Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table copy of an order in council dated March 22, 1935, P.C. 738. This order appoints His Honour Judge James Parker, senior judge of the county court of York, in the province of Ontario, as commissioner under part 1 of the Inquiries Act, pursuant to the provisions of section 10 of the Copyright Amendment Act, to investigate and report:
(a)	Whether the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited or any other society, association or company unduly withholds the issue or grant of licences for or in respect of the performance of dramatico-musical or musical works in Canada;
(b)	Whether the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited or any other society, association or company proposes to collect excessive fees, charges or royalties in compensation for the issue or grant of such licences;
(e) Whether the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited or any other society, association or company otherwise conducts its operations in Canada in a manner which is deemed detrimental to the interests of the public.
The commissioner is also specially authorized and required to investigate and report on the fees, charges or royalties which the Canadian Performing Right Society Limited, or any such other society, association or company, should be entitled to collect from licensees in compensation for the issue or grant of such licences, and the bases on which 92582-1291
such fees, charges or royalties should properly be computed.
This order in council has been passed in compliance with the request of a large number of members on both sides of the house who have insisted that there should be an inquiry into the operations of the Canadian Performing Right Society and its associates.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What amount of gold was taken over by the Bank of Canada from each chartered bank separately?
2.	What was the value of the gold taken from each bank separately?
3.	What was the amount of bank gold left with each chartered bank separately?
4.	What was the value of such gold left with each chartered bank separately?


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Chairman, this question cannot accurately be answered in its present form because in putting it my hon. friend apparently has assumed that it was competent for the banks to retain a portion of their gold, whereas if he will look at section 28 of the Bank of Canada Act he will find that the banks have to transfer the whole of their gold.
There is the further question as to that portion which should be allocated as against their foreign liabilities, and that question cannot properly be answered until the governor in council has taken action with respect to the valuation and allocation of profits.
If it meets with my hon. friend's approval I would suggest that he drop the question and put it in a revised form.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I am
quite willing, Mr. Speaker, to do what the Minister of Finance suggests. I had intended on the orders of the day, as a matter of privilege to refer to the replies that I received the other day with respect to the Bank of Canada. The minister may recall that or March 14 I asked what was the total amount of gold transferred from all the chartered banks, and this question to-day refers to the amount of gold taken from each of the chartered banks separately.
With respect to the former question I was only referring to section 28 of the statute. T
Questions

am very well aware of the provisions of section 28 and I was simply wanting the assurance that the provisions of that section had been complied with. My question of March 14 has not yet been answered. The government has not yet informed me what was the total amount of gold that was taken over from the chartered banks, in compliance with the provisions of section 28 of the statute and transferred to the Bank of Canada when it commenced its operations. I shall be very glad to comply with the suggestion of the minister but may I repeat that I am very well acquainted with the provisions of section 28.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question dropped.


CLOVER SEED IMPORTATIONS
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What was the quantity, in pounds, of (a)
Red clover; (b) of Alsike clover seed imported ir.to Canada from September 1,	1934, to
March 1, 1935?
2.	From what countries were said seed imported and what was the quantity from each country?
3.	What duty was paid on said importations?
4.	What were the names and addresses of the importers?
5.	What were the different qualities of seed imported, and amount of each?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: 1, 2 and 3. Imports by countries of Red clover seed and Alsike clover seed entered for consumption in Canada with import duties collected, September 1st, 1934,
to February 28th, 1935:
(a) Red clover seed	Pounds
United Kingdom	 423,064
United States	 15,000
New Zealand	 22,400
Total	 460,464
Import duty collected.	.	$450	00
(b) Alsike clover seed	Pounds
United States	 439,146
Import duty collected.	.	.	$13,174	38
4.	It is contrary to the established practice of the Department of National Revenue to give information which would disclose the business of an individual or corporation.
5.	The Department of National Revenue has no record of different qualities of seed imported.


HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to the answer of the right hon. acting Prime Minister to a question about the

powers of the High Commissioner for Canada in London (Hansard, March 6, 1935, page 1582), what administrative steps were taken in 1931 tc insure more effective execution of order in council P.C. 330?
2.	At whose request and why were they taken?
3.	Was the matter decided by order in council ?
4.	If so, on -what date and what is the number of said order in council?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Instructions were given by the ministers of the departments concerned to their officers in London to bring them more effectively under the supervision of the high commissioner.
2.	These measures were taken, following discussion with the high commissioner, in order to increase the effectiveness of the administration of Canadian affairs in the United Kingdom.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


STEVEDORING AT CHURCHILL
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	Who has the contract for stevedoring grain at port Churchill?
2.	If a company where and when was it organized, and who compose it?
3.	What charge is levied for stevedoring grain at port Churchill, and how many men are employed in connection with this work?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The department has had nothing to do with stevedoring contracts at Churchill. It is a private contract between boat owners and Louis Wolfe & Son, Limited, of Montreal, Vancouver, and Saint John, N.B.
2.	No information.
3.	The department is advised that charge is $4.00 per 1,000 bushels, and 9 cents per sack for trimming; the whole less 10 per cent. The number of men varies with the number of boats to be loaded, and fluctuated, in 1934, from 20 to 100.


NEW RICHMOND, QUE., WHARF
Mr. MARGIL:: How much has been expended by the Department of Public Works on the departmental wharf at New Richmond, Quebec, including the original cost of construction up to date?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: $36,279.22, expended from 1904 to 1930. No expenditure has been made since 1930, as this wharf, due

Questions
to the shallowness of water at its outer end, does not provide accommodation for the present class of shipping requiring wharf accommodation in this district, and the estimated cost of the dredging to make this wharf available to coastal steamers is $170,000.


TAX FREE BONDS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	What is the total amount of tax free bonds now outstanding in the dominion?
2.	At what dates do these issues respectively mature ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1 and 2.
Due Aiigust 1, 1935	S 874,000
Due March 1, 1937	 89,787,100
Due December 1, 1937	 236,299,800


$326,960,900 FRENCH TRANSLATION OF SENATE DEBATES
Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	Who was in charge of French translation of the Senate debates for each session during the last four years?
2.	What was the cost of French translation of the Senate debates for each session during the last four years?
3.	To what person or persons was that amount paid, for each of the aforesaid sessions, and under whose recommendation or certificate was each individual payment made?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Department of the
Secretary o'f State applied to the clerk of the Senate for the information required by this question and received in reply a communication stating that a question relating to the internal affairs of the Senate could be answered only on receipt of a message from this house. I suggest therefore that the hon. member drop the question.
Question dropped.


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA VACANCIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MULOCIi:
1.	Is it correct that due to a vacancy and the absence through illness of several judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, a number of Ontario appeals entered for hearing at the regular February session of the Supreme Court of Canada will not be heard until the later session of the court?
2.	If so, what date will the said session commence ?
3.	If so, having in mind the inconvenience and expense which such delay will involve for litigants, will the government fill the existing vacancy in the Supreme Court of Canada and arrange with the Chief Justice of Canada for the appointment of the necessary judge or judges ad hoc to permit of the hearings during the present session of the court of the appeal cases remaining on the current list?
Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Owing to the indisposition of two judges of the court, nine appeals which were inscribed on the Ontario list for hearing at the session of the court which began on February 5 last, were adjourned to the April session, to be placed at the head of the Ontario list for that session.
2.	April 23, 1935.
3.	Answered by No. 1. It is anticipated that the cases remaining on the current list will be disposed of before the April session.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PURCHASE OF RAILWAY TIES
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Did Mr. Eizear Cote, sell either directly or through the firm of Anselme Cote and Sons, any railway ties to the Canadian National Railways ?
2.	If so, what kind, at what price, what quantities, and what was the total amount of the sales during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935?


Mr. MANION:: I must inform the hon. gentleman who asks this question that similar questions have been received in the past but the railway company has always refused to give the answer. If the hon. gentleman will suggest to an hon. member who is a member of the railway committee to ask for this information I shall endeavour to have it at that time.
Question dropped.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT-OFFICIAL RECEIVERS
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Has Mr. J. Albert Bouchard, of Ste-Claire, Dorchester county, been appointed official receiver for the province of Quebec in connection with the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
2.	If so, what salary does he receive?
3.	What is the nature of his duties?
4.	What is his age?
5.	What was his business experience??
6.	What was his legal experience?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$150 per month.
3.	To act as official receiver as provided in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, with duties as set out therein and set out in the rules and regulations passed pursuant thereto.
4.	The government has no information.
5 and 6. His occupation is that of a merchant.
1.	Has Mr. Alzire Tardif been appointed official receiver in connection with the admin-instration of the Farme'"*' Creditors Arrangement Act?
Questions

2.	If so, what is the extent of his jurisdiction and the nature of his duties? _
3.	What salary does he receive?
4.	What is his age?
5.	What was his business experience?
6.	What was his legal experience?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Appointed for the judicial district of Beauce. To act as official receiver as provided in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, with duties as set out therein and set out in the rules and regulations passed pursuant thereto.
3.	$150 per month.
4.	The government has no information.
5 and 6. His occupation is that of notary public.


COLONIZATION CONGRESS
Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	Did the hon. Minister of Colonization for the province of Quebec, Mr. Irenec Vautrin, invite the federal government to send representatives to the colonization congress?
2.	If so, who were the representatives of the
federal government?	[DOT]


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. W. M. Jones.


PURCHASE OF LETTER BOXES
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	How many letter boxes were purchased from Arthur Lesieur, in what year, and at what price?
2.	If such boxes were recommended, was such recommendation contained in a verbal or written report, and what was the nature and conclusion of such report?
3.	Were such boxes inspected by a competent official upon each delivery of same?
4.	How many boxes of a similar type were purchased: (a) since 1931; (b) from 1925 to 1930, and at what price?
5.	At what price are such boxes sold to individuals and since when have such sales been effected?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	There were no letter boxes purchased from Arthur Lesieur but rural mail boxes were purchased from Amedee Lesieur, as follows:
December 23, 1931-10,000 rural mail boxes as per standard sample submitted and accepted at a price of $2.75 each, plus 6 per cent sales tax.
2.	Recommended by mechanical engineer, post office department, by a written report as follows:
"Re-Rural mail box-circular model with full opening-swivel type-illustrated by accompanying photograhs I am instructed by the deputy postmaster general to report to you on the above subject.

Dimensions, 23 inches by lOJ inches, Metal gauge, body 24-door 22.
Design of door admits of the use of full clearance of box and is unique in this respect.
Door is of the gravity type-no springs.
Mounting is rugged in design and economical in material and is extended completely around the box adding considerably to its strength.
The cost of the present box in use is $2.80 each in large quantities with freight allowances to destination and I understand the price of the box in question is under this amount. Altogether the proposed box is superior in both appearance and utility and by reason of its design is much more convenient to operate and maintain."
3.	Boxes were examined by mechanical engineer, Montreal post office, and each box was stamped on inside of cover "Passed Official inspection 1932."
4.	(a) Nil
(b) 40,000-June 8, 1927 10,228-January 26, 1928
$2.80 each, plus sales tax not to exceed 10 cents per box, f.o.b., Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, London, Moncton.
5.	$4 each, which has been the standard price for many years.
Since June, 1932, sales have been made to patrons in the following postal districts, and no complaints received as to quality:
Montreal, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What quantities of square timber were supplied to the Department of Public Works, Rimouslci district, by Mr. Elzear Cote himself or on behalf of his firm, Ansehne Cote and Sons, during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935?
2.	At what price per foot was the timber purchased, what was the total amount purchased during each of the said years?
3.	What quantities of lumber were purchased from the same firm, at what price per thousand feet, and what was the total amount purchased during each of the above years?
4.	What merchandise and' other goods, including hardware, gasoline, oil, etc., were purchased from Elzear Cote himself or from his firm, Anselme Cote and Sons, by the Department of Public Works, Rimouski district, at what price, and what was the total amount paid in this connection during the last five years ?
#

Motions for Papers
farmer's creditors arrangement act.-


OFFICIAL RECEIVERS
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What are the names, professions, addresses and jurisdiction of official receivers appointed in connection with the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What was each such appointee's business experience?
3.	What was each such appointee's legal experience ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Return tabled herewith.


PROMOTION OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. DORION:: 1.	What civil servants, permanently or temporarily employed, in the various departments, were promoted, by way of reclassification or otherwise, since the passing of the order in council of June 14. 1932 (No. 44-1367) ?
2.	What salary increases did such promoted persons receive?
3.	On what date was each such person promoted?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 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.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there is no
objection to this motion passing with the reservation that the government can furnish only the information which happens to be in its possession. We can submit a list of those who were transferred from the currency branch and from the office of the assistant receiver general, together with their salaries, but we have no information as to other employees of the bank or the salaries they are paid.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege, I submit again that the privilege of every hon. member is involved in the reply just made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). I had intended to refer to a statement made last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when the house was debating the Bank of Canada bill My colleague, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) moved at that time in the banking and commerce committee that the deputy minister of finance be made a member of the executive committee of the bank and he was told that this was sufficient to assure this house that at all times it would receive full information with regard to the activities of the Bank of Canada. If the policy of the minister is to be taken from his answer, I may be constrained to raise this question at some future date.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The relations of the government to the bank is one question but it is an entirely different thing to say that it is competent for hon. members to ask for detailed information with respect to the internal workings of the bank. I do not think hon. members should be permitted to ask how many are employed, their names, the colour of their hair, their ages and so on.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Their political complexion.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend may have
that point of view but I think he will find that the reply I have made is in keeping with the ruling that the government is competent to give only that information which it has in its possession.
Motion as amended agreed to.



CUSTOMS TARIFF CHANGES

Mr. STITT (Nelson):: For a return showing all increases in the customs tariff passed by the parliament of Canada in the years 1929-1930; return to show former rates as well as increases and dates when changes were made.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION

Mr. NEILL:: For a return showing the number of immigrants of Japanese nationality admitted into Canada during each of the fiscal years between March 31, 1930, and March 31, 1934, and showing in each of the above years how many were: (a) adult males; (b) adult females; and (c) children; also the number of people admitted into Canada during each of the above years of Japanese birth, but of British nationality, showing: (a) adult males; (b) adult females; and (c) children; and giving their names and the date and place where each were naturalized as British subjects.
He said: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house and the consent of the minister perhaps I may be permitted to insert the words "and occupation" after the word "names" in the last line.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie



ST-PASCAL, QUE., RURAL MAIL CARRIER

Mr. BOUCHARD:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports of inspections and inquiries, and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, regarding the dismissal of Hector Hudon as rural mail carrier at St-Pascal (Kamouraska) and the appointment of his successor.



SQUAMISH INDIAN ACCOUNT NO. 54

Mr. MUNN:: For a return showing,-
1.	The receipts and expenditures of the Squamish Indian Account No. 54, from the 1st of January, 1933, to the end of December, 1934.
2.	Particulars, with names of the individuals who have received relief or other benefits, to whom such benefits were paid, and what amounts were paid to each.
3.	Full details in regard to receipts received, from whom and for what.



WATERLOO, QUE., POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. TETREAULT:: For a copy of the report of the royal commissioner on the royal commission investigation held in the town of Waterloo, the 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 December, 1934, by order of the governor in council, under the terms of the Inquiries Act, respecting the construction of a post office building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I beg to inform the house that this document was tabled on the 20th instant and that the hon. member has consented to the motion being dropped.
Motion dropped.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT

Mr. POWER:: For a return showing,-
1.	The services carried out by the Department of Marine up to date under the authority of the Public Works Construction Act.
2.	A list of all works which the said department is authorized to undertake under the same act.



ILLNESS OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: The house will be interested to know that yesterday I had quite a long talk with the Prime Minister and his condition is daily improving. My own impression is that when the period of rest which has been prescribed for him has expired, which will be in the course of another ten days or so, he will be all right again. The doctor has given me a further report, dated to-day, which is

couched in careful language, as it is quite proper that a medical man's statement should be:
The Prime Minister's condition shows further improvement and his progress during the past week has been satisfactory and uneventful. While some further rest in bed is necessary, his recovery is as rapid as can be expected.
R. S. Stevens.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MACKENZIE
On the orders of the day:


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am sure the house will welcome
the declaration just made by the acting leader of the government. I wish to raise a question of privilege with respect to the question 1 asked the government dealing with the amount of gold taken over by the Bank of Canada, and to request that the question be answered. I will deal with the first three subsections :
1.	When did the Bank of Canada open for
business ?
2.	How much gold was taken over from the chartered banks of Canada?
3 At what valuation?
There are certain other subsections which are not material to the present point. The answer reads :
1. On March 11, 1935.
2-9. Section 28 of the Bank of Canada Act requires that every chartered bank shall transfer to the Bank of Canada all gold coin and bullion owned and held by it in Canada. The transfer is made at the present standard value fixed by the Currency Act. The Bank of Canada Act provides that any profit resulting from tlie sale of gold transferred to the bank, or resulting from any change in the monetary standard, shall be paid into the consolidated revenue fund. It is provided, however, that if the governor in council is satisfied that the gold at the time of transfer was held against liabilities elsewhere in Canada, the profit shall belong to the chartered bank. The governor in ecuncil has not yet taken action under this provision.
My point is that the government has not answered my question as to what was the total amount of chartered bank gold transferred to the Bank of Canada. The second question of privilege is this. I asked whether the Bank of Canada had appointed any particular firm of solicitors and, if so, what firm; and, further, what were the terms in regard to salary and so forth. The answer is that the government has no information.
I submit that I should have a reply to that question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall be very pleased to look at the first question. As a matter of fact the quantity

Eastern Potato Growers
of gold transferred will be disclosed by examination of the respective statements of the banks. With respect to the second question, may I say to my hon. friend that the answer is in strict conformity with the facts.
FARMERS' CREDITORS ACT On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MaeLEAN (Prince): I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the following press dispatch from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island:
At a meeting yesterday of the provincial board of review in connection with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the board declared that in the case where mortgagees have actually paid cash in giving loans to the farmers, neither the principal nor the interest will be disturbed.
Is this in keeping with the terms of the act?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have not seen the statement and I shall have to look into it before giving an answer. The policy pursued by individual boards of review will be entirely within their own competence.
PRICE SPREADS REPORT On the orders of the day:


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Can the Secretary of State say
whether the French translation of the report of the commission on price spreads and mass buying is being proceeded with as expeditiously as we were led by the government last year to hope?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: With the printing and publication of the price spreads report, as Secretary of State I have nothing to do; it is entirely within the purview of the commission.
EASTERN POTATO GROWERS On the orders of the day:


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Has the Minister of Agriculture information to the effect that the province of Quebec will join the eastern potato marketing board?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I have no official information to that effect but I understand that they are giving the matter further consideration and expect an answer this week.
HUDSON BAY INSURANCE RATES On the orders of the day:


Right Hon.   S@: During the last year or two the government has been doing everything
possible to get the insurance rates reduced in connection with Hudson bay voyages. After spending such a lot of money on the building of the Hudson Bay railway we are all very anxious that it should be used as much as possible, and one of the ways in which we hope to bring that about is to endeavour to get insurance rates reduced. If the house will permit me I will read a dispatch which has been received in regard to this question:
A cable dispatch received from the High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain on Hudson bay marine insurance rates indicates that "the joint Hull committee has agreed with the imperial shipping committee to recommend to underwriters in London and Liverpool that for the season 1935 there shall be for well found ships a reduction of 25 per cent on 1934 minimum additional premium for suspending the warrant. Vessels equipped with a gyro compass may be allowed 25 per cent off that part of the new additional premium which is calculated on insured value of ship. The dates of opening and closing of season will remain unaltered, but surcharge of 25 per cent for leaving Churchill after 7th but before October 15, being calculated on new rates of additional premium, will represent a corresponding reduction. The full report of the imperial shipping committee will be presented to the governments concerned.
I may add that the insurance rates in a case of this kind are based on actual facts; that is, they have to wait a few years to see what losses there are in order to arrive at their rates. One of the difficulties in connection with Hudson bay insurance rates is that the number of vessels going there is very small and therefore the risk at Lloyds or elsewhere is not spread over as many vessels as it would be in other parts of the ocean. But I think I am safe in saying that this concession will be greatly appreciated and will help to increase shipments from Hudson bay.



MARKETING OF WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: In view of the fact that the relief bill was passed the other day, under the authority of which the stabilization of the wheat market is maintained, can the government indicate just when we may expect the resolution now standing on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister to be before the house? I refer to the resolution with regard to the creation of a grain board.


Right Hon.   S@: I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. gentleman that information at present.
Eight Hour Day-Mr. Lapointe



ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 39, to establish an economic council.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) moved the third reading of Bill No. 21, to provide for limiting the hours of work in industrial undertakings to eight in the 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 June 28, 1919.
Ernest Lapointe: The question of jurisdiction has been argued many times and I do not want to say a word about it to-day except that I would like to place on Hansard an order in council just for the purpose of making complete the record on this question. This is P.C. 2325, an order in council concerning a draft convention limiting the hours of work in coal mines, adopted on October 26, 1932, and I would like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this order in council was passed a year after the judgment in the radio case and eight months after the judgment in the aviation case. The order reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 13th October, 1932, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that he has had under consideration, upon reference from the Department of Labour, the authentic text of the draft convention limiting hours of work in coal mines, adopted by the international labour conference at its fifteenth session (28th May-18th June, 1931), with a view to determining whether and to what extent the subject matter of this draft convention lies with the competence of parliament or of the provincial legislatures, in order that the said draft convention may be brought by the dominion government, in discharge of its obligation under article 405 of the treaty of Versailles and' the corresponding article of the other treaties of

peace, before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies, for legislative or other action.
The minister-
That is the Minister of Justice.
-observes that the draft convention embodies various provisions with regard to the regulation of hours of work of workers employed in coal mines, that is to say, in any mine from which hard coal or lignite, or principally hard coal or lignite together with other minerals, is extracted. It contemplates that such provisions shall be given compulsory effect against the management of every mine to which such provisions are to be respectively made applicable. Ratification of the convention would consequently involve an obligation on the part of each government concerned to give effect to the provisions of the convention by legislative action in so far as existing laws may not afford adequate authority for that purpose.
The provisions of the convention which require legislative action to make them effective clearly involve legislation which, in its subject matter, would be directly concerned with classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the provincial legislatures by section 92 of the British North America Act, 1867: in particular "local works and undertakings" (section 92 (10)); "property and civil rights in the province" (section 92 (13)) and' perhaps also "generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province" (section 92 (16)). While legislation upon the subject matter of the provisions of the convention might perhaps be enacted by the parliament of Canada in an ancillary or incidental way in relation to any coal mine which has been declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada: (section 91 and section 92	(10)	(c), British North America Act,
1867); Union Colliery Company of British Columbia versus Bryden (1899), A.C. 580, 585, the Minister of Justice is of opinion that legislative jurisdiction touching that subject matter is. as regards those parts of Canada included within the several provinces, primarily vested in the provincial legislatures and that it is within the competence of the several provincial governments by appropriate legislative action to give effect to the proposals of the convention generally and comprehensively, except for those parts of Canada which are not included within the limits of any province. As to the latter, exclusive legislative jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of the convention is vested in the parliament of Canada. The minister observes that the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of legislative jurisdiction over hours of labour (1925) S.C.R. 505. affords strong support for the opinion above expressed.
The committee-
That is the whole government.
-concur in the foregoing and advise that a copy hereof, together with an authenticated copy of the draft convention, be transmitted to the lieutenant-governors of the respective provinces for the consideration of their respective governments with a view to the enactment of legislation or such other action upon the

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps
subject matter of the draft convention, within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction, as each government may be advised to take.
All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval.
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
I wish only to say that the law in 1932 is still the law in 1935.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Just a word in reply to my hon. friend's statement. In my opinion the statement of law as set forth in the order in council just read is correct, but the situation is not the same to-day as it was then. The situation to-day is that this house has approved a convention submitted under the provisions of the treaty of Versailles and we have undertaken new responsibilities under the terms of that treaty. The opinion expressed in the order in council was correct, but the convention having been approved by parliament, the whole situation is changed, and I submit that parliament now has jurisdiction.


Ernest Lapointe: Why did the government not have the convention approved in 1932?


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I have no doubt that the constitutional point raised by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is a very important one to those people who are versed in constitutional law; possibly to them it may be an all-important question, but apart from that aspect of the question, there is another and more important feature involved, and that is the principle of the measure itself now before parliament. I believe the people who are to-day interested in the question of the shorter work week are ever so much more numerous than those who are interested in the constitutional aspect. I realize however on the one hand that the latter part of the question must be settled before parliament can effectively legislate along the lines as proposed in this bill; but I am satisfied on the other that the government with its legal advisers and the number of lawyers who happen to be members of the government would not have undertaken the step they did unless they felt they were justified from a legal standpoint in so doing.
The purpose I have in rising to-day is not to deal with the constitutional aspect because even if I wanted to, I could not do so. After all very often in matters of this kind the constitutional question is only relative, because our constitution changes with the needs of the times. That, I believe, is the history of the British constitution. What may
have been illegal forty or fifty years age may to-day be legal, without any change in the statutes of the country. On this occasion the government have thought fit to introduce a bill to establish in Canada a forty-eight hour working week. As far as the bill itself is concerned I do not regard it as a very important measure, but I regard the reeogpition of the principle of a maximum working week as of considerable importance. For that reason I am supporting the measure, and I am pleased indeed to see the government taking this step, even though it is so many years since the signing of the Versailles treaty. On previous occasions when I have spoken on labour problems in this house I have said that I attach more importance to legislation concerning hours of work than to some of the other legislation introduced here. We are confronted to-day with a very grave unemployment situation. Vast numbers of our citizens, men and women, are unable to find means of livelihood. I have contended in the house year in and year out, that one of the first steps we should take in order to absorb these people into industry is a considerable reduction in the hours of labour. That is why when the unemployment insurance bill was before the house I claimed that in itself it was no remedy for unemployment and could hardly be called a palliative. But now that we have this measure before us dealing with hours of labour. I hope that it will be much more far reaching in its effect than merely restricting working hours to forty-eight per week, otherwise it will not be of much more importance than the unemployment insurance measure.
I want to go back to a little over a year ago. On February 5, 1934, this house passed a resolution dealing with the shorter working week, when I introduced the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the necessity of reducing the hours of labour of those engaged in industry, and also increase the purchasing power of the masses of our people in order that they may absorb the goods produced, thereby creating a more equitable distribution of our wealth production.
On that occasion the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) accepted the resolution on behalf of the government, and that motion carried unanimously. It asked for a reduction in the hours of labour and also for an increase in the purchasing power of the masses of the people. I think on that occasion I argued for a shorter working day and a thirty hour week, and this afternoon I intend
Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps

moving an amendment to the resolution also asking this house to approve of a thirty hour working week.
Now shorter working days in themselves of course are very important, but unless we give to the masses of the people increased purchasing power they will be very little better off with the shorter working day than at present, because it would only ipean spreading out the purchasing power now existing without increasing it to any extent. Now why have I always argued in this house and outside in favour of a shorter working week and increased purchasing power? I think it has begun to be realized that if we are going to absorb the vast number of unemployed into industry it can only be done by decreasing the hours of work, and by facilitating absorption of the goods that we are able to produce. I do not think that any one would argue that our ills to-day are due to lack of productive capacity; We have tried other remedies; for some years now we have tried public works, but even at the best public works are only a temporary palliative, they are like putting a plaster on an ulcer, covering up the sore spot but not curing the evil at its root. The question also arises whether the conditions through which we are now passing can be called abnormal. For some time it has seemed to me that these conditions which have existed for the last five years are really becoming normal. There is no person who can say that the present unfortunate conditions as to employment are not going to continue. I think we must be prepared to accept these conditions as likely to exist for some time to come in spite of all the legislation that is now before parliament. As a result of unemployment we are carrying a load which threatens to break down the financial structure of the country. The burden is becoming too great for our municipalities, our provincial governments are unable to bear it, and the federal government even cannot finance unemployment relief out of current revenue and are compelled to finance it out of borrowings or otherwise on capital account. This unemployment relief expenditure is a huge, unproductive outlay, returning nothing as far as the country is concerned, but creating untold hardship and misery. What is more important than the mere money aspect and the cost to the municipalities and the provincial and federal exchequers is the injury to the morale of the unemployed. Do we give enough attention to that? Do we think of these young boys who since leaving school 
have been unable to find any useful occupation which they may enter and take their part in the normal activities of life? Many of these young people have been out of school four or five years and have been unable to get a useful day's work. Think of the plight of the unemployed, always looking for that elusive job which cannot be found; which is something like prosperity, always around the corner. That vain search for the elusive job does more to sap the morale of many of our unemployed than anything one can imagine.
I believe on the other hand that the capitalistic system as we have it to-day cannot cure the conditions which it has created. Our economic system to-day demands on the one hand economies, and on the other huge expenditures. Our governments have been compelled to come to the assistance of many of our large financial and industrial institutions; we have been compelled to give guarantees to the banks, to give guarantees to the railways and to give guarantees to large power corporations. Yet the heads of those same institutions keep telling parliament that expenditures must be still more restricted and that the government must keep out of business. If the government did keep out of business very long these institutions would be in much worse plight than they are. Our present system compels us, in order to find employment for those out of work, to produce goods years ahead of actual requirements. Buildings have been constructed which in many cases are not required, our railway building and equipment has been in advance of our needs; that goes to indicate the chaotic condition of our economic structure at the present time, when we go on constructing things years ahead of requirements, and yet thousands of our Canadian people are compelled to go without the necessaries of life.
To-day we are living in an age of what we term contracting capitalism. Some years ago, in the middle and towards the end of the last century, we were living in an age of expanding capitalism, and as long as capitalism expanded we were able to find markets in different parts of the world for the surplus goods we produced. To-day, however, because of our tremendous productive capacity, those foreign markets are fast disappearing, and we in Canada in this connection are in exactly the same plight as are the people in other parts of the world. For instance, we supply the other parts of the world with capital goods which ultimately come into competition with the very goods

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps
we produce in this country. After a time, after we have provided these so-called backward countries with articles we ourselves produce, we find that they are competitors of ours in the markets of the world, and with the increasing production in all parts of the world we have a glut of commodities on all sides with no purchasing power in the hands of the masses of the people.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that was amply recognized when we had the international labour conference at Washington in 1919. I believe that was one of the reasons which brought about that conference, at which the different nations tried by some means or other to cope with what was already, at that time, a very difficult situation, namely the over-production of commodities and the number of people even then who found themselves out of work. That was sixteen years ago, and at that time the forty-eight hour week was approved. But a great many things have happened during the past sixteen years, and I claim that in the year 1935 a forty-eight hour week or eight hour day is entirely obsolete and out of harmony with existing productive capacity. Since 1949 we have tried all kinds of remedies to meet the situation in this country. We have tried public works, relief works of one kind and another, high tariffs and many other things, but nothing has met the situation and I claim that nothing we have tried so far is able to meet the situation as it exists in the year 1935.
There have been tremendous economic changes since 1919, and one of the most important of these changes has been the vast increase in the productive capacity of the economic machine. According to a well known United States statistician, Doctor F. C. Mills, between 1919 and 1933 the productive capacity of the United States increased by 71 per cent. That was over a period of sixteen years, the exact period with which we are dealing at the present time. I would venture to assert that these figures which this eminent statistician gives in connection with the United States have been followed very closely in Canada; I think there has been a similar increase in the productive capacity of our people in Canada. Then if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I think there should be a considerably greater reduction of hours of work, beyond forty-eight hours a week. A few weeks ago our bureau of statistics issued a bulletin to which it is well worth while to refer for a few moments. On February 7 last our statistical branch issued some figures in connection with the production of our textile industries, which I
think are of significance to us under present conditions. It is pointed out that the value of production in the cotton textile industry in 1933 was $58,451,000, an increase over the previous year of $13,110,000, or 28 per cent. In 1933 there were 17,885 persons employed in this industry, or 1,067 more than in the previous year. In 1933 the wages amounted to $13,220,000, an increase over 1932 of
S61,000,	or one-half of 1 per cent. I want the house to appreciate these figures. Though there was an increase in production of 28 per cent, in the same year there was an increase in wages of only one-half of 1 per cent. Though there were 1,067 more persons employed in 1933 than in 1932, wages increased by only one-half of 1 per cent. If those wages were divided equally among those employed I believe there would be an actual decrease in the wages paid the men and women employed in our textile industries, in spite of the fact that there was a 28 per cent increase in production.
That is simply an example of what is taking place all the time. When the government issue figures from time to time tending to show that production has been increased by so much, in textiles, in boots and shoes, in furniture and so on, it does not necessarily mean that more people have been employed. Probably it only means that the machines have been a little busier and have turned out more goods than in the previous year. That has been one of the main factors in the creation of that vast army of unemployed in Canada to-day, despite the fact that there has been a certain increase in our production in the last year or so. In this country we can always produce far more than we can reasonably consume, and in addition to our huge surplus of production we have a vast reservoir of workers anxiously awaiting the opportunity to be absorbed into gainful production. With the increasing use of machinery, however, these men and women are denied the opportunity of making a decent livelihood. I say, Mr. Speaker-and I am arguing for a shorter work day-that if as a result of the ingenuity of man during past generations we have reached the stage in our civilization when we can produce such a superabundance beyond our own requirements, then man ought to have the benefit of these scientific inventions, and that benefit should be in the form of giving the individual greater leisure than he has at the present time.
The forty-eight hour week, as provided for in this measure, does not give us very much. In a few isolated instances across this country those who to-day are working a little longer
Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps

than, forty-eight hours a week may be affected. There are not very many of them; my hon. friena from Bow River (Mr. Garland) suggests night watchmen and members of parliament. I think very few unemployed would be absorbed into industry in those few instances. If we are really to give useful work to our unemployed there must be a considerable reduction in the hours of labour, much below the forty-eight hours suggested in the present bill. I say this in spite of the fact that I give the measure my blessing and am happy, m a way, to see it introduced in parliament. I venture to assert, and this has been stated by many economists, that if we would absorb into productive employment these men and women who are to-day out of work and we put them all doing something useful, a three hour day might be sufficient to satisfy human requirements, but I am quite prepared on the present occasion to compromise on the six hour basis. In the United States at the present time there is before the Senate a bill for a six hour day being favourably considered. Why should we be behind the United States? There a similar bill was reported favourably upon last year, and the men who introduced that bill before the Senate and argued in its favour took the very same stand that I am taking here this afternoon, that if we are ever going to get back to anything approaching normal there has to be a shorter working week and a considerable increase in the purchasing power of the great masses of our people. I believe the very fact of this bill being introduced here this afternoon is a recognition of that principle, and the only difference I suppose now between the different groups in this house, if the house accepts the principle of a shorter working week, is the number of hours per week that should be worked in order to absorb the unemployed workers of this dominion.
So far as I am concerned and in this I am speaking I believe for those in this corner of the house, I am strongly opposed to the curtailment of production in whatever shape or form it may take, whether on the farm or in the factory or in the work shop. It is a form of industrial sabotage to which I am totally opposed, for I feel that the greater our productive capacity and the more we produce the better it ought to be for all concerned. But unfortunately that has not been the case during the past few years in this Dominion of Canada, nor for that matter in any other part of the world.
The hours of labour ought to be regulated according to the needs of the times. If through some catastrophe that might take

place the average workman in this country were called upon to work eight or ten or twelve hours a day, he would be glad to work to the utmost of his capacity provided there was the need for it, but on the other hand when there is no need for it, the great masses of our people should be given the advantage and blessing of modem invention, modern ingenuity and modern equipment.
Then there ought to be some close relationship between our productive capacity and our consumptive opportunities. To-day there is absolutely no relationship between the two. We produce goods in abundance in a haphazard way and then let them lie on our shelves and go to waste or sometimes rot while our people throughout the country are wanting these very goods but have no opportunity of consuming them. In my opinion a thirty hour week would be more than sufficient, so far as our work shops and our factories are concerned, to produce all that we could reasonably consume here in this dominion. I say that there must be a reasonable balance between production and consumption, with production always a little ahead of consumption.
I know that some people might say, and say with certain justification, that in the United States they have tried certain experiments which were not successful. Speaking in this house a little over a year ago, I said then that I did not expect very much success from the experiments that were being made in the United States because what they were doing there was trying to increase production ostensibly in order to absorb labour. The result was that the machine worked and profits were greater as a result of the increased production, and very little of the benefit of that increased production went to those who were actually engaged in a productive capacity.
Secondly, in the United States they tried to make codes and regulations, to establish a sort of cooperative system within the confines of the competitive, and sooner or lateT one had to give way to the other. Either the competitive had to give way to the cooperative, or the cooperative had to give way to the competitive. The result in the United States was that the cooperative efforts that were attempted to be established soon had to give way to the competitive, and the competitive system ran wild, with the consequent chaos that we see in the United States today.
Personally I would like to see us avoid the chaos that they have gone through in the United States, and I think it could be done if the government would give serious study

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps
to some of the points I have outlined in my remarks here this afternoon. We are borrowing vast sums of money, just as they did in the United States. I have forgotten how many billions of dollars the United States has borrowed in the effort to borrow themselves back into prosperity. No nation can borrow itself back into prosperity. That is false economics all the way through, for the more they borrow the more they owe, the greater their indebtedness and the greater the load, and the moment the borrowing ceases you revert back to a condition which may well be worse than the first. There is an obvious reason for that. As long as you are living on borrowed money there is a fictitious sort of prosperity, but the moment the money that was borrowed has been spent and you have to pay it back, the conditions become entirely different. Therefore I say that we must get down to something more fundamental than the borrowing of money to bring about a prosperous condition among our people. As I have pointed out in this house year after year, there is to-day a huge gap between our production and our consumption. I said a few moments ago I am opposed to cutting down on production. What I want to see is an increase of the consumptive opportunities of our people throughout the length and breadth of this dominion, and by increasing those consumptive opportunities we shall be able to keep the industrial machine going, though I am free to admit, it may interfere with the large profits of those who own the machinery of production and distribution. But if in this house one has got to choose between the profits of a few individuals and the well-being of the great masses of our people, I am compelled to choose and be on the side of the masses of the people of this dominion.
It may be argued that a shorter work day will increase price levels and may perhaps hurt the position of the farmer, but I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the farmer can be hurt very much more than he is at the present time. I as one coming from an industrial constituency, elected as a labour member and representing a labour constituency, am just as anxious for the farmer to be placed in a sound and secure position as I am to see the man in the industrial centres enjoy that security which he lacks at the present time. Price levels, important as they are, are not the all-important thing. I think the most important thing i.s to put into consumptive channels the goods we produce. In other words, there has to be a more equitable distribution of our wealth production in this dominion. The wealth of
a nation is not determined by price levels. The wealth of a nation is determined in the first place by the wealth that nation has within its geographical borders, its mines, its forests, its fields, its factories and its work shops. They are wealth, or potential wealth, and when the hand of man is put to these raw materials and potential wealth he produces the essential things of life. We are not short of wealth in this country, whether the price level is high or low. I was in 'Germany in 1923 when the price level was abnormally high, and just for an ordinary collar I would pay may be one quarter of a million marks, but that extraordinary high price level did not bring about prosperity in Germany. Nor does a low price level bring prosperity to the people of China. Prosperity can only come with high productive capacity, and when the results of that production are equally distributed among the people of that country, and that is exactly what I want to see in this dominion. We have that high productive capacity, and let us now bend our energies towards distributing our wealth production amongst the people who produce it so that they may enjoy the results of their labour.
We find that in this country we have more clothing probably than we know what to do with. We can produce clothing in abundance right from the raw materials almost through to the finished product. We have more wheat than the farmer knows what to do with. But the farmer cannot get the clothing he requires, and the man in the city has a mighty difficult task to get the flour to make into the bread that he needs. The only body that can deal with a question of this character is this parliament. We are the only logical body to deal with it, and any jurisdictional difficulties that might arise I think are infinitesimal as compared with the difficulty which the Canadian people have to-day in making a decent livelihood and finding a certain amount of security in life. To-day they have neither the opportunity of making a decent livelihood nor the opportunity of obtaining any security in life. Private initiative has failed completely in this respect just the same as it has failed in the United States during the past two years. Our people are compelled therefore to look to parliament as the only place where redress can be obtained. The provincial governments say that they cannot act in the matter and in spite of what some hon. members may say as to the difficulties presented by our constitution, I feel sure that if this parliament will show the

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Heaps
ways and means of grappling with the unemployment situation in a serious way none of the provincial authorities will question its jurisdiction.
Just as in the case of an eight hour day, a six hour day will mean more control and regulation and possibly more ownership of certain things by this parliament. After all there is not a very great gap between control and regulation and ownership. I do not contend that those who are in control or ownership of. industry are anxious to see unem-plojonent in our midst because I believe that if they had the power to eliminate it they would do so immediately. But the power of coping with this grave situation which now exists is beyond the control of the employers of labour.
Hon. members on the government side have referred to the new social order which will be created by this legislation but I cannot see that this legislation, the unemployment insurance legislation or other legislation which has been brought down ushers in a new social order. They .may prove a fine gesture but I am afraid they will not go far in overcoming the difficulties of the situation.
The amendment which I propose to move to the motion for third reading will reduce the hours of work per week from forty-eight to thirty. I submit that this parliament could do something which will offer redress to those men and women who find themselves out of work. I venture to assert that should the forty-eight hour legislation become effective within the next few months very few additional men and women will be absorbed into industry. After all, the important question to be considered is : How many more people will find work? Perhaps I had better read my amendment in order to give hon. members an opportunity of seeing what it contains. I intend to move, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis:
That all the words after "that" be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
"Bill No. 21 be referred' back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend same by striking out the words 'forty-eight' where they appear in the said bill and substituting the word 'thirty' therefor, and also by striking out the word 'eight' where it appears and substituting the word 'six' therefor."
The adoption of this amendment would reduce the hours of work from forty-eight per week to thirty per week by means of a five day week of six hours each. I hope the government will give this matter sympathetic consideration. As I said a moment ago, in

the United States at the present time the government is considering the adoption of a six hour day. This matter was reported on favourably last year and I have every reason to believe that this year that government will pass legislation to enact a thirty hour week. Not only does the resolution now before the Senate of the United States provide for a thirty hour week but it stipulates that there shall be no reduction in pay. In other words, a person receiving S25 per week for a forty hour week would receive the same wages for a thirty hour week.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is moving an amendment which, if carried, would cause more unemployment. In fact, it would bring about the bankruptcy of all our industries. I am sympathetic with the objects which seem to be in the mind of the hon. member for North Winnipeg but under the industrial system which we have at the present time and in which the profit motive is the dominant one, how can we expect to have more employment if we ask the employer of labour to pay more for less? That is what this amendment means. If it asked that the whole matter of hours of employment be referred to the League of Nations, then I think any hon. member with any element of logic in his makeup could support the motion.
During the course of the remarks of the last speaker I was talking with a gentleman who has quite a lot to do with industry in this country. He told me that during the last four years he lost practically all the reserves which had been built up, a total of over a quarter of a million dollars. I wonder if those who are employed in the country at the present time really expect, except with the advent of socialism to-morrow, that any employer will pay them just as much money as they are paying them to-day for a shorter day of work or for less production. And after all, is not the prosperity of this nation based largely upon the possibility of the expansion of our export trade? I have heard my learned friend-


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not learned.


James Herbert Stitt: Well, he is very learned, in fact if not by courtesy, and I have heard him say that he was not in favour of tariffs but of world trade. Surely if you are in favour of world trade you are in favour of this country participating in world trade, and why should you put this country on the basis

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
of more expensive production and expect it to obtain a larger share of the world's market? How is that possible in a world which is dominated by the profit motive? This resolution, if it were passed and if proper laws were enacted to enforce it in this country, would be the last step under our present system and the first step to complete socialism, and in my opinion it would lead to chaos. I think that is what it means. I want my hon. friend from North Winnipeg to realize this. I know that as time goes on, even at present, we ought to have fewer hours of labour; there is no doubt about that. But how can we get so far ahead of world progress so long as we have to bear in mind the existence of the profit motive? Why do men go into business? Why does any man work? Under our system men work for wages, and they establish industries and go into trade for the purpose of making profits. Employment is all based on the wage motive or the profit motive. I believe that if the resolution were passed and if this country set up the necessary administrative machinery to enforce it there would be more unemployment to-morrow than there is to-day and there would be chaos.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the hon. member tell me why they are trying to do it in the United States?


James Herbert Stitt: Are they trying?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Certainly. It is now before the Senate.


James Herbert Stitt: The United States is practically in the position where its whole export trade only amounts to between eight and ten per cent of its entire business. Look at the wheat situation in this country, however. The United States is a far more self-contained nation than we are. Suppose we applied the six hour day to agriculture, considering the difficulty we have at the present time in getting any kind of reasonable price for our wheat. Suppose we increased the farmer's cost. This resolution if enacted would increase the cost of every commodity that enters into every kind of production including agriculture. The farmer's machinery would cost more; transportation would cost more; everything he uses would cost more. There is no doubt that if we were living in a socialistic or communistic world, a world in which profit had been absolutely abolished, it would be possible to enact and administer such a measure. But with the world as it is, when we are moved no doubt by the deplorable conditions that exist in the country, moved no doubt by the strongest possible desire to 92582-130
remedy the situation, why should we forget the facts and in a measure of abstract idealism bring ruin to the whole industrial and trading fabric of the nation? We have to face these things in a real, honest, genuine way. My hon. friend advances many resolutions which I support theoretically, but when it comes to the real application of these measures, how can we do it? How can you ask an industry which is exporting agricultural implements or automobiles to compete with Japan at the present time and reduce its hours of labour by thirty-three per cent and increase its cost? How can it be done? After all, states like great engines move slowly, and though the object which my hon. friend has in mind is* a laudable one I do not think it is possible of accomplishment. He says that the question of jurisdiction is a small one.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I did not.


James Herbert Stitt: Well, not very important.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not as important as the unemployment situation.


James Herbert Stitt: Of course it is not; there is no doubt about that. But the question of jurisdiction may be a great question in the next election.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am satisfied with the Prime Minister's stand on that.


James Herbert Stitt: Our whole jurisdiction is based on an international treaty or arrangement. We have not made any international agreement for a six hour day and it is the only basis on which we can get jurisdiction, unless the state of the nation becomes so deplorable that under peace, order and good government we have to enter into the whole realm of business, and then society will be in a state of collapse. And I believe that is what would happen if this proposal were enacted. What about human nature? What about the railway men at the present time? The railway men who are employed want to run their 3,600 miles a month. They do not want to cut down their right to earn money and to have the work distributed to their brothers who are out of employment. Although ideally they preach that doctrine they do not live up to it in practice.
I think the object which the hon. member has in view is perfectly laudable and there should be a reduction in the hours of labour. But until we find ourselves in a world which is more in agreement than at the present time, there is no use destroying the whole fabric of industry and trade. It seems to me that any resolution for a six hour day at the



Eight Hour Day-Mr. Lapointe
present time would certainly be more productive of evil than of good, unless it were regarded merely as a lamp to guide us on our way or as the first step towards a proposition which might be explored by the League of Nations we might in such a case achieve some measure of improvement in human welfare if we could secure world agreement. But to pursue a policy like this in isolation is nothing short of abstract madness, which would lead us immediately to chaos.


Ernest Lapointe: I was hoping that the government would indicate its attitude toward the amendment of the ho.n. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I hate to come to their rescue, but I am afraid I shall have to. First I may say that with some of the views expressed by my hon. friend I would be in agreement. It is true that the labour people in the world today are not much interested in a forty-eight hour week as was indicated last year at the international labour conference where a draft convention was submitted for a forty hour work week and, as I said on the second reading of this bill or when the draft convention was submitted to the house, was adopted by the convention but failed of having any effect because there was not the quorum required by the rules of the conference owing to the fact that most of the government delegates, including the one representing Canada, were absent when the vote was taken. However the conference adopted a resolution to place this draft convention upon the agenda for the next conference which takes place in a week or two. This will be the first matter to be considered there, and the government might have waited until this draft convention is disposed of by the labour conference before dealing with this matter. However we have before the house this bill for a forty-eight hour week, and the government is basing this legislation on the draft convention adopted at Washington in 1919. This is part of the preamble of the bill:
Whereas a draft convention respecting hours of work in industrial undertakings was agreed upon at a general conference of the international labour organization of the league of nations, in accordance with the relevant articles of the said treaty, -which said convention has been ratified by Canada; and whereas^ it is advisable to enact the necessary legislation to enable Canada to discharge the obligations assumed under the provisions of the said treaty-
And so forth. The draft convention of 1919 is for a forty-eight hour week. It is the only thing that might give an appearance of right to' parliament to enact this law which is, as everybody will agree with me, primarily under
[Mr. J. H. Stitt. 1
provincial jurisdiction. But the motion of my hon. friend for a thirty hour work week and a six hour work day is not based on any draft convention or indeed on anything; it is clearly provincial in its sphere. This parliament has no right to pass that even on the claim of the government that the draft convention of 1919 gives them jurisdiction for the present bill; it would not give them jurisdiction for the amendment of my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the draft convention not say "forty-eight hours or less"?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: "Not exceeding."


Ernest Lapointe: "Not to exceed." But I do not think this will mean what the amendment involves, because the conference finds it necessary to pass another draft convention to cover a forty hour week. Under the circumstances, as I have more than grave doubts that the courts will decide that the present bill when enacted will be valid. I think if the amendment of my hon. friend is inserted, the situation will be still worse. I want to give to the legislation which parliament is going to enact at least the chance, when it stands the test of a judicial decision, of not having the tail which my hon. friend is imposing upon it.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: In making a short reply to the
observations of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) I trust he will not charge me with being a sceptic with respect to his conception of what might happen in industry and the world. The amendment suggests that the work week be reduced from forty-eight to thirty hours and the work day from eight to six hours. If parliament has its right founded in law to enact the present measure, it finds that right in the draft convention which was approved at Washington in 1919.


Mr. POULIOT:: It was a draft convention, not a convention.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: On every occasion I
believe when organized labour appeared before the various governments of this country since the approval of the draft convention at Washington, organized labour has urged the passage of a measure such as is before the house to-day; organized labour has asked for a forty-eight hour week and an eight hour day. When that draft convention was approved at Washington, there was a very large gathering of representatives of the various countries of the world that had become signatories to the treaty. The

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Gordon
Labour Gazette of December, 1919, in reporting that labour conference at Washington has this to say at page 1425:
The first international labour conference, convened under the authority of the treaty of peace, assembled in Washington, D.C., on October 29, and concluded its labours exactly one month later on November 29, The purpose of this organization is to promote the international regulation of labour conditions.
It was the first time that representatives of governments, and of employing and employed interests assembled in an international conference to consider labour problems. The agenda of this first conference had been fixed in the peace treaty and the proceedings in Washington were entirely confined thereto. The matters under consideration related to the permanent organization of the international labour body and the following specific subjects of reference, namely: The application in the countries represented of the principle of the eight hour day or forty-eight hour week, the question of preventing or providing against unemployment, various proposals relating to the employment of women and children. Considering the diversity of the interests represented, it was the general feeling that the discussions and decisions of the conference gave evidence of a sincere desire on the part of the participants to fulfil the purposes for which the organization had been created.
I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the last paragraph:
The conference gave evidence of a sincere desire on the part of the participants to fulfil the purposes for which the organization had been created.
Then the report goes on:
The following general principles are enunciated in the treaty of peace as comprising the methods and principles for regulating industrial conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply so far as their special circumstances will permit.
It proceeds then with quotations from the treaty itself.
The high contracting parties,-
And Canada was one of them:
-recognizing that the well being, physical, moral and intelleeutal, of industrial wage earners is of supreme international importance have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in section I and asociated with that of the League of Nations.
With that general thought in view the conference proceeded with its labours. We had at that conference a very large and very representative body of delegates and advisers, numbering twenty-six in all. They included Hon. G. D. Robertson, Minister of Labour for Canada, and Hon. Newton W. Rowell as government delegates. We had as advisers, F. A Acland, Deputy Minister of Labour, 92582-130J
Mr. Loring G. Christie, Mr. Daniel A. Cameron, Hon. C. W. Robinson, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Mr. Louis Guyon, Doctor Walter A. Riddell, Hon. Thomas H. Johnson, Mr. T. M. Molloy, Hon. C. R. Mitchell, Mr. J. D. McNiven, Mr. Gerald H. Brown, Mr. S.	R. Parsons, Mr. Sam Harris, Mr. J. T. Stirrett, Mr. E. Blake Robertson, Mr. J. B. Hugg, Mr. J. G. Merrick, Mr. P. M. Draper, Mr. Tom Moore, Mr. Arthur Martel, Mr. Robert Baxter, Mr. David Rees, Mrs. Kathleen Derry. So hon. members will see that Canada was represented at that conference by very eminent persons, meeting for the purpose of formulating and adopting draft conventions, and unquestionably assuming some responsibility to see that those draft conventions were something more than mere expressions of pious wishes. Certainly there must have been some assumption of obligation on everyone represented there to see that these draft conventions were ultimately given effect to in the countries to which they applied. Now the right hon. leader of the opposition was at that conference, and doubtless displayed his usual activity. I think I can surmise that he took a very active part in seeing that that draft convention was brought into being and carefully revised.
As I say, year after year organized labour m Canada has asked that that draft convention be given effect to. What was the result? Less than three years afterwards the government in Canada changed and a Liberal government came into power. What was the attitude of that government with respect to these draft conventions which have become the subject matter of legislation during this session of parliament? They went into the depths of cold storage. Nothing was ever done to bring them into effect. Yet the right hon. leader of the opposition, always interested, like the rest of us I hope, in promoting peace and good will in the world, and professing a desire, and I believe trying at times to do something for labour-I do not want to detract from what the right hon. leader of the opposition has done-with respect to these draft conventions he did nothing. During those intervening years from 1922 until a few weeks ago, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) was one of the foremost men in Canada advocating the League of Nations, the treaty of peace and all these complementary things that have to do with them. Now what happens? The very moment a government in Canada seeks to give effect to these draft conventions the right hon. leader of the opposition drags out

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Gordon
old ultra vires, and the hon. member for Quebec East resigns from leadership of the League of Nations society in Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Keep that for the platform.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Well, if I am wrong I
stand to be corrected.


Ernest Lapointe: It is nonsense.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Now, as to this amendment if the government is right in its legal position that, having become a signatory to the peace treaty and having approved and adopted a draft convention in this parliament and having by reason thereof a right to found legislation upon the convention, then of necessity if the government's view is to prevail it must follow the terms of that convention in substance. But the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) advances an amendment which by its very terms will place those who seek to impeach this bill in the position that suits their purpose, that of being able to say that we have departed completely from the convention. The amendment would enable them to advance that argument before the courts as a reason why this legislation should be declared ultra vires of the dominion parliament. I do not know why my hon. friend advanced that amendment, for he must have known what its effect would be.
For my part I suggest that working hours should be reduced just as rapidly as can be done with safety, but that it would not be of benefit to the working people of this country to assume deliberately an attitude that will nullify this great forward step, as I believe it is, of placing in the power of this parliament through our participation in the League of Nations the right to control these very vital matters that experience is disclosing must in a measure be controlled by the central authority. I am not going to endeavour to go into the legal position concerning this bill. I have heard it discussed here, I have read the discussions in another place in parliament. I think I have said before that we can learn a lot of law from all the discussions. But when I find very eminent legal gentlemen such as the hon. member for Quebec East, very eminent constitutional authorities such as the right hon. leader of the opposition, and very eminent lawyers like the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the leader of the Senate, not seeing exactly eye to eye on this question, I get some comfort out of the thought that, while I am sure this legislation is within our competence, I feel so

for reasons different from those expressed by these other gentlemen. So we have a pretty general disagreement of opinion both here and in the Senate.
I think this legislation will stand the test of our courts. The hon. member for Quebec East says a further measure is now pending before this same tribunal which will still further reduce the hours of labour, and he suggests that we should wait until we see the fate of that further convention before proceeding with this measure. I think the sound course, if the government is right, is to go ahead now, adopt this convention and, have it understood across Canada that, through the agency of this treaty, the federal parliament has the right to do what we are now doing. Then if at some near future date the international labour organization, with all the nations of the world represented, comes to the conclusion that a further or different arrangement can be safely offered to the signatories of the treaty and those nations that are members of the labour organization, then it will be time for this parliament to undertake to draft legislation founded on that new convention.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had rather hoped that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) would have found it possible to get this social legislation through by discussing it on its merits, and wait until the time of the general election to make his stump speeches. However, he has evidently found the temptation too great to resist, and has sought to imply, to say the least, that the present leader of the opposition, having been one of the many advisers who were present at the international labour conference held at Washington in 1919, was to-day opposing legislation which at that time he was partly instrumental in having recommended.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I did not say you were opposing it now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then we will put it in this way, that I was objecting to the jurisdiction of this parliament to deal with the matter. At any rate my hon. friend found it necessaiy to depart for a time from the legislation itself and devote a few remarks to myself. Perhaps he will pardon me, therefore, if I find it necessary to say a word or two about my position in connection with that international conference, for what light it may help to throw on the present situation. I recollect very well that at the time the conference was meeting in the United States, in 1919, the Union government was in power

Eight Hour Huy-Mr. Mackenzie King
in this country, and the Hon. N. W. Rowell was a member of the administration. If I recollect aright the invitation to me to be an adviser came either from Mr. Rowell or from the late Senator Robertson, who was then Minister of Labour.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I might interject, the notes of the conference suggest that the right hon. gentleman was nominated by the province of Prince Edward Island.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly my hon. friend may be correct; I would be representing Prince Edward Island in this house at the time, but I am quite distinct in my mind that it was due at least in part to the fact that both Hon. N. W. Rowell and Senator Robertson knew I had been Minister of Labour and deputy minister for a number of years, and was interested in these matters, that the invitation came to be extended to me to be one of the advisers at the conference at Washington. My hon. friend the Minister of Labour read to the house the list of those present. As he was reading it my colleague the ex-Minister of Justice remarked that there was a very large number of representatives from Canada. I gave my colleague the answer as to why the list- was so large, and I will give it to this house. It was assumed at that time, as all of us, on this side at least, assumed up to the beginning of this year, that matters respecting hours of labour came within the jurisdiction of the different provinces, and for that reason all the provinces of Canada were asked to be represented at the international conference in Washington. That, by the way, will explain how my attendance as an adviser came to, be in connection with the province of Prince Edward Island; I was one of the provincial representatives duly authorized by the provincial government. I am quite sure that as representing Prince Edward Island at the time I would have taken and did take the position that the enactment of legislation respecting the eight hour day came within the jurisdiction of the government of that province.
At any rate I know that all those who were present, both the ministers of the crown representing the federal government at the time and the representatives of the several provinces, were of one mind with respect to which legislative body had the competent jurisdiction in the matter of dealing with hours of labour. While all were equally desirous of seeing an eight hour day generally applied in Canada, I know all were equally of the view that if it were to be part of the law of this land, it would have to be enacted via the provincial legislatures in the first
instance. The procedure laid down by the international labour organization, as fashioned by the League of Nations, was that the draft conventions, in the first instance, would in federal states come to the federal government and later where necessary because of jurisdiction would be referred by the federal government to the different provinces.
Now may I point out that this meeting in Washington was held in 1919. It was December, 1921, before the Liberal administration took office; until that time either the Union government of Sir Robert Borden or the Conservative government of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen was in office. If hon. members will look at the records of the privy council for that period they will find that the then Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Doherty, was responsible for the order in council which set forth the method the government of Canada should adopt with respect to the various conventions that came from the labour conference. I placed that order in council on record when I was speaking previously, so I need not read it now; it will be found in the remarks I made at the time the first draft convention was discussed during this present session of parliament. It distinctly set out-and this by a Conservative minister of justice-that the obligation of the federal parliament with respect to these conventions concerning hours of labour and the like was to transfer them to the competent legislative authority of this country, and that the competent legislative authority with respect to the eight hour day was the provincial governments. Hon. gentlemen will find that Hon. Mr. Doherty and the Conservative government of the day fulfilled the obligation, as they then understood it, by seeing that the draft convention respecting the eight hour day was referred to the various provinces. If other governments that have succeeded have taken a similar course it is because each and every one has been advised by the law officers of the crown that that was the proper method to pursue.
The Minister of Labour says these draft conventions were kept in cold storage from 1921 to 1930, and I can only speak for that period. From our point of view they were not kept in cold storage at all; they were referred, as the law officers advised the treaty obligations required, to the various provinces. During that period of time the Liberal government had many conferences with the provinces, some of which specifically considered the question of whether among themselves the provinces coulld not agree to see that, as between themselves there would be uniformity
2056	COMMONS
Eight Hour Day-Mr. Mackenzie King
of legislation, particularly with respect to these matters which came to the provinces via the federal government, from the labour office at Geneva.
So that far from having draft conventions in cold storage we were doing our utmost during our time t'o see that they were enacted, that they were not allowed to remain mere recommendations, but that in so far as it was possible for the federal government to influence the provinces, the provinces would be influenced in the direction of carrying them out. As a matter of fact, most of the provinces had already enacted all that was requested. But since my hon. friend has spoken of cold storage, may I remind him that he and most of his colleagues have been members of the present government now for nearly five years, so according to his statement they have evidently been viewing these draft conventions as being left in cold storage. They are the ones who have taken the view that what ought to be done with these conventions was to keep them in cold storage up to the last moment because1 we have not had any of them brought before parliament until this year.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It took us four years to get them thawed out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid it wall take longer than that to get the administration thawed out with respect to a good many questions which they ought to have considered by this time. But may I say what my hon. friend the Minister of Labour and all hon. gentlemen on that side know to be the fact, and that is that they themselves have stated-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has stated, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has stated-that the view as set forth by the Hon. Mr. Doherty when Minister of Justice was the correct one with respect to these various draft conventions. They believed, and so stated to this parliament over and over again, that they were fully discharging every obligation that was imposed upon the federal government when they saw that these various conventions were referred to what they stated and believed were the bodies that had competent jurisdiction in the matter. It is only this year, only after the radio broadcasts that we have had, that this new theory is advanced, that this parliament has authority in the matter.
May I say this? When I made the statement the other day that we wished to see these measures enacted, I meant exactly what I said. I did not mean that we wished to

see a lot of make-believe legislation placed on the statute books. What we wanted to see was eight hour day and other social legislation in a position in which it could be enforced in this country, a position which would not permit of any doubt arising over any question of jurisdiction or constitutionality. There can be no question at all that the provinces themselves are competent to enact this eight hour day legislation, and I think that that will be admitted by the government itself. The eight hour day could be made generally applicable from one end of this country to the other by agreement between the provinces with respect to it. Similarly it could be made generally applicable by the British North America Act being amended so as to give this parliament power to pass legislation of this kind, amended with the consent of the provinces, which I believe could be and would be obtained, and would have been obtained long before this had hon. gentlemen opposite not needed that thawdng out process to which the Minister of Labour has just referred.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about the years from 1919 to 1930?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that if hon. gentlemen opposite have for the last five years entertained the view they now hold, their attitude is unpardonable in not having introduced this legislation long before this. Entertaining the view that they did, if they had had at heart at all the desirability and necessity of having legislation of this kind enacted by the federal parliament, I say that they should have and would have provided for it by having a conference with the provinces which would have brought about agreement in these matters, or would at least have brought about an amendment to the British North America Act that would have given this parliament power to act at the present time without any question or doubt arising in the matter at all.
I think it is perfectly clear just why, of necessity, the position that I personally at any rate have taken in this matter has been what it is. It has been what it has among other reasons for the one cited by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, that I was present at the international conference that met at Washington when this matter was discussed and the draft convention framed, and I know that it was the view of dominion and provincial representatives alike that the eight hour day legislation so far as Canada was concerned, if it was to be enacted and made effective, would have to be provincial legislation.

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Hanson
The government is now hanging its whole case in regard to the possibility of this legislation being intra vires on the slender thread that this house has approved the draft convention. It is not any longer on the ground of the draft convention itself. The Minister of Justice this afternoon told us that the situation had altered since this house had approved the convention. That is the slender thread on which all of this social legislation hangs. I do not wish to use a term that will belittle what is being attempted here, but I do , say that in the absence of an authoritative basis, all that we are doing at the present time is putting ourselves in the position of passing so much make-believe legislation.
I am anxious, nevertheless, to have this legislation, such as it is, given the best possible chance that it can have before the courts, and for that reason I would not wish to, prejudice its chances, however slight, by supporting the amendment which has been moved this afternoon by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). That amendment, as has been stated by the Minister of Labour this afternoon, is altogether beyond the scope or provisions of the draft convention, and consequently beyond the grounds on which the government says it has any authority whatever to deal with this matter. Assuming that my hon. friend's amendment were to pass and the bill were to be modified as he suggests and that later on it were to come before the courts, where the argument would be made which the government has urged this afternoon, that because this parliament has approved of the convention we have the power to legislate, and with nothing more than that to support it; what would become of the whole legislation? It would be thrown sky high on the simple discovery that there is nothing in the draft convention anywhere which touches the question of a six hour day or a thirty hour week.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Section 3 of the bill distinctly states that the hours are not to exceed forty per week.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I know, but I
think my hon. friend will find that that is a matter of legal drafting, and the less experimenting there is at 'the present time with what is purely experimental the better perhaps it will be for what may happen in the long run. The chances of this legislation, from the point of view of some of us at least, are precarious beyond all words, but I feel that the chances would be utterly hopeless if we tried to go beyond what even the government itself says is the one slender thread upon which the whole of this social legislation hangs at the moment. For that reason, in order that whatever possible chance the government may have at all in the matter may not be spoiled utterly, I am going to vote against the amendment of my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I had not
intended to make any observations with respect to this bill had it not been for the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition. But in the course of his remarks he used the belittling term of "make-believe" with regard to this legislation, and that statement was the culmination of a long line of similar characterizations of the government's social legislation. In other words, before this house and before the country he challenges the sincerity of the administration with regard to all this legislation, and in particular the eight hour day bill, the day of rest bill and the unemployment insurance measure. I think that is not straining his position at all, that it is stating his position exactly. He challenges the sincerity of the Prime Minister above all, and that will be the cry in the country with respect to this class of legislation and with respect to these bills.
Well, if that be so, I wonder what the opinion of the house and the country will be with respect to himself when I recall to your mind, sir, and to the mind of the house and the country that as long ago as August, 1919, when the right hon. gentleman was elected leader of his party he put into the platform of that party-I say that he put it into the platform because he was the leading authority on social legislation in his own convention-the following plank: Limit hours of work to an eight hour day and forty-eight hour week along with a weekly rest of at least twenty-four hours. I ask the right hon. gentleman if that was make-believe, if that was put forward to fool the people and if that was put in as a test of his sincerity? The net result was that not a thing was done in all the intervening years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will read the whole of what was set forth he will see that that statement was accompanied by another statement that it would be in accordance with the intent of the labour articles of the league and the reference of these matters to their competent jurisdiction.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That cannot be quite so because as I recollect it the Liberal convention was held in August of

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Hanson
1919 while the Washington convention did not take place until October or November of the same year. That argument simply will not hold water.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read it, it is
there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have read it ad! nauseam for the last ten years. Not more than twenty-five per cent of the Liberal platforms was put upon the statute books and it was never intended that any more should be put upon the statute books. I would point out that section 132 of the British North America Act was in existence in 1919. I do not recall whether the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) had been a law officer previous to that time but he certainly stood high in the councils of the Liberal party and must have known, as any legal member of this house knew, that the provisions of section 132 were open to the leader of the opposition in 1919 just as they are open now in 1935. The only difference was that there had not been the ingenuity or thoughtfulness to put that section into effect in order to achieve something which could never be achieved without amending the British North America Act or having the unanimous consent of the provinces.
Did the right hon. leader of the opposition ever call an interprovincial conference during the nine years he was in power for the purpose of amending the British North America Act or to ask them to put into effect uniform social legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, he did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He did not have much success.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Did you?


Richard Burpee Hanson: My recollection is that he had innumerable interprovincial conferences but never had any success along the lines I have suggested. I have not had the time to go back to review the proceedings of the conferences but I venture to say that the question of the adhesion to the principles of this 1919 Washington declaration was never brought up at any interprovincial conference. During this time most of the provincial administrations were Liberal. Since 1930 efforts have been made by this government at provincial conferences to obtain uniformity of legislation in certain matters which were said to be within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures.

The most notable instance I call to mind at the moment is with respect to the jurisdiction over companies. My impression is that the provinces as they are at present constituted will never willingly give up jurisdiction in any matter. This is not because they want to seize or retain jurisdiction merely for the purpose of having jurisdiction, they do not want to give up any jurisdiction because they fear they might be doing something which would prove detrimental to their interests as provinces. This is the reason why nothing can be done through conferences with the provinces. They are not willing to release any part of what they consider the rights of the provinces as opposed to the central authority. I think if I were a member of a provincial government I would be bound to project the consideration of these constitutional questions along the same lines. As far as company lawT is concerned, I have always thought that it would be all to the good if the authority could be centralized and we could have a uniform law, but everyone does not agree with this point of view. We should have some regard for the opinions of others on questions which are, to say the least, controversial. The provinces have never been willing to give up jurisdiction over corporations. Even though no progress was made by my right hon. friend in connection with this matter, the way has been opened through the application of section 132 of the British North America Act. I do not think he should use the belittling term of "make believe legislation" and question the motives of his opponents who are triyng to do something for the working people of this country.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, from the remarks which have been made on both sides of the house it is quite evident that both major parties intend to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). Therefore, I suppose that anyone who now stands up and says that he is going to vote for the amendment will be liable to the charge that he is playing the cheaper kind of politics in making an appeal to his labour constituents when he has full knowledge that this amendment will not pass. I shall have to take that risk because I intend to vote for the amendment. Briefly, I shall state my reasons for voting in this way.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) argued that the passage of this amendment would mean more unemployment rather than

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Neill
the creating of more employment. He went on to say that those who worked only six hours would not be able to compete with those who worked eight hours. This argument must be at least one hundred years old and there are hundreds of pages of history dealing with it. At one time little children and women in the nail making industry in Lancashire were forced to work stripped to their waists because of the intense heat. They had to work twelve and fourteen hours a day and it was suggested that these women and children of eight to ten years of age should not have to work such long hours under such conditions. Hundreds of pages of the press of that day were filled with the same argument which we recognize as being offered this afternoon in a more moderate form. This afternoon, the question was asked: What would happen to the industries? It was stated that they would all be ruined.
There is much truth in the statement that in order to be truly successful such legislation should be universal or nearly universal. This may be so but are we to wait forever until the other man or the other nation gives the lead? The hon. member for North Winnipeg stated that legislation was pending in the Senate of the United States which looks toward a six hour day. The former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stated that a similar suggestion was being placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the League of Nations. What would be the effect in Washington and Geneva if this house passed the resolution proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg? Would it not give them a tremendous lead to go and do likewise? I care not who opposes the idea, or however able he may be, it is obvious that labour will never be able to take up the slack caused by the efficiency of machinery unless by means of shorter hours. No matter what other palliative you suggest, that is the crucial and final remedy-shorter and shorter hours for everybody.
It is said that the matter is one of provincial jurisdiction. Well, it is much harder to start anything like this under provincial jurisdiction than it is in the larger unit of the dominion, because the larger the unit the more likely will the step be successful. If it were done by a province they could not compete in the production of goods or of raw products with a neighbouring province or state in which there were longer hours. So that the larger the unit under which it is first begun, the more likely it is to be successful.
The Minister of Labour, the ex-Minister of Justice and the leader of the opposition said that the passage of this amendment would imperil the whole act, and from the arguments adduced I think that is probably correct. The passage of this amendment might result in the whole act being disavowed. But I do not think that is so very important, because the eight hour day is general throughout the country now. But if this amendment were adopted it would be important as a gesture; it would be significant if this house adopted the proposal and took a definite stand in favour of shorter hours. We are liable to be brought into the position recorded in one of the books of the Apocalypse or somewhere else-I forget precisely where. There was a great revival on the earth, threatening to assume considerable proportions and to be highly successful, and Satan gathered his satellites around him and said that something must be done about it. He said he would give a prize to anyone who would suggest a scheme which he might carry to the earth and put into practice. One devil said, "Send me;
I will tell them there is no God." Satan replied, "You are a fool, for everyone knows that there is a God." Another devil said. "Send me; I will tell them there is no hell" and Satan replied, "You also are wrong, because everyone knows there is a hell and there are a good many people living in it now." Finally one wizened, old devil in the background said, "Send me; I will tell them there is a God and there is a hell and a heaven, but I will tell them there is lots of time." Satan replied that he was the man, and he was sent and the revival was defeated. That is the sort of danger we are going to be in. We are all in favour of shorter hours as an ideal; that is the standard we are aiming at; but we are going to stand by and say there's lots of time yet, and that will kill the effort, without any question. I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister of Labour is not sincere when he says that it is his ambition to see the proposal adopted. But the danger is that if we do not deal with it drastically and firmly it will never be done. I firmly believe that even supposing this bill were declared ultra vires parliament would be doing a splendid thing and setting an example to the rest of the world, if the proposal were adopted. It would be a step towards the rehabilitation of civilization, even if it resulted in the act being declared ultra vires, because as I say, it would be a gesture and would give a lead to the other nations of the world. The very news that Canada, the largest dominion in the British empire, had
2060	COMMONS
Eight- Hour Day-Mr. Mackenzie
passed such a law, would ring round the world and set an example to every nation in the empire, and in the world; it would induce the others to take a step in the same direction, and if all or even a fair number adopted it there would be no danger of the troubles referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk. Moreover, it would be much more far reaching than any of these tinkering pieces of social legislation which we have had this session. I do not say they were bad; they were worth while as far as they went, but of necessity they were extremely limited in their scope and more than doubtful of success. If we adopted this proposal however it would lead to other nations taking the same action, because people pay a good deal of attention nowadays to sentiment, and news of that kind would attract the attention of a world waiting for bold leadership.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have witnessed a remarkable contest in unrestrained verbal vigour on the part of two ambitious ministers on the front benches this afternoon, and the statements of the minister who spoke last seemed to me to be atrocious. In the first place he accused us of challenging the sincerity of the administration with respect to some of their social reform measures, whereas only a week ago his own late colleague on the treasury benches, the hon. gentleman who preceded him as Minister of Trade and Commerce, himself challenged the sincerity of the government concerning their social reform legislation. It therefore does not lie in the mouth of the new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) to make such an accusation against us when his predecessor in office, who was kicked out of this administration because he believed in social reform, according to the correspondence, has challenged the government in this respect. If you analyse that correspondence you will see that he was compelled to leave the administration because his attitude towards certain public questions was not countenanced by the government of which he was a member, and now the new Minister of Trade and Commerce tells us that we are impugning the sincerity of the administration.
The hon. gentleman has advanced some strange and startling doctrines of law. He said that we had the Liberal convention in 1919 and that the international labour convention did not take place until October of that year. May I read two brief extracts from the resolution in regard to the labour question, which resolution was moved at that convention:

Resolved, that the committee recommends that the national Liberal convention accept in their entirety as a part of the Liberal platform, in the spirit they have been framed and in so far as the special circumstances of the country will permit, the terms of the labour convention and general principles asociated with the League of Nations and incorporated in the conditions of peace.
And No. 4, dealing with the subject matter of this specific bill, recommended the adoption of the eight hour day and forty-eight hour week as the standard to be aimed at where it had not already been attained. As a result of this action, the province of British Columbia from which I come, with a Liberal government in power, was the first province to pass eight hour legislation. The provincial authority was invoked as the result of action taken at the meeting of 1919.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The province of Ontario passed eight hour day legislation in 1914.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, but not nearly as comprehensive as the legislation adopted in British Columbia.


Mr. REID:: It was never enforced.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The legislation now before us in this bill is not as effective as the provincial legislation which we have at the present time and have had since 1923 under the administration of a Liberal government in the province from which I come. My hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "You had section 132 of the British North America Act in 1919 why was it not invoked during nine years of Liberal rule?" Has he forgotten what his own leader, the Prime Minister, said? Has he forgotten the declarations of the Minister of Justice, which have been placed on the record during the course of the debate on this legislation? Has he read the letter which the Prime Minister sent to the various provinces in August, 1934, differentiating between exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction among the provinces? Yet, in defiance of the opinion of the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty; in defiance of the opinion of the present Minister of Justice; in defiance of the opinion of the Minister of Justice of the Liberal government; in defiance of the opinion of his own leader, the Prime Minister; in defiance of the edict of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, with his newly acquired constitutional learning, refers us to section 132 of the British North America Act and asks us why we did not invoke it when we were in power.

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Maclnnis
That was not the crux of his crimes, the greatest height of the dialectic atrocity which was committed by my hon. friend in the course of the debate. He said that the present administration had had various conferences with the provinces. There was never a conference held by this government with any province since 1930 but the government met the provinces with loaded guns. There was never a conference held between this administration and the provinces but an ultimatum was submitted to the provinces as soon as their representatives arrived here. A conference lasting a day or a day and a half with each province is absolutely useless.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: When the hon.
member makes a statement like that, he ought to give some proof of it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know
whereof I speak and I have several sources of authority with regard to the situation. Some of the conferences were terminated very abruptly as a result of an ultimatum being laid down by this administration as to the course to be pursued.
Now we have a new doctrine. The Minister of Trade and Commerce made this statement: "The provinces will never willingly give up their jurisdiction and you cannot do anything by conferences." Let us analyse that statement. The provinces will never willingly give up their jurisdiction; therefore let us pass this legislation; let us bludgeon the provinces into submission; let us take away from them the jurisdiction which they have claimed as their right since the days of confederation. That is done as a result of the new constitutional doctrine that is preached here to-day by the new Minister of Trade and Commerce who is in direct conflict with every constitutional authority who has spoken from either his own party or indeed from this party and all the authorities since 1919. He is also in direct conflict with the opinions at least inferentially expressed by his leader the Prime Minister in a letter which he sent to the provinces in August, 1934.
Had the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) been moving a general resolution in the house in favour of a six hour day and a thirty hour week I should be very glad to support such a motion. I am in favour of and believe in shorter hours, but the amendment couched as it is and moved at the present time, takes away even that faint possibility of jurisdiction which is being
summoned up by this administration to buttress its eleventh hour repentance in regard to this make-believe reform legislation.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I wish to say just a few words in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr, Heaps) and seconded by me. It would be well if the house assumed that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was to-day quite correct as to the attitude that had so far been adopted in this country in regard to legislation of this kind, that is that it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However the government now seems to have changed its mind and has come to the conclusion that in certain particulars the federal parliament has some jurisdiction. Whether that turns out to be the case, I am not greatly concerned. I hope it turns out that the government is correct, but if it is not, then I believe if we have a Liberal government after the next election they will be bound to try to find some ways and means of either bringing this subject under federal jurisdiction or getting the consent of the provinces to legislation of this kind; I am quite satisfied they will have to do that.
As regards the point raised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that this amendment if adopted by the house would infringe upon the legality of the legislation, I do not think that is so. Of course I have not a legal mind or training, but we know from experience our legal friends are wrong just about as often as are the rest of us, so there is no reason why even a layman should not give an expression of opinion. This legislation is based not only on the draft convention of the labour organization but also on the treaty of Versailles itself, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), if my memory serves me aright, placed more emphasis on the treaty than he did on the draft convention. If parliament has jurisdiction over an eight hour day, then it has jurisdiction over a day of six hours or five hours or any number of hours. The Minister of Labour mentioned that the trades and labour congress had asked for the passing of this legislation. That is quite correct; the trades and labour congress have been for the last fifteen years or so advocating the passing of an eight hour day and a forty-eight hour week, but in their various conventions during the last four or five years they have put themselves on record as being in favour of a thirty hour week and a six hour day. So

Eight Hour Day-Sir George Perley
while they have been asking for the minimum of the convention of the labour organization, they have realized that will not meet the present situation and we must go beyond it.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) in his remarks on this debate mentioned that the amendment was a most laudable one but that it could not be put into effect; that we must wait until some other country took the lead.


James Herbert Stitt: That is not what
I said. I said that we had to wait for world agreement.
Mr. MacINNI'S:	At the rate at which
we are proceeding toward world agreement, it will be a long time to wait until some other country takes the lead, so that my hon friend is in as bad a position with the correction as he was before.


James Herbert Stitt: That is a matter
of opinion.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, and the opinion
of the hon. member for Vancouver South is just as good as that of the hon. member for Selkirk.
Then he raised the point, as all good representatives of capital do, that to put a six hour day into effect would cause industries to go into bankruptcy. Well, industries are going bankrupt as matters stand now, and if we are going to take the position that a shorter day will bankrupt them, why not make it a ten or a twelve hour day and put them all back on their feet again? I am not sure whether my hon. friend would advocate that.
Whether the house agrees with this amendment or not, the day is not far distant when it will have to take adequate steps to deal with hours of work more drastically than any action we have in mind now contemplates, and I believe we should give our support to this amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Heaps) negatived.


Right Hon.   S@: Before the main motion is put I should like to say a few words on another aspect altogether of this problem. The constitutional issue has been threshed out at some length; the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself very lucidly explained the situation, therefore there is nothing I can add to what has been said in that regard. What I wish to speak about is the action, or rather the inaction, of the Liberal opposition regarding these social and reform measures that we have introduced. As I understand it,

it is the duty of the opposition to try to make the legislation brought in by the government as nearly perfect as possible. It has always been so in all the years that I have been here; that has been one of the things the opposition have tried to do. But in this instance what have the opposition done? They have simply criticized everything that was brought in and then voted for it.
Mr. McINTOiSH: That is bothering you.


George Halsey Perley: It is not bothering me at all. 1 only want to put before the house and the country the position taken by hon. gentlemen opposite so that they will understand it.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is where we fooled you.


George Halsey Perley: Never in my long experience have I seen an opposition adopt such an impossible and untenable position. After all, they are following the same plan this year as they have in all the sessions since this government have been in power. I will not call it a policy, but that is the plan that they have adopted in regard to the measures that have been brought in-the Bank of Canada Act, the railway legislation, and all the others. They have consistently from the beginning, day by day and month by month, criticized in very shape and form-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am against it.


George Halsey Perley: Yes, my hon. friend is against everything as a rule.


Jean-François Pouliot: And rightly so.


George Halsey Perley: The Liberal opposition, I submit, have made no constructive suggestions throughout this session to try to help the country or the people who have been having such a hard time during these years of depression-nothing whatever. We all agree that we have had a difficult time in this country; there is no difference of opinion on that subject. Many people are suffering now from the effects of the depression and many are unemployed, but we know this condition prevails in very country in the world. The Liberals know, as everyone knows, and as I am sure they will acknowledge, that Canada has come through these trying years better than almost any O'ther country in the world. But my hon. friends opposite perhaps think this is not generally understood.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry to interrupt, but this has nothing to do with the bill.

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Mackenzie King


George Halsey Perley: 
Ernest Lapointe: That is an admission.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We have an issue now.


George Halsey Perley: The right hon. gentleman says that the Liberals have always favoured social legislation. They have talked about it through the years, but they never did anything at all. Even when they were in power and had the opportunity, they did nothing. Now they sit still, they make light of our efforts, but they support all our measures. Why do they support them? Because they dare not oppose them. That they believe we have been doing the proper thing, that we have brought in good legislation which they dare not oppose but which in order to save their faces they must criticize and make light of, can be made evident by reference to what has been said during these debates. I shall quote only one of the many that might be mentioned, namely the statement made by the ex-Minister of Justice (Air. Lapointe) on March 19, as reported on page 1837 of Hansard. He said:
T think it is glorifying this bill to oppose it in this way. I do not think there is anything in this bill. Tt is like the rest of the program of reform, and the quicker we pass it the better.
Yes, the quicker they agree with it the better. They dare not oppose it; they can only try to belittle it. All I can say is that if the hon. gentleman does not like our legislation, if he does not like our way-


Ernest Lapointe: I like you. I like my right hon. friend.


George Halsey Perley: Thank you. But what the people of this country want is a
man of courage. The Prime Minister has shown that he is a man of courage. He has brought in these measures of social reform; but what do we get from the hon. member for Quebec East and other hon. gentlemen opposite? Simply cold blooded cynicism. They say in effect: "We cannot do anything about them; they are good measures; all we will do is try to belittle them, but we have to vote for them whether we like it or not." I submit that the policy of the Liberals during this session has been one of simple negation. They have done nothing. But what the country needs and wants and will support is a man of high courage who endeavours to do something to better the condition of the people, instead of sitting still and doing nothing as my hon. friends opposite wish us to do. That is the lead given by the present Prime Minister to the people of this country, and I feel sure he will get a favourable verdict from the voters when they go to the polls.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) has said something about the attitude of the opposition. In reply may I say a few words about the attitude of the government ?


George Halsey Perley: I am sorry to interrupt, but has not my right hon. friend spoken already?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have spoken on the amendment. My right hon. friend has made a long speech condemning me for my silence, and now when I rise to speak he takes objection to my saying anything.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He wants the last word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that if ever there was an example of an administration throwing up the sponge we have had it this afternoon. What have we had from hon. gentlemen opposite as their cry from the beginning of this parliament, the one they hoped to make the most telling before the people of the country? It was that the Liberal opposition did nothing but oppose their measures, that we were wasting the time of parliament by opposing the legislation brought in; no matter how good it was, all we could do was to find fault. Now, when my hon. friends bring in legislation which the leader of the government says is good, intended to help the people, he condemns us because we do not oppose it. He said it was our business to try to make the legislation perfect. But when introducing it he told us that it was perfect; why then does he have to look to the opposition to make it perfect? That is a new role for the opposition, when
2064	COMMONS
Eight Hour Day-Mr. Mackenzie King
the government feels obliged to admit that the legislation which it introduces is imperfect and that it is our duty to make it perfect.


George Halsey Perley: Not at all. I may say to the right hon. gentleman that if we had not done that when we were in opposition a great many of his measures would have been very much worse than they were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to allow my right hon. friend all the field he can take. But as to what he has just said, if examined closely, it will not be found there was need for much in the way of improvement of anything brought in by the Liberal government.
My right hon. friend says we have not been consistent in our attitude. May I recall what was said by myself on the address, after we had heard the speech from the throne, in which we were advised that the government were going to bring in this social legislation. I think it will be within the memory of my right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite that I said that the sooner the legislation could be brought in, the sooner it could be put through this house and the sooner we could get to the -country, the better it would be for all concerned; that what we of the opposition believed was needed was not taking up the time of parliament in fruitless discussion, but arriving as quickly as possible at the moment when the people themselves would have the right to say who should govern the country. That was the position we then took, and I offered the leader of the government at that time to ask hon. members on -this side of the house to refrain from any discussion on the address. Does my right hon. friend complain that we did not debate the address at great length? In previous years I have heard hon. gentlemen opposite complain that we took up too much time discussing the address. Now when we allow the address to go almost without discussion, in order to hasten the moment when the people may have a chance to say who should govern the country, hon. gentlemen opposite begin to condemn us for that.
I recall also that I made th-e suggestion that if hon. gentlemen opposite would bring forward their legislation we would do all we could to expedite it, even to the extent of promising to let all supply go through very rapidly. We wanted to get on with the social legislation; we did not want the government to delay bringing forward their social legislation by wasting a lot of time on estimates and other matters such as private members resolutions. That was what I said at the time, but the government had not their social 'egislation drafted. No wonder the acting
i Mr. Mackenzie King.]
leader of the government says the legislation needed perfedting; it was not even drafted at the time we had the declaration that we were to have this social program put before us. It was partly drafted, but not completed. More than that, the acting leader of the government will remember that I indicated other ways in which I thought the business of the session could -be- expedited, all based on the ground that so far as this social legislation was concerned we on this side of the house were in favour of the principle it embodied, and that the only question that arose in our minds, which, however, was the question that lay at the bottom of all else, was whether this house had jurisdiction in the matter.
What was a further step suggested by the opposition? It -was that the opinion of the supreme court of this country should be obtained as quickly as possible, so that all doubt might be removed as to whether or not this parliament was the body competent to deal with this legislation.


George Halsey Perley: The right hon. gentlem-an knows perfectly well that the supreme court could merely give an opinion on such a subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would remove sufficient doubt to justify this parliament in proceeding to consider and discuss the legislation in detail. But may I ask the acting leader of the government why, within the last year, his government referred three different statutes to the supreme court in order to get their opinion, if that opinion would not help remove doubt. Evidently the right hon. gentleman has forgotten for the moment that the enactment with respect to the supreme court contains specific clauses setting forth that one 'of the purposes of the court is to permit of a judicial opinion being obtained which will serve to remove any question of doubt which may arise as to the jurisdiction of the federal parliament or of a provincial legislature. If provisions were not there there might be something in what my right hon. friend says, but this parliament in the past clearly forsaw that questions were likely to arise from time to time with respect to jurisdiction, and that it was not wise to waste the time- of parliament or the money of the country or, what is more important than all, to run the risk of completely disappointing all those on whose behaif parliament was supposed to be legislating, by proceeding in the dark, by proceeding in direct opposition to the grounds on which heretofore it has been held that the very opposite was the case to what is now being assumed to be

Eight Hour Day-Mr. Mackenzie King
correct. When my right lion, friend says we have not put forward any constructive suggestions, may I say to him that there could not foe a constructive suggestion more to the point than the suggestion that in the first instance, or as speedily as possible, this legislation ought to foe referred to the supreme court in order that the question of the competency of this parliament to deal with it might be definitely decided.
Might I ask the right hon. leader of the government what he wants the opposition to do from now on, for the rest of the session? Does he want us to oppose everything he introduces? Is he going to say, with respect to the rest of the legislation to foe brought in by the government, that it is not perfect and that it is our business to be here to perfect it?


George Halsey Perley: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that as I see it the duty of the opposition at the present time is to do all in its power to give the people of this country the opportunity to say who is to govern from now on. When the government introduced this legislation they did not expect that they were going to put it through at all; it was a make-believe business from the start. Nothing else can describe the attitude of the government, despite what the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) has said this afternoon. When there was a broadcast proclaiming this social legislation; when the government in the speech from the throne announced these various social measures, hon. gentlemen opposite expected that the opposition were going to oppose all that legislation, that as might well have been assumed we were going to take the ground that this government had been defeated in by-election after by-election, that it had lost the confidence of the people of this country and had no right to continue to carry on, and that we would put forth strenuous opposition to these measures the mere introduction -f which would have served the purpose of the government, After we had opposed them for a certain length of time, suddenly this parliament would have been dissolved. We would then have had the government going to the country for a mandate to put through this social legislation which the opposition had not permitted them to put through at this session.


George Halsey Perley: That is all
imagination on the part of the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not
imagination.


Mr. OOTNAM:: A stump speech.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
hon. friend had been sitting where I am standing, and had been able to see his own countenance and that of his colleagues at the time I made the statement that we did not intend to oppose this legislation but that we wanted to see it put through as rapidly as possible, he would have known that there was no imagination in what I am saying at the present moment. More than that, speaking of imagination, I do not think I am unduly employing that faculty when I say that when the cabinet met this afternoon they quite evidently had these matters under discussion, and that they came to the conclusion in cabinet council that, after all, this social legislation was not making quite the impression that it was expected to make, and that the attitude o,f the opposition in not opposing it had more or less taken away some of the virtue they thought it was going to possess as a result of strenuous advocacy by the government and opposition on the part of those on his side.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You flatter yourself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment. They decided that the time had come; that they must not wait until a general campaign but that before this parliament was over, in fact right now, in connection with this eight hour day bill, they should seek to make it appear to the country that the opposition, in not opposing this legislation, was belittling it, ridiculing it and the like. If the legislation amounts to anything-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I point out to the
right hon. leader of the opposition that it is a little after six o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must apologize, but I think I have said all that need be said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Gordon) agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
Some hon. MEMBERS- No opposition.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY



DEPARTMENT OP TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.
Supply-Trade-Grain Act
[Stage Direction]
The Canada Grain Act, including management, operation and maintenance, also equipment of elevators, administration of, $1,981,006.90.
Mr. OOOTE:: Mr. Chairman, a few years ago the Canada Grain Act was amended so as to prohibit the mixing of wheat in grades Nos. 1, 2 and 3 northern, and before this vote is carried I hope the minister will tell us what steps are being taken by the grain commission to see that that provision of the Canada Grain Act is being carried out.
While I am on my feet there is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. Even if those provisions for the prevention of mixing may be carried out, another practice apparently has grown up which lowers the standard of No. 1 and No. 2 northern in particular so far as shipments overseas are concerned. It is quite a common practice, I am told, for cars <5f No. 1 and No. 2 northern wheat which are sampled at Winnipeg to be tested for protein content by the grain companies. Word is sent ahead to the terminal at Fort William, and if this wheat is of a high protein content in many cases it is binned by itself and certain bins apparently are held for what is called selected No. 1 northern, high protein. The result of this practice, it seems to me, must be to lower the grade of the bulk of the wheat that goes out to our overseas customers. I assume that most of this selected wheat is shipped to the United States. I do not know whether the commission are aware of what is going on, but I take it for granted that they are. I Should like to know whether they approve of this practice, whether they have any way of stopping it, and whether they think it should be allowed to continue. I have in my hand some of the loading orders that are issued by one of the grain companies at Fort William. They are really instructions to their elevator man to load so many thousand bushels of selected No. 1 northern into a certain hold of a steamer, and I have seen enough of these orders to convince me that this is quite a common practice.
There is another matter with which I might as well deal while I am on my feet, and it is in connection with the grading of durum wheat. I do not think the law prevents the mixing of the various grades of durum wheat, and possibly there is a great deal of mixing being done. The factor that determines the grade of durum wheat is mainly the amount of spring wheat it may contain. The definition of No. 1 durum is set forth in the act. It may contain a maximum of five per cent of spring wheat, and that is increased up to an additional [Mr. Mackenzie King.J
five per cent for the lower grades. But whatever grades of durum are received in the private terminals, I do not think there is very much -durum wheat shipped out except that which goes out as No. 1. So it does appear that there is more No. 1 durum going out than there is going in. The average quality of the No. 1 durum which is being shipped out cannot in that case be as high as it would be if the mixing were not permitted, and the elevator companies had to ship out the same quantity of each grade that they took in. It does seem as though there was a great deal of mixing of -durum wheats, and it is almost self evident, I think, that it would be to the advantage of the grower of the high grade durum wheat if the elvators were not allowed to mix the lower grades with it and then put it all out as high grade wheat. I am told that in some of the terminal elevators they have machines for taking out the ragweed, I think it is. They use water to float this weed seed out of the wheat, and the result is that the wheat w-hic-h has been through the water carries a pretty heavy percentage of moisture, but they are able to mix it with the No. 1 straight durum and still have a moisture content of the whole mixture that is not higher than that allowed under the act.
These are two questions particularly that I wish the minister to deal with. Are these practices being carried on; if so does the commission see any objection to them, and have they any -way of dealing with the matter to see that the average grade of the wheat going out of the terminal, in the case of both northern wheat and durum wheat, is as good as that of the wheat that -goes in under the different grades? Further, do the commission approve of the practice of special binning for high protein wheat and the mixing of the durum wheat which I belie-ve is going on in the private terminals at Fort William?
Hon. R. B. HAiN-SON (Minister of Trade and 'Commerce):	The hon. gentleman has
put on the record a considerable number of questions, and I shall deal with them in the order in which he has raised them.
First with respe-ct to the amendments which were made to the grain act last year in relation to garnet wheat, it is the intention o-f the government so far as I am aware to allow the legislation to go into effect, but the matter has not been finally concluded and consideration is being given to representations which have been made -from time to time during the last few weeks as the time approaches when the amendments to the a-ct are to go into effect.

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
With respect to the second matter to which my hon. friend alluded, namely, the special binning of wheat at terminal elevators, I am advised that a perusal of the grain act will show that this is a perfectly legal process under the provisions of the act itself. This special binning of select wheats by terminal elevators is legal under the grain act and is controlled by the commissioners, in so far as the special bins leased for this purpose have to be authorized by them. It would not appear that this matter is of any considerable importance, because out of a total of 62,000,000 bushels which came to the head of the lakes during the past season, only
820,000	bushels have been so binned. This is only about one and one quarter per cent of the total. This facility of special binning is open to all interests, including the Canadian mills. In order to specially bin wheat it is necessary for the purchaser to obtain the owner's consent, thereby assuring an equitable return of the premium paid in this connection. An objectionable practice which was stopped in 1930 was that of permitting the diverting of special wheat without the owner's consent and frequently without any premium compensation being paid to the owner. I am advised by the commission that the only possible objection to this practice is that it more or less reduces the average quality of the outgoing shipments, that is the shipments which go to the export trade. However, this has not assumed such proportions as to make it important. Furthermore, the principle of the owner of the wheat disposing of it to the best advantage has not yet been set aside by the grain act.
With respect to the third matter to which the hon. member referred, I understand that the mixing of durum wheat is legalized by the statute. The commission had applied to the grain standards committee for the setting up of an out-turn standard, but this was rejected.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to know what steps are being taken or have been taken by the grain commission to see that no mixing occurs in the terminal of numbers 1, 2 and 3 northern?
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury) I am advised that they weigh out the elevators annually and check that with the warehouse receipts. This would appear to be all that they can do. I am further advised that the practice of mixing durum is not very general although it is permitted to a degree.


George Gibson Coote: This matter was discussed in the committee, where it was contended that if mixing was prohibited the services of an army of inspectors would be required to see that the provision was carried out. I have been asked on more than one occasion to inquire if the commission really knew whether mixing was going on.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am advised by the chairman that he is personally satisfied that there is no mixing of the grades to which the hon. member alluded. Unless the hon. member has evidence to that effect I think he should accept the chairman's statement.


George Gibson Coote: I have no evidence that it is being done, but I should like to know if the commission could tell us at any time the number of bushels of each grade which may be shipped into the terminals at the head of the lakes and the number of bushels which may be shipped out?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not know that that information is available at the moment, but it will be produced by the chairman.


George Gibson Coote: Some time ago I had a question on the order paper asking for the number of bushels of each grade of durum wheat which was graded into the terminals and the number of bushels graded out. As I remember the answer, it was to the effect that the commission did not have that information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not recall the question, but I am advised by the chairman of the commission that that information can be obtained and I will see that the hon. member gets it.


George Gibson Coote: Can that be given for the private terminals?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, only the public and semi-public.


George Gibson Coote: I understand that the government elevator at Port Arthur has been leased. Is it being run as a private or as a public terminal?


Richard Burpee Hanson: As a semipublic terminal.


George Gibson Coote: The figures would be available as to the in-turn and out-turn of that elevator?	[DOT]


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister give us the terms upon which that elevator was leased?

Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the answer to that question was put on the record a short time ago.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I understand that numbers 1, 2 and 3 northern are checked into these terminal elevators and then they are weighed out at the end of the season, and if the weigh-out does not come up to a certain percentage, or if it does not balance within a certain percentage, the amount which happens to be over is confiscated or taken away. Could the minister advise the committee the leeway allowed and the amounts which have been confiscated in different years?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the allowance is one-quarter of one per cent. I shall get the other information.


James J. Donnelly: Is the terminal elevator at Port Arthur run by the government at the present time, or has it been leased to a private individual?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
elevator has been leased.


James J. Donnelly: When?


Richard Burpee Hanson: August
1 of last year.


James J. Donnelly: What rent is being
paid?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Approximately $40,000 per annum.


James J. Donnelly: In the checking in and out of numbers 1, 2 and 3 northern at this elevator, has there been an overage, and if so, how much?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
no record of any overage.


James J. Donnelly: If it did not come up to the one-quarter of one per cent you would not have a record of the overage?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The commission would have a record.


James J. Donnelly: But there was no
overage?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


James J. Donnelly: Could the minister
give me the number of bushels of w'heat which will be affected by giving a special grade to garnet wheat?


Richard Burpee Hanson: There
are approximately 50,000,000 bushels of garnet wheat in the country at the present time, but I do not know how many bushels there will be on July 31.
[Mr Coote.]


Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to ask the minister a question in connection with the strike of farmers in the Myrnam district in Alberta about a year ago. As the minister no doubt knows, this district is in the northern part of the province where there is a fairly good fall of rain. It occurs quite often that the grain comes out tough and the people in that vicinity were of the opinion that they were not getting a fair deal from the elevator companies. Practically all the farmers in that district went on strike and refused to deliver their grain. The board of grain commissioners were informed of this trouble and I believe went up to the district in an effort to settle the difficulty. I should like to know the findings of the committee and what was done in an effort to settle 'the difficulties which the farmers were facing at that time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think the hon. member is referring to Myrnam; I think he means the strike at Mundare, because the other was the year before.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am referring to the one at Myrnam; the other is in the district represented by my hon. friend from Vegreville.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no information regarding the strike at Myrnam, but I have regarding the strike at Mundare in October, 1934, and that I will place at the disposal of the committee. With reference to the strike that occurred the previous year, I will get the information.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Each year that this item has been under discussion up to the present time I have inquired of the previous minister whether there was any evidence of the restored mixing of wheat grades. The practice was general years ago. The answer which that minister gave was invariably, no. Well, each year I hear further reports of it. I am not making any charge just now but I want to put the government on their guard. It is easy to start these practices but difficult to stop them. These practices invariably begin under Conservative governments and then it takes the succeeding government nearly all their time in office to stop them. In 1930 an attempt was made by some of us to prohibit the mixing of grades and a compromise was reached, prohibiting mixing in the four top northern grades and permitting it in the rest of the grades. As a matter of practice anything that is not prohibited under the grain act is usually done; that is the substance of the matter. It is not particularly made illegal, but it is not prohibited ana

Supply

Trade-Grain Act
therefore it is gone ahead with. I have grave suspicions and pretty reliable information that the law is being broken with respect to the four top grades. I did not hear the first remarks of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), but I understood him to be drawing attention to the special binned top grades. These grades are isolated and special binned for their quality and are sent to the United States, where a premium is paid therefor. That is exactly the way it started before, only it was with carloads; carloads were switched and cut out and sent somewhere-usually to our millers. To the extent that that was done, what ivas exported overseas was correspondingly impoverished in quality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I read to the committee a statement from the grain commission with respect to this question of special binning. I will not repeat the statement because the hon. member will read it in Hansard. I understand that this is quite legal under the act of 1930 which I believe the hon. gentleman himself piloted through the house.


William Richard Motherwell: I did not pilot it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take that back; it was the former Minister of Trade and Commerce.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not know that special binning is absolutely prohibited, and anything that is not prohibited the elevators always do if it suits them. But special binning, I understand, is being done on the protein basis. High protein cars are specially binned, and a guarantee of a certain protein content is sold to the millers in the United States, who pay a premium thereon. When the wheat is bought from the farmer he does not know what the protein content is and it is nonsense to say that the premium goes to the producer; it goes to the mixer or special binner. Furthermore, it impoverishes the great bulk of the wheat that goes overseas, where we have the keenest competition. It certainly violates the spirit of the act when you isolate the best type grades with the highest protein-and the value of our wheat is set by its protein content and quality of protein. That is what they are buying-protein-and when you isolate a lot of that and send it to one market, giving that market our choice wheat as to protein, you impoverish the great bulk of the wheat that goes overseas when the price is set. The more that is done the more you impoverish the rest of the wheat, and that is a violation of the spirit of the act. I understand it is being done right along.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No grain is special binned without the consent of the owner, and that ensures the premium to him if there is one. As regards the quantity of wheat special binned during the past season, it has been only about one and one-quarter per cent of the total output, so that it is not very large. As regards my hon. friend's point, that there is no guarantee that the premium goes to the producer, my information is that there shall be no special binning under the act without the consent of the owner, whoever he may be, whether producer or anyone else. He gets the premium, and that is the intention.


John Vallance: No; the minister is entirely wrong. The grower does not get it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I said owner.


John Vallance: I contend that the grower does not get it. Once it passes out of his hands the owner gets the premium because of the privilege of special binning. Under the act it is regrettable that we do not grade our wheat according to protein content, and until that is done you cannot pass the premium on to the grower. The present abuse cannot be prevented under the act as it stands; it is quite legitimate. My point is that you cannot pass the premium on to the grower. I have no doubt that the percentage which the minister has mentioned-one and a quarter per cent-is correct, but still it deteriorates the great bulk of the wheat to that extent. If you take one and a quarter per cent of high protein content out of the wheat the rest of it deteriorates to that extent. I appreciate the point the minister is trying to make, but I contend that you cannot get the benefit to the grower; it goes to the man who buys it from the grower. The elevator may special bin it at the terminus, and that cannot be prevented under the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is a good deal in what the hon. gentleman says: it all depends on who the owner is. In some instances the commission man probably does not pass it on, but I do not think that is the grain commission's concern. They cannot be charged with the distribution of the premium, but there is a premium and it goes to the owner, whoever he may be. As regards the degradation, by reason of this special binning, of the quantity that goes into the export trade, I agree with the hon. gentleman. But it is permitted by the act and I do not think that any great harm is done where the quantity is
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

so small. I believe that is the opinion of the commission. Of course, if it assumed larger proportions it would be a different matter.


James J. Donnelly: Two years ago the different wheat exporting nations-Canada, the United States, the Argentine, and Australia- met at Rome and the secretary of our high commissioner in London attended as Canadian representative. At that meeting it was decided that all exporting nations should have a quota. Well, they did not decide at that time at Rome as to what the quota would be, and they adjourned to London. While they were there, they decided what the quota for the different nations would be. Our representative I understand was a lawyer from Regina. The quotas were set, but everybody came home and they practically decided to break the agreement; at least no one of whom I have knowledge has kept it. We did not sell our quota, but the Argentine republic sold theirs and more than theirs. Then we lent them some of ours, but the Prime Minister told us that we were to get this all back the next year. However the next year we did not get it back and the Argentine republic oversold their quota. We are now told that this commission business and the quota have all gone by the board and that all the money we have put up in this connection has been of no account whatever. I assume the minister will be able to give us a detailed statement in regard to all these matters; how this has happened; why we were told that this quota was to foe such a wonderful thing; why it is now all being abandoned and what we are going to do with our quota. I remember seeing somewhere in Hansard this statement made by the Prime Minister:
In any event it would be merely a loan of a part of our quota until next year, so that we would not lose anything if we made an adjustment with the Argentine.
In other words, we made a loan to the Argentine and were to get it back the following year. When are we going to get this loan back?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Any discussion on this particular question has no reference to the item before us. Furthermore, the quota system broke down because Argentina would not play the game with the other nations.


Mr. BROWN:: I think it would be very
unkind to compel the minister to give an explanation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
I am not as good at explaining as are some

other people, but I shall at least do my best. The quota system fell down because another nation did not keep the arrangement.


William Richard Motherwell: We did not ourselves.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
may be true, but so far as this department and this appropriation are concerned, we have no responsibility in the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not what the
hon. member for Willow Bunch has said-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I know
what he said.	[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister did not
understand it. The hon. member for Willow Bunch repeated what has been stated in the house by the Prime Minister, namely, that the quota was a certain quantity of wheat which Canada was allowed to sell and that she loaned part of her quota to Argentina. The question the hon. member for Willow Bunch has just put to the minister is this: First, what is the amount of wheat which was allowed for Canada's quota? Second, what amount was loaned to Argentina? Third, was it given back to Canada? I understood the hon. member very well; I was sitting next to him and I would like the minister to give a clear answer to that. I am ready to act as an interpreter at any time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon.
member for Willow Bunch made his question quite clear and I answered it.
As regards this question of mixing, the hon. member for Melville said that he had a very strong suspicion that the law was being broken in connection with the four top grades. My information from the grain commission is that there is no mixing in the four top grades, and unless my hon. friend has evidence, the question should not be pursued further. If he has evidence, he ought in justice to all concerned to submit it and I will ask him to be good enough to do so.


James J. Donnelly: I want to know plainly the position in which we stand at present in regard to the quota. Is this all gone by the board?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall
have to get the information for the hon. gentleman; I do not have it now.


James J. Donnelly: I notice there is an
increase of about $170,000 in this estimate. How much did this conference at Rome cost us? How much money did we pay into this?

Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not dealt with in this appropriation at all.


James J. Donnelly: What appropriation
does it come under?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall
have to find out; it does not come under my department.


James J. Donnelly: It is the marketing of
wheat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The
marketing of wheat does not come under the grain act, and nobody knows that better than does the hon. member for Willow Bunch.


James J. Donnelly: Does the minister
mean to tell me that the Department of Trade and Commerce has nothing to do with the marketing of wheat?


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
nothing to do with that.


James J. Donnelly: What department does
it come under?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall have to find out. We do not sell wheat. So far as I know, no department of the government has anything to do with the marketing Of wheat.


James J. Donnelly: We understand that perfectly, but- on the other hand the regulations concerning the marketing of wheat come under the Department of Trade and Commerce' and no other department that 1 know of. This is something new to us that is taking place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Department of Trade and Commerce has to do with the grading and warehousing of wheat. Any marketing of wheat that is going on in this country is under the auspices of the selling agency and that is all I have to say in regard to that.


James J. Donnelly: That selling agency has existed only since it was put into operation by the present government. We have had private individuals marketing wheat for years and years, and there is no doubt that has all come under the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have always said that the marketing of grain should be under the Department of Agriculture instead of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Jean-François Pouliot: It comes under the Post Office Department; it is sold by parcel post.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The wheat selling agency was set up not by this government but by the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, commonly known as the wheat pool, and all this government has to do with the matter is in connection with the guarantees given to the banks under the relief act.


James J. Donnelly: The pool agencies in the west do not cover more than half the quantity of wheat in western Canada. What happens to the rest? Do they dump it into the ocean or what do they do with it?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It goes out through the export agencies.


James J. Donnelly: What department does that come under?


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does not come under any department; it is free from government control.


Albert Joseph Brown: I just want to call attention to what the minister has said. He has said that the marketing of wheat does not come under his department or any other department of government. Perhaps hon. members will remember the charge that was made against the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the late government and the taunt that was hurled at him very frequently when he said that the government was not marketing wheat; that the wheat was marketing itself.


Robert James Manion: No; the hon. gentleman said that he was not interested in the marketing of wheat. That is slightly different.


Mr.   MACKKENZIE@Vancouver: The word "interested" was not used by the then minister.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend was not in the house at that time and I was.


Albert Joseph Brown: Nevertheless the taunt has been hurled against the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, that he said he had nothing to do with the marketing of wheat. That was the situation at that time. Now we talk about the marketing of wheat being under the sales agency, but there was no sales agency then. The other night when the hon. member for Lethbridge was discussing this matter he was entirely out of order or I would have taken the question up myself at the time,, when he stated that this government had marketed more wheat every year since 1930 than the former government did in the last year they were in power; that
Supply-Trade*-Grain Act

was the crop of 1929-30. At that time if the former government or anybody else had undertaken to interfere with the marketing of wheat, the wheat pools and all the grain companies would have been down upon them like a ton of bricks; they would absolutely have refused to allow the government to have anything to do with the marketing of wheat, and it was under those circumstances the former Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement he did. It has been entirely unfair for hon. members opposite to make the taunt as they have so frequently done in regard to the words that were used by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now the present Minister of Trade and Commerce says that the marketing of wheat does not come under his department or under any department of government. It is true that a different situation prevails now from that which prevailed when the crop of 1929 was being handled, but it was not until about February, 1930, that the marketing of wheat began to assume a serious aspect. It was at that time the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) made the statement he did. I call attention to this because it is an entirely unfair charge against Mr. Malcolm, and I think the situation should 'be understood 'by the committee.


James J. Donnelly: I want to clear this up. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that neither his department nor any department of the government had anything to do with the marketing of wheat. If they have nothing to do with the marketing of wheat why was the government sending a commissioner to Rome to set a quota? Why did they go to London and set a quota? Why are they interfering at all with the marketing of wheat? How much did all this cost the government, or why was it done, if they had nothing to do with the marketing of wheat?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman has put a very narrow construction on what I said. The government of Canada, representing the people of Canada, is very much interested in the marketing of the wheat crop. Furthermore the government of this country has placed the credit of the country behind the wheat growers. Is the hon. member opposed to that?


James J. Donnelly: I shall answer it when
the time comes. I am asking the minister a question now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: As far as
the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned, under the administration of the

Canada Grain Act we are not in the business of marketing wheat but we are in the business of warehousing, grading and whatever is provided for under the Canada Grain Act.


John Vallance: It is rather regrettable that this discussion about the marketing of wheat has come up. Whether the minister likes it or not, whether any department of the government is responsible for the marketing of wheat or not, power was given by this government to a body already in existence to market the wheat of Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that
is not a correct statement.


John Vallance: Oh, but it was. You
are operating to-day under the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, and the power was given by this government to that body to operate. I think it was pretty cute, if I may say so, for the government to give that function to that body and leave no department of government responsible to parliament. There have been only two occasions on which we might deal with the whole matter, and one of them is past. That one was when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) the other day was putting through the relief bill, under which John I. McFarland operates, and it went right through from resolution to third reading.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I answered all your questions.


John Vallance: We had an assurance
from the Minister of Labour that the resolution now standing in the Prime Minister's name on the order paper would come before this chamber, and on that assurance we abstained at that time from discussing the wheat situation. I am rather of the opinion that the grain board resolution will not come before the house.	*


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Where do you
get that opinion?


John Vallance: Your are operating now for another year under the authority you have operated on up to now. Why should the government subject itsef to the criticism which will be levelled at it when it asks that this grain board be set up?


John Anderson Fraser: Because we are not afraid of it.


John Vallance: Then why did the minister not avail himself of the opportunity to give the information demanded?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I gave all the information asked for.

Supply-Trade-Grain Act


John Vallance: You gave us no information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: You were satisfied.


John Vallance: No, we were not.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Well, you looked satisfied.


John Vallance: The Minister of Labour and the government are satisfied with what happened the other day when he put through that, relief legislation. I will wager with the minister now that this grain board bill will never come up, because you are not going to reveal your hand. I was one of those, as I told the minister when he was putting through his relief legislation, who believed up to this time that it might not be in the interests of the grower to make the position public. But what right has this government to ask the people of Canada for a vote of confidence with no knowledge of what has happened through the activities of John I. McFarland? I know the Minister of Trade and Commerce cannot give it; I do not think it is fair to ask him. When he says no department of government is responsible he is right, and that is what I object to. There is no possible way in which we can get at the operations of John I. McFarland in wheat unless it is through the Department of External Affairs headed by the Prime Minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the
hon. gentleman is wrong, if he will allow me. In the first place his statement that this government has authorized the wheat selling agency is fundamentally wrong.


John Vallance: Tell us what you said.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you
will refer to the evidence given before the banking committee last year, a statement was there made by John I. McFarland which I understand has never been challenged, that he was asked by the directorate of the wheat selling agency to accept the position which he did accept and still occupies. That agency of course could not carry on the operations which he is and has been carrying on without some backing from the country's credit, and it was got through the relief act. That is where the matter to which hon. gentlemen are referring ought to be discussed. As to whether the information should be made available to the public at this time, I hold the opinion the hon. member for South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) held about a year ago in the banking and commerce committee. The hon. gentleman said he would not take the responsibility of revealing to the public just what the commitments were, in view of what was taking place outside of Canada.


John Vallance: I said it here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And the
position has not been altered.


John Vallance: Oh yes, it has.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not materially. We shall have to agree to disagree about that. I do not understand that it has been altered. There may be a difference in degree, but I doubt that.


John Vallance: Does the minister believe that it is fair to the people of Canada to ask them to vote confidence in the present government without a knowledge of what the operations of John I. McFarland amount to?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I think so. I think the people of western Canada who have been reaping the benefits of Mr. McFarland's operations-*


John Vallance: If any.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think there are two opinions among the growers there as far as I have heard. Those people will vote confidence in the government because of the operations of John I. McFarland. It is my view that this discussion is entirely out of order under this item.


John Vallance: So do I. I entirely agree with the minister.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I have risen now for the thirteenth time, and I hope that by so doing I shall not elicit an unlucky answer from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I wish to vary the question asked by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) in regard to strikes of farmers in Alberta. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is no doubt aware that there was a strike there that lasted through November and December in the vicinity of Mundare, Two Hills, Smokey Lake, Lanuke, St. Paul, Lake Bellevue, Kaleland, Vilna, Beilis, Edward, Rich Valley and Hoad-ley. The grievances were concerned with (1), dockage; (2), grading; (3), installation of cleaners in elevators, and (4), a price commensurate with the cost of production. As the fourth item does not come within the purview of the board of grain commissioners I do not think it fair to ask the minister to make a statement thereon, but so far as the other three items are concerned I would ask the minister what stand the Department of Trade and Commerce has taken on this and also what the stand of the board of grain commissioners is with respect to these matters. I also know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has received communications from
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

certain bodies in that district in regard to the spread between certain grades of wheat as well as the spread between street prices and spot prices, which more accurately represent the true value of the grain. Furthermore it was resolved that legislation should be enacted at the next session of parliament to enable the board of grain commissioners to investigate, and to regulate in the interests of the producer, all matters relating to grain marketing in western Canada. I do not know whether or not the board of grain commissioners have the necessary powers to investigate these matters or, if they have not, whether the minister intends to give those powers to the board, but I should like the minister to make a statement in that regard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In regard to the last question, the matter of spreads is outside the jurisdiction of the grain commission at the present moment, but they have filed with the royal commission which is now considering its report-which we hope will be brought in very soon-a brief on the whole subject which makes plain their attitude in regard to this matter. I have not had the privilege of reading that brief, so I cannot speak of its contents, but this is a matter that was referred to the royal commission as being within the purview of its inquiry. I do not know whether or not they will make a recommendation on it; we will have to wait and see.
With regard to the strikes that took place in the hon. gentleman's constituency, correspondence has passed between the hon. gentleman and myself, and a statement has been prepared which I desire to place on record for his benefit and the benefit of members of the house generally.
In November, 1934, the board of grain commissioners received complaints from a number of shipping points in northern Alberta, including Mundare, in regard to the marketing of the crop of that year. The complaints had to do with four different matters: first, dockage; second, grading; third, installation of cleaners in country elevators, and fourth, a price commensurate with the cost of production. The last complaint, namely a price commensurate with the cost of production, was clearly outside the jurisdiction of the board, but in order to be fully informed the board held a number of meetings throughout the area affected.
The situation at Mundare appeared to be the most critical; the complaints had assumed the form of a strike in which certain farmers had agreed not to deliver their grain to the elevators at Mundare or other shipping points. They also are said to have picketed the roads
TMr. Luehkovich.]
to prevent other farmers from delivering their grain. The board decided to make a thorough investigation of the situation at Mundare. A cut-off was made at the same time in each of the eight elevators at that point Inspection officials were sent in to grade the stocks in store. The investigation revealed that only in one instance did the grade of the elevator agent agree with the grade of the board's inspectors. In all other instances the agents of the elevator companies had over-graded; that is to say they had given the grain a higher grade than in the opinion of the board's inspector it was entitled to receive. If the grain had been shipped as of November 15 the companies would have stood to lose approximately S3,200. As a result of the investigation the board could come to no other conclusion than that the complaint at Mundare with respect to grading was not well founded.
In regard to the demand of the farmers that country elevators be required to instal grain cleaners, after assembling all the information available the board came to the conclusion that in northern Alberta at the present time the dockage in grain is of such a character that it would not be economical for the farmers to pay a reasonable charge for cleaning. At a later date the board presented its finding at a public meeting at Mundare, to a large number of farmers and others, and in a short time the strike was lifted and marketing conditions became normal.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter of a different nature which, strictly speaking, possibly should not be considered as coming under this item. It should have been taken up under the vote for the research council, but it so happened that that vote slipped through here one evening, because of the enthusiastic speed of the official opposition, and some of us did not get a chance to discuss it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You must have been asleep.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I said "enthusiastic speed", which is not disparaging. Perhaps the matter I am going to bring up will have a soothing effect on the official opposition; it is the question of using wheat to make alcohol. After all the turbulence we have witnessed perhaps this is a good time to bring in this matter for the good effect it may have.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Speak for yourself.


Archibald M. Carmichael: There is a great deal of wheat in store at the present time; in fact our surplus is becoming rather alarming in

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
quantity, and of course the west keeps on producing wheat, so that people are led to cast about for various ways of taking care of this surplus. I know the best way is to sell it and ^hip it overseas, but in recent years markets have not been available, and during the past few years the price of wheat has been very low, so perhaps this is an opportune time to raise this question, and with the minister's consent I will endeavour to place some facts before the committee.
There is a very great deal of gasoline used in Canada for motor fuel purposes. According to my information, based on statistics for 1932 and 1934, approximately 500,000,000 gallons of gasoline are used in Canada every year. Practically all the raw material used for making that refined gasoline is imported. In 1934 we imported crude and partially refined petroleum oil to the extent of 1,063,539,693 gallons, at a cost of over $25,000,000. That amount of money went out of the country, chiefly to the United States, Colombia, Dutch West Indies, Peru, Venezuela and Trinidad. The first cost, of course, went to these various countries, while a small share, amounting to a little over $300,000, went to our government in duty. In addition, in that year there were 15,108,093 gallons of refined gasoline imported, at a total cost of $1,706,796, coming chiefly from the United States and Dutch West Indies. So- it will be seen that there have been large expenditures for motor fuel purposes, most of the money going outside Canada, and in addition in 1934 we had to import tetraethyl lead, which is mixed with gasoline to do away with what are referred to as the knocking qualities in gasoline. We imported 1,398,928 pounds of tetraethyl lead, at a cost of over $1,000,000; this came entirely from the United States. In 1934, therefore, we paid out to other countries something over $27,000,000, in addition to $793,000 in duties to this government, or a total of over $28,000,000 for this purpose.
I am giving these figures, Mr. Chairman, to show what large sums of money go out of our own country in order to supply us with our gasoline requirements. The question of making alcohol from wheat has been investigated very thoroughly. I have here a report of the national research council dated May, 1934, in which they give a detailed account of their investigations in connection with this matter. They tell us that one bushel of wheat will produce approximately two gallons of alcohol. Their proposal as outlined in this report is that we could very well use a ten per cent mixture of alcohol with our gasoline. That would mean ten per cent of
500.000.000 gallons, or 50,000,000 gallons of
alcohol which might very well be mixed with our gasoline for motor fuel purposes. To produce that 50,000,000 gallons of absolute alcohol would require 25,000,000 bushels of wheat. Now if it can be shown that that alcohol can be produced at a cost that is not too exorbitant, it will perhaps appeal to us that it would be something at least worth trying.
This gentleman who operates under the national research council has given us the conversion cost, that is the cost of converting wheat into alcohol, and he takes care to include every little detail. In the first item he has overhead, depreciation, taxes and return on investment, and the cost per gallon under that item is 4.5 cents. The second item is operating charges, labour, fuel, water, chemicals, barley, and so on; that comes to 6.5 cents; dehydrating and denaturing 2 cents. The total cost is 13 cents per gallon. You will notice that he takes in every detail, even allowing for a return on -the investment, and of course we know that in recent years a great many concerns have been carrying on without any return at all on their investment. He also points out that in a large plant, and under favourable conditions, this cost of 13 cents per gallon might be reduced by two or three cents. He points out that no allowance has been made for by-products such as yeast or carbon dioxide, which if sold would reduce that cost of 13 cents.
Now take the matter of wheat prices. In recent years the price of wheat has been very low, and that is what opens up the thought that we might use wheat to advantage-for this purpose. From the bulletin I have here I find that over the four years, 1931, 1932, 1933. 1934, the average price of wheat in Saskatchewan and Alberta was as follows:
Saskatchewan	Alberta
cents	cents
1931	
38	361932	
35	321933	47	451934	
59	55
So we see that the price of wheat has been extremely low in those four years. The research council has taken the three years, 1930, 1931 and 1932, and they have given us the average price in those years of No. 1 northern and No. 5 wheat. The price of No. 5 in 1930 averaged 51 cents; 1931, 46 cents; 1932, 39 cents. They point out that No. 5 wheat is very useful for the making of alcohol; in fact, it does not need to be a high grade wheat. The lower grade wheat serves fairly well, while it does not produce as much alcohol per bushel. I think it would be fair to assume
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

that the average price of No. 5 wheat would be 50 cents a bushel in view of what prices have been over the past few years. We find that in the province of Manitoba the use of alcohol in the way suggested a ten per cent mixture, would increase the price of motor fuel by 2.7 cents per gallon; in Saskatchewan it would increase the price by 2.5 cents per gallon, and in Alberta by 3 cents per gallon. They point out that the domestic freight rates are so high for wheat moving to British Columbia that it might be cheaper to manufacture the alcohol in Alberta and ship it to British Columbia, and so they do not give us any price for that province. In Ontario, allowing for the shipping of the wheat from the west to the east, the increase in price would be 3.9 cents per gallon, and in Quebec and the maritimes it would be practically the same. Taking the average for the various provinces we find that the increase in price would be about 3 cents per gallon for a motor fuel with a ten per cent mixture of alcohol added to the gasoline. Let us take that figure and consider what it would mean spread over the whole dominion. In British Columbia it would mean an increased cost to the purchasers of motor fuel of $1,170,000; in Alberta, an increase of $902,000; in Saskatchewan, an increase of $714,000; in Manitoba, an increase of $700,000; in Ontario an increase of $8,260,000; in Quebec, $3,276,000; in the maritimes, $1,260,000. So that the total increase in the cost of the total quantity of gasoline consumed in one year would foe $16,282,000. That may look like a large sum of money to put upon the shoulders of the users of motor fuel, but when we remember that approximately half of that $16,000,000 odd goes into the pockets of the farmers of Canada and the balance into lake and rail freight, elevator charges, manufacturing costs, freight on alcohol, and so on, it does not look so terribly extravagant, because a few minutes ago we pointed out that over $28,000,000 was being sent outside the country for the purpose of supplying us with our motor fuel.
I want to give some of the benefits that would come from a mixture of alcohol with our gasoline. Perhaps one of the most important benefits is obtained from the antiknock qualities of gasoline when mixed with alcohol. That is the reason that refiners of gasoline have to import tetraethyl lead to mix with gasoline to eliminate the knocking properties which gasoline naturally has. By mixing absolute alcohol with the gasoline it is not necessary to use tetraethyl lead. In fact, we are told by these research men 
that the use of alcohol has a better effect on the gasoline than the use of tetraethyl lead.
Another advantage would be that it would reduce the formation of carbon in the engine, reduce the oil consumption of the engine, and give a longer life to the valves and the engine parts in general due to the smoother operation. While we have no absolute figures or estimates on these points, that is the conclusion of the research council as to the effect of mixing alcohol with gasoline. Also, Mr. Chairman, it would reduce our imports considerably, thus helping our trade balance. Another important point in its favour is that it would tend to give an impetus to the distilling business in Canada. In 1933 we had eighteen distilleries in Canada, which produced a little over 3,500,000 gallons of absolute alcohol.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gobeil):: I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member's remarks, but unless he has the consent of the committee he is certainly out of order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member's remarks are out of order, but he was good enough to write me a letter saying that he intended bringing this matter up. I have no objection, and with the consent of the committee I would ask that he be allowed to proceed.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I have no objection
to the hon. member proceeding, but I hope the minister will show the same courtesy to the rest of the members.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I shall be courteous to everyone.


Archibald M. Carmichael: The minister is very good natured and I thank him for it.


Mr. DUFF:: It is not only the minister
who is good natured. Before the hon. member proceeds I think he owes hon. gentlemen on this side an apology, as he can proceed only with their consent. We shall be glad to make the consent unanimous if an apology is forthcoming.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I shall be glad to accommodate the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). I am ready to apologize or do anything else in order to keep going.
I was referring to the good effects which might be expected to accrue from the use of alcohol in gasoline, and the last one I mentioned was the benefit which the distilling business would gain. We have eighteen distilleries which produced 3,500,000 gallons in

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
1933, and if provision were made for the production of 50,000,000 gallons, there would be a great impetus to the business as well as an increased pay-roll. There would also be provided a new domestic market for 25,000,000 bushels of wheat as well as for a considerable quantity of barley.
There is another important point to be kept in mind. We are told that the reserves of gasoline are not inexhaustible and that as they gradually decrease there would be a rise in the price of gasoline. Some authorities predict that this will come about within the next ten years. I should like to give certain facts in connection with other countries. At the present time England is erecting a plant for the hydrogenation of coal to produce gasoline for fuel. It is expected that 30,000,000 gallons per year will be produced. This fuel will cost from 16 to 18 cents per gallon while gasoline costs only six cents per gallon delivered in British ports. In order to assist the coal industry the British government is bonusing this hydrogenation process to the extent of eight cents per gallon. This will encourage the use of British coal to produce a fuel within the country rather than to be dependent upon imports.
There are eleven countries in which motor fuel containing alcohol is being marketed. Germany is making alcohol from potatoes and molasses and mixing it with her motor fuel. France is making it from cane and beet molasses while Italy is making it from molasses and grapes. Sweden is producing alcohol from sulphite liquor; Czechoslovakia is producing it from potatoes and molasses; the Philippines use molasses in this process while Latvia uses potatoes. Australia, Cuba and South Africa use molasses in the process. Hungary is producing alcohol but I have not the product they use. The use of alcohol varies from ten to twenty-five per cent. There are several other countries considering the use of alcohol in their motor fuel, such as Brazil, Chile, Austria, Equador, Poland and the United States. The products to be used include molasses, potatoes and corn. India and the Irish Free State are providing government assistance for the production of motor alcohol.
Having placed these facts before the committee, the minister and the government- and for that matter the official opposition, who hope in tihe not distant future to be returned to power-I should like to suggest that this matter be considered and carried beyond the experimental work being done by the national research council. This council has done excellent work in bringing these facts before the public and I commend to any hon. member who may be interested the reading of this
book. I suggest that a further step be taken and that alcohol be manufactured on a larger scale. Perhaps this may not be done to the extent of producing 50,000,000 gallons, but 1 think it should be tried out in order to test the facts brought out by the research council. If the advantages are such as are pointed out in this book it may be that none of us would object to paying three cents more per gallon for our gasoline when we obtain a fuel of a superior quality. When the refineries commenced using tetraethyl in their gasoline they charged the customer two cents per gallon extra because of its superior quality. If the mixing of alcohol will provide a fuel of a superior quality, an extra charge of three cents per gallon will not be of much importance. 1 thank the minister and the committee for giving me the opportunity of placing these facts before them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I shall not detain the committee very long in continuing this discussion. As I am reminded by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), it has often been said that gasoline and alcohol do not mix. However, we are not using that statement in the same sense as the hon. member for Kin-dersley (Mr. Carmichael). This whole matter was the subject of an investigation by the national research council and a memorandum has been prepared on the possible utilization of grain alcohol in motor fuel in Canada. The first finding was that the manufacture of alcohol from wheat offers no technical difficulty. Second, they found that the use of such alcohol in admixture with gasoline for motor fuel is technically possible, as demonstrated by its continued sale for this purpose in France, Germany and other countries. Third, alcohol cannot be made as cheaply as gasoline by any process known at the present time. For this reason the blending of alcohol with gasoline is bound to increase the cost of .motor fuel. Four, other things being equal, the addition of ten per cent of alcohol would be expected to increase the cost of motor fuel by at least three cents per gallon on an average for all Canada. This figure is based on the use of No. 5 wheat at a price of sixty cents per bushel at Fort William, approximately the present price. About 25,000,000 bushels of wheat would be required annually. Five, the addition of alcohol to gasoline improves the anti-knock qualities and lessens carbon formation. These advantages are partly offset by certain unfavourable characteristics. Six, in order to produce the alcohol required for a ten per cent blend, it would be necessary to increase the capacity of the
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

distilling industry. Seven, it is believed that motor fuel made by the hydrogenation of Canadian coal would be considerably cheaper than motor alcohol made from wheat costing sixty cents per bushel. I shall be glad to direct the attention of the officials of the research council to the speech of the hon. member for Ivindersley and ask them to look into the matter with a view to having further investigations made.


William Duff: Is it not true that cars in which alcohol is used go faster than those using gasoline?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not an expert and I do not know.


James J. Donnelly: The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) referred to the activities of Mr. John I. McFarland and this government in the wheat market. I desire to ask the minister if he will assure the committee that an opportunity will be given before the end of the session to discuss the activities of Mr. McFarland and the government in the wheat market. If the minister can give us that assurance I shall content myself with correcting just one statement which he made. The minister stated a while ago that all that this government did was to guarantee the account of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited at the bank and had nothing whatever to do with sustaining the market or with speculating or gambling in wheat. I want to show him that that statement is wrong when viewed in the light of a statement made by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). On March 28, 1933, the former minister, when dealing with this matter, said that he recognized this fact but appreciating the loss which would be entailed, particularly to the producer, the government authorized John I. McFarland to purchase grain for future deliveries. I understood the minister to say that the government had not authorized John I. McFarland, that it was the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited that authorized him. But the former Minister of Trade and Commerce states definitely that it was the government that authorized him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand that statement to be correct; I understand the statement to be correct which I made, that Mr. McFarland was appointed by the selling agency and that all that this government did as such was to pass an order in council under the relief act guaranteeing the banks against ultimate loss through his operations.


James J. Donnelly: I am giving the words
of the former Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
understand it in that light.


James J. Donnelly: I cannot read it in
any other light. What does the minister say now in regard to the possibility of discussing the activities of John I. McFarland?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
every reason to believe that the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister will be proceeded with, and when that is done there will be ample opportunity to discuss the whole question. The present intention of the government is to proceed with that bill.


James J. Donnelly: If it is not proceeded with will the minister assure us that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the subject?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I cannot
give that assurance. The proper place to have discussed this whole question-and I believe it was discussed-was under the relief act, because technically this whole question comes under the relief legislation.


James J. Donnelly: The minister will remember that for three or four years we have discussed under this very item the activities of the government and of John I. McFarland..


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not
aware of that, but I take the hon. member's word for it without any verification because he has been in the past much more interested in the subject than I have been. But technically the proper place to have discussed the item was under the relief act.


John Vallance: I agree with the minister that possibly this is not the proper time to discuss the subject, but as the hon. member for Willow Bunch has pointed out, it was discussed in 1932 in connection with the estimates. I have here volume 2 of the session of 1932, and on April 15 you will find at pages 2078-9 and elsewhere trade and commerce supply, and the whole question was then under discussion. I will read a few extracts:
Mr. Young: Last year the government gave a guarantee of a minimum price of wheat. Has the minister any statement to make to the committee as to how the government stands now as a result of that guarantee?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That in
itself was not a quite correct statement. There never was any other guarantee given, except that against ultimate loss.

Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Mr.   YALLAXCE@: The minister's predecessor took the same position that he does, but only up to a certain point. Let me quote his reply to the hon. member for Weyburn:
Mr. Stevens:	There was no government
guarantee of the price of wheat. My hon. friend is perhaps giving a wrong impression.
I quote that to show that a discussion did take place. .Now John I. McFarland is to-day performing a dual function, both as head of the sales agency of the pools and as stabilizer for this government, and1 it is the stabilization effort of John I. McFarland that we want to get at. When the minister says that we should have discussed the subject under the relief measure, I think he is right. But we had an assurance from his colleague the Minister of Labour, because of the position I pointed out, that one of two men should be on the floor of the house, *either the Prime Minister, who we are sorry is not able to be here, or John I. McFarland; and because neither of them was here -Mr. McFarland was not sitting in front of the minister, and the Prime Minister was absent-the Minister of Labour was asked for the assurance which the hon. member for Willow Bunch has requested again, that the resolution now standing in the name of the Prime Minister would be proceeded with for the setting up of a grain board. And the Minister of Labour assured us that it would. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce gives us the same assurance, I am absolutely in agreement with him that the proper time to discuss the subject is when you are setting up a grain board, inasmuch as Mr. McFarland's activities cannot continue if a grain board is set up. But that is why I make the statement that a grain board will never be set up, because we have the assurance in connection with the relief act that John I. McFarland may operate for another year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
no doubt that the opening statement of the hon. gentleman is correct, that this subject has previously been discussed under this item; I have not the slightest doubt that the discussion did take place. But on that point I can only reaffirm the position I have already taken, that any discussion of this matter was not germane to the inquiry, though I never raised that as an objection. With respect to the assurance which hon. gentlemen have asked me to give, I can only repeat that it is the government's policy to proceed with the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister for the formation of a grain board, and ample
opportunity will be given when that is reached to discuss the whole question. That is the position I take, and I can give no positive assurance. But I know of no other line of policy on the part of the government, and I am not prepared to say that any consideration has been given any other course.
Mr. VALLANiCE:	To-day, on the orders
of the day, I asked the acting leader of the government when we might expect the resolution now standing in the name of the Prime Minister to come before the house, and we got the same evasive reply which we have now received from the minister. I realize the minister's position; he is only administering a department of government. But we did expect that the leader of the government would give us some assurance to-day in reply to the question put to him. I have nothing further to say.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister has not been proceeded with on account of his absence; that is the reason and nothing else. It is hoped that the Prime Minister will be in a position to take care of the matter himself before prorogation. That is the hope of the government.


John Vallance: I am prompted to say another word. If you glance at the order paper you will see that there are two or three items standing in the name of the Prime Minister. Two have been proceeded with by other ministers, and I think that the acting Prime Minister should be in a position to give us an assurance, in view of the fact that the other two pieces of legislation standing in the name of the Prime Minister have already been proceeded with, that possibly some other minister may proceed with the resolution on which it proposed to base a bill for the establishment of a grain board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because other items standing in the name of the Prime Minister have been proceeded with by other ministers, it does not follow that this will or will not; I do not think there is any relation between the two. But it is desirable that the Prime Minister should proceed with this, and that is the hope and expectation of the government.


Mr. GERSHAW:: This item calls for $1.900,000. I understand that a charge is made for each bushel of grain handled under the act; and in the budget, in the list of non-tax revenues, there are items each year roughly corresponding to the amount of this vote.
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

How much per bushel does the government charge under this act? Is it enough to cover the administration? Is there a surplus or a deficit?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The charge is $1 a thousand bushels for inspection and $1 a thousand bushels for weighing, and in a good year there is a little credit balance ; in a poor year it is the other way. Generally speaking the charges take care of the operation of the act. I could give the hon. gentleman the exact figures for the year if he desires them, but they all appear in the public accounts for previous years and we have the latest figures.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I ask the minister a question1 with regard to garnet wheat? As I came in I thought I heard him say that there was a possibility of the legislation passed last year not being put into operation for this year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I said that there was a possibility.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I would like to get exactly what the minister said.
Mr. HANiSON (York-Sunbury): I said that the government's intention at present was to let the legislation go into effect, but that representations had 'been made with respect to holding up the operation of the act for a period of time, and the question is now really being considered by the government. None of the reasons which occasioned a change in the statute last year has altered. The present consideration has been given because I am advised by the board of grain commissioners that in the event of considerable quantities of No. 2 northern wheat being in store on July 31, the quantity being wholly problematical, considerable difficulty will be occasioned by this fact. It is therefore on the grounds of expediency only that the postponement of last year's legislation is even being considered. There is in this year's estimates an item of $75,000 which is intended to finance the shipment of commercial quantities of garnet wheat in an effort to establish the commercial spread of pure garnet with the regular class grades. At the moment I am not able to say that a decision has been reached one way or the other with respect to garnet. We do not think we have to make a decision now, but if it is decided not to do anything, of course the act will automatically come into operation on the first day of August next. If it is decided to do anything, due notice will be given.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The reason I bring this question up is that in the west spring will probably break in about two weeks.- The western farmers have been led to believe it will ibe wise for them on account of the legislation passed last year to get into some other wheat, but if that legislation is not going to come into operation, many of them would like to get garnet seed wheat as soon as they can.
Mr. HANiSON (York-Sunbury): A decision will be reached before seeding begins. If it is decided not to do anything, the farmers all know this legislation is on the statute books and it will automatically go into effect.


Archibald M. Carmichael: It is rather surprising to find such ambiguity thrown into this matter-


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
no ambiguity.


Archibald M. Carmichael: -after all the time put in last year in the committee on agriculture investigating and hearing evidence on the question. After evidence from those who are expert in the matter, the act was amended and a year's extension of time was given in order that no hardship might be worked on the growers of garnet wheat. I am surprised to hear this expression of opinion on the part of the minister that now there is a possibility of the act not becoming operative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
an inference the hon. gentleman is drawing. I said that the matter was being considered; I did not intend to say that the government had come to any conclusion. The elevator people have made representations to the government and these of course have to be listened to as representations coming from any responsible source have to be listened to. But so far the government has not changed its attitude with regard to the matter just for the very reason the hon. gentleman has stated. My information is that this question was debated for two full years in the committee on agriculture; that parliament in its wisdom passed this amendment in 1934, and that due notice was given; it was held off for over a year in order that those vitally interested might inform themselves and conform to the decision of parliament after all representations had been heard. The only point to my mind is: should we give any effect to the representations that have been made to us? So far it has not been the intention of the government to do so.

20S1
Supply-Trade-Grain Act


Archibald M. Carmichael: As a representative from a farming community that is very much interested in maintaining the high standard and grades of our marquis wheat, I want to emphasize the advisability of letting the legislation come into effect in due course. Ample consideration was given to the question by all sides in the agriculture committee over a period of a couple of years, and I do not like the idea of a consideration that might change what was the considered judgment of the agriculture committee given by a large majority.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am very glad to have the hon. gentleman's opinion, and due weight will be given to it. [DOT]


George Gibson Coote: In regard to a question
which I raised a few minutes ago, that is the special binning of high protein wheat, are the records of the board of grain commissioners kept in such a way that it would be possible to find out the quantity of such wheat that is handled by the various elevators?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am informed that it would be possible to have that information. I am not sure that I have it here. Of the 822,368 bushels which were specially binned in terminal elevators at the head of the lakes from August 1, 1934, to February 8, 1935, the Bawlf elevator had 88,026 bushels; the federal elevator, 174,911, and the Saskatchewan pool number seven, 559,431 bushels, making the total mentioned. The total receipts at the head of the lakes during the same period was 62,111,779-3 bushels.


George Gibson Coote: Are any figures given for
the McCabe elevator, that is the special one that was leased by the government last year?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The commission have no record of any special binning there, but if the hon. gentleman thinks the matter of importance we will get the information. It is a semi-public elevator and I think the information can be obtained.


George Gibson Coote: I shall put the question
on the order paper later.


William Richard Motherwell: Can the minister say how many public terminal elevators there are now at the head of the lakes?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am informed that there are no public terminal elevators; they are all semi-public; that is, the government is not operating any elevators at the head of the lakes.


William Richard Motherwell: The government
elevator that they have recently leased to the McCabe Elevator Company was the last terminal elevator at the head of the lakes?


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to make my position clear with regard to the question that was asked of the minister some time ago about the loan of wheat to Argentina. A quota was allotted to Canada for the sale of wheat to Great Britain. That quota is so much, and if Canada is in a position to fill it, it should be filled as long as there is one bushel of wheat in our elevators. That is the way I understand the matter, and according to the reports of the department the warehouses are still full, so that there was some grain left in the elevators although part of our quota was loaned to Argentina. On May 11 of last year, in answer to a question put by a member from Montreal, the Prime Minister admitted that Canada had loaned part of her quota to Argentina. Such action was absurd. He continued to say that he was sure that loan of wheat would be given back to Canada in due course. I want to know whether it has been given back as promised by the Prime Minister last year. I know very well that the minister did not make that loan, but my question is very simple and that is all I want to know from him.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a very courteous question and I shall be glad to answer in this way: I have not the information before me but I shall be glad to obtain it and send it to the hon. gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. I shall not press the matter further at the moment, but I would remind him that on a previous occasion I asked him a question about our exports to Englanid and he gave me the same reply, but I have not yet received the information. I hope I shall have both at the same time.


William Richard Motherwell: In regard to this
terminal elevator at Port Arthur,' I am told by the minister that the last remaining public terminal elevator at the head of the lakes has been rented by the government to a private concern without any conditions at all as to whether the new tenant is to operate a semi-public or a public terminal. As I think the committee know, the public terminal elevators do not do any mixing of any kind, wheat, oats, barley or anything, but the semipublic terminals, such as that of the McCabe company, sometimes called semi-private, mix everything under the [DOT] sun except the four grades that are prohibited, and there is grave Suspicion that even those grades are not
20S2
Supply-Trade-Grain Act

exempt from their mixing practices. In fact the minister has admitted to-night that the special binned wheat in this one-time public government terminal has been shipped out to the United States on the 'basis of protein content. That is exactly the same thing as mixing. The mixing of different grades of wheat was prohibited in order to prevent the practice of degrading our wheat, deteriorating it down to the very minimum. If you take a lot of the best milling wheat of a certain grade, the average of the rest will not be as good, that is obvious. And the minister has admitted that that is what is going on, the high quality and high protein stuff being switched to the United States and the deteriorated remainder going overseas to the world market where prices are usually established. I wonder if the minister realizes that that public terminal at Port Arthur was put up by a government of his own party, in 1912 I think it was, as security and assurance to those shippers who wanted to store their wheat 'where they would be sure to get out the same quality as they put in. Now that assurance is gone. Without any reservation or qualification the government, because they were losing a little money on the elevator, have deliberately leased it to a private concern that seems to know everything there is to know about mixing. That is the situation. The minister admits that the law permits the binning of wheat on a protein basis; then he is admitting that the very worst kind of mixing is being practised.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I
can perhaps make the matter clear to the hon. gentleman. Up to 1930 there was necessity for public elevators for certain reasons, one of which he has just mentioned. But upon the consolidation and revision of the grain act in 1930 the purposes for which public elevators were established by this government ceased to exist. At that time private elevators were made semi-public and the jurisdiction of the board of grain commissioners -was extended to them. Therefore the public elevators were not used; they did not get any business. The fact that it was losing money was not the primary or the real reason why the elevator was leased in 1933, although it certainly was losing money. But it was leased because the purpose for which public elevators had been established and existed ended on account of the changed provisions of the act in 1930; at all events that was my advice and I believe it is correct. [DOT]
With respect to the question of special binning, I think I made it clear that it is and has been for some time perfectly legal. If

it is considered a bad practice then the act will have to be amended to prevent it. But it is the opinion of the grain commission-I think I should quote their opinion-that so long as the practice does not exceed its present proportions it does not have any detrimental effect on the quality of our export wheat. Surely the department is entitled to take the advice of the grain commission on that point. If the hon. member were in my place I think he would be guided largely by the expert opinion of the chairman of the grain commission. It is the considered opinion of the commission that so long as the practice does not exceed its present proportions no great harm is being done to our export trade.
Mr. MOTHERWELL; That is the sort of plausible excuse that is always put up. These practices always start in a small way and get larger and larger until the whole situation is debauched. That is the way it happened in 1917. The very fact that we are having this discussion is evidence that the knowledge is getting out all over that the practice has been engaged in ever since the American market became available-the last three years, the last two years a little more, the last year still more, and the dribble threatens to back into a stream. That practice has again started. It is also being revealed that other dubious practices have started. The ground I take is that the one bulwark that was established as a sort of elevator police measure to guard against this danger has been leased by the government to one of the most skilled mixers of the lot. It is no excuse for the government that because they were losing some money-
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); That is not the excuse.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, it is one of them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, that is not the reason.


William Richard Motherwell: You might as well argue for taking the policeman off his beat because there was no particular depredation committed there last night. That is the part this elevator was playing, to see that justice was done to those who wanted to preserve the integrity of their wheat. Now the government have sacrificed that one assurance, the one institution that mixed nothing. I remember the agriculture committee in 1930 made some compromise to secure agreement, but compromises are usually unsatisfactory, and to say to those semi-public terminal elevators now, because the last public one has gone, that they can mix all wheat below

Supply-Trade-Grain Act
No. 3 northern and all other cereals but cannot mix Nos. 1, 2 and 3 northern or No. 1 'hard wheat is just putting temptation right under their noses. All they have to do is turn a tap when they are loading and the belt accepts anything that is shot on to it. Suppose they are loading out a boatload of No. 4; it is quite legitimate to mix that, but mixing No. 3 is illegal. However the least thing will turn the stream and perform the function of mixing.
I do not want to press my good friend the minister upon this matter. I did not make this statement for the purpose of making a charge. I would much rather his predecessor were there, because each year I have been asking about this mixing, and we did not know until quite recently, since the government leased this elevator, that the practice of isolating cargoes on the protein basis to one market, namely the United States, was being followed. This discussion is being carried on in a friendly way, I hope; I would be the last to want to embarrass a new minister. I was a new minister myself once and I know the difficulty of the position, especially on an intricate question such as this. My hon. friend thought I should give some evidence that any mixing was going on, but he has admitted it himself; he says there is " practically no mixing." But that word "practically" is highly elastic, it may cover a multitude of sins. There is mixing in so far as there is degrading-for that is what this type of mixing is-by isolating the extra good to one market, the balance going to the other, and the other being the one that sets the price. If my hon. friend the minister, who I am sure is desirous of getting at some of the salient features of this business, will just examine it, he will find that it is a wrong practice to permit, because there is nothing in the act about grading on the basis of protein. When these people are permitted to do that and rob the balance of any surplus virtue, then they aire doing exactly the same thing that was done under the old practice of mixing the grades. It has exactly the same effect and it is violating the spirit of the act, at all events, if not the letter. I do not suppose we will have time for any very thorough investigation this year, but I have seen these cycles before. Every five or six years there is a great commotion against this practice of mixing and deteriorating our grades on the British and other markets. A great protest came from over the water some years ago, 92582-132
why, they were very nearly refusing our wheat certificates at that time, and some of us in this committee worked very hard to remedy the situation. Now it is beginning again in a different way right under our noses, and I hope the minister and his advisers will hearken to what we have to say, because there is no stopping it by inaction once it starts. I have no doubt, from what I have learned, that every terminal elevator, now being a semi-private elevator, carries on this same practice of grading on a protein basis for the United States demand with the exception of the interior terminal elevators on the prairie. Those elevators were placed there largely for extra storage purposes, largely as public terminals, and I am quite sure nothing like this is practised1 there. Formerly there was no mixing being done in the Port Arthur 'government terminal elevator, but now the government have deliberately given away or rented their bulwark, their safeguard, their elevator policeman, by renting the Port Arthur elevator to a private concern.


George Gibson Coote: I am not disputing the information given by the minister as to the amount of special or select grains that has been special binned, but may I point out that one shipment was brought to my attention of, as nearly as I can remember-I have not the papers before me-practically 700,000 bushels from one elevator that the minister did not mention, which is more than the total he gave for the three he did mention. I could not help wondering whether Jhe commission have the exact information with regard to the special binning that has taken place.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The remarks of the hon. gentleman in this connection will be noted. I am informed that the chief commissioner believes the figures to be correct. He has not checked them personally, but he has received them from his officials and he believes they are correct, but he will see that they are rechecked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Live stock, including assistants to fairs and exhibitions, $1,928,302.
James J. Donnelly: In connection with this item concerning live stock, either last year or the year before the minister went through the west and at Brandon and I believe some otheT places announced a new policy in connection with stallions. I asked the minister



Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
some questions in this connection but I received no satisfaction whatever; in fact the information was hardly correct, because the changes the minister said had been made were not in accordance with the information I obtained from other sources. I understand, however, that there is some further policy now under which certain stallions have been bought and left at the experimental farms. Will the minister tell us his policy in this connection?


Robert Weir: In the first place I do not know to what the hon. member refers when he suggests that the policy announced at Brandon was different in any way from the present policy.


James J. Donnelly: I did not say it was different from the present policy; I said it was different from the policy in force two years before that.


Robert Weir: The announcement at Brandon was that there was to be a change in that policy which might foe considered supplementary for the time being until it got under way, when it was contemplated that the policy of club assistance might be radically changed. The policy is this: some of the best horses of the different breeds that could be purchased were placed on certain experimental farms in each of the provinces and it is possible for owners oif what are termed premium mares to have the free use of these horses if at the time they give the government an option on the male progeny, which are to -be placed with associations having a stipulated number of qualified mares, on the condition that association shall pay half the price. The option is taken at $500, which is subject to change from time to time if it should be considered more advantageous to put up these progeny at public auction. The association pays half the price of the horse and the government stands the other half; if the option price of $500 should continue, then these horses would be made available throughout their lifetime at a cost to the government of $250 per horse. A number of Percherons and Clydesdales, and only one Belgian, have been purchased up to the present.


James J. Donnelly: When were these
horses bought? When did you begin to buy them and how many have you bought up to the present time?


Robert Weir: The first one, a
colt called Don Laet, was purchased in -the

spring of 1933, in Ohio, and it is stationed at Morden, Manitoba. The next was Chief Laet, owned by Michigan State college, which was purchased at the international exhibition, 1933. That horse is stationed at Lethbridge. Another Percheron Mel Laet the second, is stationed at Fredericton. Another Percheron, Black Diamond, was purchased at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere. A number of Clydesdales were purchased in Scotland in 1934. One of them, Windlaw Cayman, a five year old horse, remains at the experimental farm at Ottawa. He was a proven sire in Scotland. Strathmore James is at Lacombe, Alberta. Woodbank Agent is at Brandon, Manitoba, and Muirton Tide is in Saskatchewan at the Indian Head experimental farm. The Belgian was purchased at the international from the Michigan State college. It is to be placed in the province of Quebec.


James J. Donnelly: I just want to bring
the minister's attention to the fact that on February 28, 1934, I asked him the question: Has the dominion changed or improved or extended its horse club policy, and if so what are the changes? I also asked if any stallions had been purchased or options taken under the said scheme, and the reply was, no. Now the minister tells me that they have bought seven.


Robert Weir: I think there was
a misunderstanding. The hon. member asked two questions. One was, was there a change in the horse clubbing policy? There was no change in that.


James J. Donnelly: In the answer which
the minister gave a year ago he said that there were certain changes, and he was going to announce them. At that time he also said the policy had not been extended, and now he says it has.


Robert Weir: There was no
change at that time so far as the horse club policy was concerned. If there was an error it may have been because of the fact that I was giving one answer and two questions were asked. There was no desire on the part of anyone to state that horses had not been bought if they had been, because the records would be available to anyone.


James J. Donnelly: In connection with
federal assistance to horse breeding, the minister gave the changes that had taken place in that policy. First he said there was no

Supply-Agriculture-Health of Animals
extension of the policy at all, and then he gave us the changes. Then a year ago he said that horses had not been bought, and now he says that they have been.


Robert Weir: No horses were bought under the horse clubbing policy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of Animals, administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and' Canned Foods Act, $1,833,189.
Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information as to how the experiments in the Fraser valley with regard to diseases of cattle are progressing?


Robert Weir: The investigation is still being carried on. No definite conclusions have been arrived at from the information that is available, but investigations and research work is proceeding.


Thomas Reid: There is another matter I should like to bring to the minister's attention regarding the controversy that has taken place during the past winter in British Columbia in connection with the pullorum disease of poultry. Regulations were passed in Saskatchewan and Alberta under which no chickens could be imported from British Columbia or elsewhere unless the poultry flocks had been tested for B.W.D. I think that comes under the health of animals branch.


Robert Weir: Under live stock.


Thomas Reid: In Saskatchewan and Alberta the veterinaries recommended what is known as the long test; I think the minister understands what I mean. That has caused a great deal of misgiving among the poultry men of British Columbia. In British Columbia they have been experimenting to a considerable extent with both tests, and while it is true that the dominion government provided financial assistance this spring so that the poultry men of the province might have their poultry flocks tested free of charge by the long test method, the fact remains that this question so far as our province is concerned is very much in doubt.
May I point out to the minister that the poultry men of British Columbia have made many tests in the matter, and while there is no infallible test for pullorum disease-I think that is generally agreed-if the method that has been adopted and pursued by Saskatchewan and Alberta, and approved by the federal department, is carried out it will mean an excessive financial burden on the poultry men
of British Columbia. By the quick test method the poultry man can make the test himself and tell in a short time whether his poultry have pullorum disease or not, but if he is going to be compelled to carry out the regulations laid down by Saskatchewan and Alberta it will mean a cost to him of between six and seven cents per head of poultry. Not only that but Saskatchewan and Alberta do not go into poultry raising so extensively as British Columbia, and in Saskatchewan and A-lberta the regulations provide that the whole flock must be tested. Such a regulation would work a great hardship with us because the average poultry man with a flock of one or two thousand head may have a breeding pen of only six hundred or so, and if he is compelled to comply with the regulations laid down by Saskatchewan and Alberta and approved by the federal department he will be out six or seven cents per head of poultry for every chicken on his place.
I am going to urge upon the minister that the whole matter be reviewed. I know that the veterinaries will contend that their method is the best, but as a poultry man and from the information that has been given to me I can say that neither of the two tests is infallible. Y ou can test a chicken to-day for that disease and get a clear test, and tomorrow the chicken may have the disease. There is no infallible test. I think I am about correct in saying that it is impossible to tell which is the better method. One is just as good as the other. I appeal to the minister on behalf of the poultry men of our province who have now to comply with the conditions laid down by Saskatchewan and Alberta, and laid down, I think I am safe in saying, to prevent the selling in Alberta and Saskatchewan of day old chicles from British Columbia. Their regulations were engineered, I believe, by some hatchery men in Saskatchewan and Alberta, helped out by the veterinaries of the department. These regulations are aimed principally against British Columbia. British Columbia, of course, is carrying on just now under a provincial and a dominion policy, and they are carrying on this past season because they have been helped financially. We do not know what policy will be adopted next year, but if the1 health of animals branch insist that the test must be carried out as laid down by the veterinaries, it will mean a cost of six or seven cents per head of poultry to the poultry men of British Columbia. Not only that, but it takes from twenty-four to thirty-six hours to carry out the test, whereas under the method which has been tested both by the

Supply-Agriculture-Health oj Animals
university of British Columbia and by practical poultry men the quick test can be carried out on the spot by the plate method, which is just as effective. It means a saving of time and also a great saving of money. I have attended many of the meetings of the poultry men before I came here which were attended by the representative of the federal department and by the provincial Minister of Agriculture, as well as by leading poultry men, and being a poultry man myself I was able to follow the matter intelligently. What I am saying now I am saying in all good faith. I do urge upon the minister that this whole matter be reviewed because if the veterinaries are going to get away with it, it will mean quite a heavy expense to the poultry men of our province which they cannot very well afford.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I want to say just a few words about the tuberculin test in my section of northern Ontario. There are three systems of inspection: first there is the plan applied in the two Cochranes; second there is the accredited area for pure bred cattle, and third there is the restricted area with government compensation for reactors. That is the test we want in our section of the country. The area is so wide that it is almost impossible for one veterinary or inspector to give all the necessary tests in our section of Ontario. It is true that the herds are rather small in comparison with those of eastern Canada or of tihe western provinces, but the fact remains that the test is very necessary in our new section of colonization and because of climatic conditions in northern Ontario. At least ninety-five per cent of the farmers and settlers in this section want to come under the scheme. At the present time no compensation is paid and the farmers feel they should be given some consideration when the farmers in the older sections of the other provinces are paid compensation up to fifty per cent. I think the minister will realize why these men are so keen to come in under system number three. I understand that the provincial government has asked the dominion government to restrict these sections. Everyone knows the development which has taken place in this part of the country, and more milk is being sold all the time. Children prefer cow's milk to condensed milk, and these farmers are in position to supply the domestic requirements of the two Cochranes. I make this appeal in all sincerity. We have had no quarrel with the large sums of money spent to bonus wheat or to assist the dried out areas in the west, but we feel that we should have the benefit of these tuberculin tests. It would be of the greatest

benefit to these farmers. They are willing to have their herds tested and to make the necessary expenditures to provide graded stock.


Robert Weir: If the farmers in the district to which the hon. member has referred wish to have their district made a restricted area they must first petition the provincial government. A vote will then be taken and if two-thirds of the cattle owners within the area are in favour, the province then submits the petition to the federal government. It is then brought before the governor in council when a decision is made as to whether or not the district shall be declared a restricted area. My information is that no petition has yet come forward from the provincial government, and until this is received this government can take no action.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would the first move have to be made by the provincial or federal government?


Robert Weir: The farmers of the district petition the provincial government; then it comes to the federal government.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does that apply to
every farming section? It must be remembered that many of our townships are still unorganized and it would be very difficult to take a vote in view of the distances. For instance, it is nearly three hundred miles from Hearst to Ramore and there are similar distances to be covered in the Porcupine and other districts. I think the minister will realize that it would be impossible to take a vote under these conditions.


Robert Weir: The vote does not have to be taken on the basis of townships, but that is the only way under the act in which the federal government can set aside a restricted area. I understand that the work is usually done by district representatives.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have another request to make. For years I had asked that a poultry promoter be sent to my district, and this was finally done in 1933. Mr. L. J. Maltais was appointed as poultry promoter but he was withdrawn after he had been there but a month and a half. He had got a number of farmers interested in poultry raising and general agriculture, and1 certain expenditures had been made at the time he was withdrawn. I have in my hand a letter from the Department of Agriculture stating that this man was withdrawn because of the need of economy. But this is false economy. We do not object to the millions of dollars

Supply-Agriculture-Health oj Animals
spent for wheat bonusing; we are quite satisfied that the farmers in the west should be helped by the federal government, but we cannot understand why this man should be withdrawn. He came to the district quite early in the spring and held conferences with the farmers. Some of the farmers spent considerable money in the purchase of lumber and other supplies with which to erect hencoops, and then this man was withdrawn at the beginning of the summer. His salary was not very large, yet the statement was made that this action was taken because of the need for economy. Across the border in Quebec in a district not so large and not so wealthy one or two poultry promoters are maintained. I believe the minister wants to be fair to our section, and I always point that out in my constituency. Surely the federal government can spend a little money to help the settlers in this part of the country, as there is almost an unlimited domestic market for eggs and chickens. The department stated that they were web satisfied with this man, and I believe the population as a whole thought he was all right. He made some expenditures himself in the purchase of a car and so on, but I suppose that is a secondary matter. I do not think we have been unfair in our demands on the federal department, and I think a poultry promoter should be sent immediately to our section of the country.


Robert Weir: Although this
matter does not come under the vote we are discussing, I shall answer the hon. member's question. In the first place, the letter to which he referred and which was sent out by one of the officials of the department did not make a correct statement, as the change was not made for purposes of economy. This matter will be looked into and inquiries will be instituted as to why a misleading statement was made. That was one of the subjects discussed at the interprovincial conference with the ministers of agriculture-* that the work of production is more provincial than federal. In Ontario there is a large number of district representatives, and there are district representatives in the province of Quebec also, whose special duty it is to do work of this kind. I will look further into the matter and shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the provincial government at Toronto, that this work is not now being carried on by them as it was understood it would be. No one appreciates more than I do the importance of giving greater assistance to the outlying pioneering
districts than is given to the older districts that have more advantages right at their door.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I think I was right in
stating that this was done for the sake of economy, because I have here a letter-*


Robert Weir: I did not question
the hon. gentleman's accuracy in regard to his authority. What I said was that the officials of the department were wrong in stating that it was in the interests of economy.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the minister if it is at all possible to let us have the official at the earliest possible moment. I do not know any section in Ontario where there is a poultry promoter under provincial control. The official sent out two years ago was from the federal department and he gave entire satisfaction to every section. I hope the minister will appoint another man or the same man as soon as possible.


Alan Webster Neill: I endorse strongly the representations made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) in connection with the testing of poultry. Everything he said I can endorse from my own experience with poultry men in my district. There was a large number of poultry men in my district but the number is getting smaller every year; they are being frozen out, and this system will not help them. They are up in arms and I support their attitude. They agree that a test is necessary; they are as keenly aware of the need for it as any department of agriculture can be, because it is their bread and butter. But they claim that they are being grossly put upon by the system imposed upon them. It is a case of some official having said, "We will do so and so," and once having put his foot down he will go ahead in spite of all representations made. I am not referring to the minister but to some official; once the official makes that decision that ends the matter. These men say that a better system has been discovered, a cheaper system which they can carry out themselves, and besides being cheap it is quick. They take the bird and the test is made instantly and there is no further trouble. But with the system followed by the department the bird is often retarded from laying for two or three weeks, because so to speak it is a major operation. A lot of complaints come in that the birds are delayed from one to three weeks in laying. I would be the last to say that there should not be this test
2088	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Health of Animals
if it were the only way; but I do not think it is seriously denied that the new system known as the quick test is ample, and it is far better for the reason I have stated. The poultry men are desperately hard up for the reason, amongst others, that they have not that support from the government which they might expect in connection with freight rates. And here they are met with a substantial tax. It is all very well to say that it costs only a few cents; but if you have four thousand birds being tested at from five to seven cents each, that is a serious item, when you do not get enough to pay for their feed. I should like the minister to make an announcement as to whether he will not investigate the quick test and accept that in lieu of this older and much more extensive system. Possibly the answer will be that Alberta wants this test. Well, the Department of Agriculture have some influence with the department in Alberta and could make fitting representations. It is a very serious thing indeed for the hard pressed poultry men in British Columbia.


Robert Weir: I appreciate the
fact that even one cent a chicken makes a big difference to income in large flocks. There have been different ways of testing for the presence of the disease pullorum, and it was at the instigation of the provinces, who asked that an official test be agreed upon so that there would be uniformity, that it was laid down that the tube test method should be adopted as the most accurate of all tests known, although none of the tests are infallible. The authorities who have done most work in various countries are of the opinion that so far it is the most accurate test that has been discovered. Other tests have been used, but the tube test method has proved the most reliable. The test referred to by the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken is in the experimental stage. It has not yet been accepted as being as accurate as the test I have mentioned. There is nothing that the department would rather do than adopt the test to which they referred as soon as it has been verified, although we have had no complaints from any of the poultry breeders in British Columbia against the test that is being used there. It is not necessary for them to use that test unless they wish to trade with, other provinces. The whole matter is this. The different provinces asked for a uniform test, and the authorities in the best position to

advise did advise that the most accurate test was the one that is being used. The other is in the experimental stage and as soon as it is admitted that it is as accurate as the test I have discussed, and the cheapness of it is established, it will be, I should say, favourably considered.


Alan Webster Neill: Did the minister say he
had received no complaints from the poultry men of British Columbia?


Robert Weir: As to the effect
on the birds. Comparatively recently a committee of the poultry breeders in British Columbia have sat in with their minister of agriculture and agreed on this method that is being followed at the present time. I can assure hon. gentlemen that very careful consideration will be given the statements they have made in this connection.


Mr. HOWARD:: In view of the large number of horses killed' in the eastern townships last year, supposed to have been affected by glanders, has the minister had any further investigation made, and has he any statement on the matter?


Robert Weir: A very full investigation has been made with regard to horses tested for glanders. As soon as it was discovered that glanders existed, the most experienced veterinaries in the service were sent to the area to deal with this outbreak. Colonel Tamblyn was sent to the district and performed a number of post mortem examinations along with other veterinaries who wished to be present to demonstrate beyond doubt that it was glanders. Others asked for post mortem examinations, but in this disease there is danger unless the examination is carried out with the greatest care. I think what the hon. member has in mind is that some of the horses tested, that were suspicious, were not destroyed, while other horses that were tested, and did react, were destroyed. It was within the option of the owner of a horse, if it was tested and reacted for glanders, to request that it be not destroyed, and if he could give an assurance that that horse would be kept in (absolute isolation for further tests, the department if it could satisfy itself that the undertaking would be lived up to without danger of the disease being spread, would quarantine the horse for further tests.


Mr. MYERS:: 
Robert Weir: A request has come and a test will be proceeded with.


William Richard Motherwell: How many outbreaks of hog cholera have there been in Canada during the last twelve months and where have they been located?


Robert Weir: We do not know
the number of outbreaks, but this statement gives the number of hogs slaughtered to December 1, 1934, with the compensation
given:
Number
of hogs Amount of
Province-	slaughtered	compensationQuebec	
1,351	$ 9,737Ontario	
1,679	9,489Manitoba	
1,146	6,663Total	
4,176	$25,889


William Richard Motherwell: That would represent half a dozen different places, would it? It does not say how many different places.


Robert Weir: The record does not set out the number of different places, but I am informed that there would be at least thirty or forty different places where there was hog cholera.


William Richard Motherwell: That is an unusual record for hog cholera. I am afraid the minister has been trying to economize a little too much on this appropriation and I am glad to see that he has increased it. Hog cholera in years past used to be kept down almost as strictly as glanders was. As a matter of fact glanders was almost exterminated in Canada. Now we find it bobbing up anywhere. I have not heard of it until recently in the eastern townships and I do not know how many eases there were then. We used to have outbreaks in New Brunswick opposite Maine. Logging teams coming over from the woods of Maine would sometimes bring the disease over with them and great care had to be exercised to prevent its coming over in the embryo stage and breaking out in Canada. These are virulent diseases that spread with great rapidity. I am not blaming the minister; he can spend only what money is voted, but it is only by the exercise of eternal vigilance that these diseases can be kept down. All these outbreaks of hog cholera indicate a skimping of the inspectional staff that has been so vigilant in years past. I do not
want to criticize severely, but I hope the increase that is being made in this appropriation will be used in strengthening the inspectional staff numerically and that an endeavour will be made to keep down these losses which mean a tremendous amount to the individuals upon whom they fall.


Robert Weir: Perhaps I misled the hon. member for Melville. There were outbreaks in two centres but in about thirty or so premises.
Mr. BEAUBIEN Is the epidemic of hog cholera in southern Manitoba pretty well in hand?


Robert Weir: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases, $1,937,898.
William Richard Motherwell: This was the appropriation on which the minister was going tc give us an explanation of the policy of the government with respect to the drought areas in the western provinces. Possibly he would like to elaborate what 'he has already said and thus dispense with a number of questions that would otherwise be necessary. I should be very glad to hear him disclose his policy. I have before me some newspaper clippings taken from such a reliable authority as the Toronto Mail and Empire, which should be good enough for a good Conservative, indicating the intention of making a sort of crown colony of that western country, taking over the whole thing. We do not want to be hypercritical about how the assistance is to be given, but it occurs to some of us that some sort of cooperation between the federal and provincial governments might be practised to advantage in carrying on this tremendous work, because it is a tremendous task.


Robert Weir: The appropriation now under discussion, that is experimental farms, does not include the money for this work that is contemplated and that is to commence almost immediately now in connection with the drought areas in the three prairie provinces. So far as many newspaper reports are concerned, I think the hon. member for Melville has perhaps had somewhat the same experience that I have had, that one reads more in the press about what is going on in one's department than either the officials or the minister himself could have any idea is supposed to be going on. There is no thought in the mind of the federal Department of Agriculture of changing its policy
2090	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
of cooperation with any provincial department of agriculture. This is really an extension of survey work that has taken place during the past two or three years and a continuation of undertakings that were started in 1927 as a result of the work commenced at the Manyberries station. Illustration stations have been set up in increasing numbers throughout this area to deal with various small districts as one farm, but it was felt, because of the smallness of that experiment and the undue effect of local conditions, the work should be extended to include larger areas. It was decided with the cooperation of the farmers on the land to increase the number from twenty-one to forty-one. In addition to that there will be new areas in cooperation with the farmers of two sections. Besides that, it is contemplated to set up five townships of thirty-six square miles each one in Alberta, three in Saskatchewan and one in Manitoba. Some of those will be used in an endeavour to demonstrate that even with a continuation of the drought, results even better in many cases than under present conditions can be achieved. The first aim is to demonstrate, in conjunction with what knowledge we already have, whether or not if the drought continues farmers can by certain practices do more towards obtaining a livelihood than they are doing at the present time. I believe that there are many farmers in the drought area who if they had sufficient capital

for their capital has been drained over a period of years-could have available at all times seed such as fall rye or sweet clover or grasses so that when there are rains throughout the summer after the wheat is put in they could seed some land with these grasses and have at least some feed for the winter. It is to demonstrate some of those things that these experiments are being conducted; also how far we should use the strip farming system. I may say this for the -information of hon. members, especially those from the west, that for the last two or three years in these- illustration stations the cultural practices adopted have shown better results than those obtained by the average farmer -in the neighbourhood. It is true these stations have been selected with considerable care and it is not altogether fair to compare work done in them with the work done by the average farmer in the same neighbourhood. In addition to illustration stations, outstanding farmers will be assisted financially in this connection in carrying out some of their own ideas under supervision. Where it is felt that conditions are suitable,

some townships will be used for the planting of trees, because there are instances even- in almost the centre of the drought areas where certain farmers believe they have obtained better results by the use of shelter belts not only around the buildings but fairly extensive belts throughout the farm. This supervised work will take in almost all conditions in the west, on areas of greater size than the smaller illustration farms. In addition we also purpose undertaking investigational and demonstration work in areas th-at have- been abandoned entirely, for the purpose of seeing what can be done to reclaim them. Furthermore a survey has been made, and I believe last year close to a thousand applications were made at Manyberries station alone to Mr. Thompson, the officer in charge, for expert advice and assistance- with reference to the making of small dams to obtain a larger supply of water. These may be just mud dams with a small spillway that farmers can build themselves, but they require engineering advice as to where- they should be situated. Then there is also need for larger dams costing from $10,000 up to $15,000. By holding the freshets in the spring they might assure to farmers or ranchers a supply of hay and green feed for the winter and for a dry year. It was felt that because of the nature of this work and -what has -been done by our federal officers this clean cut program should be set out and put under the- supervision of the experimental farm system. Thus there is no lack of cooperation with the provinces. The same rule will apply in this work as has applied-for it is an extension of work that has been done in the past-that is, a -full measure o-f cooperation.


William Richard Motherwell: Then I understand that the system of demonstration plots which was established about twelve or fifteen years ag-o more or less all over Canada has been evolving into these larger plots. For instance, south of Yellow Grass in the burnt-out area there is a plot consisting I think of a half section. North of Piapot near Maple Creek there is another. I think in the last few years a whole section has been devoted to demonstration purposes, trying to overcome some of these terrible difficulties that have prevailed in that area for some- years. The proposal now is to extend these demonstration plots into five larger areas each eighteen miles square, and continue the practice of experimentation and demonstration, including the planting of shelter belts in suitable places, the making of dams, and the digging of reser-

Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
voirs. I have no exception to take to that; but we have always been doing something of that, if not by the Department of Agriculture by the provincial public works or highways departments. Since 1914 a large number of dams and reservoirs in suitable runways have been constructed. This is merely an extension or an evolution of what has been taking place for many years. Does the minister not think that the first thing to do in that country is to try to keep the soil at home? Some of those areas we must admit are unsuitable for tilling; every time you stir the soil with a plough or any other implement it takes wings and off it goes and lands in Ontario or somewhere, just as Oklahoma and Kansas and Colorado, are now sending their dust storms north, so that probably some of our lost prairie land will be restored to us. But I think everyone admits now that some of those areas should not have been cultivated, although in wet years they grow good crops of the highest quality. There is no part of the west that has grown larger and better crops in wet years than that same area. Nevertheless there are some marginal lands, and if we want to keep them at home they must at the earliest opportunity be seeded down, through government support in some form. Two or three years ago the federal Department of Agriculture started out bravely enough distributing small amounts of grass and clover seed, but so far as my information goes very little of that was done in,this dried out area. It should be done1 there, for even if only thinly seeded it wiil soon spread. As a matter of fact there is a large area between Medicine Hat and Brooks that has gone back to grass, has a fine sod on it, better than the pi-airie. But that had not been under tillage very long, consequently it was not difficult to regrass naturally. But as to this area we are talking about, which has been under tillage for a quarter of a century, a lot of it will take a long time to regrass. It will soon get covered with some form of vegetation, however, for nature abhors a vacuum; the Russian thistle will soon cover it and perhaps hold the land from drifting. But something of more value than the Russian thistle should be introduced-grasses and clovers including crested wheat grass which survives the drought better than any other known grass so far. I think the federal government will have to take charge of that and seed down those large areas in cooperation with the prairie provinces, as it is to them these abandoned lands will revert automatically.
I do not know whether or not the minister contemplates establishing what we call district representatives. I recall that back in 1914, when the first tremendous drought struck that area, the dominion government of the day became quite anxious and established district representatives without consulting the provinces at all, so we had two sets of these officers, one representing the federal and the other the provincial government. I submit that that should be avoided as far as possible, and I am sure the minister knows the enormity of that undertaking. If there is any way at all, by friendly cooperation with the provinces, of avoiding overlapping, against which the minister has always expressed himself, I hope that will be done. I assume that this abandoned property naturally reverts to the municipalities, because of the unpaid taxes, or else to the provincial government. How does the minister propose to overcome that situation and at the same time seed down these larger provincial or municipal areas which have been found to be unprofitable except in the very best years?


Robert Weir: With reference to
the distribution of grasses, the same distribution-and perhaps more so-has been made in the drought area that has been made in the other parts of the province.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps the minister will tell us how they succeeded?


Robert Weir: The difficulty was
that because of the small plots that could be seeded with the grass seed given them, they were blown out, and results were not satisfactory. Perhaps another reason was that they were seeded in the early part of the year, whereas the intention now is to have a supply on hand when moisture does come, and these grasses can be seeded late in the fall or early in the spring. It is not only necessary to have a relatively large supply of seed; we feel that it is necessary to have enough seed so that it can be almost wasted in these localities. It very seldom happens that a plant particularly suited to the drought area is suited to other areas, yet it was necessary to obtain a supply of grass seed, and that was one of the investigations we carried on. Much to our delight it was found that this grass seed suitable in the south in particular also does very well in the north, so much so that it will increase from two pounds to six hundred pounds an acre. The best of that seed has been retained and is being distributed in the north, under very careful supervision to hurry its propagation. Investigation was carried on in connection
2092	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture-Experimental Farms
with the difficulty of getting nurse crops to assist these grasses, and it has been found that the natural nurse crop of brush and thistle, when ripe, is perhaps the best that we can get.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I just wanted to make an appeal to the minister. In the section from which I come we have one of the finest experimental farms in the dominion. An experimental farm is valuable inasmuch as it renders service to the public. We also have a very large acreage almost bordering on the experimental farm that has been entirely destroyed due to the acid from the mines which was carried over the land in a flood period several years ago. These cases have been before the courts for some three years; finally a settlement has been arranged, but about thirty farmers are left with this eyesore in one of the finest sections of that part of the country. I think it only right, and I ask the minister to see to it, that the employees of the experimental farm assist these farmers in getting that land back under cultivation.


Robert Weir: Experiments are being conducted with that in mind.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I ask the minister how many illustration farms there are in the constituency of Kamouraska at the present time?


Robert Weir: I do not think we have the information in that form, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the opening of a new experimental farm near the town of Melfort mean the gradual elimination of the Rosthern farm?


Robert Weir: No, it will not affect the Rosthern farm in any way. A certain program has been carried on in connection with the Rosthern farm; that is being enlarged and proceeded with. There has been no change in the policy in connection with the Rosthern farm as the result of the establishment of the Melfort farm, nor will there be any such change.


William Richard Motherwell: I happened to be up in my hon. friend's area last harvest, and there was a good deal of discussion about the experimental farm at Melfort. Of course all rumours must be discounted a good deal, but at that time it was rumoured that this property had been expropriated without the consent or knowledge of the owners, and that
the two farmers who formerly owned the property knew nothing about it. I do not know that this would be particularly harmful; indeed' if the government thought they were going to miss the opportunity of getting the property that would be the correct thing to do, though of course it is desirable to avoid it if possible. Perhaps the minister will tell us why that particular property was chosen. I understand that it is three or four miles from the town of Melfort and not very accessible to visitors. Perhaps all these matters will be explained to the committee. I should like to know just why that choice was made. I do not suggest there was anything improper about it; so far as I know it is quite suitable, but they seemed to be in a great hurry about it. Temporary stables were rushed up and cattle were sent there just at the beginning of winter, when there was no shelter for them. There seemed to be just a certain amount of time and everything had to be done within that time limit.
I am sure the minister will be able to clear up the situation with a word.


Robert Weir: The owners of the farms were negotiated with and it was understood that they were willing to accept certain prices. Then difficulties arose and it was decided that it would be fairer to everyone concerned to make it a matter of expropriation. This farm was selected as being typical of that area. It was not intended that we should have an ideal farm, because an ideal farm would not provide a fair comparison for the problems existing in that district. The farm is situated on the highway and is readily accessible from Melfort. I believe the corner of the farm is about two miles from Melfort. There was no particular rush in connection with the farm; its establishment had been contemplated for some time, for the reason that in this whole area, extending from Dauphin to Lloyd-minister, no farm existed. The conditions in that area are very different from the conditions with which the Rosthern farm has to deal, and for a good many years it was felt that a farm should be established in that area. I believe the hon. member gave that question very serious consideration when he was Minister of Agriculture.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps the minister will tell us where the foundation live stock that we sent to the Melfort farm came from.
Progress reported.


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

Mr. J. E. Laurent
Tuesday, March 26, 1935