been very active this year. This kind of activity led to the passing of a resolution by the Manitoba legislature. I wish to quote this resolution from the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of Manitoba:
Winnipeg, Thursday, April 10, 1930.
Resolved: That, whereas, the Minister of National Defence stated in the House of Commons on April 11, 1927, that the Dominion government received, under date of March 22, 1911, a memorandum from the provincial authorities of Manitoba in part as followt.
"The Education department encourages the formation of cadet corps including the practice of rifle shooting under suitable condiGons by the older boys, in all educational establishments under its control" and also at a later date a communication signed by the Deputy Minister of Education, in part as follows:
"I am instructed by the minister to acknowledge receipt of your letters of August 29 and September 4, enclosing copies of circulars sent out by the district cadet officer at Winnipeg under date of February 27 and March 27, 1925; and to advise in connection with the letter addressed to the principals of schools, that we take the position that the establishing of cadet training is entirely a matter for the various
Supply-National Defence

school boards of the province to determine for themselves; the consent of the parents in all cases we presume to be implied; consequently exception1 is taken to paragraph in the letter circular beginning 'The Department of Education has endorsed the movement.' We kindly ask you to have this paragraph withdrawn or in the alternative, the circular to the principals in its entirety be withdrawn."
Whereas, the Minister of National Defence stated during the same debate that he did not interpret the later communication as a repudiation of the original memorandum;
Whereas, the most recent information in the possession of the Department of Education is that cadet battalions were reported in January, 1928, as being established in public schools at eleven points in the province;
Whereas, governments and people in all parts of the world are striving to substitute methods of peace and arbitration for those of violence and w'ar in international affairs; and,
Whereas, cadet training fosters militarism and the war spirit in the rising generation.
Therefore, be it resolved, that this house is of the opinion that the government should discourage the continuance and future organization of cadet training in the public schools of Manitoba.
And be it further resolved, that this house petition the Dominion government to substitute for the present grant for cadet training, a similar grant for national physical instruction under a department other than the Department of National Defence.
It is not my intention to detain the committee further with regard to this affair, but since the minister has given his word to us that this kind of activity in initiating the cadet movement in schools would not be permitted; since notwithstanding, the officers in his department have continued to carry on activities of this kind; and, further, a resolution of the Manitoba legislative assembly has been passed stating that in view of the circumstances it is resolved-
That this house is of opinion that the government should discourage the continuance and future organization of cadet training in the public schools of Manitoba.
I submit it is high time that the Dominion government should keep its hands off our provincial affairs. It is proper too that we should know whether the men in the employ of the department are really carrying out the instructions of the minister. I hope the minister will give us some further information with regard to the whole matter.


James Layton Ralston: The matter is very simple. My hon. friend was good enough to call my attention to it some days ago, and in fact I noticed it in the newspapers when I was away. The district officer commanding was written to at the time the hon. member made his reference in the house and his attention was called to what my hon. friend has referred to, namely, what I said in the house on June 4,

1929. I discovered this after my hon. friend had referred the matter to me. The explanation received is that after the last civic elections, a considerable number of citizens of Winnipeg considered that the time had arrived for the reintroduction of cadet training into the public schools of Winnipeg. They accordingly decided to wait upon the school board. The district oadet officer was asked to accompany them to answer any question that might arise regarding cadet training. The district cadet officer informed the district officer commanding of this request and the district officer commanding authorized him to comply with it. This is the point: the delegation was to appear before the board on the 6th of February, and the day previous thereto the chairman of the board, knowing that the district cadet officer was in charge of cadet training in that district, telephoned him that no formal application for the delegation to be heard had been received by the board, and as such formal application was necessary, he requested the district cadet officer to submit a formal application, which he did. Reading the letter which my hon. friend has read in the light of that explanation, I think it is straining things a little to say that the district cadet officer was an instigator of the movement. He was doing this only because his attention was called by the chairman of the board to the fact that it was necessary to file a formal letter with regard to the appointment to receive the delegation which he himself had been asked to accompany, and his only intervention was at the request of the chairman who said that a letter ought to be written formally requesting that an appointment be arranged. I am anxious to avoid even the appearance of evil, but I think it is straining the terms of the letter a little to say that there was any instigation. It is true there was a district cadet officer there. He is there to serve those who desire cadet training. He is there to give information with regard to it. I am just in the position I was in on June 4 last. I do not want our officers to be instigating cadet training or doing anything which would interfere with anybody's susceptibilities. I want them to do the job for which they are paid.
One word more, and my hon. friend will forgive me for not going into this matter fully, and I appreciate his motive in not taking up the time of the committee and I have expressed my views on this subject before. Cadet training is becoming more and more a provincial and a local matter. With regard to the uniforms, for instance; perhaps my hon. friend does not know that

Supply-National Defence
the department does not care what uniforms the cadets wear. They can wear white shirts and blue trousers or anything they like; they can wear dresses if they want to. There is no requirement that they have a military uniform or any uniform. With regard to rifles, it is entirely a matter for the local authorities whether they desire that they be carried. Cadet training is primarily for the purpose that my hon. friend points out in the resolution, namely, physical training, and I regret that my hon. friend feels that it should be removed from the department over which I have charge.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has not quite caught .my point. It is not. what I personally feel about it, but what the province of Manitoba feels about it. In the resolution which I have just read the provincial house declared that cadet training fosters militarism, and it believes it ought to be discouraged within the bounds of the province of Manitoba.


James Layton Ralston: It is a resolution of the provincial house addressed to the provincial government; is it not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The provincial
house passed the resolution.


James Layton Ralston: Urging the provincial
government to discourage it; did it not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, and the government accepted that resolution. My question is, what is the minister going to do in the circumstances?


James Layton Ralston: I have had no communication from the Manitoba government at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be glad to place in the hands of the minister a copy of the votes and proceedings of the Manitoba assembly containing this resolution.


James Layton Ralston: The resolution calls on the government of Manitoba to discourage cadet training.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was a resolution accepted by the government and passed by the provincial legislature.


James Layton Ralston: But still it only deals with action to be taken by the government of Manitoba; does it not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, it is the action of the whole house.


James Layton Ralston: But it calls on the government of Manitoba to discourage the training?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: We have had no communication from the government of Manitoba regarding it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Now that the legislature of the province of Manitoba is definitely opposed to cadet training, is the minister going to permit the officer in charge of the cadet movement to go into the schools in various parts of Manitoba to try and induce them to introduce military training?


James Layton Ralston: My answer, and I am
sure it would be my hon. friend's too if he were in my position, is that I would prefer to receive representations from those who represent the people of Manitoba officially-that is the provincial government-rather than taking notice of a resolution of the house which itself is expressly directed to the government of Manitoba, from whom generally communications of that kind are sent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so, and I
think I can promise that the government of Manitoba sends a communication to the minister. In the meantime are we going to have Colonel Gillespie going to the school board next year or writing another letter to the school board asking that military training shall be introduced into the schools at Winnipeg?


James Layton Ralston: I have already dealt with that. I think we are talking at cross-purposes. The matter of disciplining Colonel Gillespie has passed, and I think my hon. friend, as a fair-minded man, will agree that I should not be called upon to pronounce now upon the disciplining of Colonel Gillespie on a hypothetical set of facts, and before the circumstances that he suggests might arise do arise.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: In view of the minister's announcement that it is his policy to disestablish the military pay corps, is the same policy to be followed with regard to the military records branch and the historical section of it?


James Layton Ralston: The historical section is practically all civilians, except perhaps the director and assistant director.


George Black: Is it the policy of the department to do away with the military records branch?


James Layton Ralston: There has been some discussion as to whether the historical section had not better go to the archives, and I will tell my hon. friend why we have thought it advisable for a little while at least to keep
Supply-National Defence

it with the department, and that is because there is a great deal of information asked for by the units from time to time which can perhaps be better supplied under our auspices than when it goes to the archives.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then there is no decision as to the pay corps, the historical section, and the military records branch?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is right so far as the historical section is concerned. So far as the pay corps is concerned, it has been decided that it shall be under the chief accountant for purposes of administration.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister must know that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction because it was decided at one time that a certain policy was going to be adopted; but something happened between then and the present time to stop it. I think the minister should submit a statement to the house with regard to these matters rather than allow the information to leak out to members of the house in an underground way. There were some other matters that I wished to take up, but I do not wish to delay the committee. There were matters in connection with the Royal Military College. The minister knows what they are. I am not dropping these things. I shall not take up time to deal with them now, but I shall follow them up later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have to ask the minister's attention to one matter. He will recall that tenders were asked for the construction of beacons on the airway between Calgary and Winnipeg. The specifications and the plans apparently were taken from the American government's specifications. I hold in my hand a copy of the plans. I think it is very bad practice that there should appear on the plans these words: "Department of Commerce, Airways Division, Serial No...." A blank is left for the serial number, and a blank for the name of the manufacturer. Then come the words, "Department of Commerce, U.S. Airways." The specifications call for inspection by the representative of the bureau of lighthouses, and tanks must receive the initial test in his presence. The contractor shall furnish without cost to the United States complete facilities including all necessary labour, instruments, tools, and so forth, for the inspection of all material and workmanship. On the strength of these specifications certain Canadians tendered for that work, and they based their prices upon the cost of securing from local manufacturers in Winnipeg, namely, the Vulcan Iron Works, tanks that would meet with the specifications.
r.Mr. Ralston.]


James Layton Ralston: Would my hon. friend read the details as to the tanks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was endeavouring not to take up too much time. I will read the memorandum:
Specifications for gasoline storage tanks of approximately 515 gallons capacity.
Kerosene or gasoline storage tanks of approximately 515 gallon capacity suitable for installing above ground complete with a 6 inch channel and screen vent header and as shown on sketch No. 40 attached.
That is a reproduction of the American sketch.
Tanks shall be approximately 48 inches diameter by 66 inches long with bumped heads *Vii; inch thick, and shall be :>ir, inch thick with all seams electrically welded and tested to 30 pounds per square inch air pressure, at which pressure the tank shall be air tight. Longitudinal seams shall be riveted, also tanks shall conform to the specifications of the national Board of Fire Underwriters.
That is an American organization. The closing words are these:
Workmanship shall be first class. All welding shall be of high quality, free from cracks, pin holes, porousness, burn3, etc. In no case will the sealing of cracks, by peening, be permitted. Flaws in welding may be sealed only by rewelding and then at the option of the inspector.
Inspection will be made at the contractor's works by a representative of the Bureau of Lighthouses and tanks shall receive the initial test in his presence. The contractor shall furnish without cost to United States complete facilities including all necessary labour, instruments, tools, etc., for the inspection of all material and workmanship.
Bidders will state approximate shipping weight per tank in pounds.
Now the tanks in situ are tanks which it is submitted by those who have inspected them are not tanks answering to this specification. They have not been inspected by any person representing the inspecting authority mentioned, and they were produced by local manufacturers at about $40 per tank, whereas the lowest price quoted by the Vulcan Iron Works on this class of tank was $120. As a result the job went to other tenderers-which might well be of course in any case-than to the tenderers who complained.


James Layton Ralston: Other than the Vulcan
Iron Works?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were producing only this part; they were not tendering for the whole work. The sketches and plans are wholly of American preparation, and they look to me to be merely plans photographed from American plans prepared for other purposes. I hand these to the minister.
I think this is a very important matter, and in connection with it I want to put this con-

Supply-National Defence
sideration before the minister. One of the difficulties that Canadian manufacturers are suffering from arises from the fact that when branches of manufacturing organizations in foreign countries are established here an effort is made to standardize every product that is required by naming specifically their particular make of goods. If an American architect is consulted he asks for some standard product produced in his country, and in other branches, be it engineering or any of the allied professions, the same situation prevails. So we have tenders called for the construction of beacons for airways, and the specifications involve inspection by a man from Washington representing the Bureau of Lighthouses; they involve construction in conformity with United States standards. The hon. minister will observe from the brown prints-rather than blue prints -which I have sent across the floor to him, that in that particular also a United States beacon and not Canadian beacon is contemplated, and that the words "Department of Commerce" are marked upon the brown print as well as the words "US. Airways." I protest against that, and I trust the minister will take steps to see that something is done better to protect Canadian industry than would appear to have been done in thi9 case; and that further steps be immediately taken for the purpose of ascertaining why these beacons have not been inspected as provided by the specifications.


James Layton Ralston: As my hon. friend appreciates, this is a complete surprise to me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, I only got it myself a short time ago.


James Layton Ralston: I have just been speaking to the Controller of Civil Aviation here and the information that he is able to give me at the moment is this. He feels satisfied that the actual specifications and call for tenders which went out contained no reference to the American details or to the American plans, except one, and I have it in my hand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the one I sent across the floor to the minister. It is part of the set.


James Layton Ralston: He feels that some contractor may have sent to Washington and got these American specifications. He says the specifications were all made over on Canadian lines. It is true the United States has gone further in the matter of lighting airways than any other country, but we have no intention of encouraging American manufacturers of this equipment. The records of my department will show that we are trying to encourage
Canadian manufacturers, and after Canadians then British manufacturer's. The Controller of Civil Aviation feels that there is some mistake. He tells me the specifications were entirely revamped along Canadian lines. May I point out to my hon. friend that on one of the prints he sent me there appears in the corner the words "Department of National Defence"-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that makes it all the worse.


James Layton Ralston: Yes; on the face of the drawing there also appears indications of the words "Department of Commerce" as though made by a rubber stamp. I appreciate my hon. friend bringing the matter to my attention. for we do not want things of this sort to occur. We are drafting our own specifications for these beacons, and as far as Canadian manufacturers are concerned we are endeavouring to protect them and develop Canadian industry, not only in connection with this equipment but' in connection with aircraft manufacture in every possible way. I believe this contract was let to the Canadian General Electric.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. My hon. friend will see that his suggestion that that plan came from Washington is negatived by his reference to what appears in the corner, because on all the three brown prints he will find a reference to Canadian Airways Limited down in the lefthand corner.


James Layton Ralston: I see it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So clearly this is a plan that was ofiScial. What I object to is that we are placing ourselves in such a position that we will be dependent in the worst sense of the term on "standardized" American equipment.


James Layton Ralston: There was no inspection by the man from Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there has been no inspection of any kind in connection with the tanks.


James Layton Ralston: The Controller of Civil Aviation states that our own departmental inspector inspected the beacons and tanks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am referring solely to the tanks, because they were produced at a cost just one third of that quoted by the Vulcan Iron Works.


Mr. QUINN:: The minister is just as
familiar as I am with the situation in Halifax with respect to military property. Forty-five per cent of the property there is tax exempt,
Supply-National Defence

and 188 properties in the city are held by the military authorities with an assessed valuation of some 83,000,000. Now that the military force has been considerably reduced there is no longer any necessity for maintaining and holding these properties. I might mention the Sackville street property, the old artillery and engineers' barracks which could very well be turned over to the city and a thoroughfare provided through from Brunswick street to the south end of the city. There is another propert" which would be of great advantage to the city authorities for rental purposes; I refer to the old ordnance property. I think it could very well be turned over to the civil authorities. This is a matter which seriously affects the city of Halifax. There is a great deal of tax exemption on these government properties. There are military, federal, provincial, civic, charitable and church institutions, and because of them the taxpayers find themselves in an unfortunate position. Their tax rate is-very high because of these exempted properties. Would the minister make a statement as to the intention of the government in connection with these properties?


James Layton Ralston: I wish I could give my
hon. friend more definite information. As he knows, representations have been made to me by representatives from the city council and board of trade. These representations were made unofficially but nevertheless earnestly. May I say to my hon. friend that I have worked and am working in every way to see if there is a possibility of greater concentration in connection with the military properties of Halifax. I might say however that the situation is no more satisfactory from a military than it is from a civic standpoint. The difficulty is to get the money in order to effect these changes. At the present time we are trying to improve the Wellington barracks which have been vacant for a long time and I am hopeful that we may be able to concentrate some troops at that point.


Felix Patrick Quinn: How soon may we expect
to have the Royal Canadian Regiment transferred to that barracks?


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend knows
that at least one company of that regiment is down there now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister have
one of his officials investigate the coal question in the city of Moose Jaw? I am not asking for details, in view of the short time at our disposal.


James Layton Ralston: Very well, I shall do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Battlefields Memorials, $144,000.
George Halsey Perley: Can my hon.
friend tell me when the Vimy memorial will be completed?


James Layton Ralston: To answer that question I could make only a more or less informed guess. I have been over there myself, and I can only hope that it may be sufficiently completed by 1932 to permit unveiling. Colonel Osborne, the Secretary of the Canadian Battlefields Commission, which is in charge of the work, is there at present and is making complete investigations, and we will be better informed when he returns.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dairying, including grant of $5,000 to National Dairy Council and new buildings, $295,000.
George Halsey Perley: I directed a
question to the minister, which I believe appears on the order paper for to-day, and I believe this would be the opportune time to have the answer. I asked first as to the salary of the Montreal district veterinary inspector. My second question was as to where he resided, and my third as to whether he is expected to devote his whole time to this work.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I have prepared an answer to
the question of my hon. friend. In answer to the first question, I find that the minimum salary is $2,640, the maximum $3,000, and the present salary, $2,760. I am informed that he resides at Huntingdon, Quebec, and that he is expected to devote his whole time to this work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest that we pass
the items with the understanding that we might have a general discussion when the items are completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of Animals-administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act, and necessary buildings, $2,550,000.
Mr. BENOIT:: With regard to this item, Mr. Chairman, I regret very much to see that it has been reduced by $400,000. I should like to point out to the minister that although this government has been somewhat generous in introducing vast restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, many complaints have been received from cattle owners whose herds have been depleted by the tubercular test without their receiving a substantial indemnity, and they have thereby

Supply-Agriculture
sustained considerable losses. Some of these farmers were not in a position to stand such losses and have had to quit their farms and go to the cities, thus increasing the number of unemployed. I wonder if the Department of Agriculture could not be a little more generous with the farming community and increase the indemnities paid for cattle which prove to be reactors in the tubercular test.
I suggest that the minister increase this indemnity by at least 50 per cent in the case of cross-bred cattle and 25 per cent in the case of pure-bred cattle. The present indemnity is two-thirds of $150 for the pure-breds and of $60 for the cross-breds, and I think every hon. member will agree that this indemnity is not sufficient. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930, out of a total vote of $2,450,000 the owners of cattle slaughtered under these regulations received a total of $669,651.05, the average indemnity for pure-breds amounting to $77.10 and to $32.58 for the cross-breds. If we estimate that the pure-breds amount to 20 per cent and the cross-breds to 80 per cent of all the cattle, the increase would be almost $300,000 a year, basing the figures on last year's returns. This eradication of bovine tuberculosis being a question of public interest, it is only fair that the sufferers should not bear more than their fair share of this loss. What is an increase of 8300,000 a year in the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which has to do with the great basic industry of this country, when you look at the grants made to other departments? Just look at page 4 of the main estimates and it will be seen that my suggestion is not unreasonable.
Referring to agricultural conditions in this country, I believe hon. members will remember that a few years ago at the request of a certain group in the house for the establishment of a rural credit system similar to that which has prevailed in Europe since 1770, this government appointed Doctor Tory in
1923	or 1924 to study the European and United States systems. The results of his survey were submitted to this government in
1924	or 1905, and it was recommended that a rural credit system of long term loans should be established. A bill was introduced in the house in 1926, but because of the tragic ending of that session it did not pass. At the following session we had a bill from the Senate, which .passed this bouse, and the Canadian Farm Loan Board was established under the provisions of chapter 66 of the revised statutes of Canada.
This 'board was a long time organizing, but finally it began its work in the early part of 1929. In the bill the rate of interest was not specified; that matter was left to the board.
These credits having been established to aid the farming community by making loans at a reasonable rate of interest, the prospective borrowers in Quebec were greatly disappointed when the board announced that the rate of interest would be 6i per cent, while the average rate prevailing was only about 5i per cent. Protests were heard everywhere in Quebec, but so far no action has been taken. On March 20, 1930,1 placed a resolution on the order paper recommending that the rate of interest be reduced by one per cent, but unfortunately my resolution was not debated. On April 10 a petition was addressed to the Minister of Finance signed by ninety-five members of the house requesting that the rate of interest charged by the board on loans to farmers should be decreased by one per cent, but this also was without result.
In all fairness to the farming community I make the assertion that our request is only reasonable. The rate of interest is too high; the farmers cannot afford to pay 6J per cent. Profits are too small in agriculture; if it were otherwise you would see the big financiers of St. James street operating farms. Look at our experimental farms; do you think they make any profits? The public accounts for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929, show that $1,887,037.30 was voted for experimental farms, and in the same volume will be found an item showing that experimental farm produce sold for $171,359.80, leaving a discrepancy of $1,715,677.50. I do not wish to cast any reflection on the management of the experimental farms; I know that work is carried on by the most honest people in this country, but I use this illustration in order to show the force of my argument.
I will go to another source for information with respect to the profits made from agriculture. I hold in my hand bulletin No. 98, published by the Department of Agriculture, relating to a survey made in six counties of Quebec by Mr. F. A. Ste. Marie, B.S.A., of the division of animal husbandry. That survey is for the year ending June 1, 1920, and I see at page 6 of the bulletin a table which shows that the average annual profit on 1,148 farms which were thoroughly surveyed amounted to $463. That represented the total annual wages of the owner of the farm, of his wife-because you know the wives help their husbands on the farms-and of the children under fourteen, who also work in the farming communities. Just compute the capitalization of these farms, where there is no watered stock. It happens that the total actual capital engaged amounts to $22,618,451, including the value of live stock and farm implements. This capital yields the enormous
290S
Supply-Agriculture

amount of $521,524, which works out at 2-3057 per cent of a dividend, much less than the dividends paid by some corporations which are over-capitalized by 300 per cent. It is to noted that one per cent of the actual capital tied up in these farms is equivalent to 45 per cent of the annual wages of the owner and his family. No. hon. member will suggest that the farmer is over paid.
This all means that the rate of interest paid by the farmers is very important. Since this survey was made in 1920 some people may think farming conditions very different to-day, and as a matter of fact they are very different, notwithstanding the fact that during 1919 and 1920 Canadian products were selling at much higher prices. I would refer hon. members to the Labour Gazette of March, 1930, at page 350.
I am inclined to believe that the guarantees offered by the farmers are first-class in character. The loans are made on 50 per cent of the value of the land and 20 per cent of the value of the buildings, which means that when the buildings are valued at the same price as the land the percentage is reduced to 35 per cent of the whole estate. I do not think this is quite fair to the farmer, and the law should be changed in order that loans can be made on 50 per cent to 55 per cent of the whole estate.
It might be said that a reduction of one per cent in the rate of interest would not amount to anything. I have prepared five different tables which show the growth of a small investment made at the end of each year over a period of 33 years.
The value of an investment of one dollar made at the end of the year, bearing interest at four per cent, compounded annually during the period of thirty-three years is equivalent to $66.21. The following statement shows the surplus paid by a borrower during a period of thirty-three years, when a 6J per cent rate has been paid instead of a 5 per cent rate:
On a loan of $1,000.-$10 yearly, equivalent to $662.10 after 33 years.
On a loan of $2.000.-$20 yearly, equivalent to $1,324.19 after 33 years.
On a loan of $3,000.-$30 yearly, equivalent to $1,986.29 after 33 years.
On a loan of $4.000.-$40 yearly, equivalent to $2,648.38 after 33 years.
On a loan of $5.000.-$50 yearly, equivalent to $3,310.48 after 33 years.
On a loan of $6.000.-$60 yearly, equivalent to $3,972.59 after 33 years.
On a loan of $7.000.-$70 yearly, equivalent to $4,634.67 after 33 years.
On a loan of $8.000.-$80 yearly, equivalent to $5,296.76 after 33 years.
On a loan of $9,000.-$90 yearly, equivalent to $5,958.86 after 33 years.
On a loan of $10.000.-$100 yearly, equivalent to $6,620.95 after 33 years.

If the request made to reduce by one per cent the rate of interest actually exacted by the Canadian Farm Loan Board from farmer borrowers was met, the difference between the now prevailing rate of 6i per cent and the proposed rate of 5i per cent on a $10,000 loan, compounding the interest at 4 per cent during a period of thirty-three years, would be the capitalized amount of $6,620.95, the actual present value at 4 per cent being $1,814.75.
The value of an investment of one dollar made at the end of the year bearing interest at 5 per cent compounded annually during a period of 33 years, is equivalent to $80.64. The following statment shows the surplus paid by a borrower during a period of 33 years, when a 64 per cent rate has been paid instead of 5 per cent:
On a loan of $1.000.-$10 yearly, is equivalent to $800.64 after 33 years.
On a loan of $2,000.-$20 yearly, is equivalent to $1,601.28 after 33 years.
On a loan of $3,000.-$30 yearly, is equivalent to $2,401.91 after 33 years.
On a loan of $4,000.-$40 yearly, is equivalent to $3,202.55 after 33 years.
On a loan of $5,000.-$50 yearly, is equivalent to $4,003.19 after 33 years.
On a loan of $6,000.-$60 yearly, is equivalent to $4,803.83 after 33 years.
On a loan of $7,000,-$70 yearly, is equivalent to $5,604.46 after 33 years.
On a loan of $8,000.- $80 yearly, is equivalent to $6,405.10 after 33 years.
On a loan of $9,000.-$90 yearly, is equivalent to $7,205.10 after 33 years.
On a loan of $10,000.-$100 yearly, is equivalent to $8,006.38 after 33 years.
The above statement shows the difference in a loan made by the Canadian Farm Loan Board to a farmer in Quebec and one made to a farmer in Ontario borrowing from the agricultural development board. The saving of the Ontario farmer during a period of 33 years, placed at 5 per cent compound interest on a $10,000 loan, would represent a capital of $8,006.38, the actual present value being $1,600.17 at 5 per cent.
The value of an investment of one dollar made at the end of the year bearing interest, at 3 per cent compounded annually during a, period of 33 years, is equivalent to $55.08. The following statement shows the surplus paid by a borrower during a period of 33 years when a 64 per cent rate has been paid instead of 5 per cent.
On a loan of $1,000.-$10 a year, is equivalent to $550.78 after 33 years.
On a loan of $2,000.-$20 a year, is equivalent to $1,101.56 after 33 years.
On a loan of $3,000.-$30 a year, is equivalent to $1,652.34 after 33 years.
On a loan of $4,000.-$40 a year, is equivalent to $2,203.12 after 33 years.
On a loan of $5,000.-$50 a year, is equivalent to $2,753.90 after 33 years.

Supply-A griculture
On a loan of $6,000.-$60 a year, is equivalent to $3,304.68 after 33 years.
On a loan of $7,000.-$70 a year, is equivalent to $3,855.46 after 33 years.
On a loan of $8,000.-$80 a year, is equivalent to $4,406.24 after 33 years.
On a loan of $9,000.-$90 a year, is equivalent to $4,958.02 after 33 years.
On a loan of $10,000.-$100 a year, is equivalent to $5,507.78 after 33 years.
The above table shows the advantage which would accrue to the farmer borrower if he were charged 54 per -cent interest instead of 64 per cent. The excess of interest which he is forced to pay on a $10,000 loan if placed in a savings bank would represent after 33 years a capitalized amount of $5,507.78; the actual present value at 3 per cent being $2,076.43.
The value of an investment of $1.50 a year made at the end of the year with compound interest at 5 per cent, would represent a capitalized amount of $120.10. The interest charged by the Canadian Farm Loan Board is 64 per cent, while the rate charged by the American federal Farm Loan Board is 5 per cent. The value of the savings to the American farmer, placed at 5 per cent compound interest for a period of 33 years is shown by the following statement:
On a loan of $1,000 savings are $15 yearly, equivalent to $1,200.96 after 33 years.
On a loan of $2,000 savings are $30 yearly, equivalent to $2,401.92 after 33 years.
On a loan of $3,000 savings are $45 yearly, equivalent to $3,602.87 after 33 years.
On a loan of $4,000 savings are $60 yearly, equivalent to $4,803.82 after 33 years.
On a loan of $5,000 savings are $75 yearly, equivalent to $6,004.78 after 33 years.
On a loan of $6,000 savings are $90 yearly, equivalent to $7,205.74 after 33 years.
On a loan of $7,000 savings are $105 yearly, equivalent to $8,406.70 after 33 years.
On a loan of $S,000 savings are $120 yearly, equivalent to $9,607.65 after 33 years.
On a loan of $9,000 savings are $135 yearly, equivalent to $10,808.61 after 33 years.
On a loan of $10,000 savings are $150 yearly, equivalent to $12,009.57 after 33 years.
At 5 per cent the actual value of $12,009.57 for to-day is 82,397.77.
The value of an investment of $1.50 a year for a period of 33 years, bearing interest at 3 per cent compounded yearly, is represented by a capitalized amount of $8.62. The interest charged by the Canadian Farm Loan Board is 64 per cent, while the rate charged by the American Farm Loan Board is 5 per cent. The value of the savings to the American farmer placed at 5 per cent compound interest for a period of 33 years is shown by the following statement:
On a loan of $1,000, savings $15 yearly, is equivalent to $826.17 after 33 years.
On a loan of $2,000, savings $30 yearly, is equivalent to $1,652.34 after 33 years.
On a loan of $3,000, savings $45 yearly, is equivalent to $2,478.50 after 33 years.
On a loan of $4,000, savings $60 yearly, is equivalent to $3,304.87 after 33 years.
On a loan of $5,000, savings $75 yearly, is equivalent to $4,130.83 after 33 years.
On a loan of $6,000, savings $90 yearly, is equivalent to $4,957 after 33 years.
On a loan of $7,000, savings $105 yearly, is equivalent to $5,783.17 after 33 years.
On a loan of $8,000, savings $120 yearly, is equivalent to $6,609.34 after 33 years.
On a loan of $9,000, savings $135 yearly, is equivalent to $7,435.50 after 33 years.
On a loan of $10,000, savings $150 yearly, is equivalent to $8,261.67 after 33 years.
At 5 per cent the actual value of $8,261.67 for to-day is $1,650.67.
Borrowers are compelled to take shares from the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and thej' are allowed only 5 per cent compound interest. Subsection 4, section 9, chapter 66, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, cover this point. In addition to this, they have to pay 64 per cent for the money used to buy the share. I think something should be done to cure this anomaly. It will probably be said that money cannot be borrowed on our security markets at a rate cheap enough to make loans to farmers at 54 per cent. The following is a report published by the Banque Canadienne Nationale, dated May, 1930, as follows:
Dominion loans are yielding as follows:
54 per cent due 1932 sells for $100.50 yields $4.63.
54 per cent due 1934 sells for $102.25 yields $4.94.
44 per cent due 1940 sells for $97.85 yields $4.76.
5 per cent due 1943 sells for $102.30 yields $4.77.
44 per cent due 1944 sells for $97.75 yields $4.72.
44 per cent due 1946 sells for $97.85 yields $4.69.
All tax exempted
C.N.R. guaranteed by government.
5 per cent due 1954 sells for $102.50 yields $4.82.
5 per cent due 1969 sells for $10.50 yields $4.80.
44 per cent Montreal city 1950 sells for $97, yields $4.73.
44 per cent Montreal city 1970 sells for $96.50, yields $4.69.
5 per cent City of Sorel 1952 sells for $100, yields $5.00.
44 per cent C.P.R. 1954 sells for $103, yields $4.80.
5 per cent Abitibi power 1953 sells for $88, yields $5.95.
5	per cent Bell telephone 1957 sells for $103.50, yields $4.76.
6	per cent Beauharnois 1959 sells for $100,
yields $6.00.		
5 per cent Montreal L.H. & P. Co., 1970 sells for $101.50 yields $4.92.
44 per cent Shawinigan 1967 sells for $95.50, yields $4.75.
5 per cent Shawinigan water and power 1970 sells for $102.50 yields $4.86.
There are other bond securities which do not earn 5 per cent for the investor, but I believe
Supply-Agriculture

I have proven that the Canadian Farm Loan Board could sell its bonds at a rate of interest not exceeding 5 per cent. If there was any hesitancy on the part of the public to buy these bonds-they are considered to be a first class security-it should be possible for the government to endorse them, as is done with the Canadian National bond. I contend that the cost of administration of the board at Ottawa should be borne by the government, as is the case with other commissions. Where there is an agency of the board in the different provinces, the provincial government should bear that cost.
The twelfth report of the federal Farm Loan Board of the United States shows that loans are made from east to west in that country at the rate of 5 per cent. One exception is a small area where the rate is 51 per cent. The Canadian farmer should receive the same treatment as does the American farmer. The province of Ontario is making loans to farmers at 51 per cent without requiring that any shares be purchased. I am informed that in Denmark loans to farmers bear a rate of 4j per cent, and in France from 4i per cent to Si per cent.
I believe I have demonstrated that the conditions prevailing in this country do not warrant the rate of 61 per cent charged by the Canadian Farm Loan Board, and that the bonds could be sold on the market for a rate not exceeding 5 per cent. I trust that in the near future this government will grant the request made by the farmer borrower, and thus keep the farmers on the land and away from the cities where they might increase the number of unemployed. Might I add, in closing my remarks that, notwithstanding the present agricultural conditions prevailing in this country, farmers, when all is considered, are better off than most workers in cities, where life is so intricate. Many factors contribute to lowering the cost of rural life. Beside being free from monthly rent, a great number of farmers draw from the soil part of the subsistence for their families as well as their fuel. What must we think of the numerous occasions which city people have of spending their savings, these opportunities do not exist in rural dis-;ric-ts.
For these reasons and many others which would take too much time to enumerate, I cannot too strongly urge upon the farmer to cling more closely to the soil which, it is true, will not always bring him wealth, but, in return, will assure him a frugal, peaceful and happy life.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, replying very briefly to the statement made by

the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Benoit), I would state that the compensation paid in the case of pure-breds is two-thirds of the valuation of $150, and in the case of cross-breds, two-thirds of $60. Tiiis is the highest compensation in the world for tuberculin cattle, and any proposal to raise these rates would have to be considered very carefully. It must be considered that the owner of the animal receives any salvage which might be saved from the slaughtered beast, and this runs up to as high as $50 in some cases. I shall be very glad however, to give this matter my consideration.


Mr. COOTE:: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to bring to the minister's attention the question of hog grading at Calgary. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister before, but there is another feature which has perhaps been overlooked. Under the present practice at Calgary hogs are going to the abattoir without being graded, which hogs are paid for by the packing plant on a basis of their own grading. The farmer is under the impression that those hogs have been graded by the government grader, and it would seem as if the whole system of grading had fallen into disrepute. The farmer raises a select hog which is sent to the abattoir, but his statement and cheque shows a payment on the basis of butcher hogs. Naturally, the farmer thinks that these hogs have been graded by the government grader, and he begins to think that there is no use raising select hogs.
I think this matter could be taken care of by issuing instructions to the graders that a slip certifying to the grade of the animal be sent to the producer. I took this matter up with the grader at Calgary and he seemed to think that the only difficulty would be the need of additional clerical help in the office. I think the estimates are large enough to cover the carrying out of this suggestion.
I know of one case where hogs were shipped to Calgary during the month of February, which were presumably graded as butcher hogs. The cheque came back from the packing house making payment on that basis. The shipper went after the graders at Calgary who finally admitted that these hogs had not been seen by them. An offer of settlement was made for whatever difference this man might claim because of the difference in grading. In his letter to me he enclosed the cheque which he had received from Burns and Company, as well as the statement. This showed that apparently in many cases the hogs sent to the packing plants had not been graded, and I would like to have the assurance of

Supply-Agriculture
the minister appear on Hansard in order to satisfy the farmers in that ar.ea who have been raising hogs. They should be assured that they will be able to secure a certificate from the government grader.


William Richard Motherwell: An amendment had been prepared to the Live Stock Products Act wihch would have taken care of part of the complaint made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). In this present instance, it would seem as though the grader had been delinquent in his duties. This is the first time this matter has come to my attention, but an inquiry will be instituted and if the grader is found to be guilty instant dismissal will follow. This is the first case of its kind that has come to my attention and this is what started the difficulty. Certain legislation or a more stringent regulation is required.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister assure us
that in any case where the hogs are graded by inspectors, the certificates will be sent back the same as in the case of the grading of grain?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. That was
the very essence of the recent regulations, to get the certificates back to the owner of the animal so that he might know how he was being dealt with by the packer or the buyer. With regard to the difficulty which has increased in getting hogs graded off trucks, we had provision for that in the new bill proposing an amendment to the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, but we shall have to defer it. The house at this stage of the session does not like these grading bills, so we shall just let it go. We had a little flurry last night over the innocent maple sugar bill; what would have happened if we had introduced a new bill in regard to hogs, I can hardly imagine.


Robert James Manion: Is it possible that the minister has missed appointing any inspectors?


William Richard Motherwell: I fancy this is one requiring to be fired.


John Frederick Johnston: I should like to remind
the committee that we have been in session for five hours to-day. We have passed some eighty items of the estimates and there are some 200 or more remaining.


William Thomas Lucas: During this session a delegation from the live stock pools waited upon the government requesting that a grant be given for the erection of a demonstration plant to establish the cost of processing. What is the intention of the government with regard to dealing with that matter?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that we have come to that. In the supplementary estimates there is an item providing for an inquiry into the live stock situation.


William Thomas Lucas: I have not seen that.


William Richard Motherwell: We will possibly
deal with that then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cold storage warehouses, further amount required, $200,000.
Mr. FRASER:: A year ago, when this item was under consideration, I reviewed the necessity for the establishment of another experimental farm in central British Columbia. At that time the minister was good enough to promise me that during the following year, that is last year, his officials would make a survey of the situation. Was that survey made, and if so, has a report been made to the minister in regard to it?


William Richard Motherwell: Last summer I was in British Columbia and I had hoped to visit that interesting district represented by my hon. friend, but subsequent events, to which I do not need to refer, interfered with my year's program, and we have not been able to make that survey. I regret that fact very much. I do not know whether it would have made any difference, because I have no money for another experimental farm anywhere in Canada.


Mr. SPENCE:: I should like to discuss
some of the items in the main estimates in regard to agriculture. For instance, under the item of "fruit, including grant of $8,000 to Canadian Horticultural Council and necessary new buildings," there is an increase of $120,000. The government has gone wild in the erecting of new buildings everywhere. Another item is "for experiments. in dehydration of fruits and vegetables." I notice there is a decrease in that item. Experiments in this connection have been going on for many years. There is no necessity for the item, because the results of those experiments will never be of any commercial value and the cost involved is simply a waste of money. Then, under "entomology," there is an increase of $5,000. This may not be large, but these branches are started with a few employees, and the first thing you know there is a whole army of them.
As regards the item "administration of Destructive Insect and Pest Act and necessary buildings", there is an increase of $75,000. What is the minister going to do? Is he going to erect a big new building in which to house Motherwell's moth/ in beautiful glass
Supply-A griculture

cases? This is a piece of nonsense. As regards the item "publications", fifty per cent of them are never seen by anybody, and fifty per cent of the people who get them never read them. They are lying around all over Canada and the mail men are being killed carrying them.
In the item "Farm economics, including agricultural cooperative marketing" there is an increase of $2,000. Who asked for all this kind of stuff? There is a grant to the executive committee of the World's Grain Congress of $100,000. Who are they, and where do they come from? I may be ignorant, but I want to know where some of this money is going. I think the minister has lived long enough to know there should be some economy in his department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is going to Saskatchewan.


William Richard Motherwell: The main estimates are decreased by $375,000.


James Houston Spence: Well, the minister has cut
it off something he should not have cut it off. He is increasing it on something he should not increase it on.


John Gordon Ross: I would like to reply to the leader of the opposition who said that the members of Saskatchewan are always endeavouring to get the Minister of Agriculture to spend money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To appoint inspectors.


John Gordon Ross: Neither this
government nor any other government in Canada has ever spent enough money on agriculture. It is about time that governments in Canada started to spend money on agriculture.


James Houston Spence: I am not discussing agriculture; I am discussing these sidelines that do not pertain to agriculture at all.


George Gibson Coote: Last year money was voted
to erect a seed warehouse in Saskatchewan. At that time the minister said he would be willing to do the same thing in the other provinces when they were ready for it. As nothing has been built in Alberta since, and I am sure they have not asked for a new warehouse, still they did ask for an annex to be built to the government warehouse at Edmonton. I understand, however, the Department of Trade and Commerce are not very favourable to that suggestion. In the meantime I would like to ask the minister whether he will renew that promise so that when next year the Seed Growers' Association are ready for that warehouse it will be forthcoming.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the offer
stands, as we shall all be here in our present capacities next year.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Just a word or two in regard to the item for health of animals. The public accounts show that $500,000 was spent last year in one province in the matter of preventing tuberculosis. I am not finding fault with the endeavour to eradicate the disease, but I want to point out the futility of spending $750,000 or $1,000,000 a year under the existing circumstances, for this reason: if you have twenty per cent tubercular conditions existing over an area and you do not discover the reason and remedy the cause, you will have to repeat that expenditure every year. I want to impress upon the minister that there are some conditions underlying this that require investigation. The method of handling the slaughtering of those cattle is not fair to the farmers. The position is that the inspector comes along and says that so many cattle are affected with tuberculosis and the farmer receives a certain sum from the government. A drover takes them away to the market and then brings back a certificate. I would like to point out what the United States government does in this regard. In this country the farmer for his salvage gets about $15 a head. In every state of the union the government takes the salvage and undertakes to market it and gets for the farmer all that is in the discarded animal, and they have increased to the farmers from that source eight to ten dollars per year for the last few years. In Canada the farmer gets only fifteen or sixteen dollars for a diseased animal, while the farmer in the United States get $45 to $46 per head. The government is not doing enough along the line of investigating the basic conditions under which cattle are kept and which cause disease to break out among herds. After reading the report of last year I travelled over a thousand miles myself through the province of Quebec where this disease was reported, and I convinced myself that we have not even begun to investigate the conditions under which certain cattle are housed. In this far north part of America we may be mistaken in the way we handle our cattle in the winter, having regard to bovine tuberculosis. In the neighbourhood in which I lived for a great number of years we did not know in those pioneer years about bovine tuberculosis, but herds of cattle were on the decline. There was one farmer who had the finest herds in the district. I will tel] the minister who he was. He was the pioneer ancestor of the Aikins family in Canada, the father of Sir J. A. M. Aikins, the late lieutenant-governor of the

Supply-Agriculture
province of Manitoba and of the distinguished Doctor Aikins of Toronto. It was an old pioneer family, with magnificent powers of observation. This particular farmer discovered that every animal in his bam required so many cubic feet of space, and he provided a proper system of ventilation for every animal, as well as the right kind of housing, with the result that in a few years his herds surpassed all the other herds in the neighbourhood. Three generations have passed since that day, but to-day the young men in that district still point to the wisdom and the powers of observation of the man who laid the foundations of the healthy herds in that district. I plead with the minister to-day to have an investigation made in those areas in this country where there is such a tremendous amount of bovine tuberculosis. I am satisfied that if the basic conditions are improved, a great deal will have been done to conquer this disease. Otherwise I am satisfied that every dollar you are spending will have to be spent over again in the next few years. It is the underlying conditions that should be investigated apart from what the government, should do in seeing that the farmers of this country get what they are justly *entitled to in the matter of salvage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To inquire into the live stock industry of Canada through the medium of cooperative marketing, $25,000.
William Richard Motherwell: Last March we had a conference of live stock men in Ottawa discussing the best methods of improving and developing the live stock industry .in Canada. Consumption has grown so rapidly that it has overtaken production, and the result is that some of our products have disappeared from the export market. One of the recommendations made by that conference was that we hold an inquiry not only into the live stock situation but into the feed situation, which is closely related to it. That resolution was passed by the whole conference. Later on a section of the conference, the Canadian Cooperative Live Stock Producers, Limited, made a request of my deputy that we adopt the policy of establishing two demonstration packing plants in this country, one in the east and one in the west; but inasmuch as they spoke for just a part of the conference, while the other resolution had been passed by the whole conference, we thought it the wiser and safer course to .pursue to put an item in for an inquiry which will be broad enough to cover all phases of the industry. "We do not want to establish two abattoirs without knowing where we are going to get off at, especially as that was asked for by only & part of the conference.


James Houston Spence: I would warn the minister that the gentlemen who came before the agriculture committee are simply trying to exploit the farmers, and the government should be very careful before spending any money on that scheme, or it will kill the industry.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I should like to ask the
minister as to the system of condemnation insurance, which is exercising the minds of a great many of the farmers, particularly in cooperative societies. A great many of the farmers feel that they have not the slightest idea as to how the money is spent, and who reaps any advantage from that insurance. One cooperative society spent $700 in premiums, and when they lost stock in transit or in the yards they were unable to get any advantage from the insurance. I suggest that a report be issued annually or semi-annually showing how the money is expended, what return there is to those who pay the premium, and who reaps the benefit. I would like the minister to tell us in a few words what is being done now in this connection, under what authority it is being done, and if there is any chance of the people at large securing information as to the results.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no particular authority for charging that. There is an agreement between the packers and a passive acquiescence in it by the farmers. In actual practice it is bound to be less than the condemned animals come to. But the principle is wrong. It is charged on a flat rate basis: the man with clean cattle is charged on the same basis as the man with unclean cattle. In the maritime provinces there is no condemnation insurance because there they have practically no tuberculosis. The moral is: Clean up your animals, and there will be no question of condemnation insurance.


Alfred Speakman: So long as this condemnation insurance is carried on with the tacit permission of the Department of Agriculture it would help those in cooperative shipping to have a semi-annual statement issued by the stock yards showing the amount of premiums and to whom the indemnities have been paid. In many cases they have not been able to find out to whom the money went.


William Richard Motherwell: I think we can get a statement of the actual losses from condemnation and make a comparison.


Alfred Speakman: As to who pays the premium and who receives the indemnity?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.

Supply-A griculture


John Vallance: I think the Cooperative Live Stock Producers will feel grateful for the $25,000 to be expended for this purpose. I have had the privilege on more than one occasion to be present with the president and secretary of the live stock producers organization, and I happen to be a member and know something about the organization. I think the investigation will result in bringing out everything that needs to be brought out. But there are 50,000 members in the live stock producers cooperative and unless in the very near future we can get from the government what w'e asked for this year I cannot see that this $25,000 will be of any great value to us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are all the cooperative enterprises in the west?


John Vallance: We have forty-three in the western provinces, and the others are distributed over the eastern provinces.


John Gordon Ross: The minister can spend money to no better purpose than in investigating the marketing of live stock and live stock products at the present time. I hope he will expedite his investigation and carry out whatever recommendations may be made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is wanted to save the live stock industry is action, not inquiry. During the last few years the industry has steadily deteriorated with extreme loss to those who formerly found it a lucrative business. Part of this deterioration i3 attributable to the New Zealand treaty, with the consequent loss of milch cows in this country, a corresponding failure to produce cattle here, followed necessarily by the constantly increasing importations of meat that are to be found in the trade and commerce returns of this country every month for the last year and a half. Until the government takes action the live stock industry will continue to languish. It is one of the most important industries that you can have in the western provinces. I am not a practical live stock man, but I have read enough to know that of all the interests in an agricultural country that should be assisted and maintained by the government live stock is the first. I do think this government has failed to realize the magnitude of the loss suffered and the far-reaching consequences of its failure. What is more, this industry cannot be built up in one year or two, and if my friend from South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) with the best intentions in the world were to start to-day with all the machinery of government behind him it would be two years, if not three, before any 
appreciable advance in this industry would be observable. I repeat, this condition has been brought about by wrong policies pursued by the government and their failure to realize the importance to this country of immediate action being taken to resuscitate the live stock industry. I say it with conviction, from a study of the trade returns, and from discussions with friends of mine all over western Canada. Their one complaint is: Here is a great industry that has been allowed to fall into a condition that is ruinous to Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Demoralized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend behind me suggests it is demoralized. The representations made by the cooperative organizations that attended the convention in this city last spring indicated that. What did the minister point out when he called that convention? He pointed out that this country with respect to cattle, swine and sheep was getting into a position where it would cease to be an exporting country at all, and he emphasized that by pointing out the steadily increasing volume of imports. Under these circumstances can there be any doubt that while an inquiry may do something it is only an opiate to put the patient to sleep for another twelve months? What is needed is something to resuscitate this industry; what is needed is not an opiate by way of an inquiry, but action. And the hon. gentleman knows quite well what that action should do. If not, there are those beside him who could tell him. I speak strongly on this matter because I feel strongly from seeing the disastrous results to the industry from the government's indifference. In Ontario the other day on a passenger train travailing to a small community I discussed the matter with a drover, and he told me what was happening. In recent years he told me they have been importing into Ontario stackers from the west and feeding them for the Toronto market-a reversal of the former practice. I clearly remember in the early days when our live stock men were encouraged by the government to improve their herds by the use of pure-bred sires. The results of that policy could be plainly seen in western Canada. I speak from observation. I saw in those days at Calgary the spring sales of live stock from these improved herds. And it was an incentive to private enterprise to take up the industry because the government encouraged breeders to produce stock that was the pride of the country. Where are those great breeders of the past? They have gone out of the business because the government has ceased to be the patron of the industry in

Supply-A grkulture
that way, and there has been a steady failure all along the line. Go to any live stock man in Ontario and he will tell you the same thing. In every part of the country this condition prevails. I am not speaking of theories, I am speaking of what I know from observation and discussion with men who are deeply interested in the live stock industry. Our young boys and young girls on the farm used to be interested in live stock, but they found a lack of appreciation of their efforts because of the changed policy of the government, and as a consequence the farm has become less attractive to them and they move off to the cities, with results we know. What was the grant made to the cooperatives when they met down here? It was S30,000, was it not, which was voted to assist them in their efforts?


William Richard Motherwell: $10,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Be that as it may, these
are but drops in the bucket. Let us have a great, comprehensive, live stock policy m Canada, not a little picayune policy, but one as broad as this Dominion, which will apply to every province in it. It may involve the expenditure of millions of dollars, as far as the agricultural industry is concerned the expenditure of ten or fifteen million dollars for a real solution of the problems of agriculture in Canada would be money well spent. Our great neighbours to the south of us have established the Federal Farm Relief Board and for the work of that board $500,000,000 is available. Where are we? Y hat is going to happen to us? Where they are producing in competition with us we will lose our own markets and our own products. As I say these are facts to which any man can have access who takes the trouble to look at the live stock history of this country. Failure. Milch cows gone; calves gone; swine gone. Go to the railways and ask them what they think about it. I have asked the live stock men connected with the railways and they tell me the same sad tale. When the live stock trade fails and when there is failure to understand and appreciate the great agricultural development upon which this country's wealth depends, we are making a retrograde movement; we are not advancing.


William Richard Motherwell: I take it my hon.
friend is in favour of the inquiry; his complaint appears to be that it is too small. The import of his remarks would seem to amount to a warning not to procrastinate. May I say to the hon. gentleman that before there can be a prescription there must be a diagnosis of the difficulty, and that is what the inquiry is for.
2419-184J


Richard Bedford Bennett: Everybody knows what
is the matter.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend
has attempted to say what the trouble is; frankly I must say that I have never heard live stock men lay the blame on the Australian treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say the
Australian treaty; I said New Zealand.


William Richard Motherwell: That is farther
from the mark. All I can say is that everybody seems to have some proposal to effect a remedy; I think an inquiry is the best way to find out. We had a splendid conference composed of excellent men, yet we could not agree on the proper course to effect a betterment of the condition. We are now faced with a new diagnosis, and the statement that the New Zealand treaty is responsible for a good many things. All these statements show the necessity for an inquiry. Because of the fact that inquiries have recently resulted so beneficially in clearing up certain problems I am encouraged to try an inquiry in this case. Thirteen years ago I instituted an inquiry into the live stock situation of the province of Saskatchewan, and we got some results from that investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the diagnosis
is no good now.


William Richard Motherwell: From the investigation concerned we secured the cooperative stock yards at Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, and: I am hopeful that we may get great results from the present proposed inquiry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the total
expenditure on the Moose Jaw seed house?


William Richard Motherwell: $300,000. It was
estimated at first at $150,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where did the remaining money come from?


William Richard Motherwell: From the same
vote. Somebody else had to go a little short.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, I see. So the hon.
gentleman took from another agricultural item money which had been voted for the purpose of that item, and put it into the seed warehouse.


William Richard Motherwell: No, I did not take it from the other item; it was the same item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But somebody else had
to go short.


William Richard Motherwell: It was in the same item.
Supply-Agriculture


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was only
$150,000 in it.


William Richard Motherwell: It was in the same item with seed, feed and fertilizers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So the hon. gentleman
took away from the fertilizer, seed and feed estimates and put it into the warehouse, did he?


John Gordon Ross: The $300,000
expended on the seed warehouse at Moose Jaw was as well spent as any money devoted to the purposes of agriculture in this Dominion. The first estimate of the cost of the building was only a rough estimate, and when the figures came down from the government engineers they were found to be much higher, so that it cost much more money to build and equip the plant than had been originally anticipated. Even at that it is money well spent, and if other provinces want the same thing they should have it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Arthur Edward Ross: Nothing in agriculture is more important than the handling of clean and registered seed grains, and seeds of all kinds. As a matter of fact we found that on account of that plant we had to use thousands and thousands of extra seed tags over and above the ordinary number required, showing the extra amount of seed grain being used out there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who owns the property? Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw): The government. Mr. MOTHERWELL: We do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government owns it;
I thought so.


William Richard Motherwell: The crown owns it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who has the administration of it?


William Richard Motherwell: The Registered Seed Growers' Association of Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that an incorporated
company?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, by private bill. Mr. BENNETT: It is leased to them? Mr. MOTHERWELL: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What rental?


William Richard Motherwell: $5,000 a year for the last eight years and $1,000 for the first two years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A private enterprise gets the benefit of it and we get the rental of $5,000.


John Gordon Ross: No, it is a cooperative enterprise; it is a non-pTofit organization.


William Richard Motherwell: The seed company is operated on a pool basis, and there are no profits whatever.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to speak
about seed grain, but there is another matter to which I wish to direct the attention of the minister. I have already written to him about it. I refer to the question of a grant to the fair at the head of the lakes. In the province of Ontario there are two class B fairs which receive grants, and in other parts of the country there are about twenty fairs which receive similar grants. To my knowledge, this fair is the only one of its kind in a territory a thousand miles wide, and I wish to impress upon the minister the necessity for this grant. I do not do so from any political motive, because the matter affects the large district to which I have referred. This particular fair has made application for a grant, and I think it should have it.


William Richard Motherwell: As yet the matter has not come to my attention.


Mr. SPENCER:: What consideration has
been given to the province of Alberta for seed grain housing?


William Richard Motherwell: I think the seed
growers in Alberta have been relying upon two particular sources for their seed; as far as I know they have fallen between the two. I was authorized last year to make an offer, and I repeated it to-day; when they are ready to accept we shall be glad to help them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that we follow the same practice in this department and pass the items first. Then we can have a general discussion on any of them.
Lighthouse and coast service, $3,290,700.


Mr. SHORT:: Last year when these
estimates ivere up a small increase was granted to the lightkeepers of this country, amounting to only $25,000. They asked for increases totalling $137,000 but received only $25,000, with the understanding that there would be a further increase this year. I believe these men made their representations again this year to the minister and submitted a schedule of what they considered to be fair increases in their salaries, which do not in any way compare with the salaries paid for

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
the same services by the United States. I should like to ask the minister what he proposes to do this year for these underpaid, hard working civil servants of this country?


Mr. CARDIN:: We have considered the
representations which have been made to us and the minimum salary for a light keeper has been increased to $100.


Harry Bernard Short: That is for just the lowest
grade?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Has there been no increase
granted to the other grades?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. Several particular
cases have been considered, but there has been no general increase.


Harry Bernard Short: Then you do not propose
to increase any grade except the lowest one, where you have increased the minimum from $60 to $100? Those are just the small light-keepers who simply light their lights at night and put them out in the morning. You have not considered grades 6 to 10 or 11 to 15 at all?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Do you not think the request of the Lightkeepers' Association was very reasonable? They asked for an increase of only about $90 in grades 11 to 15, and about $80 in grades 6 to 10. I think these are very reasonable requests which would not involve a very large sum of money. I would have expected the minister to grant such a request.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Apparently the representatives of the lightkeepers were more concerned with the lower classes than with those receiving a higher salary, but we are quite willing to consider any particular case which may arise. I think the lightkeepers themselves, generally speaking, are satisfied with the increase we have given the lower class, but the door is not closed.


Harry Bernard Short: My information is that they are not satisfied. I know some lightkeepers who are getting only $240 per year and who have not had an increase for many years. Everyone knows that the cost of living has increased very materially, and simply because a man lives in a remote district along the coast of Nova Scotia does not mean that his cost of living has not increased proportionately as it has increased elsewhere. I know one man who walks a mile at night to light his light and the same distance in the morning to put it out, and he gets only $240 a year.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask a few questions in regard to the recent appointment of fishery guardians in British Columbia.


Harry Bernard Short: Let us get through the
marine items first before we go on with fisheries. There is another matter about which I want to speak. Has the minister given any further consideration to the use of hydroelectric power in light houses where such is available?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Consideration has been
given to this matter, and I can inform my hon. friend that the Point Prim light will be electrified.


Harry Bernard Short: This matter was brought up last year. The line has been extended to the lighthouse and I was wondering what arrangements would be made.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They will be completed this week.


Edward Joseph Garland: The speech from the throne contained the following paragraph:
The report of the royal commission appointed to inquire into the existing situation with' respect to radio bi'oadcasting in Canada will be presented for your consideration.
That report was without question a very excellent one, and many people expected the government to act upon it. I am informed that subsequent to the introduction of the report a bill was prepared, but for some reason that bill was not presented to the house. Agitation was created by some private interests, particularly a notable newspaper, and this seemed to acquire some support. A special committee of the house was appointed with a great blare of trumpets; the press carried photographs of members of the committee with the announcement of the great work they were to do. That committee was never convened although on two occasions I myself requested the chairman to call a meeting.
I deplore the fact that the government did not press for the passage of a bill based upon this report. Since a bill is not to be introduced this year, will the minister give an assurance to the house and to the country that no further licences will be granted to private interests until this question of the control of radio has been definitely decided? I have no desire to embarrass the minister by multiplying the complications, but this result would be brought about by the granting of further broadcasting licences. The question
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

of vested interests would arise and additional difficulties would confront parliament and the country. I trust the minister will be able to assure the committee that no further licences will be granted until this question is settled.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret that the special committee has not had the opportunity of dealing with the report.


Edward Joseph Garland: They had the opportunity.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of the agitation which arose all over the country, and the protests which were received 'by the department, it was thought that the proper course to follow would be to submit the report to a special committee. Shortly after the matter was placed before the committee it was decided that in view of the coming elections it would not be possible in the short time remaining at our disposal to deal with it in a satisfactory Way. I agree that a special committee should be appointed to consider all the details of this very complex problem, and before which all interested parties would have an opportunity of expressing their views. I cannot meet the request that in the meantime no further licences be granted, because it must be understood that at least one year will elapse before parliament will be in a position to deal with the problem. Would it be fair to prevent certain stations from adding to their power?


Edward Joseph Garland: Absolutely.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it would be fair to prevent other companies obtaining new licences. However, should new licences be granted it will be upon the distinct understanding that no claim will lie against the government should it be decided to nationalize radio broadcasting.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the minister undertake to have a clause included in the agreement under which any licence may be granted to prevent private interests from making any claim upon the administration, the government, this parliament or the people, in the event of the government taking over radio broadcasting?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in
replying that that condition will be imposed.


Edward Joseph Garland: And any interests applying for licences from now on will do so at their own risk?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is understood?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is understood.


Edward Joseph Garland: And under no circumstances will any vested rights be created?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is understood.


Mr. GARDINER:: Have any new licences been granted since the radio report was presented?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Robert James Manion: Has the fact that there
are two outstanding Liberal papers in Canada, one in Ontario and the other in Quebec, that have radio broadcasting stations, anything to do with the fact that there has been no progress made with the committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am glad
the hon. member for Fort William raised that question again. I do not want the words of the minister to go out as implying that there was any agreement, there was none that I know of or have ever heard of, between any of the parties in this house to the effect that the work of this committee should be postponed. No such agreement was ever made. There may have been an understanding to try to expedite the business of the house, but I do not think the minister meant to say there was an agreement not to allow the committee to sit.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I did not say that.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River)): I am still at a loss to know why it did not sit. It was appointed either just before or just after Easter and we had ample time to have had meetings, but for some reason the committee was suppressed. I do not want to accuse the minister of deliberately desiring to suppress the committee, but in view of the strange circumstances that surround the whole handling of this question by the government this year, I felt I was justified in making the request I made a minute or two ago of the minister.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a matter
along another line altogether to which I should like to call the minister's attention. A memorandum was submitted by the Vancouver Labour Council, to the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners, and by the All-Canadian Congress of Labour to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with respect to waterfront accidents at Vancouver. A request has been made that the government should create and establish a government safety official or

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
inspector on the waterfront at Vancouver. The memorandum urges that such an inspector should be appointed-
-whose word would be final and binding in reguard to the use of gear, equipment, et cetera, and whereas the Vancouver Labour Council has duly considered the report of this committee, this petition and demand for the .appointment or a government safety inspector for the port or Vancouver is hereby made.
I should like to quote just a few brief paragraphs :
Statistics from the annual report of the Workmen's Compensation Board of British Columbia for the year 1928 show the following
^Stevedoring: Temporary total disability, 528. Wage loss of over $100,000.
Permanent partial disability, 32.
Fatal accidents, 5.	.
This report shows a total final compensation award to workmen or their dependents of $111,498.88 for the year 1928.
The statement goes on to point out:
At the present time there is a sort of supervision of gear and practice on the waterfront. The Shipping Federation of British Columbia has a man whom they call "safety engineer" who, being employed by the employers, has authority only to suggest and advise but has no absolute power to stop any unsafe practices or the using of unsafe gear, and therefore is unable to aid materially in the protection that the workers in these industries are entitled to.
There is a safety engineer also appointed by the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners but, as he has no absolute authority, liis advice and suggestions are acted upon by the employers only when it suits their immediate convenience.
The request has been made, since the submission of that memorandum, that the responsible officials should take the necessary action for the appointment of a safety inspector with full authority for the loading and unloading of ships. On the 5th instant, a definite refusal to move in the matter was received by letter from Mr. E. Hawken, Acting Deputy Minister of Marine. In his letter Mr. Hawken says:
In reply would advise that the representations made respecting the proposed duties of an inspector are not considered practicable as it would be impossible for any individual to efficiently inspect all cargo appliances and general loading conditions as applied to the individual bolds in the several vessels loading and unloading, without seriously affecting the dispatch of the ships concerned which would ultimately reflect upon the port.
I would also advise that there is no authority under any Canadian legislation before me, whereby the department could appoint a safety engineer with power as suggested.
Tackle inspectors are appointed under tlie Canada Shipping Act, Part VIII, and their powers prescribed by sections 674, and penalties by section 681.
The request that has been presented in the memorandum forwarded to the minister is
eminently reasonable, and I do not think the letter written by the deputy minister altogether covers the case and his objections are not well taken. It was not proposed that this officer should inspect the holds of each individual vessel. I quite agree that that would be impracticable, but if there were a man present who had authority to act, the very fact that he was there would in most cases prevent the continuance of the abuses which not exist. The men who are at work in the holds of these ships are familiar with the necessary safety devices; they are so accustomed to handling the various types of gear that they could easily discover whether or not these were in proper condition. If they were in improper condition and if a safety inspector were available, the men could readily apply to him and he would then come and inspect the appliances.
This is a case where there is apparently some authority and responsibility resting with the department. I would assume the department has authority to make such appointments as are necessary for the safeguarding of life and limb and for protecting the welfare of the workers on the waterfront. I speak rather feelingly with regard to this particular matter, because some twelve years ago I myself worked in this particular occupation on the waterfront in Vancouver and I know from personal experience something of the hazards which must be undertaken. I know the appliances in those days were far from being satisfactory and according to the memorandum before me there has been no very great change for the better. When the statistics of the Workmen's Compensation Board show such a heavy list of accidents and a number of fatalities, it seems to me that the least the government can do for the waterfront workers is to provide that an inspector with authority is appointed. The matter is urgent and should not be laid over for another year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite understand the
importance of the question raised by my hon. friend, but we already have inspectors of tackle and gear appointed by the harbour commission and also the Shipping Federation. According to the law as it stands, we have not authority to appoint any inspector having greater powers than those exercised at present by the appointees of the harbour commission or the Shipping Federation. But I assure my hon. friend we are considering the introduction of legislation in order to meet the objects indicated in the representations that have been made.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it possible that some order in council might be passed to meet the need at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I may say I am quite
ready to ask for any power from council in order to meet the situation, but I am afraid we shall have to proceed first through legislation. I am quite willing to ascertain whether it will be possible to deal with the matter by order in council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to hear the minister take that attitude, but I would point out the serious situation where men are being injured and even killed. Last year several were killed and a large number injured. I do not think we should "wait for another year before taking action.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend will not
contend that those workers have been killed on account of the unsatisfactory condition of tackle and gear. Surely a certain amount of negligence has been responsible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am contending
that the equipment is unsatisfactory because I know of no group of men more careful in their work. I do not want to take up the time of the committee, but I have under my hand five or six pages full of details of accidents in which the trouble was due directly to lack of proper gear. In one case, for instance,-


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is all right for the hon. gentleman to say, "carried" but when life is at stake I think we might reasonably take one or two minutes to consider the matter. In this particular case the jury brought in a verdict with this rider:
The accident was due to faulty loading without bracing of the timber, and we feel that it is absolutely necessary that there should be a man with authority appointed to supervise conditions on the ship to be loaded.
I have a dozen different cases of that kind of thing. I submit that under these circumstances prompt action should be taken.


Donald James Cowan: A year ago I suggested to
the minister the necessity of establishing on lake Superior at the head of the lakes lifesaving equipment and a wireless station on account of the great loss of life and property on the great lakes. The minister said that he would give the matter consideration, but I have not yet heard what that consideration amounted to.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We have had a ship there equipped with radio and other equipment to aid in life saving. The problem of establish-
ing life saving stations is a very large one. With the equipment we have at present we may not be able to cope with all accidents that may occur anywhere. To provide life saving stations at every point on the lakes and rivers and shores of this country would mean an expenditure of millions and millions of dollars. Comparison was made last year between Canada and the United States, and it was contended that the United States were doing much more in this regard than we are doing. I took the trouble last year of visiting a few life saving stations in the United States, some not very far from here, and I was told by the man in charge of one station that he had been there for thirty years and had never been called upon to save life or a vessel. I admit that something should be done, and it is a problem that will have to be seriously considered by parliament one of these days because if we are to have a life saving organization that would take care of all accidents and difficulties the expenditure would run into millions and millions of dollars. In regard to the particular point raised by my hon. friend, something has been done towards providing what he requested.


Donald James Cowan: Has anything been done
along the line of compelling the navigation companies to have wireless on their boats?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: All ships carrying passengers have to have wireless.


Donald James Cowan: But not freighters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Harry Bernard Short: A great deal of money has
been spent by the department on life saving stations, and I do not think that in all cases you are getting the best returns. There is a life saving station in my constituency, where a body of men is kept the year round, and they do very good work indeed, but they would be able to do very much better had they proper equipment. They have a boat that was obtained in 1911 or 1912, and it was a second hand boat then. The department is spending a lot of money on repairs to that old boat, and she cannot be made seaworthy because she is out of date and obsolete. But if the minister would spend a few thousand dollars in new equipment for the Bayview life saving station at the entrance to Digby harbour, this station could render splendid service. There is a long coast line which this boat patrols, and it is very often called upon to render aid to the fishermen; but owing to the fact that the boat is obsolete and her engine breaks down when she is most needed, she is not able to render the service she should. I understand

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that last year some repairs were made to this boat, but she is still obsolete because you cannot take an old fashioned boat, remove her engine and replace it with another secondhand engine, and make anything out of her. You want an up-to-date life boat that can render service to the hundreds of fishermen along the bay of fundy coast. You have a good crew and a good building, and if you had a proper boat you would then be in a position to render the service that is supposed to be given to the fisherman who take their lives in their hands to go out to sea to fish. The minister would be well advised to have a new boat placed at the life saving station at Bay-view.


George Gibson Coote: There are only two wholetime men and two part-time men in the radio engineers' department in Alberta. That is too small a number to cover such a great area. There are many complaints because of leaks from the Calgary Power Company's main line. The engineers cannot possibly cover the ground satisfactorily. The minister has a surplus of 111,000 from the operation of the radio department in Alberta, and I would ask him if he could not give us a couple more engineers to give the people the service to which I think they are entitled in view of the fees that are being received by the department.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that that
situation is being attended to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harry Bernard Short: If all the marine items have
now been disposed of, Mr. Chairman. I have a word to say in connection with the Fisheries department, particularly in connection with Bill No 26, which was passed last session, and order in council P.C. 2196, dated October 30, 1929. The house, of course, is aware that in 1927 a commission was appointed to investigate the fisheries of the maritime prov-vinces, particularly of Nova Scotia. One of the very live questions then occupying the minds of the fishermen of Nova Scotia was the steam trawler question. This commission sat in all parts of the province of Nova Scotia, heard evidence from fishermen in every section, and then brought in a majority and a minority report. The commission was composed of five members. The chairman was Mr. Justice Maclean, a man who is very familiar with conditions in Nova Scotia because he represented a fishing constituency for a number of years and was in close touch with the fishing industry of the province. Another member of the commission was Professor Cyrus Macmillan, of McGill university. He knew nothing whatever about the fisheries,
but is a very fine man. The other three members were Nova Scotia fish dealers whose minds were made up before they entered on the inquiry-they were very much apposed to the trawler. The result was that Professor Macmillan and these others brought in a majority report advocating the abolition of trawelrs. Mr. Justice Maclean, the chairman, did not agree and recommended that trawlers should not be abolished, that they were an absolute necessity if we were to continue to supply the markets of Canada with regular shipments of fresh fish. Bill No. 26, based on that report was introduced last session and passed. It was satisfactory to all concerned, both the trawler people and I think the shore fishermen, and had its provisions been put into effect there would have been no trouble. But on October 30, 1929, the government passed order in council P.C. 2196. Let me put on Hansard the circular issued by the minister's department with respect to this order in council:
Canada
Department of Marine and Fisheries Fisheries Branch Notice
By order in council of October thirtieth, 1929 P.C. 2196, and under the authority of section 69A of the Fisheries Act, which section was established by 19-20, George V, Chapter 42, it was provided that a licence to any fishing vessel which uses an otter or other trawl of a similar nature, will not be granted except under the following conditions:
1.	That such vessel was built in Canada and is now operating under temporary licence or was built in Canada subsequent to November 1, 1929.
Provided, however, that existing fishing vessels, other than Canadian built, which use otter or other trawls of a similar nature, and in respect of which temporary licences are now in force, shall be eligible for licence but only during the period ending April 1, 1932.
2.	On and after April 1, 1930. a licence fee at the rate of one cent per pound, shall be payable by the owner or operator of any such fishing vessel that was not built in Canada, and, at the rate of two-thirds of a cent per pound, shall be payable by the owner or operator of any such fishing vessel that was built in Canada. under regulations approved by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on all cod. haddock and halibut that are caught and landed on the Atlantic coast of Canada by any such fishing vessel. In determining the 'weights of such fish, in the case of cod and haddock, such shall be done with the heads on, but with the entrails removed, and in the case of halibut, with the heads off and the entrails removed: provided that no licence fee shall be payable on fish caught and landed during the months of January, February and March in each year, nor on scrod-that is. fish with the heads on, but with the entrails removed, that weigh less than two and one-half pounds each.
Wm. A. Found.
Deputy Minister of Fisheries. Ottawa, November 2, 1929.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
This means that after 1932 five British trawlers with Canadian registry will be practically confiscated because it is an impossibility to keep those vessels in order so that they can fish only three months in the year and the other nine months pay a tax of one cent a pound on all the fish they land. This, I claim, is the most drastic legislation that has ever been enacted in this country. The idea of a government, a Liberal government especially, that claims it does not want to tax the food of the people, putting a one cent tax on one of the natural food products of our country, is to my mind simply preposterous. We had no fresh fish industry in this country until trawlers started to operate in 1910 or 1911. Prior to that time we had to depend upon our shore boats in the summer time and on our schooners in the winter. We had no regular supply, with the result that we had no fresh fish market in this country. Most of our supplies came in from the United States because our cities could not depend upon Nova Scotia giving them a regular supply during all seasons of the year.
The companies that were in business then decided that if we were to build up a fresh fish market in this country we must have modern methods, that is, trawlers that can fish in all kinds of weather and land regular supplies. As a result a splendid market has been built up by being able to give regular supplies of fish. Now this government comes forward with legislation that is going to prevent these trawlers from operating in our waters during nine months of the year unless they pay a tax of one cent a pound, which is practically prohibitive. Both the minister and his deputy know that.
Now, these trawlers have not interfered with the shore fishermen to the extent the minister thinks they have, for the simple reason that the trawler companies have in the past handled all the fish that have been offered to them by the shore fishermen. This order in council would never have been passed had it not been for the agitation, not by the boat fishermen but by the fish dealers who are operating vessels instead of steam trawlers. They were the people who agitated for the abolition of the steam trawler. But even they did not ask for its abolition altogether; they asked that nothing but Canadian-built trawlers be used. This matter was brought up in the house last session by the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) when Bill No. 26 was under discussion. He moved an amendment asking that nothing but Canadian trawlers be allowed to operate. The minister's answer to that was that this would mean confiscation of the five British trawlers with Canadian

registry that were already operating in Nova Scotia. Let me quote from page 3483 of Hansard of June 10 last year:
Mr. Cardin: Although I am in sympathy with the policy advocated by my hon. friend from Halifax in regard to encouraging our shipbuilding industry, I cannot accept his amendment. It would have the effect of practically confiscating a certain number of vessels which are now in operation and have been for a period of years.
So the minister's opinion then was that if these boats were not allowed to operate it meant confiscation. That is just what the minister is doing to-day by this order in council. He is prohibiting these vessels from operating, and it practically means that after April, 1932, they will not be able to operate even if they pay a tax of a cent a pound. Therefore those vessels will be confiscated. But there is no mention whatever of compensation to the owners. I believe the companies that own these trawlers if they felt they were going to be compensated would be able to make arrangements to carry on their business. Does the minister think that it is fair to confiscate these five British built trawlers with Canadian registry? They cost from $65,000 to $75,000 each, and they are British built. They have been registered in this country since 1917, some of them since 1915, and yet we say that after 1932 they must go to the junk heap. That is the practical effect of the order in council, because the trawlers were built totally and solely for the fishing industry and are suitable for no other purpose. Surely if it is intended to carry out this order in council and to confiscate those ships after 1932, the companies are entitled to compensation.
This matter of catching fish by steam trawlers is not new; every fishing country in the world is operating steam trawlers, and Canada is the only country which has suggested legislation of this nature.


James Layton Ralston: Japan has this legislation.


Harry Bernard Short: She is the only country in the w'orld, with the exception of Canada which has such legislation. The United States, Great Britain, France, Spain, Norway and other fishing countries have no legislation of this nature. I do not know very much about Japan, but I hope we are further advanced than that country is. The United States have about 170 trawlers which come down and fish in the same grounds we are using. If this government prevents our trawlers from fishing the result will be that in the winter season the markets of the upper provinces will be supplied by fish from the United States. That is the condition which we had previous to the

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
use of trawlers. I know the minister will say that the fishing schooners of to-day can supply the market. I say they cannot, because they are affected by weather conditions. The fishing schooners of to-day are the same class of vessels which we had fifteen years ago. We had fishing schooners operating out of Nova Scotia for many years, but they could not supply the market for fresh fish, for the simple reason that they were unable to maintain a steady supply. There would be weeks during the fall and winter months when gales of wind would prevent the landing of any fish, consequently the Canadian market could not depend on a regular supply of this important commodity, and to meet the demand importations were made from the United States. Do we want to revert to that situation? I do not think so. Last winter, it is true, a number of schooners operated out of Halifax, Lunenburg, and Liverpool, but there were times when the demand could not be supplied. There was either a feast or a famine; there was a full supply in fine weather and in stormy weather there was none. If we reverted to this style of fishing we would be confronted with the same difficulty.
What would our friends in the western provinces do if we put on a tax on all the wheat they harvested with the aid of the new combine machine? That machine does away with the necessity for hundreds of labourers. What would happen if this government told the western harvesters that they could not operate by these new methods, but must go back to the methods in vogue many years ago? How would they consider a proposal of that kind? Yet that is practically what this government is doing in connection with the trawlers. When any new invention has been put on the market the use of which would favourably affect the fishing industry, we have been confronted with-the same condition. Years ago we used the hand line, and when we discarded the old method there were objections raised. In 1875 the fishery officer for Nova Scotia reported, as contained in the report of the Commissioner of Fisheries to the minister, as follows:
The short yield of cod may be accounted for as follows: this fishing is pursued around the shores of Nova Scotia entirely in open boats which can only remain on the fishing grounds during comparatively smooth weather, and as winds this year were continuous and heavy during the fishing season, little was done in shore fishing.
I would also beg to call your attention to what overseer Ross says with reference to trawl fishing. I have no personal knowledge of this mode of fishing, but wherever practised it is generally considered injurious to the fisheries for reasons stated by Mr. Ross.
This statement here made has reference to the time we used the hand line. The present system was adopted in 1875, and it was thought that it would ruin the fisheries. To continue reading:
After a very careful investigation of the subject I have come to the conclusion that it is a very great injury to the fisheries of our coast, for the following reasons, namely, trawls are set on Saturday and left so during Sunday; many fish dieengage themselves from. the trawls, and in several instances are so cut and mangled as to die in the water Another evil from the result of trawl fishing is the practice of cleaning the fish taken wherever the trawls are set. Some of the oldest fishermen in this country tell me that the codfish spawn in these bays and along these shores. If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, the sooner that mode of fishing be abolished the better for our country because it is not the people of our province that derive the most benefit from trawl fishing, but the Americans. Just imagine a fleet of forty vessels, fitted out with five trawls each, and five or six hundred hooks on each trawl; how quick they will sweep the fishing grounds of all kinds.
That is what the fishermen thought away back in 1875. Then in 1910 the steam trawler was introduced, and it has been used in the fish industries of every country. To-day tve are faced with the same complaint which was lodged in 1875, except that in this instance it is levelled against the steam trawler, and it is suggested that this particular vessel is going to ruin the fishing industry. The fact of the matter is that the industry requires markets. If we had a wider market for our fish, and if the department would give a little more attention to the marketing of our fish rather than passing legislation such as this, our industry would profit to a greater extent than it has in the past. If the department had put forth efforts to find new markets there would have been no difficulties in the province of Nova Scotia regarding the use of the trawler. The reason the contention with regard to trawlers arose is that in 1927 conditions were very bad in the fish markets of the country. Prices were very low, and the fishermen thought they were not getting adequate prices for their catch. That was not because of the trawler, which had nothing to do with it; it was because of the condition of the market, and if you and your department had expended a little more effort in securing markets rather than in passing legislation such as this it would have been very much more in the interests of the fishing industry. The trouble with the department is that you are en-endeavouring to develop the fishing industry by legislation and by bolstering it up with subsidies, when what is required is good, com-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
mon sense business administration along practical and progressive lines. If you would do that rather than pass so much legislation it would be very much better for the industry.
I have read the correspondence in connection with this trawler question and I find many letters from prominent people interested in the fishing industry of Nova Scotia protesting against this order in council. You have had letters from the Halifax Cold Storage Company, which operates one of the largest cold storage plants in the maritime provinces and which is subsidized to the extent of about $700,000 by this government. They are practically out of business so far as the fishing industry is concerned.
I protest most vigorously against this order in council; I think the government would be well advised to pass another order in council now allowing the trawlers to land their fish under certain restrictions. If you carried out the provisions of Bill 26 it would satisfy both the trawler people and the shore fishermen. Something has to be done; you cannot confiscate these vessels without compensating these people for them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not want to interrupt another address by my hon. friend, but I think I should submit to the committee that there are some 150 items still to be carried, and either we will each have to apply a self-denial ordinance or we must entirely forego the idea of proroguing this evening.


Harry Bernard Short: I have taken very little time on any of the estimates, and I propose to have something to say in connection with some of these fishery items.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask the
minister a few questions with regard to the fishery branch at Stuart lake. I have a return here with regard to the appointment of fishery guardians at Fort St. James and Takla lake. First there is a memorandum appointing J. P. Myers and George Hamilton to these two positions; then there is a memorandum from the deputy minister to Mr. Motherwell, superintendent in Vancouver, followed by a protest from Mr. Motherwell with regard to the suggested appointment. Mr. Motherwell says:
The information received at this office is to the effect that both the nominees in these cases, that is Messrs. Myers and Hamilton, are entirely unsuitable for the work required of them.
Then he goes on to say, with regard to the two men who are replaced:
Messrs. Kynoch and Forfar served last year and both very satisfactorily. Kynoch has 'had 
many years experience in the salmon business and several years in the Stuart lake hatchery. He is a very keen, conscientious man and has a thorough knowledge of his duties. It would be a great mistake to change him.
Then there is a letter from Mr. Casey to Mr. Motherwell asking his objections to these men, in these words:
You do not state in what respects the above mentioned men are unsuitable. . . .
Then there is a protest from John B. Babcock, deputy minister of fisheries of British Columbia, as follows:
^ Trust there is not truth in the report that Kynoch of Stuart lake is to be relieved. In my judgment he is one of the most capable and energetic fishery officers in the Fraser basin. I urge his retention.
Then there is a letter from Mr. Casey to Mr. Babcock under date of May 15 stating:
As you are doubtless aware the position is a seasonal one and while arrangements for the coming season do not contemplate the reemployment of Mr. Kynoch, further inquiry is being made in the premises to assure that the interests concerned are fully safeguarded.
There you have it from your own inspector of fisheries, your own chief man in British Columbia, that these are capable and desirable men who have discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the department, and you also have the commissioner of fisheries of British Columbia asking that these men be retained. What explanation has the minister for the removal of these men and the appointment of two men who are not acceptable to his own officials?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend was good enough to tell me that he intended to bring up this matter on the discussion of the estimates. I have looked into the question, and after discussing it with the deputy minister I have come to the conclusion that the recommendation of Mr. Motherwell should be followed.


John Anderson Fraser: Thank you.


Murray MacLaren: Is provision being made in the estimates for the clearing of small salmon streams on the New Brunswick coast of the bay of Fundy?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is provided for in the general vote.


Murray MacLaren: Will it continue this year? Mr. CARDIN: Yes.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Harry Bernard Short: I have a few words more to say;
I am sorry to detain the committee, but I will not do it unnecessarily. These items should have been brought down weeks ago in order to allow a full discussion of them. I want to call attention to an item of $236,000 to assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries and the demand for fish. There is an increase here of $106,000, and I should like to ask the minister how that is to be expended.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The increase is due to the development of that branch of the department. The amount of $236,000 is required to cover fish collection services, aid in establishing fishermen, aid in expanding the demand for fish, fisheries inspection, educational work leading to the use of better methods in fishing, aid in the organization of fishermen, and scallop investigations.


Harry Bernard Short: Will some of this amount be spent for advertising?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: The vote for last year
amounted to $130,000. When that vote was under consideration I asked the minister the following question, which appears on page 3358 of Hansard:
Mr. Short: Is it the intention of the department to expend any of this $130,000 for advertising ?
Mr. Cardin: I am informed that the officers are preparing to do advertising out of this vote.
Mr. Short: A portion of this money will be used on advertising?
Mr. Cardin: Yes.
I understand that not one dollar was spent in the advertising of fish products, notwithstanding the fact that application was made by the Canadian Fishermen's Association that the department carry on a vigorous advertising campaign in connection with the industry. A bulletin is issued by the department covering their activities, but that is of no use in the creating of a demand for fish. Is it the intention this year to spend a suitable amount for advertising?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are going to cooperate with the Canadian Fishermen's Association.


Harry Bernard Short: To what extent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We will spend one dollar for every dollar they spend.


Harry Bernard Short: 
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The subsidy of $1,975 per month applies for five months only in the year. I do not think we should be criticized for making any expenditure which might prove useful to the fishermen. Up to this year I believe the collecting service has proved very profitable. The high cost of operating the service was caused by an inability to secure boats suitable to do the work, and that is the reason we entered into the contract referred to by the hon. member.


Harry Bernard Short: I have nothing to say against the collecting service because I want everything done that is possible for the shore fishermen in Nova Scotia. They need every assistance that can be given to them. However, it would have been much better for the

Supply-House of Commons
fishermen if the $5,270 which was paid to the Sadie Mac had been distributed among the fishermen. It might be mentioned that this boat is owned by a very good friend of the government. That boat carried 32,550 pounds of fish at a cost of $5,270. The fishermen could have eaten their fish, or salted them down, and the distribution of this amount among them would have been much better. The minister says that suitable boats could not be obtained, and he enters into a contract for five years with Mr. R. W. Hendry of Halifax for the five boats. Why was it necessary to enter into a contract for that period? The minister could have gone along the coast of Nova Scotia and obtained all the boats he required on a monthly rental basis. He could 'have obtained any number of boats at a rental of from $1,200 to $1,700 per month with the option of cancelling the charter on a month's notice. Instead of that he enters into a contract for 5 years for five boats at a rental of $1,975 each per month.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation - House of Commons - salaries, $257,610.
Expenses of committees, clerical assistance, etc., $11,950.
Contingencies, $46,775.
Publishing debates, $60,000.
Estimates of Sergeant-abArms, $188,394.- [DOT]Total, $664,729.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I believe this is the
item covering the temporary staff of the House of Commons. Is any allowance being made to them on account of the short session? I am referring to the Hansard and members' stenographic staffs.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have been in the house almost every minute for several days. Yesterday I heard what was said in the house by the two leaders. I do not know whether the hon. member for Acadia spoke, but I suppose he shared the views of both leaders, and I will act accordingly. I saw the leader of the opposition this morning. Although I am nearer to the Prime Minister, I have not yet had an opportunity of conferring with him. There is to be a conference and on the broad principle of acting generously the committee can depend I shall do the right thing.


Mr. HARRIS:: I should like to know
whether this also covers the protective staff. These men, as the Speaker knows, are mostly married men, with families, and I trust they will receive the same consideration as the stenographic staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentlemen should not confuse those that are permanent with those that are temporary. I will have regard to the temporary ones when reviewing this matter with the leaders.


Joseph Henry Harris: But as a matter of fact, a number of the protective staff are temporary during the session.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will review the whole
question with both leaders and the hon. gentleman can can be assured that I shall deal generously with the staff, having regard to what was asked yesterday by hon. members.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems to me that a very important principle is involved. There is a distinct discrimination between the staff of the House of Commons and that of the Senate. Why there should be, I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me tell my hon. friend at once: the Senate itself deals with its own employees. It appoints its officers; it appoints its servants as it pleases. The House of Commons is in a different position. Our appointments come under the Civil Service Commission.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite understand that, but that is what I am protesting about. The people of Canada pay both Senate and House oif Commons and this house very generously votes the money to pay the higher salaries in the Senate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad to hear the
hon. gentleman make that statement. He takes the view taken by that great public servant, Sir John Bourinot, whose view was that when the House of Commons decided to appoint an officer, that officer should be ipso facto appointed. I advocated the same policy four years ago, but I was denied the privilege of appointing our own officers under the control of the House of Commons, as the matter should be.


Milton Neil Campbell: Nothing can take away from the House of Commons the responsibility for passing estimates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Exactly.


Milton Neil Campbell: If the Senate want to
appoint a man to a position, it cannot do so until the money is voted by the House of Commons. There is a distinct discrimination and it does not reflect any credit upon this house to vote larger salaries for men holding certain positions in the Senate than are received by men holding similar positions in

Supply-Immigration
the House of Commons. That is a discrimination which should be done away with. Either we should refuse to vote the higher salaries for the Senate staff or we should vote increases in salary for the House of Commons staff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I know to what my hon. friend is referring. Is he referring to the clerk of the house?


Milton Neil Campbell: I am referring to the whole staff. There is discrimination.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as I am aware, there are one or two cases where no corresponding recommendations came to the council from the Senate and in which there have been increases in the Commons. The intention of the council is to see that no discrimination is made and that there is a proper adjustment.


George Gibson Coote: I understand the protective service in the House of Commons is paid $4 a day and in the Senate $4.50 a day. I do not think the protective service in the Senate is working any harder than that in the House of Commons, and we know from past experience the stenographic service in the Senate is paid a higher rate than that of the House of Commons.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Senate acts as regard salaries without consulting anyone.


George Taylor MacNutt: Yesterday, when this
matter was being discussed, the Prime Minister promised a conference with Mr. Speaker.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And with the leader of the opposition.


George Taylor MacNutt: Evidently from the remarks of the Speaker this evening, this conference has not been held. While the Speaker has given his word he will deal generously with the staff, I think we should know definitely that they are going to receive as much as the temporary staff of the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend had been as busy as I have been during the past twenty-four hours, he would have found it difficult to arrange conferences for all purposes. There is no question about the hon. the leader of the opposition, Mr. Speaker and myself being able to agree on what will be considered fair by the house generally That, I think, ought to be a sufficient answer. There is no desire to discriminate in any way.


William Duff: Will the messengers receive a special allowance as well as the stenographers?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We will review that at the conference. The leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister and your humble servant will decide that.


William Duff: I would like to know whether they will receive the same treatment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration and Colonization-immigration outside services-salaries, $1,155,000.
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I rise to protest
against our newcomers being made the goat of all our social and industrial discontent. Only recently the remark was made by Bishop Lloyd about our newcomers that they had criminal proclivities. I have searched in the report of the superintendent of penitentiaries for the year ending March 31, 1929, and I find that there were 2,769 prisoners incarcerated in our penitentiaries during the year 1929, and that their birthplaces were as follows:
Canada	 1,747
Great Britain	 326
Other British possessions....	36
United States	 223
Russia	 75
Italy	 [DOT]	66
Austria-Hungary	 78
China	 62
Roumania	 16
Other countries	 140
These statistics prove that only 12 per cent of our newcomers are to be found among the prisoners in our Dominion penitentiaries. It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the house, but I wish to deal with certain discriminatory statements which have been made against our newcomers. I have in my hand a letter which I received from a young Red Cross nurse in which she refers to a news item that I shall quote later. She writes as follows:
Article enclosed was published in the News of the \Vorld about one month ago. I think a paper of such wide circulation should offer a printed apology for such uncalled for _ and ignorant remarks, which concern the Ukrainian people in the Vegreville district.
I am taking the privilege of writing you a few lines regarding this matter, as you are in a position to make them offer that apology on their front page.	_
According to newspaper reports, it is the British settlers that are making all the trouble.
Trusting you will give this important matter your kind and prompt attention, and do all you can to expose these brutal traducers of an honest hard-working and law-abiding people, I remain,
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) E. Yasenchuk, Victorian Order of Nurses of Canada.
Supply-Immigration

The article which this young lady enclosed reads as follows:
Canada's New Problem Alien Menace in the Golden West Bad Old Days of the Gold Rushes Revived ("News of the World" Special) Canadian wheat farmers on the rich corn lands of Alberta and Saskatchewan are seriously perturbed by the continued drought which threatens their harvest, and which may spell ruin to a number of settlers who have laboured hard and sunk their capital in creating farms on the wide Western prairies. Only in scattered districts where there may have been local showers will there be any wheat crop worth harvesting. To add to the troubles of British settlers a number of Russians, Galicians, and other migrants from eastern Europe have recently swarmed over the western portions of Canada. They have been encouraged by the Dominion authorities, who, it is alleged, have not exercised due care in their selection, with the result that many districts are becoming unfit for decent Britishers to reside in. Complaint is made that the authorities do not trouble to inquire into the character of these people, so long as they can prove that they have financial resources sufficient to take up holdings. There is a large settlement of these undesirables around the town of Vegreville, which was until recently a prosperous community of Englishspeaking yeomen, but which is rapidly degenerating into a hotbed of vice and lawlessness such as characterised the mining camps of other settlements during the hectic days of gold rushes some fifty years ago. Gambling hells, gin palaces, and dancing saloons have made Vegreville and other towns the haunt of every grade of alien rascal in search of "a good time and easy money." Cunning frauds by "real estate" tricksters have resulted in scores of settlers being cheated in the purchase of farms. Illicit stills remain unchecked, and commercial morality in these districts has almost reached vanishing point. Canadian police are too busy to bother much about such matters, as they are fully occupied in dealing with serious crimes of violence and outrage that have occurred since the influx from eastern Europe. Indeed, matters have reached a point when the police have been glad of the aid of a number of Canadian ex-service men. who settled in the area immediately after the war, and have recently banded together to put down the worst forms of violent crime and so afford mutual protection against the criminal propensities of these alien ruffians. Former members of that famous corps -the Alberta Dragoons-have recently tracked down one of the worst gangs of Galician horse thieves and treated them to that rough-and-ready justice which, it is hoped, will have convinced them of the error of their ways, as they fled in terror across the open country after being stripped and flogged by the angry troopers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who was the author of
that?


Michael Luchkovich: It appeared in the
News of the World, London, England, and was reprinted subsequently in many Canadian papers. One editor in Edmonton had the decency to make this comment upon it:

Police officials in Edmonton, both provincial police and Royal Canadian Mounted Police don't even consider these ridiculous misstatements worthy of answer.
Mayor Holden of Vegreville, over the long distance telephone Thursday morning, expressed a keen desire to get his hands on the fiction writer responsible for the article. "Every man in Alberta knows that the town of Vegreville is as quiet and law-abiding as there is anywhere in Canada," he declared heatedly. "Our district is largely settled by Galicians and Ukrainians, but if you know of any better citizens of Canada I'd like to meet 'em."
Commissioner Bryan of the Alberta provincial police is surprised to find how many "gin palaces and gambling hells" exist in a town so well policed as Vegreville, and in which there is so little crime. This kind of nonsense he described the British paper's articles as can't be printed in a polite newspaper like the Journal.
Superintendent James Ritchie of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police left the city to-day on an inspection trip to northern posts, but mounted police officials laughed merrily at the heart-breaking story of the old members of the "Alberta Dragoons" who have banded together, much to the relief of the police, to round up "Galician horse thieves."
The story to any person who knows Vegreville and other towns is altogether too ridiculous for anything but derisive laughter. It is quoted merely as tbe worst example yet of the length to which writers, ignorant of conditions, will go in making "copy" of the "penny-a-line" type, and of the manner in which certain newspapers will grasp at such articles without first assuring themselves of the veracity of the statements made.
I do not know who the irresponsible person was that put this article in the News of the World, but whoever did certainly did not do any good to the inhabitants of Canada; but I do know that when people occupying responsible positions in Canada make such statements as the one made before the immigration commissioner by Bishop Lloyd in Prince Albert recently, I think it is about time that such people should be taken to task.
I have proven by figures that the newcomer in Canada is not as criminal as some people would like us to believe. I had intended to deal with this matter at greater length, but I do not wish to delay the committee. There are several things that I had intended to say in connection with assimilation. It . is said that inter-marriage is possibly the greatest test of assimilation, and in support of this contention, having in view the proposition that we should start from the top down rather than the bottom up I think it would be a mighty fine thing at the present time, when we are on the eve of an election, if the Prime Minister chose from among the beautiful central European belles at Prince Albert a desirable helpmate to cheer him on in the forthcoming campaign.

Supply-Immigration


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why does my hon. friend' discriminate? What about his own leader andi the leader of the opposition?


Michael Luchkovich: I will apply it to
the leader of the opposition, and suggest that he stop opposing and start proposing, with a view to changing not only his own personal staitus but that of his party as well; and I would also suggest to the leader of the Progressive group to stop baking biscuits that taste like shrapnel and preserve the health and integrity of this group by eating food such as only a Czechoslovakian wife can cook. To -crown the whole thing I would suggest that Bishop Lloyd! of Saskatchewan marry all these people off, and that all the Ku Kluxers, Orangemen and Knights of Columbus be allowed to attend the ceremony, as well as the subsequent festivities.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems most
unfortunate that there has been practically no opportunity this entire session of discussing matters of this kind which are of the utmost importance to Canada. It is only upon the estimates that we have really an opportunity of reviewing the policies of the government. I had placed on the order paper a resolution upon the discussion of which I do not intend to enter, but which I should like to pass on as a suggestion to the government. This resolution was not reached. It read:
That in the opinion of this house the Department of Immigration and Colonization should be abolished, and that the administration of the Immigration Act should be placed under the Department of Labour and the work of colonization left to the provincial governments.
I suggest that the department should be abolished. Apparently the government has partly anticipated this resolution in that no successor to the former minister has been appointed, and we are told there is to be a less vigorous policy. However, I should think that now that the natural resources have passed into the hands of the three western provinces, where in the past, immigration has been considered most necessary, it would be a very good time for the transference of the whole of the colonization end of the department to those provinces, The provincial authorities there, working in cooperation with the municipalities, it would seem to me are the best agencies for carrying on work of this character. I do not believe that colonization work should be carried on from the city of Ottawa now that the natural resources are in the hands of those provinces. The Soldier 2419-185
Settlement Board, which has been doing good work along this line, will I fancy have to be completely reorganized. This then is the time for that whole section of the department to be transferred to the prairie provinces.
Further with regard to immigration, I believe it would be a very great advantage indeed if we could closely correlate the Department of Immigration and the Department of Labour. In the United States, as hon. members are aware, immigration comes under the department of labour. That seems to be the natural place for it, because in the settlement of a country the number of new people introduced ought to a very considerable extent to depend upon the state of the labour market-the demands for workers. If that principle were rigidly adhered to we would not have a recurrence of the troubles with which we have been afflicted in the past. An increasingly large number of citizens are beginning to question the theory that "the more people the more prosperity." Immigration may indeed mean prosperity for the railroads, because not only do they participate in the general welfare by increased traffic, but they are very large employers of labour, and there is no doubt that they have been the principal beneficiaries of vigorous immigration policies of the past. I am glad to know that the immigration agreement with the railway companies has been terminated, and I hope it will never again be renewed in any way, shape or form. The Dominion government ought to be the only authority to decide who shall come to this country. They ought to stand at the gate. I hope that no private organization of any kind will be permitted to decide who are to become the future citizens of this country.
I have a number of other matters that I should like to bring before the house, but as we are all anxious to get away I must deal with them on another occasion. I have scores and scores of letters before me which'I should like to have read showing the extreme difficulties under which a large number of our immigrants are labouring, and the equally grave difficulties that are being experienced by people who to-day are out of work in part at least, because of the introduction of so many immigrants. There is not the slightest doubt that a great deal of our unemployment is due to the fact that many of our own people have been supplanted in their jobs by newly-arrived immigrants. Only the other day the minister himself in dealing with unemployment in Winnipeg said that before long some of the new arrivals in Winnipeg would be despatched up the Hudson Bay line to Le Pas. Already at Le Pas, returned men and

Supply-Immigration

other Canadians were out of work. That is simply an illustration of what has been going on all along. I would not be doing my duty by the class of people who send me to this house if I did not protest against any more immigrants being induced to come here while any of our own people are unemployed.
Just one other aspect of the case. I read the other day the annual report issued by the public school board of my own city of Winnipeg. Of the 6,938 pupils between the ages of 14 and 18 who left school, 4,449 are employed. There are still, however, 760 boys and 1,587 girls over 14 years of age who have left school and have not found employment. Now, that is a serious state of affairs for any one city. And what is true of Winnipeg is equally true of a large number of towns and cities in the west. Our own girls and boys do not know which way to turn for work. Any of us who have children in our families know how difficult it is to find work for them. I have scores of my own constituents come to me imploring help in this direction. They say: "Tell us how we can place our girls and boys; what is there for them to do?" And yet these girls and boys walking the streets of Winnipeg and other cities not knowing what to do meet at the trains thousands of people who are brought in here, and who in too many cases are given the preference by employers of labour.
Had I time I should like to have presented to this house a series of statistics prepared for me by a professor of economics that go to show that after all we have needed immigrants only in the pioneer stage when there were not large numbers of young people growing up in our own homes, but that to-day we have reached the stage where young families are rapidly coming to the working age, and in the years to come we will have increasing numbers of these young people, especially in the west, thrown on the labour market. So we will not have the same need of immigrants, and cannot absorb them as we have been doing in the past.
I would impress upon the government the urgent necessity of refusing to permit more immigrants to come into this country until our unemployed people are reabsorbed into industry. I would also suggest that before very long this department be transferred in the way I have indicated.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What is the reason for
the big increase of 875,000 m the outside service ?


Charles A. Stewart: In this case it is not immigration work but preventive work. We have eleven new employees in the eastern district located at the entrances

from the United States. At the new bridge in Windsor, where there is very heavy traffic requiring a large staff, we have twenty-two people employed. As new ports are opened for entry to and exit from Canada they have to be manned by immigration officials whose duty it is to examine the people passing to and fro. I think that accounts very largely for the increased staff which is required.


William Thomas Lucas: Do I understand the government contemplates making a change in its immigration policy? Will the minister state briefly what the plan is, and also when the present agreement with the railways expires?


Mr. SI  EWART@Edmonton: Some years ago, acting in the capacity of minister, I thought we should have more care exercised to ascertain where we could place people. I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In the year 1923 I visited the various provinces of Canada to discuss with them the advisability of the provinces taking the responsibility for colonization. At that time we were administering the western resources, the Peace River block and the belt in British Columbia. I was told that the matter of immigration was a responsibility of the federal government and that therefore the provinces could not agree to assume any responsibility in that connection. Upon that occasion I was not successful in interesting the provinces, but we have now reached the stage in our history when the federal government will have no control of crown lands. The provinces are taking them over, and for that reason I have again entered into correspondence with the provincial legislatures with a view to having them take over the colonization of their own provinces. The provinces are almost unanimous that they should accept this responsibility. I have sent the deputy minister to visit all the provincial governments for the purpose of discussing this matter with them. We had decided to hold a conference when he returns in June, but with the election before us we find that such a course would be impossible. There is no doubt the election would interfere and it would foe utterly impossible to hold a conference during an election contest, particularly when two of the provinces are engaged in provincial contests. With those facts in mind we have decided to call a conference in the month of August to settle the details. Briefly, my hope is that the provinces themselves will stipulate what numbers of people they can absorb; I hope they will give us the details of the numbers they may require and from what countries they want them. We will endeavour to super-

Supply-Immigration
vise their selection, bring them to the provinces and deliver them or turn them over to the provinces upon arrival. One of the serious difficulties which exists in Canada is that the moment a person enters a province he is outside federal jurisdiction except when we act more or less in the capacity of a policeman and deport him. I have always thought the provinces should state what numbers of immigrants they require and the type of people they want in their midst. My hope is that the provinces will agree to that, and at such time we will begin a program of recruiting such people as the provinces desire. We will bring them here and deliver them to the appropriate provincial officers. If the necessity for deportation should arise we would have to shoulder that responsibility.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How will the immigration records of the provinces be kept?


Charles A. Stewart: A very careful record of the entries should be kept; each person's movements should be checked as he goes from one province to another. The provincial governments should have an understanding with the municipalities which would take care of the indigents, so that domicile could be declared and a particular locality made responsible. That action is taken at the present time between municipality and municipality, and between province and province. The work of the department would be largely that of recruiting such people as are required. More particularly however its work would be along the line of what we were discussing, namely, manning the ports of entry into Canada. At the present time I am not in a position to go into details as to how this would work out, because a great deal will depend upon the conference and the arrangements which are arrived at with the provinces. Broadly however the matter of whom they require will be left to the judgment of the provinces; they will be able to state the number and the nationalities they want within their control.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will central Europeans be admitted under permit?


Charles A. Stewart: The railway agreement as far as farm labour is concerned expires to-morrow, and it is not our intention to renew it. We are following the recommendation of the committee in allowing the agreement to expire. During the year the assisted passages will also expire; this was a term which applied to domestics. The only system of assisted immigration which we intend to continue is in connection with the
young boys and girls, and in that we are working in conjunction with the British government. The provinces will be in a position to decide how many they require. As far as I am concerned that is the only recommendation I will make to the conference. I wish my hon. friends to realize my desire is that the provinces will make their choice as to the immigrants they want.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the position in regard to the three thousand family scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: There are a few of them working as labourers, but there are no more coming into the country under that scheme.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Can the minister tell us whether Canadian boys will be given preference over the old country boys in the matter of finding work?


Charles A. Stewart: In answer to that I can only say that we will have to be guided by the desire of the provincial governments. I think that is where the responsibility should rest, and I would advocate that we should not bring in anybody except when requested to do so by a provincial government. However that is a matter which will have to be settled at a later time.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has anything further been heard about the $300,000,000 colonization plan of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae)?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration contingencies and general expenses including grants to immigration societies, women's hostels, provinces, and loans for stock, equipment, etc., for Canadian boys, as may be authorized by the governor general in council, $1,160,000.
Robert Gardiner: Before the vote is carried I would like to ask the minister if he can give the names of organizations to which grants have been given during the past year, and the amounts.


Charles A. Stewart: Salvation
Army, $5,000; British Settlement Society of Toronto, $1,000; United Church of England, $1,000; Council of Social Service of the Church of England, Toronto, $1,000; British Welcome and Welfare League, Toronto, $1,000.


Robert Gardiner: Could the minister give us some information as to whether Quebec received a grant last year for repatriation?
Supply-Immigration


Charles A. Stewart: That is not in the nature of a grant; it is an arrangement with the Quebec government whereby we spend dollar for dollar with them on repatriation.


Robert Gardiner: What was the amount spent last year?	,


Charles A. Stewart: We spent $50,000 last year and they spent $65,000 for the repatriation of people who had left Quebec and gone to the United States.


Robert Gardiner: Do you get any statement as to the expenditure of this money?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that the accounts are audited by both auditors general.


William Thomas Lucas: Is there any statement as to the number of people brought back under that vote?


Charles A. Stewart: They numbered 1,837.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understood the minister to say that this was in the nature of a grant to share the cost of repatriation; is that so?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The government has no control over the manner in which it is to be spent?


Charles A. Stewart: The vote is for repatriation work in the United States, for transportation and assistance to the repatriated persons returning to Canada to settle on the lands, and for directional work and after-care in connection with land settlement.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it correct to say that the government pays over to the Quebec government a sum of money for some purpose, over which it has no control and for which it has no further responsibility?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that all these accounts are checked by our auditor general and that while we have no officers of the federal department engaged in this work, all the men being employed by the Quebec government-


Edward Joseph Garland: In other words it would be fair to say this is a case in which one government collecting taxes from the whole people turns over a portion of those taxes to another government over which it has no control and in connection with which it has no responsibility. It looks to me as though
[Mr. Gardiner.'
it were the vicious principle which has been discussed so often, and if there is any consistency in this government the grant should be stopped.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Could the minister inform the committee where those who are brought back to Canada are eventually settled?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that they are all placed on farms in various portions of Quebec, wherever land is available.


Milton Neil Campbell: I may not be strictly in order on this particular item, but I should like to ask the minister just what is the policy of the department with respect to newly arrived immigrants who have to undergo hospital treatment. I have had many complaints in m3' constituency of cases where these sick and distressed people have had to undergo hospitalization and it is pretty hard for the hospitals to finance. The contention is that the Department of Immigration should accept some responsibility for immigrants of that kind. Perhaps the minister could tell us the policy of his department.


Charles A. Stewart: It is a very difficult problem and has always appealed to me as a reason why we should not bring in people who are not requested by the provinces. The difficulty of immigration as conducted at present is that there seems to be an idea that all we had to do was to pour people in, particularly in western Canada, and they would be absorbed. Long ago we realized that this was not possible, and as far as I am concerned I think this will be the remedy for a great deal of difficulty which has been experienced in the past with respect to people who through injury or illness become public charges. They are in the province and they are on the hands of the province. It may be and quite frequently is said with some truth that the Department of Immigration has nothing to do with bringing them into the countiy except to pass them for physical and mental fitness. In no way did the department bring them here, jret they become a public charge and frequently demands are made upon us. We are trying to meet that situation as far as we possibly can, but it is a difficulty which I think will be covered by this agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Relief of distressed Canadians outside of Canada-$4,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to revert for a few minutes to item 59, having to do with Chinese immigration, and to ask a question

Supply-Soldier Laud Settlement
arising out of the reply made recently by the minister with regard to Chinese employed on coastal boats in Canada. It seems to me it is very serious if the fact that a ship is under British registry entitles that ship, when chartered by a Canadian firm, to employ Chinese sailors or workers on it. I take it that we ought to have complete control-and I think we have- over the people in Canada or on boats in the coastal trade. To have Chinese brought in whether in bond or in any other way when that work can be done by our own white people does seem to be absurd. I should like some explanation from the minister as to his powers in this regard.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree that we have very little power outside of our own shores, and strictly speaking, when a ship ties up to one of our docks, if the crew does not leave the ship and does not commit any misdemeanour against the crown I understand that we have absolutely no control over them. If the ship is of Canadian registry it is a different situation, but foreign ships coming to Canada and plying in these waters have a right to bring their own crews.


James Shaver Woodsworth: These ships are
engaged in coastal trade.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will understand that there are very many American ships and Canadian ships engaged in coastal trade between Canada and the United States. My hon. friend would not argue that because an American ship was on the great lakes, plj'ing between Canadian and American ports-*


James Shaver Woodsworth: This case covers
Canadian ports.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think we should say to the Besco people that they cannot charter foreign ships for cargo carrying purposes. If they charter foreign ships, then the ship is under foreign registry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount required for soldier land settlement advances and cost of administration of soldier land settlement, $1,445,000; amount required for general land settlement advances and cost of administration of general land settlement, $870,000; total, $2,315,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Mr Chairman, I would like
to call the attention of the minister to a longstanding grievance in my constituency with reference to a returned soldier who has an account for a barn built upon one of the soldier settlement farms. In 1919 a soldier settler by the name of Ogilvy purchased a
farm from the board, and undertook to build a barn the material for which cost over $1,600. He then engaged a carpenter, also a returned soldier, to erect *the barn. This man undertook the work, built the barn and overhauled the house, at a total labour cost of $480. Shortly after this time Ogilvy found himself unable to carry on and he abandoned the farm, and because this was crown property the carpenter was unable to file a lien and thus protect his interests. I have brought this matter to the attention of the government practically every year since I have been in the house, and I trust that this year the minister will be able to find some method of settling this account.


Charles A. Stewart: The hon.
member has spoken to me already about this matter, and there is another case before the department based on practically the same fact. The one difficulty in a settlement of these matters is the fact that the board has no authority to pay an account of this kind. It does seem to be a hardship that because of lack of knowledge of the act a man should perform services and then be denied his wage, especially in view of the fact that the farm has been considerably improved by the construction of the barn. I will promise my hon. friend that this matter will be looked into very carefully to see if something cannot be done.


William Thomas Lucas: The government has received a certain value through the erection of the barn. Fifty-five hundred dollars was paid for the farm which Ogilvy abandoned and it was resold to a British settler for $5,200. I have been advised by the officials of the department that had this barn not been on the property the farm could not have been sold for within $1,000 of the price received. I have seen this barn myself; it is 60 feet by 28 feet, one of those fine hip-roof barns you see when driving through the country. This man is a returned soldier who has received no benefits or assistance from the government and who is attempting to carry on in the district. He is finding it hard to make ends meet and I think the government should attempt to meet this situation.


Alfred Speakman: Mr. Chairman, owing
to the fact that a bill has been brought in as a result of the labours of the pensions committee, which bill will ameliorate many of the conditions pertaining under the act, the necessity of my speaking at length is obviated. However, there are one or two matters I should like to discuss with the minister.
Under present conditions there is a possibility, and indeed the probability, that many



Supply-Soldier Land Settlement
settlers will be forced to evacuate in the near future owing to dispossession being made of their property. I have already suggested to the minister that no action should be taken in this regard until next spring. I notice an item in an Ottawa paper advising men not to go to Calgary as there are at present 2,000 unemployed in that city. Under such conditions as these, I would suggest that if possible no foreclosures should take place until next spring. If a family is forced off the land they will go into the bread line and some public body will have to support them, and I think the minister will agree with me that the outside cost to the government of carrying these people, even though they may be hopelessly behind in their payments, would not be a very large item. It would be the cheapest and best way of keeping them in decency and in some comfort for the balance of the year. I think the minister sympathizes with me in this regard. No matter how far behind they may be in their payments, I suggest that it would be good business to allow them to remain until next spring.
Owing to the present conditions which exist in connection with immigration and colonization, we may expect some reorganization in connection with this department as well as in connection with the land settlement board. I think the minister will agree and the house will appreciate that even with reorganization a certain number of men will be required to carry on the work. At the present time there are some hundreds of men working under the board. They are all returned men and have been in the service of the board for some ten or twelve years. Like all the rest of us they are not getting any younger, and possibly they have become unfitted for other forms of work and would find it extremely difficult to find employment. I would suggest that when the irreducible minimum has been reached the men who are left should be placed in a permanent position, and no matter under what department this matter may be placed, or what methods are adopted, as far as possible the men who are to do the work shall be those at present performing these duties. This would be only a measure of reestablishment for returned men, and would be only fair to those who have worked faithfully for ten or twelve years. I would ask the minister to give the assurance to those men and to the committee that as far as possible the personnel in the west that may be necessary to carry on this work and work of a similar character, under whatever department it may come, shall be the personnel at present engaged
LMr. Speakman.]
who have fitted themselves for the jobs. That would be an assurance which would be appreciated by the house and the country as a whole.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as my influence goes, as regards whatever readjustments may be necessary-because that is all that I can conceive will happen-we will seek to place the men, if they are not required in that service, in some other branch of the government. If that is not possible, of course some very reasonable consideration should be given them. I am speaking not only of the Soldier Settlement Board, but the Immigration department and the Department of the Interior, and I have notified the Civil Service Commission that positions should be filled by men and women who may find themselves out of employment in these various branches that are to be reduced. In that way we hope to absorb many of the employees who will suffer on account of reductions of staff. As regards the Soldier Settlement Board personnel, undoubtedly they are best fitted for carrying on and will carry on the work in the future as they have done in the past, except as they are surplus, and the latter we shall seek to absorb in the other branches.


Milton Neil Campbell: As regards the question raised by the hon. member for Camrose, that is a case in which the government can say it has no legal liability. Certainly that is so, but on the other hand, the government is under a distinct moral obligation. The minister pointed out that the board has no authority to pay out money for any such purpose, and he seemed to dismiss the matter with that statement. May I remind the minister that whenever the government want to grant gratuities to particular persons, especially pensions of some kind to deal with compassionate cases, provision for such cases is made every year in the estimates. There are in the estimates at the present time items that are not covered by any legislation; that are purely compassionate cases. We are granting pensions to widows on compassionate grounds. This is in the instance under consideration a distinct claim on compassionate grounds, and there is nothing in the world to prevent the government from bringing down a small sum in the estimates to cover the $480 which is morally due to this man.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Printing and Stationery
Public Printing and Stationery-printing, binding et cetera, the Annual Statutes, $12,000.
Murray MacLaren: Last year the Secretary of State, on request, said that he would have published the London resolutions along with the British North America Act. This promise he carried out, and in doing so he has rendered an important service. This has been the first time that the London resolutions have been printed under official circumstances. Having made that acknowledgment, I wish to point out to the minister that his department, in publishing this document, has not given evidence of the comprehension or care that it deserves. The minister will not overlook the fact that last year he promised that copies of the British North America Act and the London resolutions would be distributed to each member of the house. On several occasions I have asked at the parliamentary library for a copy of this document which I hold in my hand, that is to say, the one containing the British North America Act and the London resolutions, but I have not succeeded in obtaining it there. I have no doubt the minister will carry out his promise of distributing it to the members, and that the parliamentary library will have it. The publication itself is defective and has not been carefully prepared. If the minister will see that the present document is scrapped and a proper publication substituted, copies can then be distributed to the members and placed in the library. Even the title of this document is incorrect-The British North America Act. There is more than one act. It should, have read: "The British North America Acts", and so on.


Lucien Cannon: All the amendments are included in the one act.


Murray MacLaren: I have looked the matter up, and with much deference to the Solicitor General, I understand there is more than one act; there are both amendments and acts.


Lucien Cannon: There is only one act.


Murray MacLaren: I wish to draw attention to the date: "1S67 to 1927". Under those circustances it should not have gone beyond the year 1918. There are only one or two other little things I might,point out. There is put in smaller type in brackets "The text of Quebec resolutions, 1864, and London resolutions, 1866." Why that should be in brackets is difficult to understand, and, moreover, I do not understand why it should be "the text" any more than the text of the British North America Act. The London resolutions are put in as an appendix. Unless that is done 2419-1861
on the principle that the tail wags the dog,
I do not see the justification for it. The London resolution should receive a more prominent and definite position as being the basis of the British North America Act. Would the minister take this matter up carefully with his department? I am satisfied we could have a much more valuable addition to the library and the facilities for members by a better selection of the contents. I believe the minister is interested, and I am sure he would like to have the thing done properly.


Mr. RINFRET:: I want to thank the hon. member for his commendation. I have given some care to the preparation of the document he has in his hand. I shall certainly bear his remarks in mind and look into the matter very carefully, and if this improvement can be effected I shall see to it that that is done and that copies are then distributed as my hon. friend has suggested.


Murray MacLaren: If the minister would
let me have his draft before it is finally adopted, I should be very glad to have the opportunity of making a few comments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Grant to the Montreal Association for the Blind, $5,000.
Mr. BANCROFT:: Is there any possibility of a conference with the provinces or something of that nature with a view to considering the matter of providing for pensions for the blind? I think the government has received a memorial from the government of Manitoba in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that the matter to which he has just referred is one to which the government wishes to give careful consideration. I cannot say more at the present time, but certainly the object is of a character that appeals very strongly to the government and should equally appeal to the governments of the several provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and Bridges-Interprovincial bridge over Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Quebec government to contribute one-third of the cost of construction only, the Ontario government to contribute one-quarter of the cost of construction and pay annually one-quarter of all maintenance charges thereafter, $40,000.
George Halsey Perley: We all want to
congratulate ourselves that, our joint efforts have resulted in getting this arrangement to
Supply-M isce Uaneous

build this very necessary bridge between Hawkesbury and Grenville. Is it the intention to call for tenders during the coming summer?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Yes. The matter seemed
of such urgency that in spite of the fact that one province did seem to be a bit backward about doing what my hon. friend from Ar-genteuil and I thought was their fair share, we have felt that the work should go on, and go on this summer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments to the railways in connection with the movements of coal-revote. $182,721.55-$551,985.41.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an item that I
assume should be available to assist in the movement of coal from Fernie to Winnipeg. I have pressed upon the house from time to time the desirability of some action being taken because of the large number, amounting now to several hundreds, of idle miners in Fernie. They have represented that a portion of the moneys provided for the purpose of compensating the railways for a reduction of freight rates should be made available to move coal to Winnipeg. It would improve conditions in Fernie very greatly, and I should like to have some assurance that the money will be available not only for the purpose for which it was voted last year, but also to take care of the very unfortunate and difficult situation in that section.


Charles A. Stewart: I want to make a statement to the house on that. First let me say that we intend to continue to assist the movement of coal from the east and from the west for one year more. In addition it is our intention to apply the subvention of $1 a ton to bituminous coal only from the mountain region-that would take in Fernie -as well as the Alberta region. In addition there will be a subvention of 50 cents a ton on briquettes from the Bienfait district of Saskatchewan, which now find a market in the city of Winnipeg. Without going into details I may say that this is being done for the purpose of relieving the very serious situation that exists in the coal mining regions in the mountains. The lignite fields have a subvention still in effect to bring their coal eastward and they do send into the city of Winnipeg about 400,000 tons. We feel that the extension of this subvention to bituminous and semi-bituminous coal will be a very considerable help, as will also the subvention extended to briquettes made in the Bienfait area.


Mr. McRAE:: Will the minister give an assurance that some of this money will be available at an early date for relief of the situation at Fernie?


Charles A. Stewart: The Fernie field can get into Winnipeg. At present there is going into that city and the eastern portions of Manitoba about 235,000 tons of American coal of this character.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-to provide for participation in the celebration of the 900th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity into Norway, $2,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: WThat is this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the celebration of the 900th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity into Norway is to be made a great international event. Certain European governments are I understand sending representatives. The government of the United States is sending two or three representatives. Our government felt it would be much appreciated by many of those who have come to this country from Norway if Canada were also officially represented.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for participation in the celebration of the 1.000th anniversary of the founding of the parliament of Iceland, $6,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Why the difference, $6,000 in this case as against $2,000 in the other?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to the celebration of the one-thousandth anniversary of the founding of the parliament of Iceland, it has been thought desirable to have three delegates attend from Canada. The event is a very important one in the history of parliamentary institutions, and it will be an international event. The government had in mind the presentation to Iceland of something of a permanent nature which would be a worthy memorial of the occasion, and I should like the house to know that next year, if the present administration is in office, some proposal along that line will be made. I hope and feel quite sure that if some other administration should be in office, it will be prepared to make a similar appropriation.


George Halsey Perley: When is the celebration to take place?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In a month or two; in June, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year I made some observations in another place on this historic event, and I think it highly desirable that

Ways and Means-Supply Bill
Canada should be represented. Whether three delegates should be sent in view of the present unemployment condition I am not prepared to say; but as to manifesting our interest in an event of such historic concern to all the world as the establishment of parliamentary institution a thousand years ago, I certainly think that perhaps my hon. friend to my right, if he were in the place the Prime Minister suggests, would undoubtedly take care of the matter in the way of giving some permanent -memorial to Iceland, and I should regard it as a privilege and an honour to make a similar proposal.
Last year I acquired an address presented by settlers from Iceland to Sir John A. Macdonald on the occasion of his first visit to Winnipeg. It is written on parchment and is an impressive story of their own struggles against the condition they found in this country and their hopes and aspirations for their future development; and the results attained have been in keeping very largely with the expectations they then expressed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for extension of the inquiry concerning technical and professional classes to all classes in the public service, $25,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I say with respect to the part of the inquiry which has already been made namely that into the classification and salaries of technical and professional classes, that the government's first thought was to include a sum in these supplementary estimates to enable payments to be made immediately upon approval of the commission's recommendations, or such of them as it was deemed advisable to approve. However, on consideration it was thought preferable not to provide a lump sum at the moment but to have it understood that the government should be free, if it was thought advisable so to do, to make any increases retroactive so as to begin from about the time at which the commission had made its report, that is to say from the beginning of the present fiscal year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has any
provision been made to remove the discrimination which was shown the other day to exist as between the Senate staff and the House of Commons staff?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, we dealt with that this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should not the provision with respect to Governor General's warrants, which comprise items 431 to 444, have been made in the main estimates in view of the expressed policy of the administration in this connection?


Charles Avery Dunning: I find it rather difficult to answer my hon. friend's question, except to say it is the practice. I think my hon. friend's point is well taken and I shall look into the matter.



SUPPLY-CONCURRENCE

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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 193], the sum of $234,229,125.26 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Shall I report the resolution?
Mr.' BENNETT:	This probably concludes
supply so far as the committee is concerned, and there are two or three questions upon which I would like to receive information. In common with other members of this house I have received many telegrams asking for information from the government as to the change in customs duties on automobiles from wholesale to retail prices by order in council after the house closes. This is a matter of vital importance on the question of ways and means of making good the supply to His Majesty. I would like a statement from the Minister of National Revenue in that regard. In my judgment the statute does not contemplate a change of tariff by that method, but I would like some assurance in the matter.
293S

Ways and Means-Supply Bill


Mr. EULER:: I have had a great many
communications similar to the one read^ by the leader of the opposition. Representations have been made that in view of the fact that there are varying discounts in connection with the importation of different makes of automobiles, and that as difficulties in that regard are experienced in the department, it might be well to have a uniform rate of discount. That is as far as it has gone; nothing whatever has been done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is such action contemplated?-because we know a good deal in connection with what the hon. gentleman is talking about. There is an election pending, and we know what happened on a former occasion. We have the right to ask for a definite assurance, and we will have it if this house has to sit until to-morrow morning.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is even
pointing his finger at me, and I may tell him that that is entirely unnecessary. I have given him the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are not the facts.


William Daum Euler: No action has been taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have asked if action
is contemplated. That is the question I asked, and I have a right to ask it.


William Daum Euler: The representations have
not been considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not answer my question. Does my hon. friend propose to give effect to those representations?


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that that would be a matter of policy, and that no one minister could make a definite statement in regard to it. Representations have been made and received, and have not been considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now, does the minister
think that we have no idea of what is involved in that?


William Daum Euler: I cannot read my hon.
friend's mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. but my hon. friend
will understand his language. We can have no difficulty in understanding what is behind this; none whatever. Surely the hon. members who come from Saskatchewan and members to my left will have some interest in this matter, if they believe in what they have been talking about so far as protection is

concerned. The hon. gentleman says representations have been made to him. Were they made to him through the chairman of the tariff board?


William Daum Euler: They were not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the representations
which were made to the tariff board in connection with it have nothing to do with the representations made to him. Is that clear?


William Daum Euler: What were the representations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman asks what the representations were. They were representations in connection with varying rates of discount that were made by importers of goods into this country, and it was suggested that a uniform rate might be established on such importations for tariff purposes. The hon. gentleman at once sees what the effect of that would be; it would change the whole incidence of taxation with respect to given matters. Is the incidence of taxation to be changed by order in council with respect to automobiles? That is the question I asked.


William Daum Euler: The question is really one
of administration. My hon. friend knows very well that as a matter of administration, when difficulty might be experienced in establishing what the discounts are to be, the government would have power to establish certain rates of discount. Certain difficulties do exist. I am not prepared to say that they exist to such a degree that we would be justified by order in council in establishing a certain uniform rate of discount. It does not follow either that if a certain fixed rate of discount were adopted it would increase the protection.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say anything
about increasing protection.


William Daum Euler: It might reduce it, as a
matter of fact. The matter would have to be considered from the point of view of the administration of the department itself. No action has been taken at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will ask this:	Have
these varying rates of discount existed now for the first time or have they existed for the last three years?


William Daum Euler: For a long time; and I can
tell my hon. friend that it has been constantly necessary, in order that we might ascertain the actual prices in the country of origin, to make investigations in the United States to see whether those rates actually correspond with the rates made to apply when the goods are ex-

Ways and Means-Supply Bill
ported to Canada. That constitutes a fairly serious consideration. Because I have come to no decision at all in regard to the matter,
I am not saying that these difficulties are so great as to render it impossible for the department to administer the law. I have no intention of taking or recommending action until I am quite convinced I am within the law and that it will be what seems to me in the best interests of all concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What right has the minister to raise the price? If it had not been for what happened in this country by regulation I would not be presenting this matter to the house and country for consideration. Let us look at the matter fairly. The other day a regulation was read over the signature of Mx. Breadner, the Commissioner of Customs, increasing by 40 per cent the price at which furniture was to be valued for duty purposes- forty per cent, mind you. I ask the minister where he finds authority to do that, when the dumping clause places a limit of 15 per cent.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows very
well that when the department of customs has reason to believe or perhaps even to know that goods are being imported into this country at a value less than they hold in the country of origin we have the absolute right to make an appraisal, pending the establishment of the facts which we believe to exist. If after the establishing of the fact we find that we are wrong, the valuation is placed upon its proper basis and a refund is made. That is what was done in the case of furniture. We had reason to think that furniture was imported from the southern United States or from the central southern United States at less than cost. I think my hon. friend knows that to be the fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know it; I only know what has been said.


William Daum Euler: I am saying that absolutely in good faith. Instructions were given by the commissioner-and by the way, I will say that I had nothing to do with the rate at which the increase was made, 40 per cent. That is not too high if goods are being sold we will say at 50 per cent of their cost, as sometimes is the case when people in the United States have stocks on hand which they cannot sell in that country and which they attempt to dump into this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: Yes, I mean exactly what I say. My hon. friends are just as much opposed to that as I am. If goods, for example came
into this country at 50 per cent of their cost in the United States, an increase of 40 per cent on that 50 per cent would only amount to 20 per cent, which would make a valuation of 70 per cent, still 30 per cent lower than their actual cost, so that the amount of 40 per cent sounds a great deal higher than it may be in actual fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It exactly means forty cents on the dollar.


William Daum Euler: It depends on what you have as your basis. If goods come in at 70 per cent of their cost, 40 per cent of that is only 28 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; but these two things stand together, and let there be no misunderstanding. What happened was this: furniture came into this country under a 30 per cent duty. The commissioner of customs and the minister says he does not know anything about this 40 per cent-


William Daum Euler: I do not want to be misunderstood; I knew that a higher valuation was being asked for but I did not know it would be 40 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The law says he is the man who should know.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows very well that the minister is empowered to do a great many things which are done by his deputy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister must take the responsibility for that action. If he does not know about its being taken he does not know his business.


William Daum Euler: I will do that; I will take the responsibility.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he does not know what is done he does not know his business. Knowing it means that he approves of it. Who is Mr. Breadner, the Commissioner of Customs? He has no place in our institutions; he is not responsible to parliament. The minister is responsible; the minister is the man who under the statute is responsible, and he increased the duty by 40 per cent. Therefore the duty becomes 42 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Pending adjustment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pending adjustment, as the minister says, but you delay the adjustment and maintain a duty of 42 per cent.


William Daum Euler: Forty per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No forty-two per cent; forty per cent of 30 per cent is 12 per cent,

Ways and Means-Supply Bill
and 12 per cent added to the present 30 per cent makes a duty of 42 per cent which is now imposed. There should be no misunderstanding about that. Now we come to the other item about which he says he has had applications. If the application is acceded to, the proposal will be to change the rate of discount. Why could not the same power be exercised in the one instance as in the other?- because in the one instance they ship over goods at wholesale prices and then put in a traders' or dealers' discount, the discount they allow to large dealers in their own country, or large wholesale buyers. This discount varies with various factories. The suggestion has been made that this should not be allowed. The effect, of course, would be the same as the effect which has been attained by the use of the regulation referred to.
My submission is this, thait if anything of this sort was contemplated, instead of doing it by an indirect method by which the public would not be advised that tariffs were being increased, the government should have faced it like men and increased the tariffs and put them on the statute books of the country rather than do it by that indirect method. I am making that point in all sincerity, because the people of this country have the right to know about these things. Now, in the closing hours of this parliament they see in newspapers coming from the border cities and scattered all over Canada that this method is to be taken to effectuate the same purpose as was attained with respect to furniture. Why was not the tariff on furniture dealt with boldly and bravely and squarely and fairly and honestly in this house, instead of utilizing the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of increasing by 40 per cent the value for duty on that commodity? That is the question I am putting to the hon. gentleman.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid my hon. friend
is waxing indignant about something that does not exist. As far as furniture is concerned, that happened to be a matter of emergency because there were great stocks of furniture which the manufacturers in the United States were attempting to dump into this country. The very same action would follow, so far as the customs department is concerned, if the the same conditions obtained in any other line of manufacture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Daum Euler: I am sure my hon. friend
does not question the propriety of the department doing that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the way in which
it was done.


William Daum Euler: It is the legal way. My hon. friend knows this, that if goods are coming into this country at a less value than they legally ought to for the purposes of duty, it immediately becomes the duty of the minister, if you like-and I will take responsibility for that-to give instructions that new appraisals be made. That is exactly what was done. My hon. friend may think that on a new appraisal an added appraisal of 40 per cent is too high. That is a matter of opinion. If it is shown to be too high, those who have had to pay those duties will get their refunds, and that is all there is to it.
I should like to add just one further word in regard to the responsibility of the minister. My hon. friend says the minister does not know his business. Perhaps he does not know it quite so well as the hon. leader of the opposition, but he is doing his best. I may say this to him, and he knows it is true because he has had a little experience himself as a minister: no minister in this or any other government could function if he tried to attend to all the little details in his department. I will give him an example. The hon. gentleman was a member of the committee which investigated the customs department four years ago. He was one of those who said-I think I am doing him no injustice when I say this, and he will correct me if I am wrong- that whereas the minister is supposed to pass on all seizures, some five hundred or six hundred of which occur every month, the minister should not do that but should leave it to his deputy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that was not the way it was put. However, go on and I will deal with it later.


William Daum Euler: Yet under the law the minister, as my hon. friend from Lincoln knows, is supposed to sign every decision on the seizures.


James Dew Chaplin: It was impossible.


William Daum Euler: Of course it was impossible, and this particular minister in charge of the customs department divested himself of that authority and gave it to the Commissioner of Customs, which is exactly what the committee desired.


James Dew Chaplin: I did that myself.


William Daum Euler: And yet it is well known that the minister has to take responsibility under the law.

Ways and Means-Supply Bill


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has not quite understood. Questions of taxation must be approved by the minister. Questions involving taxation must be considered by the minister, because it is the executive action of the government; it is something for which the government must assume responsibility. Surely the minister will admit that. Questions of routine we did report should not be dealt with in that day; we recommended that the minister should not be concerned with questions of routine and seizures and so on. That we put as strongly and fairly as we could, and it is because I believe that the whole theory of responsible government is concerned that I put it to the minister myself. That is, the executive substitute, its functions for those of parliament, but when it does so the minister must assume the responsibility.
So much for that. I should have liked to get some assurance from the minister as to what his contemplated action may be, but he has told us that he has not given the matter any consideration and therefore has no contemplated action in mind.
There is one further matter with which I should like to deal, although the Minister of Labour is not in his place. I asked him what steps were being taken in connection with the introduction into this country of a monopoly in films, and he said the matter was under consideration and that we would get some further information on that point. It is possible that some other member of the administration may be able to answer the question and I should like to know whether that investigation is being proceeded with. I hold in my hand a few of the telegrams which I have received from various organizations, women's organizations being particularly concerned about the films and asking whether we are to be at the mercy of an alleged monopoly. If so, then of course we should know it, and I have asked the question for the purpose of eliciting information with which the people of Canada are vitally concerned.


William Daum Euler: In order that the house may be informed of the scope of this furniture regulation, I may say that the order applied only to furniture coming from quite a restricted area in the United States. I am not sure that I mentioned that before, but I think it applies to North Carolina and possibly one or two other states; with regard to importations from Michigan or any other of the United States, or any other country, the regulation does not apply at all. If we find that we were wrong in adding the 40 per cent as I said before, refunds will be made upon application.


James Dew Chaplin: I think the whole question rests upon the point whether the goods were sold in the territory named by the minister below the regular market price. That is the whole point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as the films are concerned I may say to my hon. friend that I understand the Minister of Labour is now exercising such authority as he has under the combines act to investigate the position of matters to see if a combine exists. If it is found that there is reason to believe that a combine exists in contravention of the provisions of the act, then proceedings will be taken under the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the right hon. gentleman for the information he has given. I was pressed to ask before this parliament prorogued whether or not the minister had directed proceedings to be taken. If an investigation is held and it is found that the conditions are not as alleged, that would be the end of it. The right hon. gentleman has said that action will be taken and that is all that can fairly be said.


James Dew Chaplin: I was not present in the
committee when the question of furniture was first brought up. Do the investigations carried on by the minister show that the articles in question were being slaughtered across the line, or that the price at which they were brought into Canada was less than the fair market value?


William Daum Euler: The report has not been
received; if it has come in during the last day or so, I have not seen it.


James Dew Chaplin: How did the minister come to take the initial step?


William Daum Euler: Complaints were received
from Canadian manufacturers of furniture that goods were being slaughtered in Canada. I do not think there is any doubt that in some southern factories great stocks of furniture have accumulated and under the stress of circumstances they attempted to dispose of the goods, and did dispose of them in Canada. That is how the whole matter came about.


Mr. STIRLING:: Were they being sold
in Canada at a price lower than that charged in the country of origin?


William Daum Euler: That is the complaint which
is being investigated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were being sold at
the same price in some cities.
Privilege-Mr. Bennett


Milton Neil Campbell: Is it not a fact that the officers of the department reported that the American Furniture Company were selling furniture in Canada at the same prices charged in the United States? The minister refused to permit an order of the house to pass stating that the information asked for was confidential. I contend that it is a matter of urgent public importance that those papers should be brought before this house. If my information is correct, those papers in connection with the investigations into the prices of furniture sold by the American furniture companies were in the hands of the department at that time.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend will
admit that when that question was asked I stated that the report had not been received, but I said if it had been received that it would not be given to the house because it was the practice of the department not to disclose the 'business of any private individual. If that practice is to be reversed by the will of this house, I have nothing more to say. That is the practice which has always been followed, and I think it is a good one.
Resolution reported, read the second time, and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 347, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1931.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 59, respecting the maple sugar industry.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. It will be observed that one of the evening papers has displayed in large letters a declaration that a member of the house alleges that his frank has been forged. I thought the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was in his place, but I see I am mistaken. That hon. member made a charge of the most serious character involving his opening a letter which had been placed in his post office box. At

my request the envelope in which the letter was enclosed was handed to the clerk. After seeing this letter, the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) was certain that the initials were those of Mr. Finlay MacDonald, the hon. member for South Cape Breton. A few minutes later the hon. member for South Cape Breton entered the house and at once recognized his initials. He then communicated with Your Honour, as it was necessary that he leave immediately in order to catch a train, and stated that his initials "F. MacD" were those appearing on the envelope in question. I had not the slightest difficulty in recognizing the initials.
I desire, speaking only as one member of this house-this is not a question of privilege which attaches to me alone, but one which concerns every hon. member of this house- to place this matter before the house in order that the charge made against one of our members, namely that of forgery, should be met immediately before it can be sent out through the country. It was suggested that the initials of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough had been forged, but there was no difficulty in recognizing them as being the initials of the hon. member for South Cape Breton. This is a question of privilege which does not belong to any individual member of the house; it is a question of privilege which concerns the whole house, and I raise it because it touches the honour of every hon. member. An hon. member asserts on the closing day of the session that he opened the letter undeT the circumstances. The envelope is placed on the table of the house before the clerk and remains there in order that an opportunity may be afforded for a statement to be made by Your Honour in consequence of the hon. member for South Cape Breton being called away to catch his train.


Rodolphe Lemieux: After the incident this
afternoon the olerk of the house sent the envelope to me, and I had the pleasure of a visit from Mr. MacDonald. He said in my presence that the initials were his; that it was his own frank, and I have no doubt, after what I have seen and knowing his handwriting, that they were his initials.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 138, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Congratulations to Mr. Speaker


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, May 30, 1930.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber at 10.15 p.m. for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, Sir Your obedient servant,
E. C. Mieville,
Secretary to the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have concluded the business of the evening, and this brings to a conclusion, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament of Canada. I would move Mr. Speaker, that the sitting be now suspended until 10.15 o'clock this day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is entirely out of order to make any observations at the moment, but as the Prime Minister has indicated, we are now in the dying hours of the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament. It might not be thought out of place, therefore, if one who sits to your left, sir, should convey to you our thanks, our regards and good wishes for your future. While I believe it is not usual to do so, because in England I understand the office of Speaker continues from parliament to parliament, in view of our constitutional position there is not much likelihood of that happening in this country for a long time, and as representing the opposition or at least one portion of the opposition in parliament it affords me great pleasure to congratulate Mr. Speaker upon the eminent fairness he has shown in the discharge of the difficult duties of his position; his urbanity; his courtesy, characteristic as it is of his race; his willingness and desire at all times to represent faithfully, as the spokesman of the House of Commons, the great traditions embodied in the wealth of lore that has accumulated during the centuries in connection with the high office that he holds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed that the last word it should be my privilege to utter in this parliament this session should be one of entire accord with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He has expressed so eloquently what I believe to be the feeling of all here assembled, that it is unnecessary for me to say more that that we to your right, and indeed, I may speak for all, are in most cordial accord with what has been said about yourself in the discharge of the duties of your high and honourable position. May I add that as we bring to a Close the proceedings of another parliament and take our leave, whatever the future may hold in store for him or for us, our best wishes go with the present Speaker of the House of Commons.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, I wish to thank you from the bottom of my heart for your kind words. I have been in the house for thirty-four years. My heart is in this house. From the day I came here I have met friends only. On returning home this evening I can truly say that as Speaker of the Commons I have been actuated by good faith and fairness to all. When I took the Chair in 1922, I resolved that from the moment I stepped into it I should cease to be a partisan. I had been, God knows, a good partisan. I have striven to live up to my promise and I can declare honestly and conscientiously, that in every ruling, in every decision I gave as Speaker of the House of Commons, I have ignored parties and have followed the standing orders, the usages, the customs and traditions of parliament.
In 1926, when for the third time you unanimously reelected me Speaker of the house, I said that every morning as I passed in front of the monument of Alexander Mackenzie, that great Scoteh-Canadian and revered Prime Minister of the Dominion from 1874 to 1878,-I would read the beautiful inscription which characterized his life and crystallized his sense of responsibility:
Duty -was his law, conscience his ruler.
I have tried to live up to the great teaching that I find in that sentence.
Once more, I thank all parties in the House of Commons for the support they have given me. I have tried to maintain here British parliamentary traditions, and if I have a word of advice to offer to you, my friends, it is that in future, whether you sit on the left or on the right of the Speaker, or there, yonder, you will live up to those traditions. What is taking place in the world to-day shows conclusively that after all those traditions. when deeply rooted in the soil, constitute the best safeguard for justice and Liberty.
Motion agreed to and at 9.30 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 10.15 this day.
Prorogation

The house resumed at 10.15 o'clock.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
In the Senate chamber, His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

[Stage Direction]
An Act to incorporate The Saint Nicholas Mutual Benefit Association.
An Act to incorporate Estates Trust Company.
An Act for the relief of Nora Kathleen Eayrs. An Act for the relief of Percy Victor Hobbes. An Act for the relief of Constance Bertrand Murray.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Vincent Crisp.
An Act for the relief of Elsie May Scott-Peer.
An Act for the relief of Archibald Charles Henry Morris.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Caroline Maud Wood.
An Act for the relief of George Henry Symons.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Margarette Hilton.
An Act for the relief of Mary Helen Burgess.
An Act for the relief of Cyril Douglas Gordon Stuart Ackerman.
An Act for the relief of Wilfred Gordon Ure.
An Act for the relief of Herman Michael Coleman.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Ann Elizabeth Griffiths.
An Act for the relief of William Francis Addison.
An Act for the relief of Ella Daisy Griffith. An Act for the relief of Thomas Edmund Appleyard.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Robb Kennedy.
An Act for the relief of Constance Mary Wright.
An Act for the relief of Charlotte Gertrude Brown.
An Act for the relief of .Albert Davis Bla-grave.
An Act for the relief of Maud Alice Whipps. An Act for the relief of May McFarlane.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Brown.
An Act for the relief of Irene Adele Maria Gregory.
An Act for the relief of George Collier Draper.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Keen Rupert. An Act for the relief of Carrie Jane Vardon Coffin.
An Act for the relief of Effie Laberta Corrigan.
An Act for the relief of John Tremblay.
An Act for the relief of Cornelius Taylor
Spencer.
An Act for the relief of Ada Emily Harris. An Act for the relief of Charles Gordon Stanley.
An Act for the relief of Otto Vernon Riepert. An Act for the relief of Mary Ritchie.
An Act for the relief of Amy Lucinda Jenkins.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Robb Blaik-lock.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Nelson Vaughan.
An Act for the relief of Walter Joseph David Penly.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Piton.
An Act for the relief of Harry Jackson Carr. An Act for the relief of Margaret Malvina Cole.
An Act for the relief of Quartus Bliss Henderson.
An Act for the relief of Mildred Alma Mc-Callum.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Monk.
An Act for the relief of Harry Edrvard Elvidge.
An Act for the relief of Emily Anderson.
An Act for the relief of Helen Marie Ferguson.
An Act respecting the Capital Stock of The Ottawa Electric Railway Company.
An Act to provide for the regulation of Vehicular Traffic on Dominion property.
An Act respecting the transfer of the Natural Resources of Alberta.
An Act respecting the transfer of the Natural Resources of Manitoba.
An Act to amend the Insurance Act.
An Act respecting the transfer of the Natural Resources of Saskatchewan.
An Act respecting the transfer of the Railway Belt and Peace River Block.
An Act to amend the Excise Act.
An Act respecting Criminal Procedure in Alberta.
An Act respecting the Department of Marine. An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.
An Act respecting the Department of Fisheries.
An Act to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and the annulment of Marriage.
An Act to amend the Winding-up Act.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.
An Act to amend the Railway Act.
An Act to amend the Salaries Act.
An Act respecting jurisdiction in Proceedings for Divorce.
An Act respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Highwood Western Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Cornwall Bridge Company.
An Act respecting the St. Clair Transit Company.
An Act respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Confederation Life Association.
An Act to incorporate Consolidated Life Insurance Company of Canada.

Prorogation
An Act to incorporate Consolidated Fire and Casualty Insurance Company.
An Act to amend the Act to incorporate the Inperial Trusts Company of Canada.
An Act to amend the Militia Pension Act.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to amend the Biological Board Act.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Chick.
An Act for the relief of Albert Edward Saunders.
An Act for the relief of Marjorie Gladys Picken.
An Act for the relief of Raymond Garbutt Little.
An Act for the relief of Florence Isabell Naughton.
An Act for the relief of Lucy Beryl Marshall.
An Act for the relief of Kathleen Mary Davies.	.	.
An Act for the relief of Louis Battamo.
An Act for the relief of Edith May Smith.
An Act for the relief of Eva Verona McColeman.
[Stage Direction]
An
[Stage Direction]
Act
[Stage Direction]
for
[Stage Direction]
the
[Stage Direction]
relief
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Henry
[Stage Direction]
Cutler
[Stage Direction]
An
[Stage Direction]
Act
[Stage Direction]
for
[Stage Direction]
the
[Stage Direction]
relief
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Verna
[Stage Direction]
Gladys Stan-
[Stage Direction]
°aAn Act for the relief of Christina McVicars.
An Act for the relief of Vivian Francis Young.
An Act for the relief of Erie Godwin Havens. An Act for the relief of Ruth Elizabeth Greene.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Palmer.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Anderson. An Act for the relief of Edith Elizabeth Gibson.
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Margaret Wallace. An
[Stage Direction]
Act
[Stage Direction]
for
[Stage Direction]
the
[Stage Direction]
relief
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Mary Ellen Peever.
[Stage Direction]
An
[Stage Direction]
Act
[Stage Direction]
for
[Stage Direction]
the
[Stage Direction]
relief
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
Annie
[Stage Direction]
Emily Simp-
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Abraham Gleadall.
An Act for the relief of Ann Pisano.
An Act for the relief of Florence Louise Pretoria Pollock.
An Act for the relief of Alma Vera Cochrane.
An Act for the relief of Edith Jane Cartwright.
An Act for the relief of Annie Hewitson Taunton.
An Act for the relief of James Henry Loree.
An Act for the relief of Cecelia Leta Rice.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Audrey	Lillian
Connelly.
An Act for the relief of Robert Webb.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Lillian	Martha
Ceeile Martin.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Antoine	Joseph
Bourdon.
An Act for the relief of Irene Clarice Bunting.
An Act for the relief of Lawrence Wellington Robertson.
An	Act	for	the	relief	of	Gordon	Robert
Foster.
An Act for the relief of Andrew Chauneey Sanders.
An Act for the relief of Tsadore Simpson.
An Act for the relief of Royal May Frances Hider.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Caroline Watson.
An Act for the relief of Myrtle Alice Niece.
An Act for the relief of Broadus Baxter Farmer.
An Act for the relief of Meryl Grigg Fizzell.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Anne Dixon.
An Act for the relief of Annie Pettit Nicholls.
An Act for the relief of Thomas William Treadway.
An Act for the relief of Pearl Robena Close.
An Act for the relief of Ivy Lillian Echlin.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Clifton Dawes.
An Act for the relief of Herbert Dean Philip.
An Act for the relief of William Pearson.
An Act for the relief of William Woods.
An Act for the relief of Mary Cameron McMillan.
An Act for the relief of Bridget Gladys Vivian Tegart.
An Act for the relief of Charles Coblens.
An Act for the relief of Esther Gertrude Wooder.
An Act for the relief of Eleanor Jane Moorhead.
An Act for the relief of Aubrey Robert Alee.
An Act for the relief of Edith Lerene Collins.
An Act for the relief of Florence Ada Bark Simpson.
An Act for the relief of Helen Theresa Baker.
An Act for the relief of Harry Everett Markell.
An Act for the relief of George Wellington Garfield Neal.
An Act for the relief of Sarah Delia Baker Tribe.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Emily Disney.
An Act for the relief of Harry Douglas Towers.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Warga.
An Act for the relief of William Thomas Raines.
An Act for the relief of Enos Nuttall Davis.
An Act for the relief of Violet May Mac-Fadden.
An Act respecting a certain patent of The R. M. Hollingshead Company.
An Act respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
An Act to incorporate Pine Hill Divinity Hall.
An Act to amend an Act to incorporate the Canadian Bible Society auxiliary to the British and Foreign Bible Society.
An Act respecting a certain patent of Edgar D. Crump.
An Act respecting a certain patent of George Yates.
An Act to amend The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
An Act to incorporate Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation.
An Act respecting a certain patent application of Thomas Bernard Bourke and George Percival Setter.
An Act respecting a certain patent application of Harry Barrington Bonney.
An Act to amend the Export Act.
An Act respecting National Parks.
An Act to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
An Act respecting War Areterans' Allowances.
An Act respecting Fair Wages and an Eight Hour Day for Labour employed on Public Works of the Dominion of Canada.
An Act for the relief of Mary Ada St. George.
An Act for the relief of Sam Finkelstein.
An Act for the relief of Martha Barker.
An Act for the relief of Janet Ella Pettigrew Thomson.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Jean McClelland Dewar.
An Act for the relief of Ada Margaret Rud-dick.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act for the relief of Wilhelmina Emily Rudolph.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Orion Baldwin.
An Act for the relief of Antoine George Massabky.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Dowling.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Leslie Catton.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Lyford Smith.
An Act for the relief of Rhona Elizabeth Shaw Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Richard l'rawny Parsons.
An Act for the relief of Armand Dufour.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Lillian Gwen Riehmond-Parry.
An Act for the relief of Christina Dale Kingsbury.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Hollings.
An Act for the relief of Nellie Louise Hughes.
An Act for the relief of Minnie Roberts.
An Act for the relief of Isabella Glennie Lefever.
An Act for the relief of Aileen Somerville Thomas.
An Act for the relief of Harris Charlton Eckmiere.
An Act for the relief of Rhea Blanche Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Edna Wall.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Edwin War-burton.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Garfield McCormick.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Richardson.
An Act for the relief of Leslie Gregory.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Laburnum Christie.
An Act for the relief of Edith Matilda Epp-lett.
An Act for the relief of Ruth Victoria Spooner.
An Act for the relief of John Henry Coulter.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Anne Williams.
An Act for the relief of Leonard George Edward Bond.
An Act for the relief of Grant Johnston.
An Act for the relief of Burton Orland Boom-hower.
An Act for the relief of Augusto Tranzzi.
An Act for the relief of Claire Yale Laeourse.
An Act for the relief of Marion Frances Blewett.
An Act for the relief of Florence Edna Cur-liss.
An Act for the relief of Hilda Walker Baker.
An Act for the relief of Mary Violet Baxter.
An Act for the relief of Harry Hutcherson Davis.
An Act for the relief of James Lewis Watter-worth.
An Act for the relief of Harvey Mennie Cross.
An Act for the relief of Muriel Parke Wood.
An Act for the relief of Albert Hull.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Coles.
An Act for the relief of Annie Almeda McCormick.
An Act for the relief of Madeline Sehnarr Nichol.
An Act for the relief of Phyllis Gertrude Smith.
An Act for the relief of Josephine Laura Calder.
An Act for the relief of Minerva Gray.
An Act for the relief of Mary Jane McCros-san.
An Act for the relief of Robert Bruce Hart.
An Act for the relief of Hetmanska Bereta.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Alberta Sparling.
An Act for the relief of Ebenezer Ward Bussell.
An Act for the relief of Schuyler James Alton.
An Act for the relief of Mary Eva May Gourley.
An Act for the relief of John William James.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Aileen Clarke.
An Act for the relief of Orwell Bishop Walton.
An Act for the relief of Rosie Resniek.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Grant.
An Act for the relief of Ruby Helen Gordon.
An Act for the relief of Mary Isabelle Bat-stone.
An Act for the relief of Hanorah Margaret Phililemonia Atkinson.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Ann Fyfe.
An Act for the relief of Frederick John Wolfe.
An Act for the relief of Elsie Roselan Maguire.
An Act for the relief of Alice Reta Leadbeat-ter.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Evelyn Sand-ford.
An Act for the relief of Ethel May Henderson.
An Act for the relief of Fred Townsley.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Worrell Perkins.
An Act for the relief of Walter Anderson Wood.
An Act for the relief of Clara Delilah Latch-ford.
An Act for the relief of Cora Beatrice Silk.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Alphonse La-joie.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Alice Dorothy Lorimer.
An Act for the relief of Margaret Bradley.
An Act for the relief of Marion Ramsay.
An Act for the relief of Nettie Maud Dixon.
An Act for the relief of Hazel Victoria Watt-Hewson.
An Act for the relief of Hubert Allan Frise.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Elizabeth Kirby.
An Act for the relief of Henry Maynard Smillie.
An Act respecting the capital stock of Prudential Trust Company, Limited.
An Act to incorporate The Hamilton Life Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railway's, and to provide for the refunding of certain maturing financial obligations.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways, and to provide for certain financing in connection with certain lines of railway located principally in the State of Vermont.
An Act to amend the Companies Act.
An Act respecting Grain.
An Act to incorporate The Portage la Prairie Mutual Insurance Company.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Cameron.
An Act for the relief of Gertrude Margaret Gilgour.
An Act for the relief of Vera Irene Collins.
An Act for the relief of Lena Hogarth.
An Act for the relief of Isidore Sabbath.
An Act for the relief of Gladys May Carter.
An Act for the relief of Dorothy Stansfield.
An Act for the relief of George Washington Latta.

	Governor General's Speech
An Act for the relief of William Henry War-dell. . „ , An Act for the relief of Nellie Carr Weeks. An Act for the relief of Donald Burwell Ross. An Act for the relief of Cherry Ray Fletcher. An Act for the relief of Eleanor Somes. An Act for the relief of Hazel May Rowland. An Act for the relief of Reginald Ernest Ball. An Act for the relief of Marion Elizabeth Gamsby. An Act for the relief of Ethel Long Nightingale. . An Act for the relief of Winnifred May Cahill. An Act for the relief of Gertrude Lockhart. An Act for the relief of Frederick Max Quick. An Act for the relief of Daniel McQuistan. An Act for the relief of Anna Ruel. An Act for the relief of Ethel Adine Ross. An Act for the relief of Ronald Paterson. An Act for the relief of Rosanna Christena Jarrett. An Act for the relief of James Lean. An Act for the relief of Lyall John MacDonald. An Act for the relief of Essa Mulant Durry. An Act for the relief of Esther Eleanor Zryd. An Act for the relief of Ida Jane Gertrude Rea. An Act for the relief of Thomas Green. An Act for the relief of Inez Elizabeth Gross. An Act for the relief of Viola Turquand. An Act for the relief of Norville Alberta Gourley. An Act for the relief of Martha Brown Hems-ley. An Act for the relief of Edward Buker. An Act for the relief of Herbert Machen. An Act for the relief of Marjorie Mary Gwendolyn Dempsey Davis. _ An Act for the relief of Wilfred Nathaniel Bickle. An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act. An Act to amend the Pension Act. An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act. An Act to amend the Special War Revenue Act. An Act respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company. An Act to place Canadian Coal used in the *manufacture of iron or steel on a basis of equality with imported coal. An Act to amend the Customs Tariff. An.Act respecting a certain patent of Staun-tons Limited. An Act to amend the Soldier Settlement Act. An Act 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. An Act respecting the Maple Sugar Industry. An Act to amend the Criminal Code. . An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March. 1930. and the 31st March. 1931. An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March 1931. To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words: In his Majesty's name His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.	Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed His Excellency the Governor General as follows: May it please Your Excellency: The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service. In the name of the Commons I present to Your Excellency the following bill: An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1931. To which bill I humbly request Your Excellency's assent. To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of His Excellency the Governor General, did thereupon say: In His Majesty's name, His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH After which His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech: Honourable Members of the Senate: Members of the House of Commons: In bringing the present session to a close, I desire to congratulate you upon the expedition with which parliament has conducted its proceedings. and upon the extent and importance of the legislative enactments of the session. Matters which have been the subject of longstanding controversy have been successfully adjusted. In several other directions legislation of far-reaching significance has been enacted. _ It is a source of particular satisfaction that the public accounts of the fiscal year recently ended again disclose a large surplus and that it has again been possible to effect further material reductions in taxation, as well as a further reduction in the national debt. Especially gratifying is the fact that, in continuance of the policy of endeavouring to remove all substantial difficulties in the relations between the Dominion and the provinces, a settlement of the long-standing controversies respecting the natural resources of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta has been effected. The several agreements have received your approval, as well as the approval of the provincial legislatures. Approval has also been given to the agreement reached with the province of British Columbia concerning the restoration to the province of the lands comprising what is known as the railway belt and Peace River block. _ The recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims have been further implemented by the legislation which has been enacted with respect to the coal and iron and steel industries. Extensive and comprehensive revisions have been made in the customs tariff with a view to bringing certain schedules more into line with modern business requirements, and existing economic conditions. Material and broad exten-
Governor General's Speach
[Stage Direction]
sions have been made in the British Preferential tariff schedules, as well as other adjustments which it is believed will serve to promote a larger measure of reciprocal trade between the component parts of the British Empire and with other countries.
The interest which has been evinced during the session in all matters affecting ex-service men demonstrates once more that Canada stands in the forefront in continued appreciation of her soldier-citizens and their dependents. The legislation providing allowances for veterans who may be unemployable as a result of nonpensionable disabilities, the amended procedure and methods of administration under the Pensions Act, the extension of time to applicants under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act, and the more liberal treatment accorded soldier settlers, will bring a much sought for relief to numerous individuals and homes.
The Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act gives statutory effect to the fair wages policy which, for some years past, has been observed on construction work under public contract. It provides also for the observance on such work of an eight hour day. The benefits of this legislation, both as- to wages and hours, have been extended, under government policy, to workmen employed on construction work by the government itself. The principle of the eight hour working day has also been made applicable by the government to employees in the public service.
To aid in the solution of the problem of seasonal unemployment, provision has been made for holding at -an early date a conference of Dominion and provincial governments, of representatives of municipalities, of transportation companies, and of industrial and labour associations, to consider methods of cooperation in furthering continuous employment throughout Canada during the winter months.
A federal-provincial conference for the purpose of furthering cooperation between the Dominion government and the governments of the several provinces of Canada on matters pertaining to immigration has also been arranged.
_ The consolidation of the Canada Grain Act in accordance with the recommendations of the standing committee of the House of Commons on agriculture, the provision made for increased storage facilities for grain-, as well as the inquiry info the promotion of the live stock industry of Canada for which provision has also been made, should prove of substantial benefit to the agricultural industry.
To ensure the development of the fisheries resources of the Dominion and of the industries based thereon, provision has been made for the appointment of a minister of the crown to preside over a separate Department of Fisheries.
Conventions with the United States for the protection and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries and for the preservation of the halibut fisheries of the Pacific coast have received approval.
Forward steps in the field of international relations have been taken by the signature of the treaty for Reduction of Naval Armament, by the extension of arbitration through the acceptance of the optional clause, and by the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, all of which measures have received your approval.
Amendments to the Dominion Elections Act have been made which should further ensure fairness and the avoidance of partisanship in the administration of our electoral system.
Among other enactments of the session have been important amendments to the Companies Act, the Export Act, and the Criminal Code.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the supplies granted for the carrying on of the public services of the Dominion.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In the opinion of my ministers, iit is desirable that the judgment of the people upon the questions which now engage public attention should be obtained during the course of the present year. In order to permit of Canada being represented at the Imperial conference and the Imperial economic conference, which open their proceedings in London, on September 30th, and to afford to ministers of the crown as ample an opportunity as may be possible to prepare for the important work of these conferences, it has been deemed advisable that the present parliament should be dissolved without delay, and the day of polling fixed for the earliest date possible after dissolution. I have, accordingly, to announce my intention of causing Parliament to be dissolved immediately following prorogation.
In taking leave of you at this time and under these circumstances, I desire to express the unqualified pleasure which I have derived from my association with you throughout the four sessions of this the sixteenth parliament of Canada. I pray that upon your labours the blessing of Divine Providence may be abundantly bestowed.
This concluded the fourth session of the sixteenth parliament.
Ottawa: Printed by F. A. Acland, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1930. ,