Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the address you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Bessborough.
Government House,
Ottawa.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1934-35

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1935, was presented by Right Hon. Sir George Perley (Acting Prime Minister), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates-Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Canadian National Steamships and Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the financial year ending March 31, 1936, was presented by Right Hon. Sir George Perley (Acting Prime Minister), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General):: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), during the discussion of the Post Office estimates on the 14th instant, called my attention to rumours of immense profits being made through the sale of stamps by the philatelic section of the department. To pre-

Privilege-Mr. Sauve

vent misunderstanding may I be permitted to quote from Hansard, pages 1723 and 1724. The hon. member stated:
Up until 1932 new issues were not sold through an agency, they were sold through the department; and if my memory serves me aright, in some instances amounts of $15,000, $20,000 and $30,000 were realized by the officials and paid into the treasury of this country.
The hon. member added:
At the present time any profit which might be gained through the sale of these stamps does not come to the government; all the government receives is the small amount it gets from the agency.
To this I replied, as reported on page 1723 of Hansard:
The philatelic branch has had a revenue of about $50,000 this year. It sells all stamps at face value. . . . They are not sold through an agency unless you call the philatelic branch an agency.
Further on the hon. member for Gloucester said:
To-day that revenue is nil, but those handling these stamps are making a fortune.
I then replied to the hon. member that if he wished to make a direct accusation of graft in regard to the sale of stamps, I would immediately look into the matter. The hon. member replied:
I did not say there was graft in the department. I said that the practice of the department led to graft to people outside the department but not in the department. I am not accusing the department of graft.
The hon. member added as reported on page 1725.
I want a definite answer to a question which interests the public as a whole concerning what to my mind is one of the worst principles ever established in the Post Office Department, namely, allowing outsiders to make a profit on the sale of stamps which should go to the government.
From the foregoing it may be inferred that the hon. member has clearly stated: That since 1932 the government has been deprived of some revenues by the fact that a philatelic section has been organized in the Post Office Department; that people outside the department have made immense profits through the sale of such stamps, and that the establishment of this section is "the worst principle ever established in the Post Office Department."
Since the hon. member claimed that he was not satisfied with the answer I gave on February 20 to the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) and the further explanations given during the discussion of the

estimates, I promised to make a further inquiry into this matter. I wish now, with the leave of the house, to read a memorandum which will clarify the whole situation.
Prior to 1932 postage stamps sold to collectors were handled by the postage stamp division staff which also supplied all postage stamps to post offices. In view of serious criticisms made of the department that philatelists could not get proper information concerning stamps sold to collectors and also because the department seemed to be losing considerable revenue from this source, the work of the philatelic sales was organized in 1932.
No sale of unused stamps has been made under the philatelic section nor by the department since the philatelic section was formed, at more than the face value of the stamps.
In order that such work would be efficiently directed, this section, which forms an integral part of the organization of the department and is manned entirely by departmental employees, was placed under the direction of an official who had proper knowledge of such work and who could deal effectively with questions raised by philatelists. Since the organization of the philatelic section sales to collectors have averaged between $50,000 and $60,000 yearly and in the present year are expected to attain the highest figure in their history; the sales this year to date indicate a revenue of approximately $70,000.
Under the previous method of handling sales to collectors the average per annum was approximately $8,000 and the highest sale attained prior to 1930 was $30,000 in 1929. The revenue accruing from these sales has increased nearly nine times over any revenues received up to 1927 and has more than doubled under the present system the highest receipts prior to the formation of the philatelic section. The average sales for the past three years have been more than five times the overhead cost to the department, including salaries of the employees.
The department does not attempt to provide continuous sale of used postage stamps. A small quantity of such stamps is made available through preparation of these stamps for sale by an employee. When such stamps are available they are sold in numbers not greater than ten stamps of any one particular issue to one person, in order that collectors generally may have the privilege of obtaining them when possible, instead of allowing the whole supply to be bought in by dealers.
As shown in figures given in answer to a question asked in this house this year, the revenue for the last two fiscal years totalled

Questions
$155 from the sale of used stamps. Practically all used stamps sold to the public are sold by stamp dealers who obtain their supplies, not from the Post Office Department nor from any post office official, but from supplies salvaged from private sources. The Post Office Department does not deal in stamps having a known enhanced philatelic value, nor does it charge a premium on any stamps it sells. It sometimes happens, however, that stamps sold by the department at face value subsequently increase in their philatelic value, which has no relation to their value as postage.
The department has no official information regarding the prices at which these stamps are selling now to stamp collectors in the country, nor does it concern itself with such prices. The Post Office Department does not conduct its philatelic sales through any outside agency. All sales of stamps of any kind to collectors and dealers are made through the philatelic division of the department. All revenue from these sales is deposited to the credit of the receiver general of Canada on post office account, and becomes an integral part of post office revenue. There has been no deviation from this rule at any time.
In the statement that I have just read to the house the hon. member for North York (Mr. Mulock) also will find the answer to both questions asked by him and appearing on page 1854 of Hansard of March 14, in the French version and on page 1724 in the English.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 34 for the relief of Marie Philo-mene Florence Maher McCaffrey-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 36 for the relief of Charles Henry Campbell-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 37 for the relief of Maria Elphin-stone Hastie Ivinnon-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

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

Mr. MICHAUD:: What was the total cost to the dominion government for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in New Brunswick, in the years 1932, 1933, and 1934?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1932	
$212,501	911933	
395,941	201934	
356,864	86
Note.-The figures set forth above include
92582-113J
all expenditures during the respective years shown for:
(1)	The enforcement of federal statutes, including those connected with the preventive service.
(2)	The enforcement of provincial statutes and the Criminal Code.
(3)	The R.C.M. Police assumed the duties of the enforcement of the provincial statutes and the Criminal Code in the province of New Brunswick, and also the duties of the preventive service, from the 1st of April, 1932.
(4)	The following amounts have been received or will be received shortly from the New Brunswick government, under the terms
of the agreement:
1932		 $ 75,000 paid
1933	
100,000	paid1934	
75,000	paid
1934 (Outstanding and
to be paid shortly)..	25,000

and which should be deducted from the total costs above quoted.


CANADIAN LEGATION-PARIS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to the Hon. Philippe Roy, Canadian minister to France, from January 1, 1931, until now?
2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the Canadian legation in Paris for the same period?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	The total amount paid to the Honourable Philippe Roy, Canadian minister to France, from January 1, 1931, to the 31st January, 1935, for salary, allowances and travel, was $99,956.63.
2 and 3. Expenditures for entertainment were made from the allowances granted to the Canadian minister at Paris. In addition, there has been paid from the vote for the Canadian legation at Paris, an amount of $498.96-the expenses of Dominion day reception, 1st July, 1934-Jacques Cartier celebration.
4. The total cost of the Canadian legation in Paris from the 1st January, 1931, to the 31st January, 1935, was $342,222.92.


CANADIAN LEGATION-TOKYO
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the total amount paid to the Hon. Herbert Marler, Canadian minister to Japan, from January 1, 1931?
Questions

2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the Canadian legation in Japan for the same period?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	The total amount paid to the Honourable Herbert Marler, Canadian minister to Japan, from January 1, 1931, to January 31, 1935, for salary, allowances and travel, was $101,901.03.
2 and 3. Expenditures for entertainment were made from the allowances granted to t'he Canadian minister at Tokyo.
4. The total cost of the Canadian legation in Japan from January 1, 1931, to January 31, 1935. was $328,522.01.


INCOME TAX COLLECTIONS
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	What is the total amount of income tax collected by the government in the year 1934?
2.	What is the amount collected in that same year in the province of Quebec?
3.	What is the amount collected in that same year in: (a) Montreal; (b) Westmount; (c) Outremont; (d) Verdun?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	Calendar year 1934, 861,608,732.29.
2.	Calendar year 1934, $19,493,345.46.
3.	(a) Not available.
(b)	Not available.
(c)	Not available.
(d)	Not available.
Statistics not maintained in such a manner as to give information requested.
NEW RICHMOND AND HOWATSON's POINT, QUE .


WHARVES
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to abandon the departmental wharf at New Richmond, Quebec, and if so, for what reason?
2.	In deciding to ask parliament for an appropriation for a deep water wharf at Howatson's Point, Bonaventure county, did the department take into consideration the advantages of Woodman's Beach and the money already expended there by the department?
3.	What was estimated as the cost of making New Richmond wharf available to coastal steamers, and what amount is contemplated to be expended at Howatson's Point?
4.	Will this work be done by contract, and is it intended to utilize creosoted timber, and sheet iron piling, and to what extent?
[Mr. Pouliot.l
Mr. STEW7ART (Leeds):
1.	There has been no decision made to abandon the wharf at New Richmond.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) Estimated cost of repairs to and strengthening structure $25,000; dredging channel 150 feet wide, 15 feet deep at low water $170,000; it is estimated the maintenance of the channel would be costly.
'b) $38,800.
4.	(a) Yes.
(b) Yes, creosoted timber for sheathing below half tide.


RUISSEAU LE BLANC, BONAVENTURE, QUE., DREDGING
Mr. MARCEL:: 1.	Have Cummins Company completed their dredging contract at Ruisseau Le Blanc, Bonaventure county?
2.	How much dredging has been done and at what cost?
3.	Is any further dredging contemplated at this place or any other point in Bonaventure county?
4.	If so, where?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No. Work to be commenced in spring of 1935.
2.	None.
3.	No further dredging contemplated at Ruisseau Le Blanc, and no decision yet made as to dredging at any other point in Bonaventure county.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


LIEUTENANT-COLONEL DEN LEY  PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Mr. TOTZKE:: What is the amount of pay, command pay, allowances or other remuneration received by Lt.-Colonel W. E. Denley, Officer Commanding Prince Albert Volunteers, at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, since his appointment?


Mr. STIRLING:: Pay, annual drill, $26; command and training allowance, $214.75; care of arms, $80; postage, $45.


ALBERTA AND MARITIME COAL SHIPMENTS TO CENTRAL CANADA
Mr. CHURCH:: What amount of coal in tons was transported: (a) from the maritime provinces to central Canada and the head of the lakes; (b) from Alberta to central Canada by rail or rail and *water, from 1921 to date?

__________ Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: (a) Shipments of coal from mines in the maritime provinces into Quebec and Ontario, 1921-1934:
r	From	From
Year	Nova Scotia New Brunswick
(short tons)
1921	
887,701	14,0551922	
1,408,050	63,0281923	
1,533,046	32,1131924	
1,644,735	22,3021925	
811,075	4,1991926	
1,965,645	2,6801927	
2,298,175	9,0101928	
2,382,145	1011929	
2,372,293	2151930	
1,893,679	3831931	
1,746,137	981932	
1,588,980	1,0481933	
2,005,577	8911934	
2,894,415	11,075Total .. .. 25,431,653	161,198
(b) Shipments of coal from Alberta mines to Ontario and Quebec, 1921-1934:
Year	Short tons
1921		 11,530
1922		 21,937
1923		 52,340
1924		 16,405
1925		 28,458
1926		 75,818
1927		 22,999
1928		 44,760
1929		 55,785
1930		 30,249
1931		 26,850
1932		 21,140
1933		 39,010
1934		 55,825
Total	 503,106
persons on relief at shippigan Mr. VENIOT:
Will the Minister of Justice inform the house from whom he received the information that "No person in Shippigan was on direct relief between May 1, 1934, and January 1, 1935."?


Hugh Guthrie: I received the information from the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But I fancy that what is required is where the original information came from?


Mr. VENIOT:: No, that is satisfactory.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-TELEGRAM TO J. E. LAFORCE IN 1933
Mr. POULIOT :: 1. From where and on what date wa* addressed the telegram of which five lines were read by the Hon. Minister of Labour on April 27, 1933, Hansard, page 4326, first column ?
2.	To whom was it addressed? (Address in full.)
3.	Did it contain anything besides the five lines read by the Hon. Minister of Labour?
4.	If so, what was it?
5.	Did the Hon. Minister of Labour or anyone on his behalf or any employee in any of the departments then headed by the said hon gentleman meet Mr. J. E. Laforce before the latter sent the telegram already referred to?
6.	If so, who, when and where?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Montreal, April 27, 1933.
2.	Honourable W. A. Gordon, Minister of Immigration, Ottawa, Ont.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	What was the total number of unemployed male persons between the age of 18 and 65 in the province of New Brunswick, on July 1, 1933; January 1, 1934; July 1, 1934, and January 1, 1935?
2.	What was the total number of persons in New Brunswick receiving a direct relief on July 1, 1933; January 1, 1934; July 1, 1934, and January 1, 1935?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.



PAYMENTS TO GUSTAVE MONETTE

Mr. BRADETTE:: What amount has been paid, in taxable costs and fees, to Mr. Gustave Monette, solicitor, of Montreal, by each department from 1930 to date?



PAYMENT TO JEAN PENVEUNE

Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What amount has been paid, in taxable costs and fees, to Mr. Jean Penverne, solicitor, of Montreal, by each department from 1930 to date ?
17S4

Motions for Papers



ASSISTANCE TO COAL, GRAIN AND STEEL INDUSTRIES

Thomas Langton Church: What sums were spent annually by way of bonuses, subventions, subsidies or stabilization funds to assist: (a) the maritime or Alberta coal industry; (b) on grain; (c) on steel and iron, from 1921 to 1934?



SOLDIER PENSION CASES OUTSTANDING

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many soldier pension cases were standing at the beginning of each year from 1921 to date?
2.	How many cases were settled yearly in the same period?
3.	What are the number of cases outstanding now that have not been completed?
4.	Has any time limit been placed on when the balance are to be finally decided by the pensions appeal board?



MILITARY EXPENDITURE 1920 TO 1934

Mr. LAURIN:: What sums were expended by Canada for military purposes in 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For a return showing-
1.	The centres where branches of the Bank of Canada have been opened.
2.	The names of all employees of such bank in such centres with total salaries in each case.
3.	The names of all officers and employees of such bank at headquarters in Ottawa, with total salaries in each case.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I would ask that this motion stand until the Minister of Finance is here. I am not quite sure whether the government has control of these matters or not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stands.



BANK OF CANADA, ASSETS

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a return showing al'l orders in council passed during the last six months with reference to the formation of the Bank of Canada and with reference to any assets assumed by such bank on commencing business.



ARICHAT, N.S., WHARF

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all payrolls, accounts, costs, and other documents, in connection with the construction of a new wharf, and cost of removing old wharf from the site at Babins Hill, Arichat, Nova Scotia, during the year 1934.



RICHELIEU CORPORATION

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of all correspondence or other documents, in the Department of Trade and Commerce or any other department, passing between the said department or any of them or any of the officials thereof and E. A. D. Morgan of Montreal, or any other persons on behalf of the Richelieu Corporation, from January. 1932, to date, regarding a subsidy to the Richelieu Corporation for equipping boats for the export of cattle.



BONAVENTURE COUNTY, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS PURCHASES

Charles Marcil: For a statement showing how much creosoted timber and steel sheet piling has been used by the Department of Public Works in Bona-venture county since August, 1930, to date; showing quantities and cost at each place and where such material was purchased in each case.



WESTERN POULTRY MARKETING

Mr. VALLANCE (for Mr. McPhee):: For a return showing the disbursement of the sums of $10,000,	$20,000 and $20,000
advanced by the government of Canada to the co-operative organizations in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta respectively, in connection with the recent vote in these provinces regarding the poultry marketing scheme, showing: (a) the names of the parties by provinces to whom the said sums were disbursed; (b) the amount received by each (c) to whom the disbursement of said sums in each province was entrusted.



MONTREAL RELIEF WORK

Mr. GIROUARD:: For a copy of the report made by the Auditor General of Canada, dated July 6, 1934, concerning expenditures on relief work, city of Montreal, 1930 and 1931 acts; and also copy of the report made by the Auditor General of Canada, dated December 11, 1934, concerning provincial accounts for relief work and direct relief, 1930 act.



MOUNTED POLICE-NEW BRUNSWICK

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of the evidence and report of the investigation held in Bathurst in 1934 into the allegation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has practised the third degree on a prisoner.
Also copy of the evidence and report on the allegation that the patrol boats had lain for days at the wharf in Bathurst while smuggling was going on in the vicinity.
Also copy of the contract between the government of New Brunswick and the federal government in connection with the transfer of the enforcement of laws in the province of New Brunswick to the Department of Justice through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Also a list of the names of the provincial police of New Brunswick who were transferred

Minimum Wage
from that force to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police when the latter took over the enforcement of provincial laws.
Also a copy of the decision of the appellate branch of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick in the matter of appeal in the case of the captain of the Paul T, seized under the liquor law of New Brunswick.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the last of the enumerated documents I beg to say that so far as I can ascertain there is no copy of any judgment of the appellate branch of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick to be found. The only suggestion I can make is that my hon. friend apply to the registrar of the court, who may be able to furnish him with a copy. All the other documents will be produced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of the log books of the government patrol boats doing patrol work in the bay of Chaleur and strait of Northumberland for the years 1933 and 1934.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to say that
the only returns I desire are in connection with the patrol boat under the jurisdiction of the mounted police. I am not concerned with the fisheries patrol boats. This morning I was asked by the Department of Fisheries what I required in that respect, and I make this clear so they will not have to do any work in this connection. With that amendment I would ask that the motion pass.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend understands, of course, that those log books are on the vessels doing patrol work. Copies will be obtained at the earliest possible moment and they will be laid on the table.


Peter John Veniot: Is it not a fact at the end of the year the log books are deposited with some department here, either the Department of Marine or the department having charge of these police officers?


Hugh Guthrie: I was informed this
morning that they are on the boats.


Peter John Veniot: That is a queer place to
keep them.
Motion as amended agreed to.



DUNCAN REPORT-PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. MYERS:: For a copy of all correspondence between the premier of Prince Edward Island and the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance of Canada, during the years 1927 to 1930, inclusive,
in connection with the request of the province of Prince Edward Island for further implementation of the Duncan commission report.



PACIFIC COAST STEAMSHIP COMPANIES

Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all contracts between the dominion government and all steamship companies operating from the Pacific coast, where said companies receive public moneys either by way of subsidy or by contract for the carrying of mails.



MR. ALBERT BIOUX

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of order in council appointing Mr. Albert Rioux as representative of debtors on the board of review for the province of Quebec in virtue of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.



MINIMUM WAGE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for minimum wages pursuant to the convention concerning minimum wages adopted by the international labour organization in accordance with the provisions of part XIII of the treaty of Versailles and of the corresponding parts of the other treaties of peace, and to enable Canada to discharge the obligations assumed under the provisions of the said treaty and of the said convention.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting, to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure respecting relief, and to provide for such payments out of the consolidated revenue fund as may be necessary for all or any of the purposes of the proposed legislation.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mol ion agreed to.
Kingston Penitentiary

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Yesterday I had a talk with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his room, and I think everyone in the house will be glad to know that he is much better.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Halsey Perley: His medical
adviser, Doctor R. S. Stevens, has handed me the following statement dated this morning:
The Prime Minister had further disturbance of cardiac rhythm on Monday and again on Wednesday of last week. There has since been no recurrence and the rhythm is now apparently under control. Apart from this his progress has been without incident and is considered satisfactory. However, the necessity for further bed rest still exists.



KINGSTON PENITENTIARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	I should like to direct a question to
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). I asked for a return of all papers, correspondence and reports of inspections made of Kingston penitentiary by Inspector Dawson, together with interviews by Inspector Dawson in the same institution, between February 1 and July 1, 1934. I noticed that the Minister of Justice quite properly said that in bringing down the return all proper reservations would be observed in regard to confidential documents and information in regard to prisons.
Hugh Guthrie: That should be "prisoners", not "prisons."


Miss MACPHAIL:: It is "prisons" in Hansard. I find in reading the return that it deals only with interviews between Inspector Dawson and one convict, No. 3242. It is so exhaustive that it includes medical sheets and temperature charts. It stops abruptly on April 8, although on April 9 Inspector Dawson interviewed convict No. 3033 in the lecture room of the administration building at Kingston penitentiary between 11.40 and 2.16 p.m., and in the interview he used abusive and profane language in regard to myself, and said that after he had finished his inspection I would not be able to lift up my head in the House of Commons again. The information was supplied to me by convict No. 3033 who has served his full time, who is now at large and who is prepared to swear to this statement in any inquiry.
TMr. Gordon.]
There was a great deal of correspondence about this statement of Inspector Dawson between the prison officials in Kingston and the department here. I want to ask the Minister of Justice where the correspondence is. I think one could not say it applies to prisoners. I may be under the suspicion of the Minister of Justice but I am scarcely a prisoner.


Hugh Guthrie: I produced the file which was handed to me as a complete file, but I shall make inquiries. I have never heard of any report of an interview between inspector Dawson and prisoner No. 3033. If there Is such a report I will produce it.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie). Has his attention been called to an interview given by Detective Inspector Zaneth and appearing in the Montreal Herald of March 14. The interview is as follows:
Concerning charges of destroying food-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the hon. member should read the interview. He has a perfect right to refer to the matter and then ask the question of the minister.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to ask the minister if he has any knowledge of the matter, and if he has not I can give him the information. The inspector gave an interview to the Montreal Herald respecting certain matters which had taken place in this chamber regarding the destruction of food at Ship-pigan. Has the minister had notice of the interview? If not I could give him the information it contained. I would ask him whether or not he would look into the matter.


Hugh Guthrie: This is the first intimation I have had but I shall make an inquiry as early as possible.


Peter John Veniot: I could supply the minister with a copy of the interview, if he wishes to have it.



CONSCRIPTION IN GERMANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, has the govern-

Price Spreads Commission
ment a statement to make regarding the situation in Europe arising out of the action of Germany?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I need hardly say the Canadian government have noted with anxiety the announcement by the German government of its intention to reestablish its military forces and to revive compulsory military service, contrary to the provisions of the treaty of Versailles. It is regretted that this unilateral action has taken place on the eve of promising efforts to deal with the whole European arms question, including the revision by agreement of the treaty restrictions on German armament. The Canadian government will continue to follow the situation with care.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, coming to domestic affairs, may I ask the acting leader of the government if the house has now before it all the government intends to bring down by way of social legislation, not including of course such legislation as may be based upon or introduced in consequence of the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying? I include in my question the measures of which notice has been given on to-day's order paper?


Right Hon.   S@: No, I believe there are one or two further measures which at the present time I am unable to explain. Then, in addition, there will be such measures as are based upon the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying.



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, has the acting leader of the government had any intimation with respect to the time the report of the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying may be presented?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was Thursday last the right hon. leader of the opposition asked me the same question, and in reply I said I would make inquiries. I have
spoken to the chairman of the commission and he tells me that they are at present drafting their report. However he cannot yet say when it will be completed.



STATEMENT CONCERNING PRESS REPORT

Right Hon.   S@: While I am on my feet I may refer to the reference made on Friday evening by the right hon. leader of the opposition. At that time he had before him certain articles appearing in the press and purporting to give particulars of commission findings. I need hardly say we regret very much that the report should have appeared. I do not know how such reports get out, nor do I know whether or not they are authentic. The com mission is an investigating body and is in nc way under the direction of the government although appointed by order in council. 1 believe all of us would agree that the proceedings and findings of the commission should not be made public until they are laid before parliament.



CORRECTION-MR. CAHAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently on Friday evening I believe I did an injustice to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Speaking from memory I stated that in an address in this chamber he had favoured the issue of $425,000,000 in paper currency.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You were $5,000,000 out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member upon that occasion shook his head and asked me to refer to Hansard in order to obtain more accurate information. Upon referring to Hansard I have found that the hon. member suggested $430,000,000, and not $425,000,000. But in referring to such a vast sum I trust the discrepancy in the figures did not do the hon. member any great injustice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: AH for the sake of accuracy.



IMPORTS FROM USSR.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of the government a question asked on February 22 and appearing at page 1091 of Hansard. The question is under the heading "Imports from U.S.S.R." It is now almost one month since the inquiry was made. Then later, on March 4, I asked the government when I might expect an answer, and upon
Compositors' Strike

that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) told me he would have the matter looked into and would answer on the following day. I find that when I asked the question on February 22, the Prime Minister replied "Stands as notice of motion." I should be very thankful if the right hon. acting Prime Minister would answer the question.
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting
Prime Minister): I would suggest that the hon. member put his questions on the order paper; if he would do so I believe they would be answered more quickly. I had intended replying before, but there was nothing cn the order paper which would bring it to my attention.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is why I do it.


George Halsey Perley: I suggest to the hon. member that the next time he might put it on the order paper. However, the answer to his question is that this order in council, No. 463, has been laid on the table of the house and the information contained therein is available to the hon. member. Nothing has been done since that order in council was passed which alters in any way the position as therein set forth.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is no answer; it is just a reply.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Would he be good enough to inform the house if the government have come to any decision in regard to its policy in the purchasing of new equipment for the Canadian National Railways, whether it will be built in the Canadian National Railway shops by the Canadian National Railway employees, or be given to private companies?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision arrived at. In fact, the matter has not been considered further since the hon. gentleman asked the same question the last time.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: There is a matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the government. There is likely
[Mr. Pouliol.)
to be a large demand for copies of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. I have already had requests for copies of that act. I think everyone will understand that those who are not lawyers will have some difficulty in understanding the act with the various amendments that have been made this year and last year, and I would suggest in view of the widespread interest in this act that the government should have it printed with all the amendments in their proper place so that the ordinary layman can read the act as amended with some understanding. I would also suggest that it be furnished without cost to members of parliament, who usually have to pay for these acts when they forward them to their constituents. Will the government give consideration to my suggestion?


Right Hon.   S@: The suggestion will be taken into consideration.



COMPOSITORS STRIKE, LONDON, ONT.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I have received
a protest from London Typographical Union No. 133 over the signature of John McLean, president of the union, and John Christie, secretary, with reference to an item on page 102 of the Labour Gazette of February, 1935, where it states that this strike in connection with the newspapers in London has been concluded in favour of the employers. I would ask the minister to see that that be corrected because the strike is still an active strike. Within the past two weeks committees from the union have been in conference with the employers, and as the Labour Gazette has a large circulation in that part of the country the item conveys a false impression to the disadvantage of the men involved in the dispute.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this matter just came to my attention a few moments ago, and I have just now been handed the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for East Hamilton, which with the permission of the house I shall read. It is in the form of a letter, signed by the Deputy Minister of Labour, and addressed to John McLean, president of the London Typographical Union No. 133, to whom the hon. member made reference. The letter is as follows:
Ottawa, March 18, 1935.
Dear sir,-The Department of Labour has recently received through Mr. J. F. White, M.P., and Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, M.P, the protest over the signature of yourself and Secretary Christie in regard to an article appearing on page 102 of the February, 1935, issue of the

Fisheries Act
Labour Gazette concerning .a strike of members of the International Typographical Union who were employed by the London Free Press and the London Advertiser
It is observed from your letters that the statement appearing on page 102 gives the information that the strike has terminated in favour of the employers. It is noted also that you desire to correct this statement and to emphatically say that the strike has not terminated. In support of your contention you point out that within the last two weeks a committee from your union has had meetings with the managers of the newspapers concerned and that negotiations are still in progress whereby an amicable settlement is hoped for.
In this connection I believe that if you will again refer to the article in question you will find that it does not bear out your protest, certainly not to the extent indicated in your letters. While the article does show that the strike has been recorded as terminated, that reference has merely to do with the departmental statistics. It 'will be observed that this particular reference shows clearly that the strike has not been called off or definitely terminated by the union involved. I am quoting hereunder the full text of this item:
" The dispute involving sixty-four members of the International Typographical Union and two daily newspapers in London, Ont., which commenced on March 1, 1934, the employers having refused to negotiate and sign a renewal of the union agreement, is recorded as terminated, the strikers having been replaced from time to time. The dispute has been added to the list in a previous paragraph of those in which employment conditions are no longer affected but which have not been called off or definitely terminated by the unions involved." This particular strike was carried for ten months as in effect, and as it appeared from information available that the strikers had been replaced the dispute was recorded as terminated in line with the general practice of the Department of Labour in such matters. This practice, I may say, is in accordance with the recommendations as to the method of compiling statistics of industrial disputes adopted at a conference of official labour statisticians called by the international labour office at Geneva in October, 1926.
I regret very much indeed that any misunderstanding has occurred in this respect, and I may assure you at once that in following our ordinary policy it was certainly not the intention to do any injustice to your local union. I am pleased indeed to know that negotiations have recently been resumed, and I desire to express the hope that the outcome will be satisfactory to the parties concerned. You are of course aware that the conciliation service of this department is readily available if desired.
I may add that your suggestion that the article to which objection has been taken emanated from or was influenced by the employers is of course entirely incorrect, as no communication has been received in the department from the employing companies on this subject.
Yours truly,
W. M. Dickson,
Deputy Minister of Labour.
John McLean, Esq.,
President,
London Typographical Union No. 133, London, Ontario.



ILLUSTRATION STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if he is considering establishing another demonstration farm in the upper end of northwestern Saskatchewan that is in that part of northern Saskatchewan that lies north of the North Saskatchewan river?
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice that he was going to ask this question, only in a slightly different way. No such request has been received and it is not intended to establish an experimental farm there. If the hon. member means an illustration station-


Mr. McINTOSH:: I do mean that.


Robert Weir: I will make further inquiries as to whether or not that is planned because I just received notice of the hon. gentleman's question on coming into the house.



FISHERIES ACT, 1932 POWER TO PRESCRIBE FEES FOR FISHERY LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 26, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Charles Marcil: Perhaps the minister will pardon me if I put a question to him on the third reading regarding the construction of a biological station on the Gaspe coast. I was not here when this bill was discussed on a previous occasion, but I should like to say that I know that the previous minister took this matter up with the Bishop of Gaspe and much correspondence ensued between the department and His Lordship with a view to having a biological station established on the Gaspe coast. I would' like to know from the minister if any progress has been made in that respect, and if so to what extent.


Grote Stirling: I remember that correspondence has been carried on in that regard, but I am afraid that at the moment I am not in a position to advise the hon. member what the situation is. I shall be glad to look into it and communicate with him.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.
Mounted Police-Pensions



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 9, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act-Mr. Guthrie-Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 2-Payment of amount specified in charge.
Hugh Guthrie: When this bill was under consideration on the former occasion the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) proposed an amendment to section 2 to change the lettering from (e), (i) or (j) to (e), (j) and (k). Was an amendment carried to that effect? The point is that the bill is correctly drafted. We have verified the lettering of these subsections and both the hon. member and myself were in error in the former discussion. As the section now appears it is correctly printed and should be passed in that form.


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 2 is initialled
as passed.


Hugh Guthrie: Is there an amendment
to the effect I have indicated?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: There is no sign of it here.


Hugh Guthrie: Then it is all right.
On section 2-Application of penalties.


Hugh Guthrie: This also was passed. The same change was suggested at the top of page 2, where the same subclauses are similarly lettered. The present lettering is correct.


Mr. REID:: I had in mind, when the bill was under discussion before, a question in regard to moieties. I asked whether moieties were paid to the officers and the minister said they were not. May I ask whether they are paid to informers who may not be members of the force.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. Moieties or rewards -I am not sure that they are moieties exactly-are paid under the statute both in connection with excise and with customs, but not to members of the force.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Officers' pensions.
Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth asked for an approximate idea of the cost that would be involved in the proposal. As nearly as can be com-

puted, the cost in respect of officers would be $425 and in respect of men, $438.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A year?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, assuming that four officers and six men are entitled. That is a very liberal assumption because so far as we know there are only two officers and one man. There was a suggestion that the word "Canadian" should be stricken out in the first line of subsection 8. The reason is that in the Militia Act, which was passed some years ago, the word "Canadian" is not used, and to bring this act into conformity with the other the word should be omitted. The committee will remember that the forces serving in South Africa were not distinctively Canadian forces, but formed part of the British force. It is merely technical but I move that the word "Canadian" be stricken out.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-Constables' pensions.
Hugh Guthrie: The word "Canadian" in the first line of subsection 5 should be omitted. I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 6-Widows' and orphans' pensions.
Hugh Guthrie: I was asked by my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth, in regard to both 6 and 7, what would be the cost to the treasury. There will be no cost in regard to either. I have a memorandum which I have just received to the effect that there is a time limit of six months to allow a member of the force to elect whether he will pay into the fund or not. It has been suggested by the commissioner that six months may be rather short to communicate with all and he suggests eight months. I move that in lines 9 and 17 the word "six" be substituted for the word "eight."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 14, consideration in committee of Bill No. 21, to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the day

Eight Hour Day
and forty-eight in the week, in accordance with the convention concerning the application of the principle of the eight hour day or of the forty-eight hour week adopted by the general conference of the international labour organization of the league of nations, in accordance with the labour part of the treaty of Versailles of 28th June, 1919,-Mr. Gordon (for Mr. Bennett)-Mr. Morand in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: When
this bill was previously before the house in committee last week it was passed with the exception of section 9, to which an amendment was proposed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was
section 10 passed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes. A
new section 9, embodying and overriding the existing provision, was at that time submitted to the committee. But objection was taken to it by certain members, including I think the hon. member for East Hamilton. Further consideration of the clause was postponed, and since that time a conference has been held between my colleague the Minister of Labour and myself, and interested parties, at which an arrangement has been arrived at. So I desire to withdraw the clause which was submitted as an amendment to clause 9 and to substitute therefor a new clause 9, the first portion of which is in the terms of the bill as printed and the latter portion of which is the amending portion. I should like to observe to the committee that this new clause 9 is based on article 5 of the treaty which I propose to read into the record:
Article 5
In exceptional cases where it is recognized that the provisions of article 2 cannot be applied-
Article 2 relates to the question of working hours.
-but only in such cases, agreements between workers' and employers' organizations concerning the daily limit of work over a longer period of time may be given the force of regulations, if the government, to which these agreements shall be submitted, so decides.
The average number of hours worked per week, over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight.
The proposed clause 9 will read as follows:
9. The governor in council may, in exceptional cases where it is recognized that the daily limit of hours of work cannot be applied and agreements between workers' and employers' organizations to increase the daily limit have been made, give effect to such agreements and permit in such cases the said daily limit of hours to be exceeded: provided, however, that the average number of hours per week over the number of weeks covered by any such agreement shall not exceed forty-eight;-[DOT]
The following is the overriding proviso:
*-and provided further that in case such an agreement has been made prior to the thirty-first day of December. 1934, between a railway company and any employees' organization which embodies the basic principle of eight hours as the daily period of employment, the provisions of such agreement relating to the hours of employment shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this act, continue in force for a period of one year from the thirty-first day of March, 1935, unless suspended during such period by the governor in council.
The idea being to give a full year to the railway companies and the unions relating thereto having agreements with the railway companies to adjust their differences in the meantime. I may say that this is concurred in unanimously by the labour unionists there present.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: With the consent of
the committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) moves that clause 9 as submitted be deleted and a new clause 9 be submitted.


Mr. HEAPS:: Before this amendment is
carried, a statement made by the minister who has just moved the amendment recalls to my mind that within the past few days I have received quite a number of communications from railway organizations. When he states that railway organizations were in favour of this amendment, I presume he refers to just a few that are affected by it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No; we
think we mean all those who have any interest in it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I assume the minister refers to the organizations that are affected by this amendment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would
go further than that. We have had other organizations who are interested in the amendment as well as those the hon. member mentions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not know then how
many railway organizations have stated to the government that they want an amendment of this character. All I know is that I have had communications in quite large numbers from railway organizations protesting that a forty-eight hour week is far too long a week in view of the large number of railway workers who are at present out of employment. We are going to give one year to the railway workers to adjust themselves to a forty-eight hour week, and the same thing applies of course to the companies. That is rather too long a time. At present when there are such large numbers of railway workers out of employment, who are anxious to find useful and productive work,
Eight Hour Day

I would much sooner see the time allowed for the change to be much shorter than the twelve months stated in the amendment. After all the number of railway employees affected by this legislation must be extremely small.
Second. I have an objection to this class of amendment I object to selecting one form of labour out of all the others and making special provision for it. I do not see why railway employees should be singled out for special legislation as contained in this proposed clause. There must be other classes of employment wheTe men may be affected, and we are merely opening the door here for exemptions under the bill which may be requested by other employees or employers who may be affected in exactly the same way as the railway workers are by this measure. Consequently, when we are attempting to pass legislation of this character, there should be equality in it, and there is not equality the moment we attempt to legislate for one industry and we do not legislate for others in exactly the same way. I realize that it may take time to adjust the position of certain classes of railway employees so far as hours of labour are concerned. The hon. member for Bow River informs me that under the bill as it reads at present they have three months, and with a large number of railway employees in the running trades out of work at the present time, when a man with twenty years seniority is probably wiping an engine or is not employed at all, or, as I know in similar instances, when such men are on government relief work, three months is a fairly reasonable time to allow railway employees to adjust themselves to the provisions of the forty-eight hour week.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When the amendment was first suggested as an amendment to clause 9, it was made apparent that some time would have to be given in order to permit industry to adjust itself to the provisions of the bill generally. Then representations were made by organized labour, railway labour, the trades and labour congress of Canada, and discussions were held as late as this morning with the all-Canadian congress of labour. The various chairmen of the brotherhoods, some of which have many members who since 1928 have had difficulty in getting the work they would like on our railways, were consulted and the matter was gone into with great care. I recognize the dangers I have already pointed out in the debate of making a series of exceptions to a bill of this character, because of the everpresent danger of excepting the bill out of existence, if I may put the matter in that

way. But it must be borne in mind that for many years past railway workers in the running trades have arranged their agreements with the railway companies on a mileage basis. The various agreements-and there are many of	them-have	been
worked out on that basis during probably the past twenty-five or thirty years. Generally speaking the agreements have been satisfactory. I know that since 1928, by reason of various factors that have entered into the transportation business in Canada, a considerable percentage of railroad employees have been let out of the service or put on very short time. That is deeply to be regretted. Some of the factors causing that condition are beyond the control of any parliament or any railway company or any labour union. But the fact remains that the arrangements entered into voluntarily between the brotherhoods and the railway companies have grown up over a long period of years, and in the running trades have not been based upon an hourly schedule of work, but rather on mileage. These agreements are extremely complex, they are as complex as the transportation system itself. Having grown up over that long period of time, the representatives of all parties, both the railway companies and the brotherhoods and the labour congress, recognized that it was physically impossible to readjust within a shorter period than twelve months, agreements that would probably have to be entirely changed to an hourly basis rather than a basis of mileage or a combination of both, because it seemed to be the desire of those with whom I and my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce consulted, to spread this labour as far as possible amongst those railroad workers qualified to do the work. After the conference this amendment to section 9 was generally agreed to. Many drafts were made of the section in order that the difficulty which confronted us might be solved. Now, if it appears within a period of a year that these adjustments over the transportation system cannot be brought about, or if for any other reason the agreements are not adjusted in such a way that the greatest good will result to those most entitled to benefit, then hon. members will see that the amendment gives power to the governor in council to cause the suspension of the agreements or any one of them in the meantime. I believe that the amendment is the best that can be fashioned to prevent great confusion in the change-over from the present system to a system of employment that will fall within the principle and intention of the legislation.

Economic Council


Mr. EULER:: Are we to understand that this amendment meets with the practically unanimous approval of the men concerned and of the employers also?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Their representatives, yes. They were present at the conference.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is our understanding.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Alan Webster Neill: Before the bill passes-I think this is the last section?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I would ask the minister if he would consider having the amendments reprinted for third reading, as suggested by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) in connection with another bill? This is a complicated bill, the amendments are strung over four or five different Hansards, we would have to pack a whole grip full of them around to explain the bill properly.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think the suggestion is a good one. I shall take what steps are necessary to have the bill reprinted with the amendments.
Bill reported.



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to establish the Economic Council of Canada and to provide for the employment of such officers and employees, and for the payment of such expenses as may be necessary to carry into effect the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Morand in the chair.
George Halsey Perley: The object of
this resolution is to establish a body to coordinate the work of the various departments of government and make more effective use of the ability and energy of the higher civil servants now in the employ of the dominion. I need hardly tell the committee that we have among our civil servants a large number of very high class men, men who are well-educated and capable in various directions
and who at the same time have an appreciation of the best methods and commonsense ways of dealing with things. They are students perhaps in the first instance, but the fact of their having been connected with the government here has given them other ways of looking at these things. They have a special knowledge of our economic problems, and we believe the setting up of this economic council, will, as I said, enable us to use their energies to better advantage, and will also save time and labour for members of the government of the day and especially of the Prime Minister. For this reason this economic council is placed under the Prime Minister.
It has been evident for many years that the ministers of the crown have too much detailed work to attend to, and that the Prime Minister especially under our system has far more to do than any one man should have. Many years ago when I was first a member of the government of Canada we talked over 1 his very question of the organization of the civil service and the work that was imposed upon members of the government, and the Borden government of that time decided to investigate this question. We looked around and picked out, we thought, the very best man that we could find in the world at that time to come here and give us advice on the subject. That man was Sir George Murray, who had been for many years the secretary of the treasury, the permanent head of the treasury in Great Britain, and who as everyone in this committee knows is the chief civil servant of Great Britain and their doyen. Sir George Murray spent quite a long time here and made an exhaustive report which contained very many useful suggestions. Among other things he was very definite in his statement that ministers of the crown and especially the Prime Minister undertook too much work and that it would be better if we followed a little more the system in vogue in the mother country of allowing the civil servants and the secretaries of the ministers to deal definitely with more questions than they were permitted to deal with here at that time.
Unfortunately the war intervened and, as was the case with many other matters, this report was lost sight of, so nothing has ever been done about it. That was twenty-three or twenty-four years ago, and since that time the work of government has vastly increased. My right hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen opposite who have belonged to the government, as well as my colleagues on this side, will agree with that statement. More
Economic Council

and more the government are being compelled to take cognizance of business questions and other matters which interest the country as a whole. Of late the newspapers have been referring to this, particularly since the Prime Minister has been under the weather. No doubt the Prime Minister's illness is due in large part to the heavy work he has had to carry on in the last four or five years. The newspapers have been commenting on this fact and drawing conclusions from it, with which in quite large measure I agree. It is believed that more assistance should be obtained from the permanent civil servants, and the bill I hope to introduce later on is intended to meet that situation to some degree.
This economic council can be given any work to deal with or any question to consider which the Prime Minister thinks it would be wise to have them look into. For instance, I fancy that everyone here will agree with my view when I say that perhaps one of the most difficult questions the world has to face to-day is the overgrowth of our cities, the fact that, naturally enough, people drift into the cities. That is due to the attractions of the cities, the bright lights on the main streets, the cinemas, the street cars and so on.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: The high tariff.


George Halsey Perley: I think the hon. gentleman must have an obsession on the subject of high tariffs, but I do not think that takes people into the cities. I wonder what remedy can be found for this situation.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: A change of government.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. gentleman suggests a change of government. I would expect him to say that, because he has no other solution to suggest; he keeps harping on the one string. Why not suggest something else?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is a very good solution.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, from the point of view of the hon. gentleman-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And of the people.


George Halsey Perley: I have no doubt it would suit the hon. gentleman very well but I would feel sorry for the people if that happened.
At all events, Mr. Chairman, that occurred to me as an example of the type of question that might be referred to this council, the finding of some solution which would lessen the number of people in the cities and keep a

larger number on the land, not for the purpose of raising wheat or some other commodity for sale but for the purpose of making a living on the land, as our forefathers did and as the habitants of Quebec do at the present time. I fancy that would be a fair question to submit to this council which will be set up under the act I propose to introduce if the committee accepts this resolution. This bill has been preceded by a resolution because there is a small expenditure involved. That expenditure, however, really will be insignificant, since it is expected that those who serve will do so in an honorary capacity, and the functions of this economic council will be purely executive and not in any way administrative.
I fancy it is a platitude, Mr. Chairman, to say that the most pressing problems of the day are economic. We have provided for research in the natural sciences; some years ago we established an industrial research council, which is located in a fine new budding in the lower end of the city. But I think we may say that the next few years can be more profitably employed in research into economic science. It is true that of late years a great deal more attention has been given economic investigation. In many countries there are private agencies carrying on such investigations; in some countries wealthy men have endowed this research work under various foundations, and as we all know this work is being rapidly extended. In addition there have been governmental organizations of various kinds to deal with economic questions. During the last three years there have been full dress debates in this house on this subject, and I believe the last resolution dealing with it was introduced by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). I should like to congratulate the hon. member upon considering the matter as he has done and giving it so much study. This is an important matter and I believe all hon. members are grateful to him for bringing it up. When the resolution to which I have referred was under discussion in January last, speaking at the conclusion of the debate the Prime Minister said:
I do suggest to the hon. gentleman that the purpose he has in mind has been served, and while congratulating him and the other members of the house on the contribution they have made as to the value of scientific knowledge being applied to the nation and its affairs, as scientific ideas are with respect to the transaction of ordinary business by the various concerns carrying on the trade and commerce of the country, for those reasons I think the resolution might be withdrawn.



IS, 1935

[Stage Direction]
Economic Council
It would appear the hon. member for Red Deer agreed to the withdrawal of his resolution. We now have before us another resolution having for its purpose the betterment of conditions to which the hon. member referred.
Perhaps at this time I would do well briefly to review past policies and future requirements for the strengthening of our governmental machinery. Research falls into two sharply differentiated categories (a) research in natural sciences and (b) research in social and economic sciences. The purpose of this measure is to promote the latter aim, and is done if not wholly at least largely through the use of statistics. The term "statistics" has been defined as a science which treats of the measurement and interpretation of social and economic phenomena both as a whole and in separate manifestations.
A government is broken into various departments, each with a more or less specific function, and I submit that there is need for coordination and an omnibus point of view in economic policies. For the coordination of research in the natural sciences, the National Council of Industrial and Scientific research has been established. Similarly, on the economic side, which involves entirely different legal powers and technical methods, the coordinating problem was fundamentally attacked in 1918 when the Dominion Bureau of Statistics was set up.
In passing I believe it is only fair to say that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has done first class work and must receive commendation from every person who has to do with it. This bureau supplies statistics which are absolutely trustworthy and available for every person. The policy of statistical research was inaugurated as the result of an inquiry made in 1912 by a royal commission. To-day however I submit to the committee that it is essential for us to go further and work from a wider and all-embracing viewpoint. This, we are doing in the present measure.
I believe between twenty-five and thirty countries have now set up bodies of this kind. They may be divided into two broad types or categories, namely those having more or less definite executive functions and those created for advisory purposes alone. These bodies are of various types, some being purely consultative and some having almost unlimited executive functions. The Economic Advisory Council of Great Britain was constituted in 1930 for advisory and research purposes only. It is given authority "to advise His Majesty's government in economic matters, to make continuous study of developments in trade and 92582-114
industry, and in the use of national and imperial resources. . . and of all aspects of national, imperial and international economy with a bearing on the prosperity of the country."
An economic advisory council is primarily an agency for inquiry and report. It is desirable to emphasize the point that it is not an agency for determining policy; policy must be determined by the government. It is not an agency for administration; administration must be the work of departments and commissions and does not fit in well with the central purpose of the advisory council, namely that of inquiry. While it should contribute towards a more considered and ordered planning of governmental affairs, is it not an agency for controlling the economic activities of the nation.
I have some references before me which, with the permission of the house, I should like to place on Hansard. These are extracts from reports which have been made regarding this particular matter. I find that in 1931 Sir Arthur Salter, who is director of the economic and financial section of the League of Nations, was consulted by the government of India with regard to the creation of a new economic organization in India. I quote the following from his report:
The period since the war has witnessed the development of what may prove to be an important adjunct to the machine of government throughout a large part of the world in the form of advisory economic councils and committees. These vary considerably in functions and in form; but they present certain common characteristics and seem to respond to a widely felt need in the post war world. The state's action in connection with the national economic life has almost everywhere become more extensive and more complex. Whether in the increased range of state control, or the construction of new and more complicated tariffs, or the institution of systems of prohibition or licence or state encouragement for some form of monopolies, the government has almost everywhere accepted more onerous and intricate duties.
I shall not read the whole of these observations. Skipping a portion of them I read:
The purposes vary largely, however, from country to country, and, with them, the form of organization. No system effectively serves them all.
(a)	The existence of a council composed of those with experience in every main sphere -of the country's economic .activity, established under legislative authority and, under varying forms, in effective contact with the government, often helps to secure greater coordination and unity of national policy. This is a real need because whatever the administrative organization of a particular government, most specific economic problems tend to cut across departmental frontiers.
[Stage Direction]
Economic Council
[Stage Direction]
That is to say, hon. members are aware that questions may arise which hold the interest of three or four departments of government Some way must be found carefully to consider the views of these various departments. Then to continue:
(b)	The new institutions may in several ways lead to an improvement of the statistical and commercial intelligence machinery which is available for the purpose of following the development of events and thought, both at home and abroad, and which thus affords a basis of statistical and other facts for the examination of current practical problems.
The report continues:
(c)	A third, and usually more prominent, purpose which is served, is that of securing the investigation of special economic problems, of current importance, by the _ best qualified experts including both economists and persons with business and other practical experience. This purpose is well illustrated by the British Economic Advisory Council.
In 1928 the Liberal Industrial Inquiry in Great Britain brought out a report entitled "Britain's Industrial Future" which contains a chapter warmly endorsing the idea of what is termed " An economic general staff." I quote from that report:
The problems of modern government have become more numerous and more technical. Parliamentary time, to an increasing degree, is occupied by questions which are primarily economic rather than political in the older sense of that word. Government departments have been subdivided and new administrative bodies have been brought into existence, not because of any bias towards bureaucracy, but by the sheer pressure of evolution in an industrialized nation. No matter how firm the determination of any government to avoid interference with industry, it finds itself called upon to remove difficulties from its path or to assist it. In any case, it is driven to recognize that in modern conditions its policies necessarily affect industry.
Nevertheless, the cabinet has no body of skilled advice on which to depend. The result is that troubles ahead are not anticipated, and, when they arrive, solutions to meet them are hurriedly improvised. Or, if competent commissions are appointed to_ study them, their reports come too late. Ministers and departments of state are necessarily concerned in the main with daily events and with the task of carrying On. The big problems of economic policy are only theirs when they are becoming ripe to be the subject of actual administration or legislation. It is, therefore, a vital need for a modern state to create a thinking department within the administration, which shall warn ministers of what is ahead and advise them on all the broad questions of economic policy.
As the problems of government become more technical, expert knowledge on them must be at the disposal of the government. It is not the duty of experts to decide matters of policy. But it is the duty of those who are responsible

for important decisions to make the fullest use of expert analysis and of expert statements as to the results which may reasonably be anticipated from this line of action or from that. It becomes more and more clear to the student of affairs, and indeed to the public, that many of the mistakes and blunders made by governments are due, not to ill-will or prejudice, but to sheer unpreparedness and' ignorance. A list of the major problems which governments holding office since the war have had to face illustrates the need of systematic thought in advance of executive decisions. There have been problems of a new kind as well as of unforeseen magnitude.
I omit the next clause, and would quote this paragraph:
Many of them are inter-departmental; and it has not been clear whose duty it is to exercise initiative or foresight.	What is clearly
required is that the cabinet should have at its disposal the best advice based on the fullest knowledge, and that the country as a whole should know that economic tendencies are not merely being recognized when some crisis occurs but that they are being constantly watched and studied, so that the government of the day may have a chance of averting difficulties and of meeting them with adequate measures.
Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask what the
right hon. gentleman is reading from?
Sir GEORGE' PERLEY: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear me; I am sorry. I am quoting from a report entitled " Britain's Industrial Future " made by the Liberal Industrial Inquiry in Great Britain in 1928. I have read those extracts to the committee because they show that this question has been receiving most careful thought in the old country, and I may add in almost every other country in the world. I submit for the consideration of hon. members these extracts that I have read, setting forth what seems to be a self-evident situation, and we hope that the arrangements that are proposed in this bill will help to meet these problems.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that with these preliminary observations the bill requires little explanation. When we go into committee upon it, I shall be glad to answer as fully as possible any questions that are asked. Although it is perhaps not in order to discuss the details at this stage I may say that the proposed bill sets up a council of fifteen, under the Prime Minister, recruited from three categories:	(a) government
officials; (b) representatives of organized economic bodies, and (c) experts. It may be that a good deal of the work of the council will be done by special committees created ad hoc which can work simultaneously on different problems allotted to them. This



[Stage Direction]
Economic Council
will make it possible to keep down, the numbers of the council and to secure participation in its work by men who might otherwise not have the time to spare for a number of detailed inquiries.
The machinery which is in this way going to be provided will, we all hope, solve for some time to come what has undoubtedly developed into a prime need of government, that of keeping abreast of economic thinking in general and of being continuously equipped with the materials required in the formulation of its broader economic policies, and of having more definitely recognized machinery to that end. The plan outlined, we believe, by a combination of the pertinent features in other plans will avoid pitfalls which have been encountered elsewhere. Some of these attempts at economic councils have not worked out elsewhere as we would like to see them work out in Canada.
As I said before, this proposal involves a minimum of new machinery and expense. We believe it is an effort in the right direction and that it will produce good results. This suggested council, it seems to me, is important also because of the stimulation which it is hoped it will afford to private economic research; that is to say, private economic research will be encouraged to go on as well; and it is important also in view of the opportunities it will hold out to the universities and to students of economics at large for an understanding and a liaison with those who are on the council, and for thus uniting and pooling the results of economic thinking throughout the dominion.	*
It is expected that the cost of the council will be comparatively little. The services of the council proper will be honorary, and only a small clerical staff will be needed. Most of the work will be done by experts, who will be brought in temporarily in connection with the subcommittees to which I have already referred.
If this bill becomes law it is the intention to call the council together as soon as possible, and to undertake a program which will not only deal with broad and general economic trends but will also tackle a number of specific economic problems.
I have endeavoured, Mr. Chairman, to give the committee an idea at not too great length of the purpose of this proposed legislation and of what we hope will be accomplished by it. When we are in committee on the bill and hon. members have the bill before them I will endeavour to make any further explanations that I may be asked for.
92582-114J
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to wait until I see the bill which is based on the resolution before saying very much in regard to the proposal itself. I might say just a word or two now arising out of the remarks of the acting leader of the government, inasmuch as they give what purports to be the purpose underlying the measure, and to a certain extent provisions of the measure itself.
As to the purpose of the economic council which it is intended to create, I gathered as I listened to my right hon. friend that it was first of all proposed to be in the nature of an advisory body which would be able to assist the Prime Minister in the discharge of his onerous duties, and that it would come under the direction of the Prime Minister himself. There seemed to be the other purpose, which is that of research-a body that would be concerned primarily with research into social and economic questions-and as such would be made up of or avail itself of the services of members of the public service whose efforts and work would be supplemented by experts from outside.
Both purposes I think are not only worthy but necessary ones at the present time. I think there is need, in connection with the Prime Minister's office, of provision for more effective advisory assistance to whoever may be holding the office. I think also it is necessary at this time that some body should have as its special duty the work of research into economic and social questions. What I am in doubt about is as to whether these two functions can best be combined in the manner evidently intended in the bill that is to be introduced.
The acting leader of the government has said a word about my possible sympathy with and understanding of some of the duties of the person, whoever he may be, holding the office of Prime Minister. May I avail myself at the moment of such experience and knowledge as I had while in that office, to say just a word on this very proposal. What I think is not generally realized with respect to the Prime Minister's office is that it is the only office in which a minister of the crown finds himself isolated without assistance such as is to be found in other departments of government. The Minister of Railways, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, any other of the ministers of the crown when they are appointed to office find, on entering upon their duties, a highly trained staff immediately available. There is a
Economic Council

deputy head who in most cases has been familiar with the work of the office for years, there are important heads of departments; and there is the complete staff which is necessary to carry on the work. But a Prime Minister goes into an office in which there is no one and he is expected to be able to deal with questions of government relating to practically all departments, and to deal with great questions of state from day to day and, when parliament is in session, from hour to hour, and he has no one in his office to whom he can turn to assist him in that particular work apart from those who are referred to as his secretaries.
I would point out that the work of a private secretary to the Prime Minister ought to be much the same as the work of private secretaries to other ministers. It should not be work which will combine the duties of a deputy head, of the secretary of a department, and of expert advisers in different branches; it should be confined to those immediate duties which we commonly associate with the work of a private secretary. It seems to me that the handling of a Prime Minister's correspondence and the necessity of arranging for interviews, to say nothing of also interviewing persons who come to see the Prime Minister on various questions, are of themselves sufficient to absorb all the time which two or more able and efficient private secretaries can give. But over and above that which is a part of every day routine, the real work of the Prime Minister himself is with the larger questions of government which are related to world affairs and the affairs of different departments of state, and in that regard he is totally without the kind of assistance which other ministers have in their departments.
What is really needed in connection with ,he Prime Minister's office is the appointment of two or three highly trained and able men who possess qualifications and might be in a position to serve as advisers to the Prime Minister on the questions that are certain to occupy most of his time. Of these questions, undoubtedly social and economic problems will be one of the most important. But I doubt very much whether it will relieve the Prime Minister of the heavy duties of his office to have added to his other obligations that of being responsible for the work of an economic council which will be composed of fifteen persons, some of whom are in the civil service and others who are brought in as experts from without. A body such as that might more appropriately, it seems to me, be brought into relationship with the department
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
which now exists for the purpose of research. At the moment the national research council is giving its time primarily to scientific research; but why there should not be arranged, as a branch of that body or an allied body the kind of organization that is here suggested, I cannot see. I have in my hand a copy of the Research Council Act-


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does not
the leader of the opposition think that the type of research carried on by such a council as is proposed would be different from the type of research carried on by the National Research Council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not as
to the machinery and organization required. In my opinion all research demands the same kind of qualities, and I think that the machinery or kind of organization found most effective for research in one-


Edward Joseph Garland: But one
is deductive and the other inductive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both require
highly trained intelligence and those habits of research and processes of reasoning that are cultivated by men whose time and thought are given to study. They are different qualities of mind from those required for administrative work, but research into economic and social questions in what it requires of processes of reasoning is to my mind altogether similar to research in any other branch, whether it relates to medicine or any of the natural sciences or any other branch of knowledge. It is a branch of knowledge. I do not say that the same laboratories will be used. In connection with social science, the laboratory may be the country, the methods of study or research are the same. They are the methods of minute and detailed investigation with deductions therefrom. The methods followed in postgraduate study in the great universities include in some instances these very social questions and are wholly similar. The phenomena are different and the scope of inquiry may be different, but the methods of work are very much the same.
I favour the idea of a council or some organized body that will be engaged in research on social and economic questions, but I think it will function much more efficiently as part of the national research organization which has already been formed. I do not say that the officers need necessarily be the same. Let it be organized on its own. But to form a council and make it a body which the Prime Minister of the country must be

Economic Council
responsible for will, I think, add tremendously to the Prime Minister's obligations instead of relieving them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to interrupt the leader of the opposition, but he has wide experience in organization work of this kind. I was going to ask him whether such a body could not be more closely related to the bureau of statistics which already carries out considerable special work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I was going to say was this, and the remark of my hon. friend bears out what was largely in my mind: If I were asked what would most assist a prime minister to-day in his onerous duties of government, I would say give him the opportunity to select two or three men in whose ability, judgment and discretion he has every confidence, have one of those gentlemen an adviser on social and economic problems and another to deal more particularly with state affairs that concern different departments of government and require the bringing together of the work of different departments in connection with matters on which the prime minister may wish to have the benefit of wider knowledge and advice, and allow those gentlemen to have a responsibility for using the public service in the way that will best serve the office of the prime minister. If the question is one of research into some matters of statistics, it should be possible for the prime minister to call upon the Bureau of Statistics to do whatever is needed for the government in connection with reports on statistical matters. If it is research into some other economic question, for example, the extent of wheat production and problems relating to wheat, it ought to be possible for the prime minister to call upon any department or group of officials of government to undertake that work. But I believe the work will be more effectively done, not by seeking to have one group or council which will have to deal with all classes of questions that may come up, but rather by having the machinery such that at any moment any particular branch of the public service may be drafted in to perform a special duty, supplementing its efforts by expert opinion from different sources.


George Halsey Perley: Will the right hon. gentleman permit me for a moment? I am very anxious that we should see eye to eye in regard to the machinery for this council, and I may say, in regard to the last remark made by the leader of the opposition, that as I understand the matter, the problems of various departments will be dealt with in
that way and that what we may call ad hoc members will be taken on for the purpose of discussing and reporting on any particular question that has to do with Trade and Commerce or Agriculture or whatever department it may be. I think he will find the bill is all right in that respect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course I am discussing the matter in a very general way and without any knowledge of the provisions of the bill. It may be that when we see the bill, some of my remarks will not be applicable. But what I am seeking to give to the committee at the moment is just the result of the remembrance of conditions as I experienced them when in office and as I believe the present prime minister has experienced them since he has been in office. To add to the present Prime Minister's many duties that of being responsible for the work of an economic council is not going to lessen, it is going to increase his duties, and for that reason I think any such action would be a mistake. But for this house to provide the Prime Minister of the country with two or three highly trained men in whose judgment he has confidence, who can be the instruments to help to bring to him the information that is needed with respect to great problems of government and who will be recognized as having authority to utilize the public services generally to that end, something of that kind would be of the greatest possible benefit. My right hon. friend is familiar with the position held in England for example by Sir Maurice Hankey. If we had in connection with our public service a gentleman holding a position similar to that which Sir Maurice Hankey holds, attached to the prime minister, a gentleman in whom the prime minister and ministers of the crown generally would have great confidence, who on behalf of the prime minister would be continually cooperating with other ministers of the crown in the assembling of material on matters that relate to great questions coming before the ministry for consideration, and who would be recognized as having authority to command the assistance of the public service generally, I believe such an official could be of tremendous help. But I do not believe a prime minister is going to be materially assisted by our increasing machinery for which he will be responsible. Where he will be assisted in a very real way is by giving him the aid of two or three men in whom he has every confidence, who will not be regarded as secretaries, who will not have the duties of stenographers, but who will be men of highly trained minds and intelligence and able
Economic Council

quickly to assemble and to assimilate the material which is needed for a discussion of public affairs. That would be the step which I believe would be most helpful' to a prime minister.
As to the other function-and I think the two have to be kept separate-of research into social and economic questions, I am wholly in favour of some small body in the public service being responsible for seeing that that kind of work is carried on continuously, and in accordance with known and proper methods, and of giving to a body of that kind an opportunity to add to its numbers from time to time with respect to the different questions that may come up. But I think such a body as that would be much better associated with a national council such as already exists, than it would be with the prime minister's office.
There is one other observation I should like to make at this moment, and it is this: I do not know what is contemplated in the way of appointments or staff, but while it may be alright for this house to consider the matter of machinery, and the provisions of a bill to meet the ends suggested, it would not be expedient before another parliament is elected for any appointments to be made to a body of this kind. The essence of the value of any advisory body is the degree of confidence that those who are responsible for its work may have in those who compose its membership. If the purpose of this bill is simply to enable the government to select out of different departments those who may be its particular favourites at the moment and to award them positions which are to continue for the next few years, then I say that the government is making a mistake in attempting anything of that sort.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not a still more important question the character of the investigations that they are to be directed by the government to undertake?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is equally important, but there again that is a matter of ministerial responsibility. If this bill is intended to take away from the government its responsibility for the investigation of social and economic problems and to place that responsibility on the shoulders of some group to be specially named for the purpose as an economic council, then I think it will be but another step in the way of getting away from ministerial responsibility and I would not be in favour of it. I am not sure that the measure may not tend to have that effect. As we all know, throughout the world to-day there

is a tendency for governments to relieve themselves more and more of responsibility, and more and more to place responsibility on selected bodies for the purpose of re'ieving governments of some of their duties in public matters. If the measure is so intended I would think it inadvisable to have it enacted. A measure of this kind might more appropriately have been brought in at the first session of a new parliament rather than at the last session of an old parliament. But as it is coming at the last session of an old parliament, then so far as appointments under the measure are concerned they should be left until after a general election, when whatever administration may be responsible for carrying on the work of the government will have opportunity of appointing those for whose appointment they will have to be responsible and in whose judgment they will wish to have every confidence.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: At this stage and without knowledge of the bill itself I shall speak very briefly; I shall not attempt to deal with what might be termed the machinery or the details. The suggestion itself I welcome in principle; that is, I welcome first the recognition by the government of the principle that economic and social problems are worthy of much greater and more concentrated study than has been given them up to the present, and second the principle that this can best be done by giving at least a degree of responsibility to a body of men to carry on that work. From the discussion so far I am not sure what will be the real form or functions or purpose of this body. It has been suggested that one of its chief functions will be to assist the Prime Minister. Well, I am in the fortunate position that I have had no experience as prime minister, and never shall have any-


Robert James Manion: Why not?


Alfred Speakman: -but I have watched prime ministers in action, and I am satisfied, and I think it will be a sentiment agreed to throughout the entire house, that undoubtedly some assistance should be given to relieve any prime minister of the growing burden of detailed work which now rests upon his shoulders. I have not always seen eye to eye with the present Prime Minister; that could hardly be expected as I have always come into the house by defeating one of his supporters. At the same time I think I express what we all feel when I say, first, that we deeply regret the Prime Minister's illness and his absence, and second that we recognize that in large measure that absence has been forced upon

Economic Council
him by the fact that for the past four or five years he has been trying in all sincerity and in all courage to do two or three men's work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Speakman: Anything which will
take some of that load from the shoulders of any prime minister will be all to the good.
But as I conceive it the principal purpose in the formation of such a body as is proposed goes much further than that, unless indeed the function of advising the Prime Minister be interpreted in its widest possible sense. The Prime Minister is of course the head of the government, and advising the Prime Minister is in effect advising the government itself as to matters of major policy, placing before the government through the Prime Minister information necessary to enable that government to come to wise conclusions. Viewing the matter in that wider sense I assume that the function of advising the Prime Minister does include almost the entire functions of an economic council. It would be difficult for me to divide those functions into the two classes suggested, advisory and research. Advisory, certainly, but based upon what? Based upon the most intensive research into the problems, upon the widest possible knowledge and the most comprehensive study of the entire situation. I can conceive of no advice which would be worthy of the name unless it was preceded by and based upon that intensive research into the social and economic questions which I understand would be the first and primary duty of such a body. I shall not comment on the suggestion that has been made that to a large extent the body proposed by the present resolution will simply be an interdepartmental body to correlate the activities of various departments and coordinate the information which will be found therein. That would be a most useful function, but far from meeting the necessities of the case. However as that will come up in considering the bill itself, when the machinery will be discussed in more detail, and the method of appointment and principle of representation upon that council may be understood more clearly, I shall reserve comment upon that phase until that time.
I should like however to indicate very briefly some considerations which were before me and those who agreed with me when this matter was brought .before the house on former occasions, because as the acting Prime Minister has said this is a matter to which I have given some consideration. Indeed I think I have had the honour of introducing the suggestion in concrete form inito the house on
several occasions. I am glad to see those suggestions are bearing fruit. I may say at once that I am not so vainglorious as to believe that this bill is being introduced because I made the suggestion; at the same time there is a satisfaction in seeing that at that time I was interpreting public opinion and outlining a need, and that that need is now recognized in the house as well as throughout the country.
As to the work which might be doDe by such a body, the subject is so vast as to be approached with some trepidation, and touched upon only superficially in any address; and I have no intention of making an address at this time. I have on other occasions stated most of my general opinions on the subject. I listened with much interest when the acting Prime Minister mentioned one of the problems which might be referred to such a body, that of the trend towards the cities and the relative depopulation of our rural areas. While I agreed with him fully as he proceeded to indicate that the question of moving men into small self-supporting holdings in the country might be one subject of research, I thought if this were as far as the economic council would go in studying that problem it would fail utterly in its function.


George Halsey Perley: Will the hon member permit me? That is only one points-


Alfred Speakman: Oh, quite; I have no intention of suggesting that the acting Prime Minister limit the inquiry into the problem to that somewhat superficial aspect. I suggest that a study of that question must embrace most of the economic troubles that beset this nation, because you have to find out not only some way of distributing the surplus population from the city, but why there is this trend. The cause will be found to embrace the relative standards of living and the entire question of our industrial and distributive system, and to involve the whole subject of education and the varied opportunities which are afforded people in the rural and urban areas. I was disappointed-perhaps not disappointed but to say the least, surprised-rto hear the suggestion that that trend might be stopped were a change of government to take place. Any such suggestion shows a very shallow knowledge of the situation, because that trend has prevailed under every government and in every country. It was taking place with just as great acceleration in the nine years preceding 1930 as in the four or five years since; it is dependent on no special government being in power, and is far beyond any question of party politics. Its causes go far deeper than that; they go
Economic Council

to the very roots of our modem civilization, our industry and our agricultural system. I venture to suggest that in connection with that very problem the economic council would be obliged to investigate a subject which I think above all others should be investigated, the distribution in a proper way of that which we can produce and the relationship of finance and other factors to that distribution. This opens up a very wide field, and that is why I have in mind something perhaps a good deal more permanent and a good deal more important in the future than is visualized by the acting Prime Minister in this beginning. I quite realize the fact that the last session of parliament prior to an election is no time to set up wide and extensive machinery of any kind which might take over functions hitherto either unperformed or considered governmental. May I say at once that I only welcome this as the acorn from which a much larger tree may grow. I should like to see- and I hope this will be the germ-not a body composed mainly of departmental officials but a body truly representative of the problem itself, a body as permanent in its nature as the national council on technical and scientific research.
I am not going to compare those two problems. The acting Prime Minister has well said that economic and social research and all the problems related to that question are far more important and deserving of far more attention on the part of any government than are the problems of scientific research. The acting Prime Minister did not go quite that far, but that was the suggestion. I have said before, and perhaps it will do no harm to repeat it, that while technical and scientific research is carried on in many branches and in many places under private enterprise and initiative, because the results of that research may be reflected in increased profits, increased dividends or increased comforts to those engaged in the research, in the case of the corporations or firms carrying it on, properly speaking this question with which we are now dealing is one which affects primarily the state itself, society as a whole, not one individual particularly or primarily, not one firm or corporation, but the state as such. The solution of these problems would be reflected not necessarily in increased profits or dividends but in higher standards of living and better living conditions for the people as a whole. That means that there is only one body which should become primarily responsible for making that research possible; that body is the state, which represents all the people and society as a whole.
fMr. Speakman.]
I must confess, though I speak always with deference because of my more limited experience, that I cannot agree with the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition that this council should be made a branch, as it were, of the present national council on scientific research. I agree entirely with the suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River; indeed I think I have made that suggestion myself, that while in one sense the problems are similar, there is a vast difference between the two. It is a question of knowledge and research and of the application of knowledge which 'has been obtained, but the methods are different, the subjects are different, the very bases are different. I agree at once that somewhat the same type of mind is required, that type of mind which, regardless of whose toes are trodden upon and regardless of how many existing prejudices may be upset, will search and delve until it reaches the truth and will bring in conclusions based upon that truth. I agree that the true scientific mind is required in both cases, yet I do suggest that the training of the mind and the objective are wholly different. More than that, the very basis is different. When you are dealing with scientific and technical research you are dealing with factors which may or may not be known but which, when found out, are tangible, immovable and certain; they are exact. In the realm of economic and social science you are dealing with something intangible, in regard to which differences of opinion will exist; you are dealing with questions on which at present few men agree. We have different schools of economic and social thought, and I may suggest that some of those schools of economic thought, some of those who are seeking a remedy for our present ills, hate each other worse than they hate the common enemy. So long as you have that frame of mind you cannot have the exact, scientific attitude brought to bear upon the problem which is essential.
Moreover I believe that the nature of the problem itself is so important and its scope so tremendous that it well deserves a separate establishment known and honoured as the national council of economic research, with its attention diverted to no other matters and with full power to carry on its activities. Further may I express the hope that we will see in this country not a body which will usurp the authority of parliament-I have never suggested that such an economic council should have the executive authority to put its findings into effect-but a body speaking with authority based upon knowledge, and after all upon knowledge alone can true authority be based. I hope this will grow

Economic Council
out of the present proposed legislation. I hope we shall have a body speaking with authority and taking the responsibility of advising the government as tj what policies would be most beneficial. Naturally any government and any parliament must take the responsibility of putting into effect and enforcing those policies. I am not suggesting in any way that the rights and responsibilities of parliament and of the government should be upset or usurped by any such body, but I am suggesting that governments and parliaments to-day are functioning, passing laws and taking action often on a basis of either ignorance or inexact and inaccurate information, and I believe this would do something to remedy that condition. I am not worrying just now about the welfare of any party, because I think after all that is a very trivial matter. I am hoping that out of this legislation as time goes on and as the idea develops, takes root and is accepted, as I believe it will be accepted, with acclamation-and the wider its spread and the deeper its roots the greater the acclamation-we may reach that point which we must reach or our problems will not be solved, that point when in parliament and out of parliament we can discuss these social and economic problems, which are of such overwhelming importance, on their merits, on a basis of knowledge and without the interjection of partisanship and political feeling. Perhaps that is too much to hope for, but at least it would take away some of the stigma and some of the stain of partisan politics if that information were at the disposal of the house and the government which must take the responsibility for introducing the legislation.
Perhaps I need say no more just now; after all this is only the resolution stage and I cannot tell, nor is it right for me to anticipate, to what degree and in what measure the legislation itself will bear out what I have said. In closing, however, may I say that I welcome this move because I see in it the adoption of a principle, the germ of an idea, which although it will be small this session, for good reason, perhaps may grow until it will form one of the most dominant and important factors in our modern civilization. The scope of the work to be done is enormous and the number of subjects to be investigated is legion. As I close I would suggest also that this is not merely a matter of searching out statistics and facts, important and all essential though those may be. I yield to none in my admiration of our bureau of statistics, which I believe to be one of the most efficient in the world to-day, much of its information
being useless because no use is being made of it. But if this were only a matter of delving into statistics and stating and correlating known facts, it would be but a barren move. Eventually we have to place on such a body the responsibility for the drawing of deductions and the correlating not only of facts but of opinions, and the responsibility for at least trying to think out something we have never thought out before, namely, what is going to be the final effect on the public weal of those different lines of isolated action. We have in Canada a number of outstanding illustrations indicating the need for a body such as I have described. I am not going to refer to that bete noir of the house, the transportation problem, nor shall I refer to many other matters. I should however like to mention one basic problem which may have caused more trouble for Canada than any other: I refer to the two divergent and conflicting policies which have been followed in Canada ever since western Canada was opened up. One policy encouraged by governments and by all who were interested in development was to make of western Canada a huge wheat exporting country. The western country was developed on that basis, and apparently every political party-and I am not now blaming the parties-parliament itself forgot that when accepting this as a paramount and foundation policy they were making of the west an agricultural country dependent upon huge exports for its existence. Side by side with that we attempted to build up within Canada the conflicting policy of a self-supporting industrial system. I submit that these two policies are mutually destructive; you cannot have both. Perhaps the source of some of our greatest troubles in making trade agreements and trade pacts and in getting reasonable tariffs, find their root in the fact that parliament went in two different directions, attempted to establish two different lines of policy, one of which was subversive of the other. You cannot have a country producing huge quantities of agricultural products, quantities normally in excess of its domestic needs, and at the same time have a self-contained industrial country which is not prepared to import the goods which must be accepted in exchange for the farm produce exported.
Again I am not suggesting that such a council should assume the responsibilities of parliament or of governments, but I do suggest that had a council been established many years ago and been given authority to make effective recommendations, the power to go into the facts and point out what would be
Economic Council

the results, the power to give guidance to parliament in what I consider was at that time a foolish and mutually destructive course of action, it might have prevented much of the disturbance and trouble we now find in Canada. One party in this chamber I am afraid cannot shake the finger of scorn at another, because the same policies have been followed by each and by parliament as a whole. Further than that, those policies have been supported by the people as a whole who thought they could visualize the ideal of a huge exporting country on the one hand and a self-contained industrial country on the other.
I suggest that is the kind of work which an economic council properly constituted and properly functioning might well perform. It could make suggestions to parliament and to government as to real lines of governmental and state policy which would result in reasonable balance and reasonably happy functioning. To-day one of the problems has been suggested by the acting Prime Minister, but the basic problem, that of making use of the abundance we can produce, to my mind lies at the root of our difficulties. This problem should be studied and examined impartially and free from partisanship or prejudice, so as to ascertain whether or not we may solve what has become not only a problem but a menace to ourselves and to civilization.


Jean-François Pouliot: The resolution provides
for the appointment of an economic council. I say we already have one, because when I turn to page twenty-five of the parliamentary guide I find that we have first, the Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for External Affairs; second, Minister of Justice and Attorney General; third, Solicitor General; fourth, Minister of Finance; fifth, Minister of Railways and Canals, who is also in charge of tourist traffic; sixth, Postmaster General; seventh, Minister of Public Works; eighth, Secretary of State; ninth, Minister of Pensions and National Health; tenth, Minister of Marine; eleventh, Minister of the Interior and Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; twelfth, Minister of Labour, Mines, and acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization; thirteenth, Minister of Agriculture; fourteenth, Minister of National Revenue; fifteenth, Minister of Trade and Commerce; sixteenth, Minister of National Defence-and we have those very able men supported by a brain trust composed of three ministers without portfolio. First we have the acting

Prime Minister, then a former Prime Minister of Canada who is now leader of the government in the Senate, a man who is considered throughout Canada as a very able person, and third, another privy councillor from Prince Edward Island. Then, in addition to that we have another brain trust; there is the Canadian Minister to Washington who during the campaign of 1930 was the political adviser to the Prime Minister. Since then very often he has come to give his advice to the Prime Minister. In fact all this social legislation was inspired by him and was enunciated in his famous speech before the Canadian club at Ottawa. Therefore I wonder if the government will dispense with the services of such an eminent political adviser and replace by an economic council a man who is also an expert in the advertising of manufactured products. I wonder if the government would dispense with the services of such an eminent gentleman; I would be sorry for the government because he seems to be a genial adviser. I am pleased to note that the faces of the hon. members on the treasury benches are adorned with smiles. I know they are relieved; I know that this legislation means the former political adviser to the Prime Minister is now a thing of the past, and that he will be bound to remain in Washington, especially when questions are being asked about his travelling to and fro.
Then, in the various departments we have deputies and assistant deputies. These are men of great knowledge and wide experience. At times however the ministers are so well informed that they can dispense with their deputy heads. We find this happening in the Department of Marine and in the Department headed by the Postmaster General. These gentlemen have such wide knowledge of their respective departments that they can dispense with the services of their deputy heads. I would say however that every department is supposed to have a deputy head; that is in accordance with the law. It is a law which was good enough for Cartier and Macdonald, for Laurier and Borden and for Mr. Meighen. It was good enough for Mr. Mackenzie King, my right hon. leader. But now we come to this: We need an economic council. The government is eating soup for dessert because all the legislation on which the government should have had the advice of its economic council is already 'before us, and we have not had the benefit of the economic council's advice upon the social insurance measure, for instance, the eight hour day, and all the other legislation that is now

Economic Council
before us. Either that legislation is good or it is bad. if it is good, and I suggest that only for the sake of argument, we do not need that economic council. If it is bad, why was the1 legislation drafted before the economic council was formed? We are still living in a fools' paradise. I am sorry to 'have to say that, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot understand how the government can go on with this proposed legislation.
One hon. gentleman, I do not know wihether it was the acting Prime Minister, my right hon. leader or the hon. member for Red Deer, has said that this economic council is being formed as a measure of relief to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Temds-couata has repeatedly in this house, and he has said it particularly to the Solicitor General, who is now listening, that the leader of t-he government should be given time enough to think by keeping away from him all those flatterers who make him waste his time by asking for favours. These good-for-nothings should not be allowed to approach him, in order that the Prime Minister may have sufficient time to think of matters of state. 1 have repeatedly urged that in this house, and I have urged it upon my hon. friend, and I ask him now to create a barrage between the Prime Minister and those who are making him waste his time by their visits.
It is not at all necessary for the government to have an economic council. May I quote from a book that was written by a French academician a long time ago, in 1909, His name was Emile Faguet, and the title of the book is Le culte de l'incompetence-The cult or the worship of incompetence. Here is what this author says at page 59 of this book:

That is the legislator:
II devrait etre tres inform^, non pas tant de ce qui est dans les livres,-quoique encore il dut avoir des connaissances juridiques assez etendues, pour ne pas faire, ce qui arrive a chaque instant, exaetement le contraire de ce qu'il veut faire-que du temperament et de l'esprit general du peuple pour lequel il fait des lois.
Le legislateur ideal, ou simplement suffisant, doit done connaitre les inclinations generales de son peuple et les depasser et les dominer, puisqu'il a pour mission en partie de les satisfaire, en partie de les combattre.
This resolution provides for an advisory council. In the time of Cartier and Macdonald-I will go further back to Lafontaine and Baldwin and say that we have had great men in this country, Lafontaine and Baldwin, Cartier and Macdonald, Borden and Laurier, my right hon. leader, and the right hon. leader
of the government in the Senate. All these were able men and they did very well without the assistance of any economic council.
Advisory? Why should this council be advisory? Why should the leader of the government receive any advice from people who are hair-splitters most of the time? There is no reason for such advice. May I bring to the attention of the right hon. acting Prime Minister, who is a graduate of Harvard and a well read man, this fact, that in the eighteenth century there was a strong tendency towards agnosticism in philosophy, but for some years now that tendency has been transferred towards the economic life of nations, and we now have a lot of cranks in the universities who are more interested in the solution of a theoretical problem than in the welfare of the people. Naturally there are exceptions, but there are many of those people I speak of, and we have to censure strongly some chancellors of universities, like one in Montreal, who is also the president of a great railway company. He tolerates in that university professors of economics who are socialists and communists and are teaching socialism and communism to the youth. The same thing is going on in Toronto university. The university I referred to first was McGill of Montreal, and the chancellor I referred to was Mr. Beatty, who does not object to some of the professors there, although they belong to highly respectable families, teaching socialism and communism to the youth. One of them is the son of a very great and a very intelligent man. I am in favour of freedom of speech but it is most dangerous to the welfare of the community and the future welfare of this country to allow those cranks to teach socialsim and communism to the youth. Why do we have so much trouble now in economics in this country?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: The acting leader of the
government said that the object of this resolution was to establish a body to coordinate the work of the various departments and to make more effective use of the ability and energy of the higher civil servants now in the employ of the dominion. The civil servants at large are doing very well, provided that the minister is equal to his function. He adds that they, the higher civil servants, have a special knowledge of our economic problem. Is it not the business
Economic Council

of the government to have that special knowledge? They may direct the ability and energy of the civil servants along a certain line in order that they may make the best of the government's policies; but the special knowledge of our economic problems should be in the possession of the cabinet. The right hon. gentleman added that it would save time and labour to the government. It will save labour on the part of the government. But they must be ready to serve. If they are not satisfied with their task they have only one thing to do, and that is to resign and leave it to men who are not afraid to work. The ministers of the crown, he said, have too much detailed work to attend to. There is an easy remedy; curtail that detail work. It is a simple remedy, and it is because it is so simple that they will not accept it; they want something complicated. Let them direct their ability and energy to the welfare of the country. The right hon. gentleman referred to Sir George Murray, who had been the secretary of the treasury in Great Britain, and his advice to the Borden government twenty-three or twenty-four years ago. The fashion has changed since then. He continued : More and more the government are being compelled to take cognizance of business questions and other matters which interest the country as a whole. This is what we call in French verite de la Palice. It is most elementary that the government should take cognizance of business questions and other matters that interest the country as a whole; that is why they have been sworn as ministers of the crown and attend sittings of the council. The acting leader of the government said further:	The Prime Minister's illness is due in large part to the heavy work he had to carry on in the last four or five years. I do not deny that he has had a good deal of work, but everyone will agree with me when I say that he has had no system, and that is why he is exhausted now. No one compelled him to make long journeys to get a degree in the United States or in any province. It was tiresome and exhausting,, but the higher the degree the higher the fever. It was not part of the duties of the Prime Minister; he was supposed to stay here and look after the business of the state. I am sorry that he is ill, but if he exhausted himself travelling to and fro it is because no one on the other side, not even a doctor, gave him the very sound advice that he should stay in Ottawa and attend to his duties as Prime Minister instead of doing as a wandering Jew. fMr. Pouliot.]
The overgrowth of our cities is one problem which has been mentioned by the acting Prime Minister as a reason for this new legislation. Is there not a select standing committee on industrial relations and another one on agriculture? This matter could be studied at any time by either of these committees. There is no necessity to appoint such an economic council. The right hon. gentleman adds that one question that might be referred to this council is the finding of some solution which would lessen the number of people in the city and keep a larger number on the land-mark you this is most important-"not for the purpose of raising wheat or some other commodity for sale"-the farmer should not be on the land to sell his products; these are words which have been used by the acting leader of the government-"but for the purpose of making a living on the land, as our forefathers did and as the habitants of Quebec do at the present time." If they do not sell their commodities how can they make a living for themselves on the land? How can the farmer remain on the land if he grows commodities and does not sell them? It is most absurd, so absurd that it will take an economic council to devise a plan which will enable the farmer to stay on the land, to grow commodities which he does not sell. It is a most extraordinary thing, and I am sure that the idea was put into the right hon. gentleman's head by someone who wants to get on that economic council. The right hon. gentleman adds: "The functions of this economic council will be purely executive and not in any way administrative." We have already the executive council, which is the aggregation of ministers sitting in council. It is a part of our system along with parliament and the judiciary, and this will be done away with and will be replaced by an economic council which will have executive functions. It is easy to see that it will save time and labour to the government; it will do the work of the ministers. He adds that the purpose of this measure is to promote research in the social and economic sciences and that "there is need for coordination and an omnibus point of view in economic policies." It reminds me of the differences that exist between the former Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Secretary of State. I wonder whether the function of this so-called economic council will be to conciliate such divergent views in order that all gentlemen who do not share the same views will be put into an omnibus-an omnibus point of view in economic policies. It is a liaison body between all those on the other side of the house who

Economic Council
have divergent views; it is a matter of diplomacy. The acting Prime Minister quotes Sir Arthur Salter. That is a great concession to the group to my extreme left. Sir Arthur Salter may be a great economist, but his views can be considered in Canada not by way of application but only by way of comparison, because while he may know a great deal about problems in Great Britain, he knows nothing about ours. Therefore how can he apply his views? The right hon. gentleman adds that if this bill becomes law it is the intention to call the council together as soon as possible, and to undertake a program which will not only deal with broad and general economic trends but will also tackle a number of specific economic problems. The old order is gone; it is replaced by the new order as announced over the radio, but as soon as this economic council is formed, the new order will become the old order again and we shall have another new order created by these superlegislative brains. Are we to change like that all the time? Is this government's program a moving picture, changing several times a week? This is most absurd; there are no fundamentals in it. The government is very weak and needs some stimulant in order to carry on until we are bound to have an election. But it is very queer that in all the acting Prime Minister has said, there is not a single sound reason for creating such an economic council.
Now I come to what my right hon. leader has said. He says that the Prime Minister goes into an office in which there is no one, that is no staff, and he is expected to be able to deal with questions of government relating to practically all departments, and to deal with great questions of state from day to day and, when parliament is in session, from hour to hour, and he has no one in his office to whom he can turn to assist him in that particular work apart from those who are referred to as his secretaries. Then he observes that over and above every day routine the real work of the Prime Minister himself is with the larger questions of government which are related to world affairs and the affairs of different departments of state, and in that regard he is without the assistance which other ministers have in their departments. I am very sorry, but with that part of my right hon. leader's remarks I cannot fully agree. Did he mean that there should be a duplication in the Prime Minister's office of all the services that are in the other departments? Take for instance the bureau of statistics which comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. The information that is gathered by that bureau is
available to every hon. member. I have nothing but eulogy for the excellent work which is done there; I am just a back bencher and I can get that information quite easily.
I do not see why the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition has not the same opportunity, because the information is available to all of us. Therefore the Prime Minister or any hon. member can ask the bureau of statistics for any information which is necessary for him in his work, and I do not believe in any duplication of a service of that kind.
Then my right hon. leader says that to form a council and make it a body which the Prime Minister of the country must be responsible for will add tremendously to the Prime Minister's obligations instead of relieving them. Well, if it is a body for the Prime Minister, he must be responsible for it, and I am well aware that very often the Prime Minister has been advised by irresponsible persons. But there is enough of this and we cannot sanction it by a bill. We cannot as members of parliament give irresponsible assistants to the Prime Minister; I strongly object to doing so. The Prime Minister should be responsible for his staff just as any minister is responsible for his. Then my leader continues to the effect that for statistics it should be possible for the Prime Minister to call upon the bureau. He does not say it should not be possible. It is possible for the Prime Minister; it is possible for everyone. Then my leader says: If it is research into some other economic question, for example the extent of wheat production and problems relating to wheat, it ought to be possible for the Prime Minister to call upon any department or group of officials of government to undertake that work. It is possible for the Prime Minister to do so; it is possible for him to have that information at any time. Therefore, why create such an economic council? My leader says that to provide the Prime Minister with two or three highly trained men in whose judgment he has confidence, who can be the instruments to help to bring to him the information that is needed with respect to great problems of government and who will be recognized as having authority to utilize the public service generally to that end, something of that kind would be of the greatest possible benefit. That may be true. At the present time Mr. Finlayson is acting as super-secretary to the Prime Minister; he was appointed through the estimates. There are two ways to get the men referred to by my leader: either by submitting a request to the civil service commission or by inserting their names in the estimates. This
Economic Council

is a very easy way to do so and I do not see why the government does not proceed in that manner. If the Prime Minister needs more assistance and is not satisfied by that already given to him by Mr. Finlayson, let him put a name or two into the supplementary estimates asking that the House of Commons ratify the appointment of such men, and although such a proceeding is not regular, although they should be regularly appointed by the civil service commission, I would not raise an objection beoause I think the Prime Minister should have all the assistance that he requires to fulfil his duties. But on the other hand I do not see the necessity of such an economic council as is proposed by this resolution.
The hon. member for Bow River made a distinction between an inductive and a deductive body. The research bureau according to him is doing some inductive research. I wonder if I am quoting him correctly, and if I do not I shall be obliged to him if he will tell me. It is rather experimental than inductive work that is being done now by the research bureau and the hon. member knows that very well. Why make such a distinction between the inductive and the deductive? He knows very well that he is splitting hairs when he makes that very subtle distinction. On the other hand the new economic council will be a deductive body, a body doing deductive research. That is all right, but that work should be done by the government. That is why the cabinet meet; the deduction from the facts submitted to the government should be made by the cabinet ministers themselves when they sit in council. That is how they should frame their policies in connection with the business of the country.
I heard with a great deal of pleasure the hon. member for Red Deer mention something about the importance of facts. I have already told my hon. friends to my extreme left that they should be more interested in facts than in economists. Now they accept that suggestion in part; they do not accept it in full. They would like to have men in their statistical bureau doing the whole work for them in order to save them time and labour. That is what is suggested, because if I heard the hon. member for Red Deer aright, he said that someone should draw the conclusions from the facts gathered by the bureau of statistics. But that work should be done by the hon. member himself, as it should be done by the Prime Minister and his colleagues. When they ask information from the bureau of statistics they get facts and figures upon which they have to form their own judgment and draw their own 
conclusions. This is what a government is for; that is the idea of responsible government.
Then we are quite late in following other people's fashions. The brain trust was the fashion in the United States some years ago, but Mr. Moley was thrown overboard and later General Johnson, the head of the NRA, met with no better success. There is no longer a brain trust in the United States; President Roosevelt is getting rid of them. As the experience in our neighbouring country has been so unfortunate why should we follow that example now? In this house there are 245 members; representing every province and different parts of each province and each party. Members of all parties have the opportunity to meet members of the government or their leaders in caucus and there express their views freely, and to my knowledge members have often succeeded in changing the views of the leaders. This is the way that members of the cabinet can keep in touch with the members, and through them with the country at large. This is how it has been done ever since we have had responsible government. Not only that, but the ministers represent each province; they gather in council and discuss matters. The Prime Minister is the head of the Department of External Affairs, but he is more than that, he is the head of the. government, the superhead of every department; he is interested in the good administration of each department. He may get information through his ministers who gather it from every province. Furthermore the government can get information through this house. There are select standing committees, and committees appointed to study special matters, and information may be gathered by such committees from competent witnesses. The Prime Minister is the captain of the ship; he is responsible for the ship and for its crew and for the passengers. He has at his command these many sources of information-members of the house, officials of the departments, the ministers; therefore this so-called economic council is most superfluous and I will never agree to vote any sum of money or vote for any law to provide such relief for a moribund government.
There is a point on which I fully agree with my right hon. leader. He said that, as we all know, throughout the world to-day there is a tendency for governments to relieve themselves more and more of responsibility and more and more to put it on special bodies for the purpose of relieving them of their duties in public matters. That was putting it very mildly, but it is true just the same. The conclusion my right hon. leader arrives at is

Economic Council
that if this measure is so enacted he would think it inadvisable that it be enacted. I fully agree with my leader in that connection; I do not at all see the utility of this so-called economic council. All the government's social legislation has now been submitted to the house, or will be, except two measures. We know what it is all about. I do not see why we should bring in strangers and outsiders, people who have no responsibility at all, to advise the government; the government should be advised first by the members, then by the ministers; the ministers should advise the Prime Minister, the head of the government. If things had been done that way for the last five years it would have been much better and the government would not be in the jam they are in now. If the government had dispensed with all those intruders and that so-called brain trust the country would not have suffered as it has. Therefore, sir, I strongly object to this legislation. I consider it a farce. In my opinion its purpose is only to give a sinecure to some people who like to split hairs, who are not serious but are dreamers and cranks and a curse to this country.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I shall take only a few minutes, I hope. Someone has said that it is very foolish to criticize the architecture of a building without having first seen either the plans or the building. In other words to criticize before it is half-built is unlikely to lead to a right judgment. To criticize a bill when it is not even before us in skeleton form would seem equally unwise. Yet, judging by a remark dropped by my right hon. leader, there is a feature I do not like at all about this proposal, that is there are to be twelve or fifteen members of this "'brain trust" as my hon. friend called it. If that is so I do not like it at all. As anyone knows who has had experience in getting experts together, I do not care how expert they are, if you have fifteen experts you will have fifteen viewpoints and in the last analysis whoever is being advised has himself to take the responsibility of acting. This looks to me like an admission on the part of the government that they have not sufficient statecraft within themselves to administer the affairs of this country in these trying times; they have to call in people from outside. Well, they have done that on many occasions, but they were frequently unfortunate in their selection- of advisers. If I thought this plan would give them two or three good advisers and lighten the burden on the shoulders of the Prime Minister there would be something indeed much to be said for it. He has -been carrying a stupendous burden, but there is nothing in this resolution
to indicate that it is going to lighten his burden any more than that of other members of the government. As I understand it, it is an advisory body for the entire government, to be composed of some twelve or fifteen members. It seeems to be something in the way of a little Canadian pup begotten by the big Rooseveltian mastiff, a little NRA of our own.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is the trend.


William Richard Motherwell: It is getting pretty well shot up down there, I understand; the mastiff himself is going bad. Why trail in at this time imitating our neighbours, big and wonderful as they are? They have demonstrated the weakness of this sort of thing. There are other ways of strengthening the government; probably the electors will have something to say about that.


Frederick George Sanderson: You mean of changing the government.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, I would not like to be so unkind as that. I have had the privilege of acting under more than the one prime minister, both in the west and here, and I know what a ghastly grind it is, even on the ministers, but ten times more on the prime minister. If they keep at it long enough it will be only a matter of time until they break down, with the limited amount of expert confidential counsel available. I am one who puts the highest value possible on expert technical testimony, technocrats if you like; technical men I think are indispensable. But they often lack practical experience. I do not care how technical one is or how advanced he may be in the technical world; if he has not tried it out in reality in everyday affairs sometimes his technical knowledge will lead him astray, so he needs both the technical and the practical experience to be on sound ground as an adviser. If the aim of the resolution and the bill to be founded on it is to provide two or three advisers for the Prime Minister it should be possible to get two men with some technical knowledge, of course, but better still some common sense, some knowledge of statecraft, some knowledge of public sentiment, some knowledge of what will likely go and what will not go. I imagine any minister would like to have advisers of this type, as well as the Prime Minister.
There are two ways, as I see it, of carrying out the purpose of this resolution. My right hon. leader suggested that it might be done by having two or three technical men to assist the Prime Minister. That does not seem to
Economic Council

meet the wishes of the government, but though they have been known to change their minds it occurred to me that it was no use waiting until the bill came down to make suggestions; I might better assume that the bill is going to provide for a large number of advisers, some twelve or fifteen. Still I would suggest that the government carefully consider the other proposition of having two or three real good advisers, and not only advisers but assistants, who will help ease the terrible strain on the shoulders of the Prime Minister, no matter who he may be. That would be comparatively inexpensive; that is what has been done in the old country for many years. The idea of under secretaries in Canada has been mooted many times; that does not seem practical in this country, but this suggestion might be a substitute for that system, and it would help out tremendously and it would be inexpensive.
If it is desirable to have twelve or fifteen advisers why not do what has been done in the Department of Agriculture, not only by the present minister but by previous ministers as well? The minister calls his staff together, or he calls together farm organizations throughout Canada to meet in Ottawa. I think one of the first acts of the present Minister of Agriculture was to hold a conference with the various provincial ministers of agriculture, to take counsel with them. But you do not need a bill for that; you do not even need a vote in the estimates. On the other hand a vote in the estimates would provide for two or three experts without going through all this hullabaloo, but I think there is a reason for this more spectacular course. The government do not want the simple way; they want all the publicity they can get now, and I think perhaps they need it. The government want to pad out their rather meagre "reform" manifesto, and everything counts. This will be one more step to be tabulated off on their fingers, but this is going to cost too much, especially if we are to have a large body instead of the two or three advisers I suggest. The Prime Minister will have the burden, if he is the chairman of the body, of reconciling their differences. I do not know who will be the chairman, but whoever he is he will have to marshal the views of the other fourteen members, consolidate them and present them to the Prime Minister.
I am merely dealing with these points now because I may say quite frankly that if this measure goes through I will not want anything better on the platform than to describe the admission of the government that they have been unequal to the task of governing Canada, and that they are calling in an outside body for aid. So I am not making these remarks

for political reasons at all; I should like to save the government from themselves, and I think this is the time to do it. We have seen what has happened in other countries-the NRA for example-and we know what we have heard about technocrats. When this depression overtook us we had the views of every expert and statistician in the land within two or three months, and ever since they have been telling us the way out. In nine cases out of ten they have been wrong; the situation has been quite different from what they evidently anticipated, and they have had to back up and start all over again. So I have no very great hope in regard to this body of fifteen, since that has proven to be the case. They will be marshalled together from all parts of Canada and they will thresh out their differences. I have gone through that process more than once in a small way, and in the last analysis I found that I had to bear the responsibility and burden of working out something from the multitude of views brought before me.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, this will cost a good deal of money, and we have no money to spare to bulge out the staff at this time and call together these unnecessary large gatherings. As my right hon. leader indicated, the burden of being chairman of that body, or of being responsible for it, will take as much out of the leader of the government as it will save him. If you can get fifteen men together without some of them being freaks I tell you you are a good chooser. The danger will be that one or more freaks will be chosen; they are the people who will assert themselves. Some of our Major Douglases and what not probably will be on this body but of course good men also. When I make these remarks I am not attempting to belittle the responsibilities and1 labours of a prime minister. There is no one, unless it is my own leader, who knows better than the Prime Minister the need of good, straight, honest outside advice by two or three men of common sense, horse sense if you like, and perhaps some technical knowledge. Such advice is of tremendous help, and I should like to see something done to make that advice available to whoever happens to be prime minister, because I am conscious of the need of it. Any further remarks I have to make, Mr. Chairman, will be deferred until I see the bill.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I should like to make
a few remarks on the resolution that has been debated this afternoon and this evening, but first I have a question or two to ask the right hon. gentleman who is piloting the resolution through the committee. I should

Economic Council
like to ask what will be the extra expense to parliament and the country when this economic council of fifteen is established?


George Halsey Perley: I explained this afternoon that the expense will be very small. The bill will provide that these men will act in an honorary capacity. I do not think any estimate has been made as to what the expense actually will be, but I can have some estimate prepared and give it to my hon. friend when we are in committee on the bill itself.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You cannot give an
approximate figure at the present time?


George Halsey Perley: I say that the
time to discuss a matter of this kind is when the bill is in committee.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then we will leave it
at that, and we will expect that information later on. Now I have another question to ask the right hon. gentleman. This afternoon he spoke of the secretary of the British treasury, Sir George Murray, who came to Canada when Right Hon. R. L. Borden was Prime Minister. My right hon. friend did not give the year. May I ask him now exactly what year he was referring to?


George Halsey Perley: I think it was
either 1912 or 1913.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: You are satisfied that
it was 1913?


George Halsey Perley: It was either
1912 or 1913.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I wanted to know, because in discussing a measure of this kind it is important that the man leading the government should know all the details. They constitute a good foundation of any resolution.
Now there are just two or three thoughts I have to express, and I do not intend to delay the committee very long. We were told this afternoon by the right hon. gentleman leading the government that the work of this economic council of fifteen members will be first to correlate the work of the various departments of government and second to get more physical and mental energy on the move. Having told us that the council to be set up was to be made up largely of civil servants, he pointed out that the name economic council was to be given to the newly-established body. If we are to have as a foundation of this economic council some of the experts of the different departments I should think the name civil 92582-115
service council would be more applicable than the name economic council. Apparently the civil servants are to be robbed of any credit in respect of name to be derived from the measure, and a new name is to be given. However, that is not very much to bother about. We will wait until we see the different clauses of the bill, when it is brought down to find out why this aspect of the matter was overlooked.
May I say it is not necessary to have an economic council to get the work of the different departments better correlated. It is not necessary to have an economic council to get more work both physically and mentally out of the different departments of the government. I should think that that correlation and that accomplishment of more work could be got just as well by the cabinet of the day led by the Prime Minister. The machinery is there; why not organize it? Why have the country pay for more machinery? Why not organize what you have and get one hundred per cent efficiency out of it? If that were done it would be absolutely unnecessary to have this measure.
I agree with the hon. member for Melville when he states that the very idea of adding to the bureaucracy of this country and adding greater financial burdens to the different provinces and the country as a whole will be all the argument necessary in western Canada to show and prove that the present government has lost the confidence of the people largely because it cannot meet effectually and efficiently the problems which confront the country with the machinery at their disposal. That is the situation.
One more thought:	The suggestion was
made this afternoon that the Prime Minister has become incapacitated and has got into his present condition of ill health because of too much work. I am one who wishes that the Prime Minister may be in a condition as soon as possible to return to his parliamentary duties. We need a real leader at the head of the government, a man with plenty of energy and ability. The Prime Minister is possessed of these two qualities, therefore I say that the sooner he is back the better for parliament and for Canada. May I say that if the Prime Minister has broken down-if any prime minister would break down under the load of government he would be called upon to bear at present- the fundamental fact is that when any one man tries to run the country as prime minister entirely apart from his cabinet, the probability is he will break down. Greater cooperative use should be made of all the

Economic Council

elements and members of the cabinet. Every man should be asked1 to do his duty departmentally. If that were done the load of the Prime Minister would not be as heavy and, in the present instance, the breakdown might not have occurred. Further, not only should theTe be more cooperation among members of the cabinet, not only should there foe more solidarity, more correlated effort and more individual activity which would have the effect of releasing the Prime Minister from many of his duties and responsibilities, but there should be more organized effort in his department, and perhaps in every department of the crown. If that were done I believe the Prime Minister could give more attention to the serious part of government and thereby give a more efficient lead to the party in power, irrespective of which party it might be.
One more thought, and then I am through. When the matter was under discussion this afternoon the right hon. gentleman placing the measure before the house and explaining it touched upon the trend to the cities from the country. He said the bright lights were one cause, the cinemas another, the street cars another, and so on. These are only the external causes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Stop the street cars.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The right hon. gentleman did not go into a detailed analysis of the real problem; he left out the basic part tff the picture. Because of that one hon. member to my left said, "Why not admit high tariffs as a cause?" High tariffs has been one of the causes which have led to the drift from the country to the' city. They surely are. Any person who reads the history of the last fifty or sixty years will see that the trend is from the country to the city, and if he analyzes that economic trek he will find out sooner or later that the cause is really in the high tariffs which have been placed upon the primary industries in Canada, and have had the effect of bankrupting those industries to such an extent that the people on the farm do not choose to remain there, simply because they cannot get a decent living. Many of them are on relief to-day. As I said, when the matter was before the house one hon. member to my left asked, "Why not accept high tariffs as one of the causes of this population drift?" That is one view of the question. Following that remark I suggested, "Why not change the government?" The hon. member for South Perth a while ago asked a similar question. When I made the suggestion the

hon. member for Red Deer took a holier-than-thou attitude with regard to it and soared into the clouds, delivering a kind of lecture to any person who would have the temerity to talk about tariffs and a change in government. He made out that he had something deeper, wider, longer, and more important in every way to tell the house.


Alfred Speakman: I was referring not to tariffs but to the Liberal party.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member states he was referring to the Liberal party. Well, as I was going to say a little later the contact between hon. members opposite-in a word, the Conservative party-and the hon. member for Red Deer was clearly demonstrated to-day. He withdrew his former resolution, and now we find the government taking action upon it. The two are uniting in the establishment of this economic council. May I say, or may I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Red Deer is out afteT a position in the present government? Is he trying to get one- of those velvety chairs in the cabinet or brain trust of this government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Pretty mean.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I do not know whether he would be accepted or not. We do know the resolution he moved was withdrawn, and now the government has accepted the principle of it. I should think that establishes a point of contact between the two parties, and no one knows what may come forth in the future. History might repeat itself. I would say to the hon. member for Red1 Deer that if he wishes to lecture anybody he had better lecture himself and the members of his own' party-


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Please address the chair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: -since he and others of his group stood up in this house and voted for high tariffs. He has voted for high tariffs in his own province, and to-day he gets up in this house and discusses a resolution of this kind without even mentioning the important element, namely, high tariffs. I do not think that will be very popular in western Canada. I know it will not be popular in Saskatchewan at all events.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. member for Red Deer is no more correct in his diagnosis of this resolution than he was on the poultry and egg pools, then he is very far astray indeed. I understand that he takes the attitude that he knows more about the marketing act than the Minister of Agriculture himself, and more about the egg pool

Economic Council
and more about the poultry pool, and I am wondering whether the Minister of Agriculture is taking it for granted that it was because of the hon. gentleman's identification with the marketing board policy that the thing was put out of business in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in Alberta-given a knock-out blow, as it were.
These, Mr. Chairman, are a few rambling remarks that I wanted to make on this resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They are rambling to a oertain extent because the impetus that was given to them came, as it were, from a rambling member of this house. In conclusion I would just say that in my humble opinion the trend to the city from the country is almost entirely due to high tariffs, and until those restrictive tariffs are modified, Canada's national and international trade will remain at a low ebb and the drift to the city will continue.


Mr. LOUCKS:: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he rejoices in the fact that the marketing act was, as he says, defeated in western Canada ?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is not necessary to
answer that, Mr. Chairman, because apparently the vote in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan and in Alberta shows that the people there are rejoicing over the result. So what more do you want?


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that the
members of the cabinet have so much work to do that they feel feeble and exhausted and need some outside assistance. If they are feeble and exhausted on account of their labouring pains may I suggest to them that they take beef, iron and wine. It is an excellent tonic and will make them strong and well. But besides that, instead of a brain trust, they should use brain food.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Chairman, if all the hon. members who wish to speak on this resolution have done so, I should like to say a few words in reply to what has been said by the hon. member for Melville and also by the right hon. leader of the opposition.
The hon. member for Melville, I was glad to note, thinks that this is really a reform measure and one that is brought down for the purpose of bettering the condition of the people. I hope when he goes out into the country and speaks to the people, he will inform them accordingly. I was also rather surprised to hear him say that you 92582-1151
could not get a council together of fifteen men without having some freaks. I would like him to rise and tell me who was the freak in the last Liberal government, if it is true that you cannot get fifteen men without having one freak.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is too modest to name himself.


George Halsey Perley: The right hon.
leader of the opposition referred to Sir Maurice Hankey and the work that he has done in England. I knew Sir Maurice Hankey very well when I was over there during the war as high commissioner, and a very splendid executive he is. He is a civil servant in one sense of the word I suppose, but he acts as secretary to the cabinet. Contrary to our method here they keep minutes of the cabinet meetings in England. We do not do that here.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You
could not.


George Halsey Perley: I did not catch that. I want to inform the right hon. leader of the opposition and the committee that although Sir Maurice Hankey fills a very important position over there, at the same time they have an economic council as well. With the right hon. gentleman's argument, that the Prime Minister should be provided with one or two specially selected men to help him in his arduous duties, I am in entire agreement, but I am not prepared to say that these secretaries could absorb the duties to be performed by this economic council.
The right hon. leader of the opposition also stated that in his opinion the scientific and industrial research council might take up this work. I do not agree with that at all. I consider that the work to be done by this economic council is entirely different from that which is being done by the scientific research council. I am not criticizing in any way the work that is being dome by the research council at the present time, which I am told is very useful and helpful, but it is an entirely different type of work and requires a different type of mind. The scientific research council is concerned with investigations and experimentations. That is their job. The duty of this economic council on the other hand will be to apply the information that has been gathered by that other council.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How?


George Halsey Perley: The council is to consider everything that is being done in the way of improvement.
Economic Council


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But in
the last analysis it can be applied only by parliament.


George Halsey Perley: I know that the council is only advisory, but it could review all the information in connection with mechanical and scientific progress that has been obtained in the last fifty years and consider how it could be used to better the conditions of the people. So it seems to me that they are two entirely separate and different kinds of duties, and I hope that the right hon. gentleman upon further consideration will feel that way himself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, may I say one word before this resolution carries? Broadly speaking I do not share some of the general criticisms of this resolution which have been voiced by some of my colleagues on this side of the house. I have always believed in a general way, and have so stated many times on the platform, in the principle of an economic council, but while I say that I want to make some reservations. I do believe that if there is any value whatsoever in an economic council, that value should have been seized upon by this government in 1930 immediately after they came into office. But as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Temiscouata we have had this administration composed of some seventeen ministers proceeding on their way for four and a half years without taking any advice whatsoever from any outside party, and now, just on the eve of an election, they seek to buttress up a very weak position by the creation of this economic council. It is well within the knowledge of every single member of this house that the trend of the world in the last five years has been towards the creation of boards and commissions and tribunals and economic councils.


An hon. MEMBER:: Bureaucracy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the new despotism, the new bureaucracy. If I may venture into the unsafe realms of prophecy, I would say that just as the tendency of Canada and other nations in recent years has been to detract from and impinge upon the fundamental authority of free democratic parliamentary institutions and create all the boards and commissions we have seen-the tariff board, the marketing board, the radio commission, and all kinds of tribunals and boards of trustees-so in the future those who will succeed us in this and in other parliaments will I believe have to fight to reassert once
[Sir George Perley.3
more the fundamental authority and responsibility of parliament, and abolish all these evils of bureaucracy.
I am supporting this resolution. I believe if there is any advice that any government can obtain from any outside body of economists in these days, that advice should be freely asked and freely given and freely taken advantage of.
I understand from the remarks of the acting leader of the government that this economic council is to consist of fifteen members with the Prime Minister as chairman. It will probably represent all the varied commercial and business activities of the nation. I wonder what authority this body will have. Unfortunately for the sponsors of the measure they will not be here to dictate to the new body which is to be created under this legislation. But suppose my hon. friends opposite were in power when this body commenced to function-


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: They will
be; don't worry.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That lies beyond the kindly veil of the future. Would * this economic council have authority to deal with the most important questions confronting Canadians? There are two things to-day which are completely unscientific. In the first place, our tariff structure is altogether unscientific. Would this council have any authority, seeing that hon. gentlemen opposite have themselves created the tariff board, to investigate the tariff structure of Canada and make recommendations to the cabinet?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Apparently not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The second most unscientific structure in Canada, a structure which has been built up seetionally over the years, is the freight rate structure. Would this council have authority to make specific recommendations to the government with respect to changes in the Canadian freight rate structure? The third point is this. We have a marketing board, or rather nine or ten marketing boards. Would the council have authority to interfere with the jurisdiction of the marketing board in the marketing of natural products? Again, by far the greatest problem in the dominion to-day is the immediate solution of our difficulties in connection with the debt. What about the debt structure and the coordination of financial responsibilities and of dominion authority with the various provincial authorities? Would your economic council have power to-morrow to investigate the assets, revenues and expenditures not only of

Supply-Privy Council
the federal structure but of all the various provincial structures in Canada and to make specific recommendations to the government?
The argument used by some hon. gentlemen in regard to relieving the administration of responsibilities does not seem to me to carry weight. I am strongly in favour of the creation in Canada, no matter what government is in power, of a system of under secretaries to the ministers of the day, who shall be trained to study all questions of the hour and who will directly-not inferentially or indirectly-relieve the tremendous responsibilities that devolve on those who are charged with public office. I believe that sooner or later you must devise a system along these lines. So that so far as relieving the responsibilities of the Prime Minister or of any minister of the crown is concerned, I do not believe that the argument for an economic council is a weighty one. If my right hon. friend will assure me that he will summon without emolument, as the measure seems to indicate-only expenses will be required-the most brilliant men to study the great questions of income and outgo with respect to the expenditures of the government, to study the great questions with regard to our railways and our freight rate structure, to study questions with regard to the tariff, and then to make recommendations in an advisory capacity to the cabinet, leaving the final authority and direction to parliament, then I think I can see some merit in the suggestion made in the resolution. But I agree with my hon. friends who have spoken, that this is only one more step in the mad race towards despotism and bureaucracy which the government has been running since 1930; and some day those who succeed us will be very glad to come back and restore to parliament complete control over the destinies of the Canadian people.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Shall I report the
resolution?


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Resolution reported.


George Halsey Perley: I move that the resolution be read the second time.


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Resolution read the second time and concurred in. Sir George Perley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to establish an economic council.


Jean-François Pouliot: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



OFFICE OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Morand in the chair.
Civil government-
Salaries, $24,904.
["This item includes live stock. I understand that a considerable number of stallions and bulls have been brought from the old country. I would also like some information regarding the bull loaning policy that has been carried on by the department for the last year or so, but as it is eleven o'clock perhaps the minister would allow this item to stand.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported."]
Jean-François Pouliot: Does this cover external
affairs?


Right Hon.   S@: No, that is another item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I suggest, in
accordance with the views expressed by my right hon. leader, that there should be a larger amount for the office of Prime Minister to include the salary of two supermen who will form an economic council. If these two supermen were appointed we might vote $10,000 for the two; I have no objection. I suggest to the acting Prime Minister that it would be a pleasant little surprise for the Prime Minister to have the item increased. The vote as it stands is $24,904, which is an increase of $100 over last year's estimate. Why does he not make it $34,904? That would include $5,000 for each of these two supermen. If he has them in view it would be a very pleasant surprise and I am sure it would be highly appreciated, and may I suggest that he bring back the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson from London and Mr. Herridge from Washington and appoint them as an economic council. It would not be necessary to insert a large amount in the estimates; it would be only for their travelling expenses, because they would serve without remuneration. May I suggest that to the acting Prime Minister. I am sure they would accept the job, because they feel they are very lonely where they are. They hear bad news about the Tory party in Canada and they would like to be here in order to be able to control what is going on in this country. Washington is far away; Mr. Herridge did not come to Ottawa last week, and Mr. Ferguson is so far away in London it would be nice for the acting Prime Minister to decide this matter by himself in a generous way. This would meet with the approval of the country because their return would mean the defeat at once of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government-
Privy Council, salaries and contingencies, $44,894.
Supply-External Affairs
["Then I suggest, in\naccordance with the views expressed by my right hon. leader, that there should be a larger amount for the office of Prime Minister to include the salary of two supermen who will form an economic council. If these two supermen were appointed we might vote $10,000 for the two; I have no objection. I suggest to the acting Prime Minister that it would be a pleasant little surprise for the Prime Minister to have the item increased. The vote as it stands is $24,904, which is an increase of $100 over last year's estimate. Why does he not make it $34,904? That would include $5,000 for each of these two supermen. If he has them in view it would be a very pleasant surprise and I am sure it would be highly appreciated, and may I suggest that he bring back the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson from London and Mr. Herridge from Washington and appoint them as an economic council. It would not be necessary to insert a large amount in the estimates; it would be only for their travelling expenses, because they would serve without remuneration. May I suggest that to the acting Prime Minister. I am sure they would accept the job, because they feel they are very lonely where they are. They hear bad news about the Tory party in Canada and they would like to be here in order to be able to control what is going on in this country. Washington is far away; Mr. Herridge did not come to Ottawa last week, and Mr. Ferguson is so far away in London it would be nice for the acting Prime Minister to decide this matter by himself in a generous way. This would meet with the approval of the country because their return would mean the defeat at once of the government."]
Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister is
president of the privy council and all the ministers form the privy council. May I suggest now for their benefit, pleasure, enjoyment, for decreasing their responsibilities and increasing their energies, as my suggestion has not been accepted for the benefit of the Prime Minister alone, that the economic council come under this item? The amount for salaries is 839,894, a decrease of 85,520. Why not have that economic council under this item? I offer that suggestion to the government. When the vote on the resolution was put by Mr. Speaker, I was opposed to it; I said: "on division." But now I suggest that the government make the appointment regularly in the estimates and that is what I suggested in my previous remarks. May I suggest that they do that instead of increasing the number of statutes? We are- fed up with legislation; we have too much of it here. It is said that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it will have to be an excuse because it has happened in the house that the responsible minister did not know what the law he was piloting through meant. Surely this is a good excuse for anyone outside the house not to know about the law. May I suggest to the acting leader of the government to bring Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Herridge back to Ottawa to form, without any remuneration, an economic council to assist the privy council?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it my suggestion which is carried, Mr. Chairman?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	*

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-
Salaries and contingencies, $148,856.
George Halsey Perley: I simply wish to suggest that we do not go into External Affairs to-night except to get an item passed in order that we may bring on this department some other day when we shall be able to discuss everything connected with it. This item is just for civil government.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Why not go on with the department?


George Halsey Perley: Because we
promised that Agriculture would be taken up to-night.


Charles A. Stewart: Put them all through.
[Mr. Pouliot.l


George Halsey Perley: This is the civil government item, but I did not propose to go on with External Affairs to-night.


Jean-François Pouliot: I regret to be unable to comply with the suggestion or request of the acting Prime Minister. Let us look at the orders of the day. The first question is about the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, High Commissioner for Canada in London. It reads thus:
1.	What is the total amount paid to the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, high commissioner in London, from the date of his appointment until now?
2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the high commissioner's office in London from August 1, 1930, until now?
This question is dated March 1 and to-day is March 18. Therefore there is no reason why we should not have that information right now about Mr. Ferguson and his expenses for entertainments. I have gone through "Canada," the weekly paper in London, and I see that he gives dinners to seven hundred, eight hundred, fifteen hundred guests in that city. It is like sardanapalus. It is always a feast there; it costs the country a great deal of money, and I would like to know how much it costs before voting a cent for him. That is the first point.
The second is that I asked two other questions, one about Mr. Roy, the minister at Paris, and the other about Mr. Marler, the minister in Japan. Both those questions were answered to-day. Contrary to custom I did not get a copy of the answers. Although the answers were sent to Hansard, I was busy; I could not copy them by hand, but I thought it was a discourteous act on the part of the acting Prime Minister not to give me an additional copy and not to give one to the press. There was only one copy which was sent to Hansard. It seems impossible to get the information. I waited until to-day and I was sure I would get it to-day, because I know the unfailing courtesy of the acting Prime Minister.
Now we come to Bill Herridge. What is the question about him?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is he?


Jean-François Pouliot: The Canadian minister at Washington. This is the question:
1.	What was the total amount paid to the Hon. W. D. Herridge, His Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Canadian Minister plenipotentiary at Washington, from June 1, 1931, until now?
2.	During that period, did he spend anything for entertainments?

Supply

Agriculture
3.	If so, what is the total of that expenditure?
4.	What was the total cost of the Canadian legation in Washington from June 1, 1931, until now?
5.	Since his appointment as minister plenipotentiary, did the said Hon. W. D. Herridge leave the Canadian legation at Washington?
6.	If so, how many times and how long each time?
7.	During the same period, did the said Hon. W. D. Herridge spend some time in Ottawa?
8.	If so, how many times and how long each time?
Those are very plain, questions and I would like to have an answer; it would be only fair to have one. We have those ministers wandering to and fro and we cannot get any information about them. The little magazine "Canada" is filled with descriptions of G. Howard Ferguson's entertainments. There is the Maple Leaf tour; there are invitations to duchesses, counts, countesses, earls, lords and ladies; there are feasts and celebrations, and all this costs a great deal to the country.


George Halsey Perley: If I might be allowed to interject a few words, the questions regarding Washington and London had reference to two different departments; Public Works as well as External Affairs were involved. Therefore the answers to those questions are prepared through the Secretary of State. As far as I know, they will be ready I think probably to-morrow, but this estimate has nothing to do with either Mr. Ferguson or Mr. Herridge. It is the civil service here in Ottawa. We shall give the hon. gentleman every opportunity to discuss both Washington and London as long as he likes when the time comes. Of course if he wishes to do it now we cannot avoid it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the right hon. gentleman; he is very courteous and I appreciate it. But the first question about Mr. Ferguson was on March 1, and the other about Mr. Herridge on March 5. I shall not insist but one thing I regret is that when the estimates come the ministers are not ready. For instance last week the Postmaster General brought his estimates on and had nothing ready. In response to questions, he said: "I shall send you the information afterwards." I accepted that answer from him because the Postmaster General has not had the experience of the acting Prime Minister. They are two different men. The acting Prime Minister has served in very high capacities, as high commissioner in London, and as acting Prime Minister since this government has been in power. But it was most unfair to members of this house that the Postmaster General should tell us that we would get the information we wanted
after his estimates were passed. It reminds me of the story of the commercial traveller who said: "I don't feel well; my stomach- oh, something there." He was asked: "What is the matter?" He replied: "I was on the train; as I was hungry, I bought a banana, and after I had eaten it I found it was rotten." So with the estimates of the Postmaster General; he wants us to swallow them first, and afterwards we find they do not taste very nice. I hope that the acting Prime Minister will not follow that example.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Publications, $32,197.60.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What is the reason of the increase?


Robert Weir: The increases are included in items as follows:
Advertising and publicity, clipping service, $600.
Newspaper and radio advertising, $1,000.
Mats for press service, $900.
Photography and lantern slides, $800.
Supplies and materials, metal stencils, ribbons, $825.
Mimeograph stencils, $100.
Mimeograph paper, $1,000.
Printing, $600.
Stationery, $150.
Envelopes, $850.
Transportation, postage and express, $300.
Travelling, $3,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International institute of agriculture,
Peter John Veniot: Is the minister not prepared to take up item 48 to-night?


Robert Weir: Item 49 is the next.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the explanation of the reduction?


Robert Weir: The increase last year was due to exchange, and there had been some arrears in exchange: $12,000 is the normal amount.


William Richard Motherwell: What was the last year that the department sent a representative to Rome?


Robert Weir: There has been a representative there every year. Usually the British representative is instructed to act as our representative, but last year there was a representative from the Department of External Affairs, Mr. Macdonald.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Does this cover the
representative to go to Rome to the wheat conference to set our quota for wheat?
Supply-Agriculture


Robert Weir: No, this has nothing to do with that.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I note that this item
was $8,500 until last year, when it was raised to $15,700. This year it stands at $12,000. What is the cause of the change?


Robert Weir: There has been no change in the amount. The change is in the sum paid here from year to year, due to exchange.


Charles A. Stewart: Surely the
minister does not intimate that exchange would make the difference between $8,500 and $12,000.


Robert Weir: We have not the
records here except for the last two years, but my information is that there has 'been no change here for the past two or three years other than that due to fluctuations in exchange.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I have the estimates
for last year, showing this item as $8,500 for 1933-34 and $15,700 for 1934-35, and now for 1935-36 it is $12,000.


Robert Weir: My information is that there has been no difference as far as the sum itself goes, and that the difference is due to fluctuation in exchange. The amount we pay is not based on our currency.


James J. Donnelly: When exchange was
against us and our money was low in value, in 1931-32 we granted $13,500. Next year it was down to $10,000. Will the minister tell us exactly what this money is used for?


Robert Weir: This money is for assembling the information sent in by the different countries that are members of this institute. Rather than each, country itself gathering information from other countries of the world there has been set up an international institute to collect it and pass it on to the countries that contribute to the cost of the institute.


Charles A. Stewart: This is the institute at Rome?


Robert Weir: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Where is the headquarters?


Robert Weir: Rome.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contributions to empire bureaux, $21,535.
Charles A. Stewart: What are these empire bureaux?


Robert Weir: The empire bureaux do work for'the British empire very similar to the work done by the international institute for the world. The work of the empire bureaux is to collect information from the different dominions witJhin the empire, results of research work or statistical information. This is sent out to the various dominions, and to make it possible to carry on this work of collecting and disseminating this information each dominion makes a certain contribution.


Charles A. Stewart: Are these purely agricultural statistics and information?


Robert Weir: Purely agricultural.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: How many of these bureaux are there?


Robert Weir: Ten.


Robert McKenzie: Where are they located?


Robert Weir: In different parts of the United Kingdom.


Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Could the minister give us any information as to the type of material or information that has been gathered iby these bureaux during the past year, for instance? Is it scientific or statistical?


Robert Weir: Both. One instance is the research work on animal nutrition at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland. They carried on research work, including an investigation of the value of feeds for live stock, and the information obtained was passed on to the bureau, whence it was disseminated to the different dominions. This prevents the duplication of work, and the same procedure is followed in connection with experiments on plant mycology and other work. Then if research work is done in Canada it is passed on to the empire bureaux and disseminated to the other dominions.


Frederick George Sanderson: Could the minister tell us where these bureaux are located in addition to Aberdeen?


Robert Weir: The list is as follows:
The Imperial Institute of Entomology, London, England.
The Imperial Mycological Institute, Kew, England.
The Imperial Bureau of Soil Science, Roth-amsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts, England.
The Imperial Bureau of Animal Health, Veterinary Research Laboratory, New Haw, Weybridge, England.

Sup-ply-Agriculture
The Imperial Bureau of Animal Nutrition, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.
The	Imperial	Bureau	of	Plant	Genetics
(Herbage Plants), Aberystwyth, Wales.
The	Imperial	Bureau	of	Plant	Genetics
(Crops other than Herbage), Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, England.
The Imperial Bureau of Fruit Production, East Mailing Research Station, East Mailing, Kent, England.
The Imperial Bureau of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
The Imperial Bureau of Agricultural Parasitology, St. Albans, Hants.


William Gilbert Weir: I should like to ask a question concerning this matter, from the Canadian point of view. I understood the minister to say that if we obtained information of a similar character we supplied it to the other dominions. I have in mind that we have various scientific institutions throughout the country, both dominion and provincial, and 1 am wondering how that information is correlated and who 'becomes responsible for forwarding this information to these bureaux for world wide distribution. Has the minister in mind any instance in which Canada has contributed information recently?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort). There are representatives of the bureaux in the Dominion of Canada; the reports of any research work considered worthy are presented to them, and it is their duty to pass them on to the empire bureaux. The same situation applies in the other dominions. This prevents duplication of research work.
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald); Who names those representatives in this country?


Robert Weir: The Department of Agriculture.


William Gilbert Weir: Here in Ottawa?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: I have had some little experience with the activities of the bureaux in London in connection with mining and scientific research in that direction, and I am bound to doubt the usefulness of this procedure. We spent- a good deal of money to obtain information from outside the empire, and very frequently I came to the conclusion that a good deal of this information was of very little value to us, for climatic and other reasons. In other words, to put it plainly, what has been found effective as a curative or remedy in the old country is not always effective in Canada, and I am bound to say that I question whether or not this expenditure is worth while. I am not
particularly well informed with regard to the Department of Agriculture, but I believe it is mighty well equipped to carry on its own investigations. I know this money has been spent in other years; there is nothing new about it, but I doubt the advisability of continuing to send sums of money outside of Canada for these purposes, not only in connection with agriculture but also in connection with other lines of research. We were able to make an arrangement with the United States and Great Britain under which each country undertook the responsibility for research in certain lines, following which the information obtained was exchanged, but that- had to do with fuel research and kindred matters. Just consider one matter mentioned by the minister, research carried on in Scotland in connection with the scientific feeding of animals. I am bound to think that will not be very valuable to the Canadian agricultural industry, and I suggest to the minister that he look into the matter carefully and see whether or not real value is obtained for the money expended.


William Gilbert Weir: Following the remarks of the hon. member for West Edmonton may I ask the minister if we have any similar interchange between the United States and Canada, for instance, where conditions are more comparable in many respects?


Robert Weir: There is no such organization set up in either country, but we are in constant communication with the United States in this regard. For example, Canadian scientists are often asked to attend conferences in the United States at which they review the results of research work conducted during the year, and similar conferences are sometimes held in this country. We are more in direct contact with the United States and for that reason it is not considered necessary to have such a bureau set up.


William Gilbert Weir: Is there a pretty close working relationship between the international institute and these bureaux? There would appear to be some possibility of duplication, and from the standpoint of gathering and sending out information I was wondering if the institutions under these two items work closely together or if there is any relationship at all between them.


Robert Weir: So far as possible their work is very well harmonized. Of course the first institute has to do entirely with agricultural statistics, while the last item has to do purely with empire work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Entomology
Entomology, including investigations and inspections relating to destructive insects and pests, $380,128.
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: What steps are being
taken by the Department of Agriculture to take care of the grasshopper menace still facing western Canada? Press reports indicate that the district east of the Red River is most infested with eggs. Is the department in touch with the situation, and so far as possible will conditions be remedied?


Robert Weir: The entomological branch submits the information, in connection with the grasshopper menace, that the area seriously affected is about one-half the size of the area affected last year in the three prairie provinces. However, in that area the results of the surveys show that as intensive a campaign will have to be carried on over the smaller area as was carried on last year over the large area. It is interesting to note that the poisoned bait used last year to fight the grasshoppers turned out to be ninety per cent effective, so far as records show. It is interesting to note, further, that the officials of the entomological branch of the federal Department of Agriculture are responsible for demonstrating that sawdust used with an equal quantity of bran is as effective as one hundred per cent bran, and reduces the cost by about fifty per cent. This method is now being used in other countries. This was an important contribution, particularly in view of the large area affected and the extent of the fight which had to be carried on.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will there be cooperation between the provinces and the federal government?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: Do I understand from the minister that the possible area of infestation is reduced two-thirds this year?


Robert Weir: In Manitoba the area is the same as it was last year. In Saskatchewan it is about one-third as much, and in Alberta it is one-half. Manitoba remains the same this year as last year.


William Gilbert Weir: Who is carrying on the work formerly done at Trees-bank by Mr. Norman Criddle? Is that station still carrying on operations?


Robert Weir: Doctor R. D. Bird is now in charge.


James J. Donnelly: Could the minister
tell the committee the effect climatic condi-

tions would have upon the curtailment of the spread of grasshoppers?


Robert Weir: The drought condition of last year was ideal for the spread of the grasshopper menace. For that reason it is all the more gratifying to think that we had a great measure of success in combating the difficulty.


James J. Donnelly: Why is it that in many districts where no poison is used there were less grasshoppers than in districts where poison was used?
Mr. 'STEWART (Edmonton):	They were
starved to death.


William Gilbert Weir: As the grasshopper menace is becoming such an important problem in western Canada surely the minister would have some information indicating what we might expect by way of overcoming the difficulty, or effecting some great measure of control. Has the department any encouragement to give? For the last four years I have been in a grasshopper infested area, and I should like to know if we may expect relief.


Robert Weir: The periods of infestation run in cycles of about eleven to fifteen years, but our information is that where the campaign is carried on strictly according to instructions the kill brought about by the poisoned bait is about ninety per cent effective. We have the best information in the world upon the subject.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has any
investigational work been conducted to ascertain whether or not there is a destructive parasite calculated to remove the grasshopper menace, or has any work been done along that line? Last year I remember seeing an excellent piece of work done I believe by this branch, when it sent out a type of fly calculated to destroy the wheat stem saw fly. I saw the parasites being released, and I was wondering if other destructive parasites could not be found which would destroy grasshoppers.


Robert Weir: The grasshopper is
a native insect and the parasite used to fight the grasshopper is also a native. These parasites are present but as yet have not played a very effective part in the fight. Certain destructive diseases of grasshoppers are also present. Quite a number of dead grasshoppers could be seen last year killed either by parasites or by diseases. On account of the conspicuous nature of the parasite one would be led to believe that they may have

Supply-Agriculture-Entomology
been chiefly responsible for killing the grasshopper, but investigations showed that compared with the deaths brought about by the poisoned bait the number caused by parasites was very small.


John Livingstone Brown: Has the department any
information regarding a plague-I do not know whether it is in the nature of a poison or a fungus-affecting elm trees in New England, and has it considered the possibility of its extending to Canada?


Robert Weir: This is the Dutch elm disease, which is not yet present in Canada. Every precaution is taken to watch all avenues by which it might come to this country from the United States. All the elm tress brought into this country as nursery stock are carefully inspected, so as to make certain the disease will not find its way into Canada. Our officials are fully conversant with the steps being taken in the United States to combat the disease, and our information is that up to the moment we are free of it.


Mr. GERSHAW:: No doubt most hon.
members have seen fields totally destroyed by grasshoppers. We do know, however, that fields have been destroyed by other insects, such as cut worms. Is the department doing anything to control pests of that kind?


Robert Weir: Cultural methods of control are used. I believe in the present year about 15,000,000 acres are in danger, but the best method known to combat the difficulty is that of using cultural methods, namely finishing the summer fallow work at a certain period and not disturbing the land after that time. The hon. member for Willow Bunch asked a question I have not yet answered. Would he give me details of the area he has in mind?


James J. Donnelly: 
Robert Weir: Has the hon. member reference to our vote or the money of the provinces?


James J. Donnelly: 
Robert Weir: About $30,000 of
our vote was spent in the grasshopper campaign, $25,000 of which was from the entomological branch, $2,000 from the seed branch and $3,000 from the experimental farms branch.


James J. Donnelly: Was that $25,000 for
salaries?


Robert Weir: Eor salaries for
officials and travelling expenses and wages for labour used in the work.


William Gilbert Weir: Does part of
the money under this vote go to the seed branch and part to the experimental farms branch?


Robert Weir: No.


William Gilbert Weir: There is no
part of this vote used for supplies for combating the grasshopper?


Robert Weir: No.


William Gilbert Weir: And no contribution is made to any province from this vote?


Robert Weir: No.


William Gilbert Weir: This department simply makes a survey and then makes a report?


Robert Weir: And gives technical leadership to the campaign.


Robert McKenzie: In the
survey made with regard to grasshopper eggs, where was the most danger found in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: In Alberta it runs from Nobleford to Mazeppa, and from Countess north to south of Huxley. In Saskatchewan there is a bad area, a small area, east of Bracken; also east and west of Saskatoon; north from Herschel to Senlac. There is a comparatively small area north of Yellow Grass, an area around Moose Jaw, and an area north of Redvers. Those are the chief areas in Saskatchewan.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What about Manitoba?


Robert Weir: In Manitoba it is almost entirely in the south. There are two bad areas almost directly south of Winnipeg, east and west of the Red river. It is rather
Supply-Agriculture-Seed

difficult to read the areas from this map but I shall be glad to send it over to hon. members who have asked about the areas.


John Vallance: Are these charts available in the department to individual members?


Robert Weir: Yes.


James J. Donnelly: Is there any danger from grasshoppers in the wooded country in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: They are approaching that territory, but there is no danger there as yet. Last year they worked just up to the edge of the area in the centre of Saskatchewan at Rosthem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Seed, feed and fertilizer control, including grants to seed fairs, etc., also grant of $17,010 to Canadian Seed' Growers' Association, $393,200.
William Richard Motherwell: According to a press dispatch the minister has stated that the class A fairs will have their grants restored to their former proportions. Was that report correct?


James J. Donnelly: How much of this vote goes to seed fairs and how much for seed control?


Robert Weir: The amount of
$39,000 is for seed fairs and field crop competitions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fruit, including grant of $4,500 to Canadian horticultural council, $464,280.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the minister if this council is still acting as a political organization, or is it now functioning independently?


Robert Weir: As far as my information goes, this body has never acted as a political organization. Some of my own supporters think it acts as a political organization against us, and I have no doubt my hon. friend's colleagues feel the same way so far as they are concerned, but so far we have found this body very helpful in giving advice, and not in any way a political body.


John Vallance: Looking back over past years since 1931 I find there is an increase in the vote for the Canadian horticultural council.


Robert Weir: No.


John Vallance: I understand that the vote has been increased but it is not set out specifically in connection with this item for 1931-32 or for 1932-33.


Robert Weir: At one time the grant was $8,000. Then it dropped to $5,000, which with the ten per cent cut made it $4,500. I believe in one year it was in the supplementary estimates that it was passed.


John Vallance: I have the 1933 estimates for the fiscal year ended March 31. Probably that is the year the minister refers to when he says it was in the supplementaries, because it does not appear in the general estimates.


Mr. HOWDEN:: How is this money expended, apart from the vote for the horticultural council?


Robert Weir: The money is used largely for inspectional services. A good deal of it comes back to the government, however. The general divisions are: Inspection, estimated vote for the next year, $402,489; markets, transportation and warehousing, $17,991; administration, $43,800. That makes $464,280. The estimated increase in inspection is $30,727; markets, transportation and warehousing, $5,500; administration, $3,000.


John Power Howden: I understand the minister to say that a large part of this money is returned to the government.


Robert Weir: Yes, as high as
$100,000 in some years.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the national dairy council get a grant out of this vote?


Robert Weir: Neither out of this nor any other vote.


James J. Donnelly: A good deal of this money is paid for inspection work. How much did it cost for inspection of apples last year and what did the government receive back in the way of fees? In other words, is the inspection service self-sustaining?


Robert Weir: It is not self-sustaining but it does pay a reasonable part of the cost. It would be almost impossible to obtain precisely the information the hon. member has asked for because a good deal of the work is part time; some of it would be devoted to the inspection of cars of apples, and part of the time on the same day would be devoted to other inspection. However, it pays a considerable part of the service; well over half, I should say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions, $1,628,302.
Mr. TOTZIvE: How are the grants allotted to the various fairs? In previous sessions I have referred to the grants given to class B fairs. In the past this has been more or less a close corporation. Unless a fair had been getting a grant there was no opportunity of its coming within the classification. Is that still so?
Robert Weir: Special consideration has been given, apart from that, to large areas that had not been served with fairs and which could not apply on the basis of entry that applied to places that had held fairs over a period of years. It is not a close corporation; if it can be shown that the work warranting this assistance can be done it is given sympathetic consideration, and probably a grant may be given.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Is a certain standard set which must be reached before a fair can get the grant? Is that a fixed standard?


Robert Weir: No, it is not fixed in any arbitrary way. We did feel that it was essential to set some standard, and any fair that comes up to that standard is eligible for the grant. But in regard to fairs that do not come up to that standard, consideration is given each specific fair and the grant made on that basis.


Albert Frederick Totzke: But there is a standard to be reached.


Robert Weir: Yes.


John Vallance: There is an increase of
8110,000.	Is this due to importations of live stock brought in by the department in the past year?


Robert Weir: This is for 1935-36.


John Vallance: This minister gave the house some information two weeks ago with regard to the plebiscite in connection with the poultry pool. From what source was that money taken?


Robert Weir: That is from the vote under the marketing act, a separate vote.


William Richard Motherwell: Has the minister's attention been called to the prices of both hogs and cattle in the United States as compared with Canada? A year ago we were reminded of this frequently at a time when the price was lower in the United States. Now it is considerably higher. Our cattle are going to Chicago now instead of to the old country. I do not think that any live hogs have gone to the United States but bacon will be shipped
if prices keep up. I have no recollection of the United States having an Ottawa agreement.


Robert Weir: There are very considerable shipments of cattle now from this country to tihe United States owing to the fact that their cattle prices are so much higher than ours, high enough to take care of the very high duty they have placed against our live stock. The increase in the price of their live stock chiefly their fat live stock, is due to a number of causes, and perhaps the first is that there is a great area which has been affected by drought in the United States, extending from the Canadian boundary. In October I drove from Regina straight south, and along an area of over 800 miles in the United States, due north to due south, there was no green vegetation of any kind that could be seen, and that extended in some places from 400 to 500 miles on either side of the line. The effect of the drought was so bad that the American government took vary drastic steps. After investigation they felt that it would not pay them to ship fodder and other feed for live stock over the great distances that would have to be traversed, and they took steps to slaughter some of the cattle on the ranges and purchase large numbers, having them canned for use as far as possible among people on relief. As far as my memory serves me, the percentages are these. In Montana, the Dakotas and some of the other northern states the number slaughtered was as high as 51 ver cent; that is, one animal out of every two slaughtered. Some were left where they were slaughtered and were disposed of there. The others, as I stated before, were converted into canned meat and so on, and a good deal of this is still in storage in the United States. Other states slaughtered as much as 47 per cent; in Oklahoma, further south, the quantity slaughtered was 41 per cent. This will give the committee a good idea of the very large number of cattle slaughtered, the proportion being over one-half in some of the states.
I am speaking now from memory, but the total sum of money expended by the United States federal government in purchasing those cattle was, so far as I remember, more than
8108.000.000. More than 8.000.000 head altogether were slaughtered, and of that number, in the neighbourhood of 1,450,000 odd were slaughtered on the ranges. There were two factors connected with the matter: one was that as a result of the drought there was a shortage of feed which raised the price of feed for cattle in the United States. On the other hand at that time cattle were very

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
cheap there, and the farmers feeling that they would continue to be cheap and also being affected by the high price of feed, did not feed anything like the number of cattle they did in previous years. That is why prices have gone up in the United States as they have, and it is believed by the best authorities in that country that prices will stay up until well finished grass cattle come on the market. Even after that, there should be a considerable increase in prices due to the necessity of restocking those dry areas, particularly if this year is not as dry as last.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon.
friends knows drought conditions on the .Canadian side were almost identical with those in the United States, only not as large an area was covered. The effect upon our market would be the same with all this poor stuff thrown on it last fall as it would be upon the United States market. The converse would be the same; the effect upon the United States market would be the same as that upon the Canadian market so far as a great deal of this poor unfinished stuff is concerned. Therefore I do not think my hon. friend's explanation is worth very much. Conditions were the same on both sides of the line, but the disparity in prices in favour of Chicago was very considerable in regard to both cattle and hogs. Perhaps some other factors that do not occur to me enter into the question, but for the moment the factors that the minister has mentioned would not in themselves be sufficient to explain the disparity.


Robert Weir: There was another factor working in Canada. The area affected by drought was nothing like as large as that in the United States; only a few thousand head of cattle in Canada were destroyed to be used otherwise than for human consumption. But during the past four or five years, that is since 1929-30, the United States government put up the tariff against Canadian cattle, and because that outlet was denied to our cattle, our surplus increased very greatly. This last year I believe we slaughtered between 350,000 and 400,000 head more than we did in previous years, the farmers holding their cattle hoping that some action might be taken to allow them to enter the United States and avail themselves of that market if it might rise, and the old country market, which was practically the only one available and had reached very low prices, might also rise. 'But because cattle were low in price and feed was high, there were few cattle put on feed in Canada in comparison with previous years.
rMr. R. Weir.]
Mr. MOTHERWEiLL:	Have exports of
cattle across the sea ceased entirely?


Robert Weir: They have practically stopped of beef cattle.


William Richard Motherwell: Then my hon.
friend must have had a pretty good object lesson of the advantage of the United States market for Canadian cattle as compared with the overseas market which is at times a very unreliable and fluctuating one.


Robert Weir: I do not think
very many people have had any doubt that the United States market has always been the natural market for our live stock.


William Gilbert Weir: I suppose there were a certain number of cattle taken off the western market this year?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort). Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: By arrangement with the provinces?
Mr. WEIR (Melfort). Yes.


William Gilbert Weir: With the dominion making a certain contribution.
Coming back to the fairs, I was wondering whether the minister could give some information regarding the success of the regional fair policy. I intend to make just one comment in respect to it; I have watched the operation of one such fair. In attempting to establish regions around a central point, no matter how well you try to handicap the inside area, the outside areas further away do not seem to be able to enter sufficient stock to bring their prize list up to a point where they can make enough to have winnings really to pay their way. With transportation quite uncertain, the experience that we have had has been that it takes tremendous amount of persuasion to bring some of these people from outlying districts into a regional fair to compete as a region. Would the minister be good enough to tell the committee just what success these regional fairs have been having and what the policy with respect to them is going to be in the coming years?


Robert Weir: As the hon. member for Macdonald has stated, it is difficult to make a fair adjustment between the advantage to those near where the fair is held and that to those in more outlying districts. The success depends pretty much on the natural location of the fair selected as a regional one as to other smaller communities, villages, that are around it. It also depends a great deal on the type of the exhibition board. In some cases where the exhibition

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
board of the regional fair take a highly personal interest in it, they can work up a great deal of competition. In that way we think it is very valuable in comparison with the old system of fairs that took place for many years and finally reached the point where they had a cut and dried prize list and did not have to put much individual effort into the work. It is rather difficult to make comparisons because conditions have been so abnormal, but I would say that on the whole the expression of opinion from those who have taken advantage of regional fairs has been very valuable as to how they work out the regional idea in their own districts.


John Livingstone Brown: There is a report that our
cattle going to the old country have been found suffering from disease. Has the department any information on that question?


Robert Weir: When the restrictions that were placed against our cattle were removed at the time of the Ottawa conference agreements, so far as female stock, especially that which was to be used for dairy purposes, was concerned, we agreed with the United Kingdom that any animal which they felt was not suitable, not of high enough quality to be used for breeding purposes, could be slaughtered. In addition to that however- and perhaps this is what the hon. member has in mind-some few months ago there were shipped to the United Kingdom dairy cattle that were not in proper physical condition to ship and that were not good specimens of the breed or anything like a good advertisement for our live stock in the old country. We advised the exporters a number of times that it was necessary to take steps to prevent the shipment of those cattle, because we had reports from the old land, with reference to one shipment especially, that if further shipments like that were made there would be danger of an embargo being put on lest disease from these animals should spread in the old country. As to the last shipment, about which there has been something in the press, the reason given for the slaughter of those cattle was chiefly that they were not of sufficient high quality for breeding purposes. The female stock are tested here for tuberculosis but not other diseases.


Mr. HACKETT:: Can the minister say
whether or not the cattle reported in the press to be diseased and unfit for breeding purposes were examined by competent veterinarians before they left Canada?


Robert Weir: For general disease yes, but the only specific test I understand was for tuberculosis.


John Vallance: Can the minister inform the committee if all the space that was required for cattle offered for export to the British market last fall was available?


Robert Weir: We had no information as far as I know from any individual that there was any considerable lack of space. There were some isolated instances of inability to get space; one was from the vicinity of Biggar, where I believe there were two or three carloads. Mr. Clark, I believe, wrote me in connection with it. I believe one of the chief reasons in that case was that he did not give as definite a commitment, as was required, as to when he would want to ship. From the reports that came back I think it might have been better if there had been even less space available, because on the shipments as a whole I understand there was a substantial loss.


John Vallance: Is any attempt made by the department to control or distribute the space1 that is available for cattle exports to the British market?
Mr. WEiIR (Melfort): In t'he first year and a half that this government was in power the space was partly arranged for by tlhe Department of Agriculture. During that time we asked the steamship companies or their agents to reserve certain space up to two weeks before shipping, so that if there were shipments from western Canada or outlying points they could get space. They advised us also upon request of the number shipped, and the individual farmers shipping them, just to assure that there would be no cornering of the market. I think that is what the hon. member has in mind. However, in 1931 it was felt, and I think reasonably so, that on account of the Department of Trade and Commerce being in direct- communication with the steamship lines in connection with the subsidies and work outside the dominion it was better that they should take the work of filling boats and getting space.


John Vallance: I had a case drawn to my attention last fall from Lloydminster, probably the minister will remember it. This individual had shipped cattle to the Scottish market the year before, and had intimated through Mr. Campbell that he would want space in late October or November. He had his cattle ready, quite a large number, and then found that space was not available. Tme excuse given was that in the previous year
Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock

quite a number of exporters had lost considerable in the British market and they were given a preference for the space. I would like the minister to correct that statement if it is wrong, or to verify it if it is right.


Robert Weir: I do not remember the case, but if the hon. gentleman will let me have particulars I shall be glad to follow it up. I have followed up a number of such cases, although the matter did not come under my jurisdiction, and the information, which I was able to verify, was that it was difficult in many cases to have the person who wanted to ship his cattle give a definite time sufficiently far ahead, even two weeks ahead, when the cattle were to be shipped.


John Vallance: Is there any working arrangement between Mr. Campbell of Montreal and the department as to the disposition of space on boats going to the British isles?


Robert Weir: Not with this department. That work is handled entirely by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


John Vallance: That is, there is a working agreement between one department of this government and Mr. Campbell?


Robert Weir: I cannot say whether they have a working agreement with him with reference to space or not. There is not between this department and Mr. Campbell, nor was there, outside of what I stated, when this department had charge of the work.


Frederick William Gershaw: This is a large item, and I would like to draw attention to the fact that the grants to fairs are given to fairs in the larger cities, but under present conditions a great many farmers, in fact the average farmer, finds it impossible to get to those cities to visit the fairs. Therefore it seems to me that the smaller fairs should be more liberally treated.
I should also like to know what percentage of our cattle are exported, and if the price received for that exportable surplus sets the price for all cattle in Canada.


Robert Weir: Answering the last question first, my answer would be no. My information, which I have every reason to believe is accurate, is that on the whole during the past two or three years the cattle shipped overseas have brought less than similar cattle sold in the domestic stock yarns.
With reference to grants being increased to fairs in the smaller centres, we have increased grants more in such centres than in the larger ones, for the very reason the hon.

member suggests. At one time the grant to fairs in the larger centres was $5,000; that was cut practically in two, I believe, while we gave some additional grants to some of the smaller fairs. This year there has been an increase to B fairs to $1,800 plus 1200 for defraying expenses of judges, and $500 for regional fairs, plus $500 if used for junior farm work, which is a greater increase in proportion than to the larger fairs. I agree entirely with the statement of the hon. member that we cannot afford not to encourage the smaller fairs which are more available to many farmers than are the larger ones.


Frederick William Gershaw: What roughly is the percentage of cattle exported?


Robert Weir: The number of cattle exported is between fifty and sixty thousand. The number slaughtered at inspected packing plants is somewhere close to 800,000 I believe, and that is considered to be about half the number slaughtered in Canada, so the percentage would be very small.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The minister mentioned just now the necessity for killing off live stock in Canada and the United States. Last summer in our section we had a bumper hay crop, and we were expecting to get fairly good prices. But we were told that the federal government had put an embargo on the shipment of hay to the United States in order to keep the price fairly low for farmers in western Canada. I would ask the minister if that is true.


Robert Weir: I am glad my hon. fried has raised that point, because there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about it. In the first place, due to a shortage of feed in the United States, they took the tariff off hay and straw going into that country provided it went into the areas which have been affected by drought, where feed was necessary, but only when it was imported through certain agencies. So the tariff was not taken off except under very specific conditions. Representations were received from western Canada that a shortage of hay and straw and feed for cattle was expected there; there was also an expected shortage in the province of Nova Scotia. For that reason it was felt desirable that exporters should be licensed to export hay and straw from this country so that in Canada we would not suffer from any shortage of feed and the people who bought hay and straw in this country would have to pay a price equal to that at which it could have been sold for export. With the exception of the first five or six or perhaps ten days, though I think for a shorter period than that.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
when there was some misunderstanding in reference to this matter, no person who had an order was refused permission to ship either hay or straw out of this country. So I do not feel that any person was adversely affected, except that possibly certain buyers felt that there would be a very excellent market in the United States, and at the beginning, before the situation became well known, they did go through the country stating that they did not know whether they would be able to get the feed out of Canada, and I believe they did persuade some farmers to sell to them for next to nothing. Any cases that came to our attention were followed up, and so far as we know no person suffered (hardship in that connection.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is it true that the federal government helped the provincial government feed the cattle in the dried out areas? Is it true that the federal government, through their own agencies, bought some hay or other fodder in the eastern sections of Canada and shipped it to the west?


Robert Weir: So far as feed goes the federal government has not absorbed any of the cost. We have absorbed some of the freight cost in connection with moving cattle out of these areas. My information is that no hay has been bought in eastern Canada and shipped to the west. The freight rate would make the cost prohibitive.


John Power Howden: 
Robert Weir: That matter has
been given consideration each year. We realize that many of the cattle that have gone to the old land have not been of the quality we might have wished, and have not been a credit to the best cattle in this country. The first year in which I looked into this matter personally I was given some very interesting information by Mr. Brown, who at that time I believe was purchasing well over seventy-five per cent of all the cattle we were exporting. He purchased and paid for them on this side of the water, and his emphatic opinion was that while if we shipped all top cattle they might bring more than the cattle we did ship, every person did not want to buy top cattle. He said he had a cargo of perhaps five hundred head consisting of two or three different grades, and that there was always some person on the market wanting a lower grade, another wanting a little better grade and another wanting a choice grade. I know Mr. McKenzie's views very well; I had a visit with him in Toronto shortly after his return. What he said is perfectly true; we would get a better price for our cattle if we shipped better cattle, but investigation has shown that we get a substantial increase in price over there as compared to what we would get here, for some of our very commonest cattle.


James J. Donnelly: I would like to ask the minister to explain to the committee why on the English market our bacon obtains practically the lowest price of all the bacon offered for sale on that market, and why, with our steadier supply-and we must have a steadier supply because we are shipping more-the price is not better in relation to the bacon of other countries.


Robert Weir: There are a number of factors that contribute to the lower price. In the first place we cannot ship a steady supply. The hon. member knows that, in western Canada perhaps more than in the east, the farmers have certain farm practices, depending upon the season of the year and the best time to have pigs born. The result is that the great majority of the pigs are born during two periods in the east and one period in the west, so there is a gap that naturally results and which could be avoided only by giving some assurance to the farmers that during that period a premium would be

182S

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
paid for their hogs. For example, in 1934 there was one very large distributing house in the old country that had worked up a large trade in Canadian bacon. They found themselves in August, September and October, and particularly in August and September, unable to obtain a sufficient supply to meet the demand they had been able to create. That was due to the fact that with the prices here compared to the prices over there, due to the practice of having pigs come at a certain season of the year there was a gap in the supply.
I agree with the hon. member that this is one of the most important problems confronting us to-day in connection with the bacon industry. In wheat we have no such trouble, because there is always a supply available. The only way I can see to overcome that situation in regard to bacon is either to have the packers combine and say they will pay a certain premium to eliminate that dip, or for the farmers themselves to combine and work out some scheme, such as a very small levy to be used to set up a fund, so that when that time comes they can keep the supply going forward that we have led the people over there to believe would be sent forward. I do not think that could be considered a bonus; it would be contributed by the farmers themselves and would be more a process of levelling up.
Then my hon. friend referred to the fact that our bacon brings a lower price than other bacon marketed in the old country. One reason for that is that Canada is a country with varying climatic conditions. Another reason is that people have gone into the business of raising pigs without having raised them in the past, and they are not as expert as they should be at finishing them or at getting the best type. Many of them sell their pigs when they are underweight, thereby leaving smaller sides. In the old country there has been a surplus of smaller sides, and for that reason we have not been able to put over as uniform an order as otherwise we would have done. Also the bacon finishing is not evenly done in different parts of the dominion. I make haste, however, to correct any impression I may have given that our farmers have not made the very greatest efforts to improve the quality of our bacon. The fact is that in the last three years the quality has improved from fifty-one per cent to sixty-one per cent in selects. Another factor has been that in the last year in particular there has been a shortage of feed not only in western Canada but in Ontario. That shortage has put many

farmers in a position whereby they could not finish their pigs as well as they might wish, and they had to get them off early.
There is a great demand in Canada, too, for choice bacon, and this demand has to be met. When the market in the old country was opened up, giving us an advantage and an opening for the marketing of a high percentage of our high quality bacon, some of the supply had to be taken from the market we had established here. I can assure the hon. member, however, that we are very closely in touch with the situation, and for further assistance we have appointed a special officer who, before going overseas, visited the packing plants in Canada. He has gone to the old country and has done very excellent work in examining large shipments of our bacon which have gone over there, and has reported back as to the weaknesses, indicating how our product has fallen short of the requirements of the old country.
To standardize the quality of bacon sent out of Canada we have passed regulations whereby only inspected bacon may be exported. That does not mean that every piece of bacon is inspected, but it does mean that the standards are well known to the packers. Certain boxes or bales a-re inspected, and if we find there is a tendency to ship bacon below standard, very severe penalties, going to the extent in extreme cases of the cancellation of licences, may be imposed.


James J. Donnelly: Does the government
grade our bacon which is shipped out, and are the top grades shipped? In other words, is the best grade kept in Canada?


Robert Weir: There are three
grades of Canadian bacon, practically only two of which are shipped, as the third is negligible. Our information is that the bacon shipped is in accordance with the grades. It is difficult to define the grades because of the different practices obtaining in the different packing plants. To get anything in the way of uniformity of standard it was necessary to have a number of meetings of the packers. The result was that they investigated more carefully than they had done before the practices of curing bacon. They visited each .other's plants, and the result was that it was discovered one plant which as a rule may not have had as high quality hogs as other plants was turning out a more uniform product. For that reason their product was more acceptable. I believe one reason for their success was that they had machinery similar to that used in Denmark. The result of the meetings was that various packing plants

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
changed their methods of processing, so that to-day we believe we have a much more uniform type of product for export. The packers are frank in their admission that that has done more than anything else towards standardizing our product.
Then, in reference to grade, careful consideration was given to the desirability of having our bacon gain the best reputation in the old land. It was felt the best procedure would be to set a very high grade. The officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce in the United Kingdom and some of the officials of the Department of Agriculture who had visited the United Kingdom, together with people who had marketed their products over there, were of the opinion that if we put only the very top grade on the market, and that if we exported only the best quality of our bacon, we would get a certain result, but that if we sold a large quantity of our second grade the tendency would be a discrimination against Canadian bacon. All these points have been considered very carefully. We feel that on the whole what we have done has been in the best interests of our bacon market. There is, however, a great deal still to be desired in getting across a uniform product with a uniform finish and in a steady flow. No effort is being spared to achieve that end.


James J. Donnelly: The impression seems to have gone abroad that our packers are shipping out an inferior quality bacon, and that they set the price for hogs in this country by the price they obtain in the old country. Naturally that is a lower price. Some people have the idea that that is the reason a lower price is being paid in Canada for hogs than should be paid.
I should like to ask the minister what has become of a certain variety of hogs which was brought from Sweden only a few years ago; I refer to the Landrace hogs which were brought to Canada. How many did the minister buy; what has been the increase in number; what price did he pay for them; where are they now; and are they registered? Further, I should like to have a general idea of what is being done with them, and if any tests have been made.


Robert Weir: We expect that about next Saturday there will be an increase ; I know, because I was out looking at them to-day. Sixty-seven of these hogs were purchased in Sweden. Negotiations were first conducted in Denmark, but the people of that country apparently did not seem anxious to ship hogs of 'that quality to their competitors. Our officials finally proceeded to Sweden and in that country were able to make satisfactory
negotiations to have a shipment of the hogs sent to Canada. So that there would be no danger of bringing any disease with these animals, instructions were issued to have them quarantined at Quebec for six months. After that time they were brought to the experimental farm at Ottawa, where they are now There are fifty-one females at the experimental farm, and it is our intention to have them thoroughly tested. Their gains will be watched, and an accurate record of the feed given them will be kept until they reach a weight of about 220 pounds. They will then be slaughtered and their carcasses valued in points, figured on a certain number out of a possible hundred for a perfect carcass. Perhaps the outstanding difference between these pigs and our own Canadian Yorkshire or white pigs is that the pigs imported have smoother shoulders. Their sides run more smoothly into the shoulders than obtains in the average Yorkshire pig. They are also deeper, on the whole, and their heads are smaller. The aim is to have the side form the greatest possible proportion in the weight of the whole pig. Although great improvements have been made in the matter of increasing the length of the Yorkshire pig, that length has been achieved at the expense of the ham, while the shoulder has been left practically the same. It will be of interest to know that in both Denmark and Sweden the only selective process is brought about by actual feeding. Prize winnings at exhibitions do not mean very much. That is why last year we started throughout Canada testing stations for the same purpose. Some of these pigs that have been imported from Sweden have thirty generations of tested ancestry behind them. Many were imported from Denmark to Sweden, and Sweden has made a very scientific job and keeps a very scientific record. So we feel we got the very best pigs possible.
I know the question in the hon. member's mind is, when will they be distributed? None of them will 'be distributed until they all have been put on test to see how they respond to the climate and the feeds of this country. We may carry out our crossing experiments with Yorkshires. They may be sent out in groups throughout the country. Many of those who opposed this importation because they had been successful breeders of Yorkshires now are among the strongest advocates of the course we took in bringing over this shipment. We are not doing anything in a haphazard way. Every care will be taken to test them before they are distributed.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


James J. Donnelly: What is the laid down cost of these pigs?


Robert Weir: The whole shipment landed in Canada cost $6,040, including all expenses.


William Gilbert Weir: I understand that there has been some grading of hog or bacon carcasses on the rail. What success has that met with?


Robert Weir: We have been carrying on for some time experimental work in testing carcasses on the rail, and last year we decided to cany out this work more extensively, starting first at Peterborough and Kitchener. It was on a voluntary basis; that is, a farmer would notify the officials whether he wanted 'his pigs graded on the rail or not. The result has been that practically every person there now wishes his pigs graded on the rail. They feel that by so doing they get the exact value of their pigs.


William Gilbert Weir: There has been no opportunity of testing the value of rail grading so far as export is concerned?


Robert Weir: No. grading for export is entirely independent of that.


William Gilbert Weir: The minister mentioned a moment or two ago the grants made to tihe A and B class fairs.


Robert Weir: The grants to the B class fairs have been increased to $1,800 and an additional $500 has been made available for competition at these fairs for junior farmers, boys and girls and junior farmer clubs.


William Gilbert Weir: Is the regional fair grant discontinued?


Robert Weir: No, the regional fair grant is still continued. This is in addition.


James J. Donnelly: Is it not a fact that an investigation which took place into the Land* race hog in 1909 and 1910 found that the Yorkshire hog was in many respects better than the Landrace and better even than the cross bred? It was found that it took more to feed the Landrace hog per pound of pork produced than either the Yorkshire or the cross bred, that t'he bacon on the prize animals came from the Yorkshire instead of the Land-raoe or from the cross between the two, and that in practically every respect the Yorkshire was the superior hog to the Landrace for bacon purposes.


Robert Weir: There has been no investigation in this country as to the Land-race hog and the Yorkshire hog because this

is the first time there have been Landrace hogs in this country. We cannot say yet which hog is most suitable for our climate and our feeds. Perhaps what the hon. member has in mind is that some years ago Denmark used to import large numbers of the large white or Yorkshire hogs from the United Kingdom. They used them to get their pure bred sires and for one cross with a view to improving their bacon. As time went on they made investigations purely from a dollars and cents point of view, and they have now entirely quit the importation, or practically so, of these large white hogs, and are now using not only for bacon purposes but for breeding stock ninety per cent I would say of LandTace hogs. That I believe is our best answer for the shipment here.


William Gilbert Weir: This item includes live stock. I understand that a considerable number of stallions and bulls have been brought from the old country. I would also like some information regarding the bull loaning policy that has been carried on by the department for the last year or so, but as it is eleven o'clock perhaps the minister would allow this item to stand.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 19, 1935