[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right. Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this house that another of our members has passed away, the hon. member for the constituency of Montmagny, who has been the Deputy Speaker of our house. Mr. LaVergne had a varied and colourful career. He was born at Arthabaska; he went to school there and in Montreal and, I think, in Ottawa also. He was very successful at school and at the university, where he studied law and graduated with honours. He was first elected to this House of Commons in


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
again on behalf of the official opposition I have to express to members of the government and hon. gentlemen opposite our sympathy in the loss of one of the members of their party. Again at this session we share their deep regret at the passing of one more of our number, particularly one who held the prominent position of Deputy Speaker in this chamber.
I believe it had long been apparent to all of us that Mr. Armand LaVergne, the late hon. member for Montmagny, was bearing with great fortitude very severe impairment to his health. It would be unfair and indeed impossible,, therefore, to attempt any estimate of his services to the public life of Canada by referring to the part with which we are most familiar and what we have known of him in this parliament. Personally, I like to go back in my remembrance of him to the days, to which reference has been made by my right hon. friend opposite, when as a

young man, almost, I should say, the youngest member, he entered parliament in the year 1904, and sat as a Liberal member of the Commons for the four following years. As the right hon. gentleman has truly said, the late hon. member was believed by all at that time to have before him a very promising career. He was an able debater and brilliant speaker. Even at that time he was an ardent advocate of more or less independent views. In 1908, as my right hon. friend has said, he resigned his seat in this house in order to enter the Quebec legislature, in which legislative body he served also for a period of four years.
In 1911 he was one of the organizers of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec and, thereafter, a foremost member of that party; and in 1927 he was one of the Quebec organizers of the Conservative convention at Winnipeg. I believe the fact that in his day he was by turn a member of different political parties and, I fear, not very happy in his relations with any of them, accounts in part for the fact that although he was a candidate for parliament in all the political contests between 1911 and 1930, despite his attainments, it was not until 1930 that he was again returned as a member of this house.
It is very difficult to estimate the services to the public life of a country of those who too frequently alter their party allegiance, or of one who by his very nature is critical and independent in his views to the extent of finding it difficult to work with other men. I believe it is one of the laws of politics that we have all to learn to seek to accommodate our views to the views of those who belong to groups entertaining ideas similar to our own, if anything effective is to be accomplished. While undoubtedly it may be a mark of strength for one at all times to be wholly independent and outspoken in the expression of one's views, it is also at times an evidence of equal strength for one to be able, while holding and cherishing independent opinions, to cooperate with others differing somewhat in opinion but who are seeking to serve like national ends.
The late member for Montmagny achieved an enviable position in his profession of law, and also an important place in journalism. As a journalist, he was much given to expressing independent and, at times, extreme views. It is my opinion that the country will remember him for the zealous manner in which he upheld minority rights, particularly as they had to do with matters with w'hich he was deeply concerned. At all

Death of Armand LaVergne
times Mr. LaVergne was courageous and fearless, even to the extent of welcoming opposition and, upon occasions, of courting unpopularity. He will also be remembered for this, and, to those who knew him best, for qualities of heart and mind and for talents which, had he been less critical and more constructive and in some matters less eager perhaps to plough his solitary furrow, would have afforded him even wider spheres of public usefulness and national service.
1 join with the acting leader of the government on behalf of hon. members on this side, in the expression of sympathy which it is the desire of all should be conveyed by Your Honour to Madame LaVergne in her great bereavement.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret the house has learned of the death of our former colleague from Montmagny. All hon. members will realize that as we have not had the pleasure of his company during the present session he must have been seriously ill. May I be permitted to join with the acting leader of the government (Sir George Perley) and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in expressing from this corner of the chamber our deep regret of his passing, and our desire to convey through you, Mr. Speaker, to his widow and relatives our sincere respects.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I
add my personal tribute to the homage paid by the parliamentary leaders to the memory of our departed colleague. Armand LaVergne and I commenced our parliamentary career on the same day, in February, 1904. We have battled ever since, sometimes side by side, sometimes under different banners, and I cannot help feeling painfully shocked at the thought that Armand LaVergne is dead.
A true son of Quebec, he reflected throughout his entire life love of country, fidelity to traditions, the nobleness of our history and the joy of fighting in defence of what he loved. He always manifested an active devotion towards our land and towards our race, which he ever sought to keep conscious of its originality. Possessor of a caustic, original and supple mind, he never sought to conceal his thoughts. Quite properly was he known in days gone by as "l'enfant terrible" of Canadian politics.
Mr. Speaker, Armand LaVergne had reached the stage when one's thoughts turn no longer to the past, but to the future. His straightforward and lucid mind was too fond of clarity in matters pertaining to this world
not to seek the higher verities. He died as a true Christian, in the bosom of eternal truth. And our supreme farewell to him is the sad but confident one of those who believe, who hope and who love.


Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I
add a word to what has just been said on the tomb of our departed friend. We were united, the member for Montmagny and I, by bonds of friendship dating from the time I left college, in 1908. Since then, we have followed sometimes the same path, sometimes different ones, but always have I held him, even when he was fighting us, in high respect and admiration. As a lawyer, Armand LaVergne was distinguished. In political life, he made a great name for himself. He was known in every province of the Dominion. An ardent patriot and a brave man, he was ever ready to defend the cause of minorities and to take up the cudgels for the oppressed. He conducted, for the rights of the French language, battles that will ever remain memorable. I think it can rightly be said that henceforth his name belongs to our history, to Canadian history and to the history of the French Canadian race. Likewise can we say of him what has been said of a man he greatly admired and of whom he frequently spoke: He was a knight without fear and without reproach.
To Mrs. LaVergne and to all his relatives and friends we extend our deep and sincere sympathy.



OTTAWA AGREEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiska-ming):: Mr. Speaker, basing my question on an article signed by F. J. Savage and entitled "Britain likely to revise Ottawa agreements" which appeared on Saturday night of the 2nd instant, I beg to ask the government if it has been notified by the government of Great Britain of her intentions in the matter?


Right Hon.   S@: So far as I know there has been no such notification, but I will make inquiries regarding the hon. gentleman's question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading
C. N. R.-Auditors
[Stage Direction]
of Bill No. 20, respecting the appointment of
auditors Iq the Canadian National Railways.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) and some others I think mentioned when this bill was in committee the taking care of Touche and Company in regard to the work which they have done this year, and I agreed that on the third reading some provision would be made in the bill to take care of them in regard to the year 1935. However, upon making inquiries I find that their work has been entirely the auditing of the books for 1934; in other words, they have not yet begun upon the work of 1935, and until they have completed their report and presented it to parliament and until they appear before the committee, their work will not in any way affect 1935, and so with their consent there is no necessity for any arrangement for 1935.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked for information from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) about Mr. Laforoe, one of the employees of the Canadian National Railways. In what I have to say I will be brief.
My intention is that not only the members of the railway and shipping committee are entitled to receive information from the Canadian National Railways, but also every member of this house who is called upon to vote moneys for the Canadian National Railways. I understand, of course, that some information may be confidential, but when I ask a question about the salary of a man and the kind of work he is doing for the railways, I am perfectly justified in doing so, and such a question calls for a reply, and a straight reply. We are ready to vote money for the Canadian National Railways when it is required, and we are entitled to receive all the information which is available. I have been most reasonable in asking for information in regard to the railways. In fact, this is the first question I have put this year with regard to them.
There is something I wish to tell the house about Mr. Laforoe. Here is a man employed by the railways for colonization purposes, and he is writing articles which are just like the exercises of a school boy, expatiating on the beauty of the country and all that. Furthermore, I am told that the publication of his articles in the press is paid for by other governments. Here is a man who is supposedly working for colonization. His salary is paid by the Canadian National Railways,

and his articles are paid for by the provincial governments. If the minister wants to practise economy in the Canadian National Railways the first thing he should do is discharge that man. Whenever I spoke in this house about distress in the different centres in the north the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) would come along with a telegram from that man saying that all was well, and the telegram was signed J. E. Laforce. I have mentioned that not only in this house, but I said the same thing in the parliament buildings of Quebec when the last congress on colonization was held there last fall.
I have received no answer to my question
about this man. Here is an opportunity for tlie minister to practise real economy. Let him see to it that the men who have been discharged from the railways, men who were doing good and useful work, are restored to their positions, and let him also see to it that all those who are doing nothing for the railways, and whose salaries are paid by the railway for doing nothing, are discharged at once.
I remember two years ago when I first brought up this matter it was at a morning sitting and the minister was right where he is sitting now. I advocated the same thing then, and the minister seemed to sympathize very much with my attitude.
With regard to the employees of the railway, Mr. Speaker, all the men who are doing useful work should be kept in their positions, but if you can dispense with a man who draws a big salary without doing useful work, and who draws that salary at the expense of three men who have the responsibilities of a family, that man should be laid off and the three men who could do useful work should be restored to their former positions. That is my humble view, and I submit it to the minister. I hope he will realize the stupidity of keeping on Mr. Laforce on the Canadian National Railways when no member of the house can get any information about his doings. I say that it is most unfair. The minister is fair enough to appreciate that. He probably will not admit it at once, but when he goes back to his office and thinks over what has just been said he will probably admit that the member for Temiscouata is following the right course in asking the minister to see to it that the greatest possible number of men are employed by the Canadian National Railways, and that all those who are drawing salaries for doing nothing shall be dispensed with at once.
There is another thing. What is the use of keeping as assistant superintendent at

C. N. R.-Auditors
Campbellton a man who can neither read nor write properly? It is just a fat job. What is he doing? The only thing he does is to try to put the greatest possible number of men out of their positions in order to justify his own salary. Is that economy? It is fattening one at the expense of many, and I ask most emphatically that his head be cut off. I do not say physically, but the house understands what I mean. There are many things like that, the purchase of materials for the railways, jam, lumber, construction materials of various kinds.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but after all I have allowed him considerable latitude to-day. This bill calls for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways, and I must confess that the subject matter of the hon. member's remarks has not yet come within the scope of the bill. If he intends to continue, I must ask him to confine his remarks to the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: With due regard to you, Mr. Speaker, may I explain how my remarks come within the scope of the bill? This bill relates to the auditors of the railways. Well, the auditors have to audit every expenditure, and what I am mentioning is itself a saving for the railways. The greater the saving the less the expenditure for auditing, and therefore I am within the bill, I am within the subject matter before the house in asking for the curtailment of useless expenditures so that fewer such expenditures will have to be audited by these men.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: While I appreciate the remarks by which the hon. member seeks to bring himself within the scope of the bill, I do not think that what he has said is relevant. The bill covers the appointment of auditors and what the hon. member is arguing is a matter of management, not of auditing.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then, sir, I will speak strictly-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must rule the hon. member out of order as regards the present trend of his remarks. If he has anything further to say with respect to the auditors I would ask him to confine his remarks thereto.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will conclude my remarks with one sentence. Touche & Company have been auditors for some time. They have had a great deal of experience and they have not been criticized by the government for their work, which seems to me to have been
well done. On this we are all in perfect accord. But, sir, with regard to auditing, and strictly auditing, without getting into any questions of management, would it not be fair to see to it that Touche & Company do not join the ranks of the unemployed, but that they be given the most important duty of auditing the accounts of the Canadian Pacific Railway so that we may know what has been done with the $60,000,000 which has been lent by this government by order in council? That is my humble suggestion. I suggest that the government avail themselves of the experience of this firm in having the finances of the Canadian Pacific Railway thoroughly audited by Touche & Company.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, since yon have allowed the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) to ramble out of order, may I be permitted for a minute or two to say a word in defence of Mr. Laforce. I have known Mr. Laforce for many years, have followed his work, and can say without hesitation that he is a competent official in his department. It seems to me that when we have competent officials we should retain them. But if the attitude advocated by my hon. friend from Temiscouata is to be adopted, and Mr. Laforce is to be dismissed, notwithstanding that everyone who has come in contact with him knows how well he is doing his work, it is simply following the method of the present government. The minister said the other day that the auditors of Touche & Company were very competent and that the work was well done, and yet we are dismissing them. I think it is a wrong attitude. If the officials of any railway company over which we have control are doing their work properly-and I know that Mr. Laforce has rendered valuable service from the colonization standpoint-then I think it ill becomes the government to dismiss any official, or any group of officials who have given such services as those rendered by Touche & Company as auditors for the Canadian National Railways.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member will
admit that opinions are free.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 15, to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Farmers' Creditors Act

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS TO FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT act, 1934
The house resumed from Monday, March 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 10, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934-Mr. Rhodes-Mr. Bury in the chair.
Mr. RHODES:: We finished the clauses of the bill when last in committee, but the hon. member for Macleod had submitted an amendment which had been ruled out of order, and then he proposed! submitting a portion of the original amendment as an amendment. I am prepared to speak on that if my hon. friend desires to proceed.


Mr. COOTE:: If I remember rightly, Hansard will show that I formally moved a second amendment last night, and I do not think it is necessary to say anything further in support of it. As I have said in this committee so many times, the present level of farm prices makes it impossible for farmers to pay a rate of interest higher than five per cent. Perhaps I am setting the rate very high when I place it at five per cent, but I might direct the attention of the committee to section 17 of the act of last year, which I think includes the principle covered in the amendment. Section 17 of the act as introduced by the Prime Minister last year reads:
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other statute or law, whenever any rate of interest exceeding seven per centum is stipulated for in any mortgage of farm real estate, if any person liable to pay the mortgage tenders or pays to the person entitled to receive the money, the amount owing on such mortgage and interest to the time of payment, together with three months' further interest in lieu of notice, no interest shall after the expiry of three months' period aforesaid be chargeable, payable or recoverable in respect of the said mortgage at any rate in excess of five per centum per annum.
2. The provisions of this section shall apply in the case of any mortgage heretofore or hereafter made and whether or not the principal sum is due and owing at the time such tender or payment is made.
The principle of reducing the rate of interest on existing mortgages to five per cent is included in that section. It is true that this is applied only in the case of any mortgagor who is able to tender payment of the full principal sum as well as any interest which may be owing, but after all it seems to me that th^t does not alter the principle that the rate of interest on farm mortgages should not exceed five per cent per annum.

Might I point out to the committee that although this act did not come into force in any province until proclaimed by the governor in council to be in force in such province, section 17 which I have just quoted came into force when the act was assented to. That was the one section of the act which came into force immediately the act was given royal assent; all the other sections did not apply in any province until a proclamation to that effect was issued. I think that point should not be overlooked in considering the amendment which is now before the committee and which asks that:
No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
I would not press this amendment again on the committee were it not for the fact that I realize how badly it is needed. I believe the government, the House of Commons and the committee would pass this amendment if they appreciated, as some of us do, the need for it and how agriculturists as a whole cannot stand the present rate of interest.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why should this be confined to mortgages in connection with purchase of property? Why should it not apply to all farm mortgages?


George Gibson Coote: It applies to all farm mortgages. It reads:
No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
The amendment covers both.
I would also like to remind the committee that, as I said yesterday, almost every agricultural country I know of has passed legislation of this nature effecting a general reduction in the interest rate on farm mortgages. At the moment I do not know of any other country, although there may be such, where it is permissible to collect a rate of interest of more than five per cent on farm mortgages. I do not think we can afford any longer to delay taking action to reduce the interest rate on farm mortgages. As I said last night only a small percentage of the farmers will take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and as this act deals with the particular question of farm debts, it is very important and necessary and there is a responsibility on this committee to see that some provision of this nature is included in the act or that legislation is passed at some time during this session respecting reduction of

Farmers' Creditors Act
interest rates charged on farm mortgages generally. I hope the committee will accept the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We will all concede at onice to the hon. member for Macleod that he is animated toy sincerity of purpose and that it is his desire to accomplish something by way of reduction of interest. It may rather surprise him to know I have a sympathetic feeling for the object he has in mind, but if I were discussing the merits I would say that we must 'be .practical about these matters. It would be very easy, if it were competent for the committee, under the amendment of my hon. friend to say that the interest shall be only so much. Last year I used the illustration and I might use it now, that it is an old maxim that you may lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. iH you get the rate of interest below the point where lenders are prepared to lend, then there will be no money available, and if a farmer is in dire need of money he will be the sufferer in the long run.
But I do not propose to enter into the merits of the discussion for reasons which I shall disclose in a moment, because there will be another opportunity during this session. My hon. friend's amendment reads:
No interest at a rate exceeding five per centum per annum shall be charged, payable or recoverable on any existing mortgage of farm real estate or agreement covering the sale of farm real estate.
May I point out at once that at this moment we are under the farm loan board loaning money at five and a half per cent. I have stated before and have no hesitation in stating again that I hope to see that rate reduced to five per cent and possibly lower. But the point is that not only are we at the moment making new loans at that rate, but we have many millions loaned under the old Farm Loan Act paying six and a half per cent, which under the legislation that is now before the committee we shall have an opportunity of reducing to a lower rate after the bill is passed. In the meantime however those mortgages are out at six and a half per cent. The effect of my hon. friend's amendment is to make a direct charge upon the public revenue, because the deficiency will have to be made up out of the exchequer, and I submit as a point of order that upon that ground it is not competent for my hon. friend to move this amendment.
II submit that the amendment is out of order for another reason. My hon. friend introduced into the house at this very session a bill which passed its second reading and
which is now before the banking and commerce committee. Paragraph 5a of clause 4 of that bill, to amend the interest rate, reads:
In no case shall interest exceeding the rate or percentage of four per centum per annum be stipulated for, charged, taken, payable or recoverable on the whole or any part of the principal money advanced on or secured by mortgage of real estate, or on moneys payable under agreements for sale of real estate.
That very subject is now before a committee of this house. May I further point out that the amendment which my hon. friend now moves is much less in scope than is the clause of the bill which I have just read, because the clause of the bill refers to all mortgages whereas the amendment which my hon. friend now moves refers only to farm mortgages. Inasmuch as the lesser is included in the whole, this very subject will be determined when the bill is dealt with by the banking and commerce committee and comes back to this house for final action. But 1 do not stress the point of order although 1 feel it my duty to raise it on that point as well. I submit this however as a practical proposal: Is it wise to attempt to deal with legislation piecemeal? Is it wise to attempt to deal with a limited scope of farm mortgages when at this very session we are dealing with a bill which has reference to the interest rate upon all mortgages? Under these circumstances, in view of the fact that this subject will be decided upon, I hope my hon. friend will not press his motion.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I must confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposed amendment for more than one reason. Did I understand that my hon. friend is pressing his point of order?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must, unless the amendment is withdrawn.


Charles A. Stewart: Then my remarks must be very brief; perhaps I shall be able to conclude them on another occasion. The whole purpose of this bill is to relieve a desperate situation; I think that is not putting it in too strong language. I cannot conceive that any arrangement will get a farmer-who after all has the choice between a compromise and becoming a bankrupt-out of his difficulty if he has to pay a rate higher than five per cent. I agree that our direction to the boards and to the registrar in dealing with the matter should be as wide as possible; for circumstances will vary. But at the same time if I were a member of a board and were adjudicating upon a claim in which the interest rate for a period of two or three years was
Farmers' Creditors Act

going to be more than five per cent, no matter how much the reduction in principal, it seems to me that there would be very little likelihood of the debtor being able to meet his obligation. That is my opinion. I appreciate that the matter should be left entirely to the discretion of the board, it must of necessity be so, but at the same time my hon. friend knows the conditions existing not only in western Canada but all over Canada to-day and that probably will exist for the next three or four years. The hope is that the adjustment granted will put the debtor in a position to meet his obligation, but it is my candid opinion that he cannot pay more than five per cent interest.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I say at once to my
hon. friend that I do not quarrel with the general tenor of his remarks, but I point out that if this bill were silent altogether upon the question of interest the effect would be precisely the same as if this clause or any other were placed in the bill; because in the first place it would not interfere with the debtor and creditor getting together and agreeing to a compromise, nor would it prevent the board of review from fixing a rate of interest. So that I feel that it is not incumbent upon us at the moment to deal with the question of interest at all. The whole spirit of this act, as my hon. friend properly points out, is that of conciliation and compromise. 'Let us preserve that spirit.
The hon. member for Macleod referred to section 17 of the present act. 'Last night I was at pains to read the remarks of the Prime Minister who piloted that act through the house, and I found that the object of section 17 was not interest, but to compel mortgagees who held mortgages carrying rates as high as eight and nine per cent and who ' refused to take payment of the mortgage in times when the farmers were prosperous and could have paid them, to accept repayment of the principal. That three months clause was placed there to compel the mortgagee to take his money if tendered. It was not so much the matter of interest that was in mind in inserting that clause.


Charles A. Stewart: Is the minister referring to an overdue payment of principal?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, I am referring to section 17 of the farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which was placed in the act, I say, for the purpose of compelling mortgagees to accept payment of the principal of a mortgage carrying a high rate of interest. If

my hon. friend is interested I refer him to the remarks of the Prime Minister to be found at page 3640 of Hansard of last year, in which he outlined the reasons for putting that provision in the bill. As I said, there is no object in discussing the merits of the proposed amendment now, and this is not evasion on my part. Of course I want to see the procedure properly observed and our business conducted in an orderly fashion. But this whole question of interest is being dealt with by a bill which is now before the house, and if it passes it will have precisely the same effect as if we inserted a clause in the present bill dealing with the subject of interest, but will apply to the wider sphere of mortgages in general.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
wish to delay the passing of the bill, but I do not view the matter in the same light as the minister. This is a special piece of legislation.	The bill introduced by the hon.
member for Macleod is general in its application. I think that is where he went astray yesterday in his proposed amendment. The bill we are going to consider deals with all mortgages; this is a special piece of legislation for a special purpose, hence my interest in seeing a reasonable rate of interest specified in it. I quite admit that much must be left to the discretion of the board, but I point out that this is special legislation and does not touch the general situation at all, while the other bill is very wide in its effect, for it relates to all mortgages.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Including this. My hon.
friend overlooks the fact that inasmuch as Bill No. 11 is wider in its application it includes what is dealt with in this bill. Surely we are not going to have two laws on the one subject.


Mr. IRVINE:: Might it not happen that
the house would pass the present bill but reject the wider one? If we miss the chance of giving them half in the hope of giving them all and in the result give them nothing, it would not be wise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If my hon. friend means
by giving the whole that there will be a decision with respect to Bill No. 11 and that it will come back before this house, I will say yes, we will get the whole. What my hon. friend is overlooking is that the question of interest has nothing to do with the settlement of debts provided for under this bill. I have seen settlements in which interest at as low as three per cent was agreed to between debtor and creditor, where the original obligation was for a rate as high as six per cent.

farmers' Creditors Act


Mr. HACKETT:: Interest has been waived entirely in some.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. I say we should be
in no better position by putting this provision in this bill.


George Gibson Coote: are the last great agricultural country in the world to deal with it, and it seems to me this is the time to deal with it, in connection with this act.
It may be that I am wrong in this. The minister may be perfectly sincere; let us grant that we are both sincere. I feel this is the proper place to deal with this matter, because this act deals with the specific question of farm debts. Again I urge the committee, and the minister, that we should be allowed to decide this question now, whether five per cent is a proper rate; I think this is a very good place to decide it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend in his sincerity of purpose and with all proper motives, which I accord to him-although I regret to say that he showed some hesitancy in conceding that I might be animated by equally worthy motives-will insist on discussing the merits of the question. I have stated before that I am not doing that now, inasmuch as we will do so before this parliament concludes. My hon. friend speaks for the farmer who is not going to come under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. That farmer will get such protection as this house may decide to accord him when it deals with Bill No. 11, which covers all mortgages.
Apart from the question of procedure, on which I am going to ask the chair to rule, I submit that at this moment my hon. friend is asking the committee to pass an amendment saying that the interest on farm mortgages should be limited to five per cent while at the same time he has a bill before the committee on banking and commerce, which has had second reading, which provides that all mortgages including farm mortgages shall bear a rate of interest not exceeding four per cent. Look at the logic of that position, and its consistency. My hon. friend is going to ask the farmers in one bill to pay one per cent more than they would pay under another bill. He is going to limit the rate on all mortgages to four per cent with the exception of farm mortgages which, under another bill, are to pay five per cent. Inasmuch as we are going to deal with this question in connection with Bill No. 11 which will cover all mortgages including those on farms, from a practical point of view I submit that we should confine our efforts in that direction to Bill No. 11.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: Does the hon. member press for a ruling?


George Gibson Coote: No, I do not press for a ruling. I do hope the committee will accept my amendment, though.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the hon. member presses I must rule, and my ruling will be that the amendment is out of order for two reasons, first, that it involves the revenues of the crown and second that it is part of an amendment which itself, as a whole, was ruled out of order.


Mr. HANBURY:: Mr. Chairman, before the -bill is reported I should like once more to bring to the attention of members of the committee and of the government the suggestion that there should be a definite date of conclusion for this legislation. Yesterday we learned that only a very small1 percentage of our farmers have as yet taken advantage of the opportunity afforded them undeT this legislation. For purposes of argument let us assume that ten times as m-anry farmers in Canada will take advantage of this measure. Surely it is not the intention that this legislation- should be continued indefinitely; surely the intention was that it should be for the protection of the farmers who at present are unable to discharge their obligations; surely it was not the intention that it should take care of farmers during the next three, four or five years. I submit to the members of the committee that to-day farmers throughout Canada are having difficulty in securing credit for the small amounts of money they require in order to conduct their business, by virtue of this legislation in conjunction with the moratoria existing in the various provinces of Canada.
I suggest to the minister again that he seriously consider at this time bringing in an amendment setting some definite limit. I think any farmer who is not in a position to discharge his obligations to-day, or six months or nine .months from now, should be able to take advantage of this legislation, but we will injure the standing of the farmer in the community and we will harm his credit unless something is done to terminate this legislation at the end of some definite period. I believe in the interests of the farmers themselves and in the interests of those we are trying to help by this legislation the minister, before this measure is given third reading, should bring in an amendment to terminate it at some definite date.


John Thomas Hackett: Mr. Chairman-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would deprecate any suggestion that this legislation should be regarded as a continuing, all-time measure.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.
The -CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury): The Minister of Finance has the floor.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I did not know that my hon. friend had risen and wished to speak, but I should be quite content to allow him to do so. I was only going to reply to my hon. friend from Vancouver-Burrard, not because il have any keen and eager desire to be continuously upon my feet but because I wish to do each hon. member who makes a specific proposal the courtesy of giving him an answer. I was going to say that I would deprecate any suggestion that this should be regarded as continuing and all-time legislation. It is designed, admittedly, to meet a set of circumstances which we hope will never recur -certainly not within the lifetime of the youngest member of this house. But at the moment it would be a mistake to attempt to put on a time limit. If we were to put on a time limit which was too short we would be shutting out a number of worthy farmers who perhaps would not have the opportunity to have their cases considered. If we made it too long we would serve to aggravate the idea the hon. member has quite properly expressed, namely that it would serve to disturb conditions, and would result in affecting the credit of the farmer.
May I point out that in all probability the next session would give ample time to deal with this matter. But even assuming that the act has served its full purpose prior to the next session the remedy lies in the hands of the government, because all it has to do is to dismantle the machinery and the act cannot function. We know that unless there be official receivers, a registrar and a board of review it cannot function. For these reasons I respectfully submit the matter is one which ought to remain over at least until another session of parliament.


Wilfred Hanbury: In response to the minister I should like to submit a suggestion that any farmers who are in a position where they may wish at this time or in the near future to take advantage of this legislation, could very well do so, and they will do so if there is a definite date for conclusion. But if the hope is held out to them that in a year, two years or two years and a half they may still come under this legislation they will not act at the present time. I think it would be advisable to learn now just where we stand. How many of our farmers require this relief? Instead of leaving the matter over till the next session of parliament, or leaving it with the government to take a responsibility which we feel they would never take, namely that of dismantling the machinery, I believe we might very well move an amendment to the bill so that one
year from now it may be terminated, and if at the end of that time we find it necessary to renew the legislation, then I think we might do so. I believe the method I have suggested would be better than the one suggested by the minister.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would remind the committee that there is nothing before the chair.


John Thomas Hackett: I believe there is some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. A few days ago he referred to the legislation before us as class legislation. He will discover that it is equalizing legislation. The Bankruptcy Act applies to every person in Canada, with the exception of the farmer. In no province in the dominion may a farmer be put into bankruptcy. In the province of Quebec a f armer may not put himself into bankruptcy. This legislation merely places the farmer in the position occupied by the trader and the manufacturer. It gives the farmer the privilege of shedding his debts, if he cannot pay them, and places him on an equality or on an equal footing with other classes in the community. I submit- it does nothing more.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: This discussion is entirely out of order; there is nothing before the chair. Hon. members may speak on third reading, and at that time make any further observations they may choose to make. But they are out of order now.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Richard Motherwell: My desire is to ask the minister one question before the bill leaves the committee. To what extent does the farmer debtor require to default in the payment of either principal or interest before he is eligible to appear before the various tribunals for redress? Must it be to the extent of defaulted interest, prinioipal, or both or either-or is there any extent?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no extent.


William Richard Motherwell: Well, if a debtor is behind say one year's interest he is eligible to appear?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Shall I report the bill?


Mr. FERLAND:: Mr. Chairman before
you report the bill. . . .
Farmers' Creditors Act


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: This is out of order.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think it is out of order.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Before the chairman reports the bill the hon. member may make his observations.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Once the last clause has passed there is nothing more to discuss. Hon. members may speak on third reading.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Not at all.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, before you report this bill, I simply want to move an amendment, without adding any observations on the different sections that have been adopted. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) that the following clause be added to the bill:
6. Section 18 of the said act is amended by adding to section 18 the following clause:
"The present act shall not apply to future debts which farmers contract after the day on which the act as amended comes into force."


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I have to
rule that the amendment is out of order. No new clause may be offered at this time. The short title has been passed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. Surely while we are in committee on the bill an hon. member may move to insert a new section. I understand the hon. member has moved in that way, and I submit he is in order to do so, before the bill is reported. I believe the minister would agree with me.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: My understanding of the rule is that no amendment proposing a new clause can be made after the last clause of the bill and the short title have been agreed to. At that time there is nothing left in the bill upon which discussion could take place.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is your basis for
such a decision?


William Richard Motherwell: I never heard of it


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Neither did I.


Mr. POWER:: When was the short title
carried?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The short title was carried and signed at the last meeting of the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: Well then, what has the chairman been allowing us to discuss for the last hour?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury? It should not have been allowed.


Charles Gavan Power: If the chairman, has been
so magnanimous to others I can see no reason why he should not extend the same generosity and courtesy to the hon. member moving the amendment.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The chairman was magnanimous because the discussion began towards the close of the last sitting of the committee.


Charles Gavan Power: With all due respect to the chairman-and I should not like to be disrespectful-I submit that is hardly a justification for having allowed the discussion to carry on all afternoon. If the hon. member for Joliette wishes at this time to move an additional clause to the bill I can see no reason why he should be precluded fiom doing so.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, I understand that by unanimous consent the house is sitting in committee to consider part of Bill No. 10. So, if we are authorized by unanimous consent to consider the bill, I fail to see why I should not be permitted to move an amendment thereto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have been relying upon
the ruling of the chair, because without consulting authorities I do not feel competent to express an opinion as to whether or not the ruling is correct. I have no doubt, however, that it must be because he has the authority before him. Whether or not a correct ruling has been made I submit to the hon. member moving the amendment that I ought at least to have had extended to me the courtesy of being supplied with a copy. I do not know what the amendment contains.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If it is
the will of the committee the amendment may be moved. Is it the will of the committee that the hon. member have leave to move the amendment?


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: In my
opinion, Mr. Chairman, he does not require the leave of the committee to introduce his amendment. That is an absurdity because at any stage of the proceedings on any bill any hon. member has the right to move any amendment to it. It is really reducing the

Farmers' Creditors Act
rules to utter ridiculousness if we are going to submit to this sort of ruling. It will simply mean that the amendment will be moved on the third reading. So neither the house nor the committee nor the chairman is going to get anywhere by making rulings of this sort.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Apparently it is the will of the committee that the hon. gentleman should proceed.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, the main reason for which I have decided to bring forth this amendment is that it was shown in this house that the bill presently under discussion amending the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, while liable to do a great deal of good to many farmers who will be able to avail themselves of this measure, will also greatly prejudice the farming class, which, on account of this legislation, will lose a considerable part of their credit. The object of my amendment is to prevent this measure from being applied to debts incurred by the farmers after its adoption. I do not see why future debts should be included in this bill.
The farmer's credit is practically gone; it has been eliminated by various circumstances. First, it has been cut down since a few years, because of the lack of a market for farm products. It was also considerably imperilled by this Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, passed by the dominion parliament at its last session. I understand that under the bill that we are now discussing a board of review can compel the creditors to accept a reduction *of debts, as regards principal, and interest as well. Farmers owe presently considerable amounts and, in my estimation, we should make this legislation applicable only to present debts and not to future obligations. Undoubtedly the farmers, on account of this federal legislation, will be unable to get further credit. I cannot blame a rentier or a small money lender for refusing a loan to farmers under such conditions, because a board of review may always interfere and make him lose part of his loan or force upon him some very prejudicial arrangement.
The debts with which farms are now burdened are of enormous proportions. According to a report laid before this house there are in Canada 728,623 farm owners or tenants, 583,706 of whom own their land. There are 126,120 in the province of Quebec, 156,678 in Ontario, 37,769 in Manitoba, 90,250 in Saskatchewan, 70,751 in Alberta and 21,211 in British Columbia.
Now if we consider the total debt on farm lands, we see that these farms are mortgaged for an amount of $726,026,500. Farm lands in the province of Quebec are mortgaged for an amount of $98,121,500, and those of Ontario for an amount of $210,315,900.
The farmers of Saskatchewan have incurred debts to the amount of S196,558,300 while those of Alberta have reached a total of $120,361,100, and the farm mortgages in Manitoba, a total of $67,157,500.
Now if we examine the municipal assessment on farms in this country, we find that a total of 88,791,349,010 is reached. In Quebec, the total assessment is $2,269,148,711 and in Ontario, $3,207,396,156. We find, that the number of agriculturists is comparatively low in relation to the total population of this dominion. It is easy to realize that our country, which should be mostly agricultural, has perhaps become over-industrialized. It is apparent that the population of this country has left the farm for the great industrial centres. Probably this lack of proportion between our rural and our industrial or commercial population is the cause of most of our difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, to help the farmer, the gov-vernment has seen fit to adopt this Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Whoever thinks that this legislation is going to cost the government a great deal is wrong; in fact, the gov-vernment will have nothing to pay. The cost of this aid to a restricted number of farmers will fall back on the small rentiers, the small money lenders or on the farmers who have sold their farms. As has been stated in this house very few farmers will profit by the act.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: Is the hon.
member for or against the act?


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: Ask the hon. minister's opinion.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not want an answer from the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) but from the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland).


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I do not
want the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) to question me; if he would be kind enough to listen to me, he will know whether I am for or against this law.


Vincent Dupuis: Could the
Postmaster General state his opinion?


Arthur Sauvé: Do not go
beyond your wit.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I am in
favour of extending to the farmers all the aid

Farmers' Creditors Act

possible, but before approving a bill of this importance we should study it and, if necessary, amend or modify it.
Both the act under discussion and the Canadian Farm Loan Act which has also been amended during the present session are twins, if I may say so.


Vincent Dupuis: They are
children of the same family who are bound to devour each other.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The Canadian Farm Loan Act puts about 90 millions of dollars at the disposal of our farming community. Don't let the farmers believe for one moment that all of them will benefit by that act, because, considering the enormous amount of farmers' debts or mortgages, as I have been showing, a relatively small number of farmers will be in a position to avail themselves of the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
The last named measure cannot be injurious to anybody, and it is a good point for it. It will be of assistance to those who will have the chance to avail themselves of its provisions, but I am quite sure it will not harm anybody. The same thing might be said of the Moratorium Act passed in the province of Quebec by the Taschereau government. One thing is sure, and that is that nobody has suffered any harm from it so far and that it has helped a great number of debtors. However, may I add, the Quebec moratorium measure has not gone far enough. Under that act, when a mortgagor is in a position to prove that he has paid his interest, whatever the interest may be, and also his taxes, except for the current year, he may avail himself of that act, but for only one year. To my mind, the act ought to go much farther and apply also to persons who are indebted in the ordinary way. There would be no inconvenience if the moratorium measure, in the province of Quebec, did not make any distinction between a mortgage and an ordinary debt, because experience had shown to me that, very often, a mortgagee will grant a delay to his debtor, whereas the ordinary creditor will have the mortgaged property sold. If I may offer a suggestion, I would say that the Moratorium Act, which I think has been wrongly criticized, might go much further and enact that a debtor who had been paying even a smaller rate of interest than was specified in his contract, say 3 or 4 per cent, could avail himself of that act.
As for the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) is painting it' in very rosy colours. I am glad to say
[Mr. Ferland.J
that the act will give relief to a number of farmers, but it will not save the farming community in general.
The Farm Loan Act is, so to speak, a beautiful' golden chest containing a fortune of ninety million dollars. The bad side of the act-I do not know whether it can be corrected in that respect-is that the government keeps the' key of this chest filled with gold. Under this act, the commission will be able to frame regulations, approved by order in council, and to fix the basis of valuation of the land and the farm buildings. That is the key of the Farm Loan Act. The act does not rest, therefore, on fixed and definite principles destined to guide the farmer belonging to one class or another, but opens the door to arbitrary action and to the essentially variable judgments of the members and representatives of the Canadian farm loan board, who, of course, will be appointees of the dominion government. It is therefore the key-


Arthur Sauvé: It is the control key.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The control key! Were the act to be administered in the proper spirit, with breadth ol view and generosity, taking into account not only the actual value of the farms at to-day's prices, but rather their intrinsic value based on the moral character of their owners, I would say that it is capable of giving satisfactory results. Of course, the future will tell us in what spirit it will have been administered, but it is far from certain that it will not be administered, as many act3 of the present government have been, in a spirit of political partisanship.
The Farm Loan Act has been in force prior to this session's amendments. We find that, since this government assumed office, 3,330 farmers from all parts of the country have taken advantage of its provisions and have borrowed a total of 87,347,600. I see that farmers of the province of Quebec have borrowed $2,977,300 under the act, although the farm mortgages in force in that province total $98,121,500. This means that, in Quebec, as in the other provinces, the Canadian Farm Loan Act has been of practically no advantage to the community.
Will the new Farm Loan Act operate to better advantage? All we know is that a larger sum has been placed at the disposal of the farmers. However, when I consider that the amount made available under the old act has not been fully used, since, out

of $15,000,000, $7,347,600 only have been loaned over a period of four or five years, I doubt very much whether, even with this chest of 90 million dollars, the farmers will be greatly aided if the delays of the past are to recur.
Through my amendment the act would not
apply to the future liabilities of the farmers. I wonder if any man familiar with the farmers' problems may logically and reasonably oppose the suggestion I make to the house. Why on account of this act should' the farmer be unable in the future to borrow a few thousand dollars or a smaller amount? Why leave the lender open to the risks resulting from the act such as it appears in the statutes?
It is absolutely true and undeniable, I submit, that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act deals a fatal blow to agricultural credit. If it is necessary to-day on account of the extraordinary situation of the farmers, it is because they are completely ruined, because their credit is destroyed, because the farming class is in a general state of distress and because the government does not deem proper to leave them at the mercy of their creditors and, in a large number of cases open to eviction from their farms. But I submit that if this measure be necessary, it is on account of the bad policies of the government, of the high tariffs, which protected industry alone and in aiming to protect industry brought trade, industry and agriculture to the threshold of bankruptcy. At least let us not legislate in such a way as to completely destroy whatever credit the farmer may still enjoy in the future. Let us confine ourselves to the present, for before long the people may regain their former confidence and more easily recover the credit they enjoyed in the past and thereby solve their own problems under more favourable conditions. But we will not succeed, if by means of this measure we empower a board of review to reduce the amount of future debts. To my mind, the government should confine themselves to the present situation and to the winding up of their general failure in the country.
What will happen, if my amendment does not carry?


Vincent Dupuis: It will be carried.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: The time will come when it will be impossible for any farmer to borrow money again. May I quote a few cases? In my own constituency of Joliette there are quite a number of

Farmers' Creditors Act
farmers, industrious and hard workers, who have been successful in preserving the property inherited from their ancestors and who have managed to improve the same and also raised large and fine families. During the last few weeks, I noticed-for I visit my constituency eveiy week-that the wealthier farmers, even those who have no visible debts or mortgages on their farms, are not even able to borrow any amount ranging from a thousand to two thousand dollars should they wish to help a relative or an intimate friend.
Only yesterday, one of the wealthiest farmers in the parish of St. Thomas de Joliette, called on me at my office in Joliette with the sum of seven hundred dollars as payment on account on a principal of a thousand dollars, after having requested an extension of time. I was compelled to agree to a further delay of a few days in which to raise the amount he required for the payment of a debt.
Another farmer from the parish of Ste-Elisabeth, who is free from any debts, vainly seeks to borrow a sum of a thousand dollars for a pressing need. It is unnecessary for me to mention any more such cases. Is it not a recognized fact that the farmer's credit is destroyed and completely gone? Everyone merely guesses and surmises at the causes which have ruined the farmers' credit. Honourable members sitting on the right side of Mr. Speaker are taking to task the Hon. Mr. Taschereau for having caused a moratorium act to be passed; he is accused of having destroyed the farmers' credit. However, the moratorium act in the province of Quebec does not deal at all with the capital nor the interest. On the contrary, it serves to protect those who lend money and compels the borrowers to pay their taxes, their interest and their insurance premiums, in order to secure any time extension.
On the other hand, some say that the legislation now before us is responsible for the farmers having lost their credit. In my judgment, the two main causes of this state of affairs are the selling at a loss of farm products, and in the second place, the legislation now before us. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, this legislation will prove beneficial, in particular cases, to a number of the farming community, but, as far as the farmers' credit is concerned, it will be harmful to the farmers generally. Then, would it not be wise, for the hon. members, to consider that no valid reason exists for doing anything likely to affect the farmers' credit in the future? If the farmers are so near ruination that it has become necessary to pass legislation of this kind, which directly
Farmers' Creditors Act

affects the citizens' rights and the creditors' privileges, I suibmit, on the other hand, there is no reason why it should apply to future debts. Should at any time circumstances show that such legislation has become a necessity, there would always be ample time to consider the opportunity of passing it, inasmuch as parliament meets at least once a year. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay, that my amendment be adopted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My hon. friend from
Joliette has submitted his amendment in French and I regret that I have not a sufficient knowledge of that language to give a literal translation of his remarks, much less to enable me to reply to him in the same tongue. As I understand it, in layman's language, he seeks by this amendment to make it clear that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act is not applicable to those obligations incurred by the farmer after the present bill is assented to. With respect to the principle that he has in mind, I am inclined to agree with him; at all events it is a fair subject of discussion, although I raise this question as to whether that amendment is designed to be of advantage to the farmer. It is an arguable question whether that is so or not. But it does seems to me that the main point is covered by the circumstance that this act will in the nature of things not be a continuing act; next session or the session following it may be repealed. It will apply only for such length of time as its usefulness is apparent. But I could hardly conceive of a case, even if this amendment were not passed, where a fresh borrowing could be the subject of adjudication under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. And when I say a fresh borrowing, I cannot conceive of an instance where a farmer, within two or three years after entering into contractual obligations, could present a set of altered circumstances that would enable him to go either before the official receiver or before the board of review.


Vincent Dupuis: Why not?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Well, to do so would be
prima facie evidence of bad faith; I should say that would be a fair inference, because the obligation would be incurred under conditions which we have every reason to assume will not be worse. The probabilities are that they will be better, and if the farmer finds himself in two or three years' time in the position suggested, assuming that the Fanners' Creditors Arrangement Act were in operation for that length of time,

then I should say the inference was that he had not disclosed circumstances which he ought to have made known in incurring the obligation in the first instance. That however is a matter that need not be laboured. If it is the sense of the committee that an amendment of this kind should be inserted, so far as I am concerned I have no objection.


Wilfred Hanbury: Will the chairman please read the amendment in English.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Mr. Ferland moves that the following clause be added:
6. Section 18 of the said act is amended by adding to section 18 the following clause:
"The present act shall not apply to future debts which farmers contract after the day on which the act as amended comes into force.


Wilfred Hanbury: With reference to the
remarks made by the Minister of Finance, I might point out to him that this amendment covers future debts. One of the points of this legislation that is worrying me is that if a farmer acting in the best of faith goes to his merchant desirous of buying $50 or $75 worth of goods, there is to-day no basis whereby the merchant can give him credit, because if he does, to-morrow or six months hence the farmer can go under the debt adjustment act and there is therefore no basis at all for credit. I suggest to the minister that this is an amendment that should receive the concurrence of the committee. I believe it is designed to help out those whom we are trying to help by the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and I really think it should be given very serious consideration before the government refuses it.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. member for
Vancouver-Burrard refers to the act as if anybody can invoke its protection to suit his whim. I do not think the act was designed for that purpose or has been administered to that end. It is merely a bankruptcy act for the farmer without the cost or the delay which characterize bankruptcy proceedings. When the hon. gentleman speaks of a farmer who might go to his grocer and might not receive credit because he could have recourse to this act, my hon. friend is entirely overlooking the fact that every hon. member is in exactly the same position. Everv citizen of Canada, the farmers excepted, has access to the Bankruptcy Act. I do not think the hon. gentleman wishes to insinuate that the farming class is dishonest or any more dishonest than any other class and would attempt to evade its responsibilities by appealing to the protection of this

Farmers' Creditors Act
act. After all the act is applied by people who are honest, competent and able, and a person may not merely go to the official receiver and say: I want the protection of this act. No; he has to go with a statement of his assets and liabilities. After they have been examined and scrutinized most carefully, then the official receiver calls in all the creditors, and after a lengthy debate in which all parties are heard, it is decided whether there is any reason to apply the act. I can assure the hon. gentleman that so far the fears which he expresses have not found their way into the experience of anybody who has had to do with the act.
The hon. member for Joliette went rather far afield. He told the committee that the farmer was in a difficult situation because of the activities of this government.


Vincent Dupuis: Lack of activity.


John Thomas Hackett: He went on to say how hard was the position of the farmer because he had lost his market. I do not wish to traverse ground which has been gone over so often. I do not think anybody who has graduated from the kindergarten of politics will tarry very long with that statement. Everybody knows not a single trade barrier has been raised against this country since the present government came into office. I am not attempting for a moment to insinuate or suggest-and even if I so wished, this is not the time to do it-that the attitude of the late government may have had something to do with the attitude of other countries toward us, but we must all admit that no market in which agricultural products have been sold has been closed to this country during this government's tenure of office. In faot our markets for agricultural products have been enlarged and vastly enlarged since the government came into office, and hon. gentlemen know that as well as I do.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Forty cents for butter.


John Thomas Hackett: That is about as near as my hon. friend can come to understanding. what a market means. I can tell the hon. gentleman, since he refers to butter, that the last year his party was in office 40,000.000 pounds of foreign butter were brought into this country, whereas now the Canadian farmer supplies our market.
Let us take up for a moment the second suggestion olf the hon. member for Joliette. He has suggested that the farmer has lost his credit and told us that he lost it some time ago. Then he attributes this loss of credit to the passing of this act a few months
ago. Then he asks that this act for which he voted should ibe amended in order to prevent loss of credit by the farmer. I fail to fallow his logic. The farmer may not have as much credit as he wishes, but this act is devised to rehabilitate the farmer; I think the farmer will be the first to acknowledge that the act has not caused loss of credit as the hon. member for Joliette has suggested. I do not think anybody is under the delusion that this act has brought loss to anybody. It was designed to do away with the confusion which has resulted from losses already made and to clear away the debris and give the farmer a chance to begin over again, to give him the opportunity that every other class of our population has by recourse to the Bankruptcy Act.
I have no particular objection to the amendment, but I think it is unfair to the farming class. Why should the farmer who has met with some great disaster, some great calamity, be shackled to the ball and chain of debt for the rest of his life while others are able to shake themselves free? I grant that my hon. friend is desirous of helping the agriculturist; I think everybody in this house is desirous of doing that. The fable tells of a bear that loved his master greatly. One day the master fell asleep and a fly perched on his nose. The bear to kill the fly dropped a stone of great weight on his master's face. I fear that my hon. friend, in his misplaced ardour, is about to render that kind of doubtful service to the farmers. I ask him to reconsider the amendment he has brought forward. If I thought that by any possibility it could 'be of assistance to the farmer I would support it heartily, regardless of the corner of the chamber from which iit comes, because I think that we are all desirous of helping the farmer in this most critical period of his economic life. But I cannot understand how legislation that would deny the farmer privileges that every other class enjoys would be Of help to him. Has the Bankruptcy Act injured the credit of the honest trader, of the honest financier, of the honest merchant, of the honest professional man? I do not think it has. Why should this act, which is the Bankruptcy Act modified only to the extent that the cost does not fall upon the estate of those who have recourse to it, be a hardship to those whose lot it seeks to alleviate? I suggest that this is a beneficent act and cannot hurt the farmer in any way. The suggestion which the hon. gentleman made that the farmer is dishonest and is going to seek refuge from payment of his debt-
Farmers' Creditors Act


Vincent Dupuis: Who said that?


John Thomas Hackett: My hon. friend suggested that everyone was going to seek refuge under this act, whether entitled to it or not.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order and privilege-


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. I have never said nor suggested that all the farmers would have recourse to this act, nor that they were all dishonest. I ask the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) to withdraw the words he has just uttered to that effect.


John Thomas Hackett: If the hon. member had followed the discussion, he would know that his friend, at his side, said exactly what he has just denied himself, and that the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) stated that no farmer would be able to obtain credit from a merchant-


Some Hon. MEMBERS (Translation):: That is not true!


John Thomas Hackett: -because
the day after or six months later he might take advantage of this act.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): That is not true! That is not true!


John Thomas Hackett: This act, Mr. Chairman, is far too serious to be trifled with. The underlying principle of it was carefully examined by this house as a whole only a few months ago, when every hon. gentleman opposite gave it unqualified and unanimous support. Unless it has been found unfair and prejudicial in its workings, unless hon. gentlemen can point out some abuses to justify the amendment, I fail to understand why the farmer should be denied the full benefit of this act, why the act should be truncated and mutilated at this stage just as it begins to function.


Vincent Dupuis: I have a few words to say again on this matter. I should not, had not my hon. friend from Quebec West, the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) done me the honour to mention my name.


Charles Gavan Power: In praise.


Vincent Dupuis: May I fancy that it was in praise? I suspect it was not.
I shall answer the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett) first. He said in answer to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland) that it was not true that this country, and especially the farmers, were in a state of starvation and therefore had to seek the advantage of this legislation. He suggested that

the farmers were happy and prosperous and their purses filled with money. That was the trend of his remarks. Further he said that since this government have been in power nothing has been done to injure the prosperity of the farmer. No tariff was raised, he said. I dislike to contradict so distinguished a member, but for the sake of truth I must do so. What about potatoes? They are important in the eastern townships as well as in Laprairie-N apierville.


Wilfred Hanbury: And lumber.


Vincent Dupuis: I might paraphrase the Scriptures and say that man does not live by potatoes alone, yet they are important. The tariff on potatoes has been raised to 75 cents per 80 pound bag by the Bennett government since 1930. If the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) or the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) who is now laughing while his electors are starving-


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Vincent Dupuis: Laughing and spending their time-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Order. The hon. gentleman raises a point of order.


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member stated that I was laughing.


Vincent Dupuis: No, I do not believe the hon. gentleman is capable of laughing.


Onésime Gagnon: And he drew the conclusion that I was laughing at the plight of the farmers. I assert most emphatically that at no time since the hon. gentleman began to speak have I laughed.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: That is true.


Jean-François Pouliot: He should cry about the sins of the government.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I accept the assertion of my good friend from Dorchester. I do not believe he is able to laugh anyhow. But I did not mention him, I was speaking about the hon. member for Compton.


Mr. GOBEIL:: He laughs once in a while at you.


Vincent Dupuis: And it is very proper that he should do so now, because it is his last chance.


Samuel Gobeil: Wait and see.


Vincent Dupuis: So if we can leave Compton and come back to our potatoes, which are more important.

Farmers' Creditors Act


Samuel Gobeil: More to the point.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, a very important point, and the point on which the hon. member will trip and fall.


Paul Mercier: Stick to the potatoes.


Vincent Dupuis: A single potato will be enough for him to fall over. The tariff on potatoes was raised by this present government.


Samuel Gobeil: And on something else too.


An hon. MEMBER:: When?


Vincent Dupuis: From 1930 to date. I have not the date in my mind but I defy anyone to your right, Mr. Chairman, to say it is not true. Before 1930 the tariff was 50 cents a bag and it is now 75 cents.


John Thomas Hackett: Who raised the tariff?


Vincent Dupuis: The Prime Minister, because the hon. gentleman had nothing to do with it nor had any other minister of the crown. With all the respect I have for them, they are not responsible; it is only the Prime Minister who has done it.


Mr. STANLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege.


Paul Mercier: There is no privilege on potatoes.


George Douglass Stanley: The hon. member has stated that since the present government came into power the tariff on potatoes was raised from 50 to 75 cents a bag. That statement is entirely and absolutely incorrect, and I want to correct the hon. gentleman.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman? The hon. member will have his turn later, if he is still in the house.


Samuel Gobeil: Answer the question.


Vincent Dupuis: I reaffirm my statement, and I defy any hon. member opposite to contradict it. The tariff was increased from 50 to 70 cents on an eighty-pound bag, after 1930.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: In 1929.


Mr. MYERS:: By the Dunning budget.


Vincent Dupuis: If potatoes hurt hon. gentlemen opposite so much I will give them barbed wire. What about barbed wire?


Mr. SPENCE:: If you know as little about it as you do about potatoes you had better quit.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I am a little disturbed by hon. members to your right, but nevertheless I will proceed to answer my good friend from Stan-stead. There was a tariff increase of 25 per cent on barbed wire.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the proposed amendment.


Vincent Dupuis: If you were in my place, Mr. Chairman, and an opponent told you the tariff was not raised and that this government did not bring about the situation of the farmers, I suppose you would try to answer such arguments if, in your own mind, you believed they were not correct. That is what I am doing.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. gentleman knows that has nothing to do with this amendment.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We in this comer have been ruled out of order a number of times to-day, I presume quite properly. Certainly the discussion that is going on now is further away from this bill than anything that came from this corner of the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I respectfully suggest to the committee that we have covered a very wide field. Personally I do not object, but I do submit to hon. gentlemen that it would be ill advised to precipitate a prolonged budget debate on an amendment moved at the conclusion of the consideration of a bill which has been before the house for several days, especially in view of the circumstance that we will have a budget debate when ample opportunity will be given hon. gentlemen to thresh out these and other questions affecting the tariff to their hearts' content. I hope hon. gentlemen will not for one moment suggest that I am lecturing the committee, but in these circumstances I think we might confine our remarks to this bill and leave the budget debate to a subsequent date.
If I may be permitted to say another word, so far as this amendment is concerned I have a completely open mind. If it is the wish of the committee that an amendment in this sense should be added I have no objection; I am quite content that it should be left to the judgment of the committee. As I indicated a while ago I do not believe it would matter very much one way or the other, because the whole question of the time for which this act will operate will have to be determined. But if in the judgment of the committee it is thought desirable to add an amendment in this sense, I shall be quite content. I have
Farmers' Creditors Act

only one observation to make in that respect, that if it is decided to amend the bill in this way I think the wording of the amendment would have to be altered, because it is not phrased in the best possible way. If in the judgment of the committee the amendment should not be accepted well and good; if it is then I would ask that it be reworded.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks in regard to the observations of the hon. member for Stanstead, who I may say has a very convincing argument in connection with this legislation. I wish to point out to him, however, that a farmer's credit is not always something the farmer can regulate. At the present time of necessity the farmers must go to the merchants in the towns throughout Canada in order to get the necessities of life to carry them over until such time as they have something to sell. The farmers buy from retail merchants who in turn must buy from wholesale merchants, and the banks come into the picture through the credit they extend to wholesale and retail merchants. Rightly or wrongly in Canada to-day there is the feeling that as a result of legislation, both provincial and federal, the farmer has not the credit which he should have, and I am referring to the good farmer as well as the bad. I think it would be in the interests of the farmer himself if this amendment were passed, because it would be an indication that the good farmer was able to give the protection which his credit justified. I can see no harm in the amendment; on the contrary I can see much good in it.
The hon. member for Stanstead, inadvertently I am sure, stated that I had said this was class legislation. I never made that statement. I did say so in connection with the farm loan bill but not in connection with this measure. I just make that correction so that the hon. member for Stanstead need not take the trouble to go through his Hansard to check me up.
I wish to make only one further remark in reply to the hon. member for Stanstead, with all due respect to the ruling of the chair. The hon. member for Stanstead stated that no tariffs were raised during the life of this government against the farmers of Canada. I would refer him particularly to the duty on lumber going into the United States.


John Thomas Hackett: Is that a farm product?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All those in favour of the amendment will please say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Those
apposed will please say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Does the committee wish to vote?


Mr. SPENCER:: Mr. Chairman, we cannot hear your ruling.


Paul Mercier: I understood that the amendment was accepted.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I said that so far as I was concerned it was in the hands of the committee as to whether it would or would not accept the amendment, and that if the amendment should be accepted it would have to be reworded. If it is rejected we need not consider the wording.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: What is the personal view of the Minister of Finance?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already expressed my view, I may say to my hon. friend. I do not believe it really matters. I would not say this amendment was surplusage, but I do not think it would have any effect in connection with the obligations hereafter incurred because the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will have passed out of existence, I have every right to assume, before any obligations would be considered which have been incurred recently.


William Irvine: I understand that you have taken the vote Mr. Chairman, but hon. members are going to discuss the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: What is the amendment?
Amendment negatived: yeas, 15; nays, 45.


Charles Gavan Power: I was paired with the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RINFRET:: I understood the minister left the matter to the decision of the committee. I believe I am paired with the Secretary of State, but I voted, because I thought I was allowed to. I should like to

Meat and Canned Foods Act
make an explanation. I hope I did not display to the Secretary of State any lack of courtesy.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No pairs.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



MEAT AND CANNED FOODS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act to provide that the governor in council may from time to time prescribe a tariff of fees that shall be charged for the inspection of canned fish and shell fish.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Explain.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister ol Fisheries):: Mr. Chairman, the sole purpose of the amendment is to regularize what has been done in recent years with regard to fees. Perhaps I should read the explanatory note in the bill.
Section 4 of the Meat and Canned Foods Act authorizes the governor in council to make such orders and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the act as seem necessary for carrying out its provisions. Section 18 of the aot authorizes regulations for the inspection of canned fish and shell fish. By order in council of April 4, 1932, regulations for the inspection of all canned salmon packed in British Columbia were adopted. Section 20 of these regulations provides for a fee for inspection at the rate of one per cent per case. The fee is a reasonable one, and at present covers only the cost of inspection. No difficulty has arisen in the collection of the fee, but there is room for doubt as to whether, in the absence of a specific statutory provision, it can be legally required. As fees paid in the past are not recoverable, the amendment does not need to be retroactive.
There is no question but that the act gives the minister power to grant licences, but the question has been raised as to whether or not the governor in council by regulation may prescribe a tariff of fees. It is to insert such provision in the act that the amendment is suggested.


Mr. NEILL:: I believe the last remarks of the minister apply to the next resolution on the order paper. We are not dealing with the resolution concerning the tariff on licences.


Grote Stirling: We are dealing with the amendment to the Meat and Canned Foods Aot.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. I believe in some
measure I am subject to blame, or to credit, for this resolution being brought forward, and for the legislation which may be based upon it. In 1932, when the government introduced a most elaborate system of inspection of canned salmon, a system far different from that which had previously existed, I protested not against the principle of the inspection of fish, which was very necessary, but against the method by which the inspectors were selected, and also the way in which the charges were made.
That my objections had some weight is borne out by the fact that only a few months later it was necessary substantially to amend the regulations, and the same procedure was followed in the next year. One of my objections was that I thought it was not fair or just, and hardly legal, that the canners should be picked out and compelled by regulation to pay what really amounts to a very large sum for the inspection of their product. I shall deal with that point later on. At the end of the session I took up the question of the legality of the measure, and stressed the argument that the government had no authority to impose substantial taxation-because that is what it amounts to-on any one industry, by means of regulations made in pursuance of a modest and obscure section in an act giving the government power to make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the act. Certainly the government has power to make regulations for carrying out the provisions of the act, but they have no power by regulation to make a totally different law. They might as well put something about customs duties in it- in fact in one instance I believe they did- or make a regulation compelling people to be cremated.
That my views have prevailed is evidenced by the fact that the present legislation is before us. I wish to take advantage of the opportunity now afforded to deal with the matter of charges levied against the canners. The Meat and Canned Foods Act is general, and the provisions are such that they apply to the inspection of any product. The act provides that commodities shall not be sold unless they are inspected, and that they must be sound, wholesome, and so on. These are sections of a general character. Then regulations are made dealing with products such as vegetables and preserved fruits, and there are further regulations dealing with fish.
I notice that in the canned foods act the section dealing with the inspection of pre-
Meat and Canned Foods Act

served fruits and vegetables lays down that the inspector shall be appointed by the government and, inferentially at least, be paid by the government, and we do know that he is paid by the government. The act calls attention to various things. The inspector has tc visit the cannery, notice the sanitary arrange ments and so on, see that the fruit shall bt wholesome, but his inspection is devotee largely to this point:	He has to go there
and see the operations of the cannery, set that the conditions are cleanly and that the fruit is wholesome, that any dyes that are used are sound and wholesome, and then he gives a certificate. Any stuff that is exported carries this certificate by the inspector:
I have examined . .. containers or packages-
I ask the house to notice that; he can examine as many or as few packages as he likes.
I have examined .... containers or packages taken from various parts of the shipment, and judging by the markings thereon I would consider said packages and containers were marked to meet the requirements of the "Meat and Canned Foods Act," and the regulations made thereunder.
That is quite all right, but is that the principle embodied in this resolution? Not at all. In the case of meat and butter and vegetables and so on, the inspector is paid by the government. He goes and inspects a carcass of beef. He does not have to cut off a chunk of the beef to inspect it. He can see its condition. But in the inspection of canned goods it is quite different. But there is no provision in the act where it deals with fruit saying how many cans the inspector must open. The whole purpose of the regulations and of the act is that the inspection shall be of the stuff while it is being manufactured. The inspector does not sit down and wait until the stuff is all put in cans and then come around, as they do with fish, and confiscate a comparatively large proportion of the product. The inspector simply bases his decision in the case of fruit on what he sees in his inspection of the cannery, and if necessary he has the power to take one or two cans and open them, but there is no compulsion on him at all to open any particular number of cans, nor is there in the case of meats packed in the packing houses.
But let us look at the picture that is now proposed, and that has been in force three years in connection with the unhappy salmon canners. First of all the canner has to pay for everything, and he has to pay for the inspection of his product in two ways. He pays through the nose. He begins by paying one cent a case. Now the ordinary
[Mr. NeillJ
large canning company will pack 100,000 cases of salmon, and at one cent a case that means a charge of SI,000. They call it an inspection fee. That sounds very nice, just an inspection fee. It sounds like something you carry around in your pocket, but it is $1,000. Does the beef man and the fruit man have to pay $1,000 for his inspection? Not a bit. Then why should the cannery man?
There is a further tax, and a quite substantial one. The last order in council- they have been varied a good many times- prescribes, I don't know why-it is not the case with fruit and other stuff-exactly how many cases are to be drawn out of a given number, and one tin has to be taken out of each one of those cases and opened, and of course it is lost. Who pays for that? Again it is the canner. But the man with a side of beef does not have to lose anything on his beef if it passes muster. But the poor canner loses every tin that is opened. In the case of other produce the inspector might open certain tins and then be inclined to say, "This shipment was all put up on the same day or the same two or three days, and I assume the rest is of the same quality." But he cannot do that when he inspects canned fish. It is fixed by the regulations that he must open so many cases and take out of each case one tin, and of course each tin opened is lost, and that is all done at the expense of the canner. One would suppose that it would be enough to make him lose that without making him pay in addition $1,000 for the privilege of that inspection.
Then there are different classes, and you do not have to draw so many cases in the higher classes. You have to take eighteen cases out of every hundred cases and draw one tin out of each of those eighteen. That will carry you up to 500 cases. I notice that as usual the greater expense is put on the small man. The small man would probably not draw out more than 100 cases of salmon at a time but eighteen cases have to be drawn out of the 100 cases,, and as I say every one of those cases has to be opened and a tin taken out. Now, in the case of a pack of 100,000 cases, eighteen cases out of 100 would mean taking out 18,000 cases, out of each of which a tin has to be taken. That means that another tin has to be put in and the case nailed up again. That costs something. If you take the other extreme of the class, which runs from 101 to 500, if you get 500 cases inspected at one time they have to take only the same number, eighteen out of 500. That would be 3,600 cases which would have to be opened

Meat and Canned Foods Act
and a tin taken out of each. Now as to costs -I am speaking of the more valuable grade of sockeye salmon. The loss on these tins would amount to 375 cases or something like $5,600 through the loss of the tins opened, in the case of the lower regulation, and the inspector has no discretion at all. He has got to open a case and take out that tin and throw the contents away, one tin out of each case. On the other hand, under the higher regulation, he would not have to take out so many and the loss would amount to only $1,125. But that is in addition to the $1,000, at the rate of one cent a case, that the canner has already paid for the inspection fee.
The whole thing is wrong. This is not the time for me to make some comments on the system of appointing these inspectors. Perhaps I will have an opportunity later. But the whole system is wrong and my strictures upon it three years ago have been wholly justified. But that is not the point at the moment.
The inspectors are appointed, by the way, on the recommendation of the people who have to pay them and whose stuff they are going to inspect, men who are in the same business as the canners themselves and competing with them. They are appointed by the government, we will suppose, and they are paid by the canner. It involves a heavy expense, unparalleled in the inspection of any other article. Does the cheese man have to pay the equivalent of one cent a case for every cheese that is inspected? Not at all. The government carries the expense of that as a contribution towards the advantages accruing from a higher grade product. Why should the salmon canner, who is running in very hard luck these days on account of competition and so on, be penalized because the government have seen fit, quite properly, to have his stuff inspected. If we make the cannery man pay for the inspection of his stuff, I hope the others will be made to pay for the inspection of their stuff.
As I say, there is a double charge to the canner. First of all he has to pay one oent a case, and that is quite a substantial tax; it is not a fee at all. Then he has to lose every tin that is opened, and the inspector is compelled to open these tins and throw them away It is a heavy expense for the canner. Surely that should be a sufficient imposition upon him without having to pay one cent a case as well. I submit to the minister that before he brings down the bill he might take that feature into consideration.
I do not think there is anything further that I can add. There is the case, and as far as I know it cannot be combatted. It is not fair for the industry, and I do not think it has a parallel in any other industry in Canada to-day.


Grote Stirling: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member has taken the opportunity of levelling some pretty considerable criticism in detail at the resolution stage. It would appear to me that it would be more desirable to proceed with the details at a later stage. If we could get the bill on the order paper, later on in the committee stage it would be more proper, I think, to take up these very detailed criticisms of the suggestion contained in the amending measure. Would that be suitable to the committee?


Alan Webster Neill: I suppose I shall have to accept that if the minister cannot see his way to make a pronouncement. But what is the object in going into committee on any resolution? Is it not to discuss in a general way the principle of the proposed legislation? The minister says, wait until the bill is brought down. But in that event the bill will have been printed without attention having been drawn to the point I have raised. I think I was justified at this stage in bringing the matter up so that the minister might be made aware of it, and before introducing the bill he might consider the point and in his judgment, possibly, accede in some degree to the representations I have made. That was my only idea in bringing it on at this stage. However, if he wishes to report the resolution I have no objection.


Grote Stirling: As I have already explained, this is an extremely simple amendment empowering the governor in council from time to time to prescribe a tariff of fees. My hon. friend goes into the whole matter of inspection, in some considerable detail, and I suggest that that can be discussed at far greater length and more properly in the committee stage of the bill, whether it be in the committee of the whole house or before the fisheries committee, however the house might decide to deal with the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: Does the minister indicate his willingness to send it to the fisheries committee?


Grote Stirling: I have no objection to its going to that committee.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I cannot understand what object there is in sending it to the fisheries committee. It is a bill to permit the charging of fees, and has nothing to do
Fisheries Act

with the general provisions of the act. We should like to oblige the hon. gentleman, if there were any object in sending it to the fisheries committee, but when the bill is brought down he will perhaps again raise his point.


Alan Webster Neill: As the minister has said, the bill is a very simple one on the face of it; it only says that the minister shall have power to prescribe these fees for inspection. But my point is that they should not charge any fees. If it is not illegal it is highly unfair to charge them at all, and that is why I suggested that it would be better to have it discussed in the fisheries committee.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stirling thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 25, to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES ACT, 1932

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932, to provide that except where licence fees are prescribed in the act, the governor in council may from time to time prescribe the fees that shall be charged for fishery licences.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (South Cape Breton) in the chair.
Grote Stirling: Perhaps I might read the explanatory note of this bill:
Section 34 of the Fisheries Act gives the governor in council authority, amongst other things, "to forbid fishing except under authority of leases or licences." There was similar authority in previous Fisheries Acts since confederation. Under it, regulations have all along been adopted by order in council requiring, for idministrative purposes, that licences must be jbtained before engaging in certain kinds of fishing, and specifying fees for such licences. While no difficulty has arisen in the collection of the fees, there is room for doubt as to whether in the absence of specific statutory provision, fees can legally be required. As fees paid in the past are not recoverable, the amendment does not need to be retroactive.
The exception referred to is section 9, subsection 4, of the act, which provides a fee of fifty dollars for hunting whales in Hudson bay.
As a lease implies a rental the charge would not come within the category of a fee.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any regulations in this proposed bill that would have application in the province of Quebec?


Grote Stirling: Not particularly so, in the province of Quebec. The Fisheries Act was consolidated in- May, 1932, and this omission, if it may be called an omission, was not then discovered; but it has been directed to the attention of the department since, that whereas permission under regulation to grant licences is unquestionably there, the permission to charge fees for those licences is not. It is intended to correct that situation.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stirling thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Salaries, including amounts required to pay allowances to office appliance operators, grade 2, operating mechanical audit card punching machines in accordance with the terms of order in council P.C. 280/383, dated February 17, 1930, and to pay allowances to typists, grade 1, emploved cutting stencils in accordance with regulations approved by order in council; and to provide for continuance in office of G. C. Anderson, as superintendent of mail contracts from April 1,	1935 to March 31,	1936,
$1,130,102; contingencies, $172,720.
Ernest Lapointe: May I ask whether a
deputy minister has been appointed? If not, why the delay?


Arthur Sauvé: The question is now under consideration.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to hear
that the question is under consideration. Will my hon. friend say how long it has been under consideration,?


Arthur Sauvé: I cannot say now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I ask the honourable Postmaster general whether the deputy minister will be appointed by the present minister?


Arthur Sauvé: I do not hold
sufficient power over divine Providence to give a reply now.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Do you submit that this is a desperate case?


Mr. VENIOT (Translation):: It is a reserved case.

Supply-Indian Affairs
I wish to ask the minister one question. I understand he does not intend to go on with any more of these estimates to-night?


Arthur Sauvé: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingencies, $135,655.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister
kindly give us the reasons for the increase, which appears to be $2,774?


Hon T. G. MURPHY (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: The small increase is to provide for the salaries of three employees who last year were paid from the departmental vote and this year are being paid from the civil government vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister tell us who they are?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: A stenographer, Miss
Cherry; a typist, Miss Murphy, although she is in no relation of mine, and a stenographer Miss Walker.
Sir EUGENE FliSlET: Were these clerks who are now being absorbed into the civil service only temporary before?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: If so, was this done with the consent of the civil service commission ?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Miss Cherry and Miss Murphy are permanent employees who were transferred last year from the immigration department to the Department of Indian Affairs and were paid from the departmental vote. This year they are being paid from the civil government vote.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: In the last year has any change been made in the minister's department in regard to translators?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: We had one translator in the Department of Indian Affairs. That translator is now I believe transferred to the bureau for translations, but he is still connected with the Department of Indian Affairs and doing the translation work there.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is that an Indian translator?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: He translates from French into English and from English into French. He is, I believe a French Canadian by birth.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
To provide for expenses connected with the administration of Indian Affairs, including salaries, supplies, relief, medical attendance, hospitalization, dwellings, agricultural activities, surveys, roads, bridges, irrigation, dyking, education, et cetera, and a grant of $100,000 approved by parliament in session of 1926-27, $4,260,000.
Mr. GERSHAW:: Could the minister give us some explanation of how supplies are purchased for the requirements of the Indians on the various reserves, such as hardware, lumber, groceries and general supplies of that kind?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Supplies are purchased in two ways. First, we contract at the beginning of the season for certain general supplies for the use of Indians throughout Canada. In other words the experience of years has taught us how we may anticipate the demands. There are always a certain number of destitute and aged Indians and we are also under treaty obligation with certain bands to provide them with certain supplies. We anticipate these requirements and contract for them early in the season, obtaining prices on tender forms. These supplies are then purchased and shipped at the most advantageous time to different reserves. To certain reserves it is necessary to ship goods early in the season, as they have to go in by dog train, or at other times by boat. If by dog train we endeavour to ship them early in the season in order to make use of the ice and thereby secure a more advantageous route. Needless to say we are not able to anticipate all our requirements, so it is necessary to supplement those contract supplies by purchases later in the year. These purchases are made by the various agents in charge of the reserves, or other officers whose services we utilize. These supplies are bought to the best advantage either locally or from wholesale merchants, in whatever manner seems best to the agent or the department.


Frederick William Gershaw: That is just the point I wanted to bring out. When extra supplies are required during the year I understand they are purchased by the Indian agent, as the minister says, to the best advantage. Does he call for tenders or competitive bias from all those dealing in the particular lines of goods required, or has he the privilege of
Supply-Indian Affairs

going to a particular store and ordering the supplies without giving others a chance to bid?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It depends to a certain extent on the amount of Ithe purchase. If it is an appreciable amount, tenders are requested and the order placed with the lowest tenderer. Certain supplies of small amount the agent purchases to the best advantage without calling for tenders.


Frederick William Gershaw: Suppose a dozen cook stoves are required, would that be an order of sufficient size to make it necessary for the agent to advertise for tenders and accept the lowest satisfactory tender?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: 
Frederick William Gershaw: Could the minister state any sum at which it would be necessary to call for tenders? Suppose the value of the order was $100, would the agent be obliged to ask for tenders?
'Mr. MURPHY: There is no sum set at which tenders are required. It depends upon the circumstances of each. case.


Mr. McPHEE:: Does this item include anything for the construction of an electric transmission line from Kamsack to St. Phillip's mission?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, that is provided for in our estimate as submitted.


George Washington McPhee: Whait is the amount provided, and the nature of the work to be done?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The sum of $5,500 is indicated for that item.


George Washington McPhee: Will tenders be called for for the construction of that line, or will an arrangement be made with the town of Kamsack which supplies the electric power?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Until our estimates are finally passed we could not of course make any arrangement for the building of the line. If I understood the hon. member correctly he stated that the town of Kamsack own their power plant?


George Washington McPhee: Yes.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Under those circumstances it is possible-although I am not committing .myself to a future course of action-that the town oif Kamsack would be consulted or asked to give a price. However, I am not committing the department to that course of action. Until the estimates are passed we are in no position to call for tenders or consider how it should be done.


George Washington McPhee: Surely in providing for an appropriation of $5,500, the minister must have had something in mind as to how the money was to be spent.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The money is to 'be spent for the building of the line, and we will build it to the best advantage, applying ordinary business principles.


Mr. BROWN:: I do not suppose the question I wish to ask properly comes under this item, but I do not know where else or when else to ask it. How many Indians have been enfranchised under the legislation of two years ago?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: None.


Mr. SANDERSON:: There is an increase
of $320,500. That is a very substantial increase, and I should like the minister to explain it.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: For administration services there is an increase of $26,000; for Indian education an increase of S190,000; for medical services an increase of $55,000; for aids to Indians an increase of $39,000, and for irrigation, roads and so on an increase of $10,500.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister
explain the increase of $26,000 in administration?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is divided into three parts, one for urgent repairs to Indian agency buildings, two for the purchase and operation of equipment such as motor cars, boats and so oni, and three to provide for the 1934 amendments to the Salary Deduction Act. Last session we passed an amendment to the Salary Deduction Act by which salaries of $1,000 or less were exempted from the deduction. This is the increased amount it is necessary to pay to those receiving $1,000 or less. The deduction does not apply now, and we have to make provision for that extra amount. It was not a charge on the funds of last year, when the money was paid from another vote.


Eugène Fiset: I wonder if the
minister would be kind enough to inform me what classes of Indians are entitled to these

Supply-Indian Affairs
supplies. I should like to know also if the Indian agents furnish only actual supplies or if they provide money as well. Further I should like1 to know if the half-breeds are entitled to this help as well as other Indians.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Some Indians receive supplies under the various treaties which have been entered into between the Indians in question and the crown. Others are supplied because they are destitute or ill. Others are looked after because, like other people, through no fault of their own they have been unable to provide a livelihood for themselves. The only Indians who receive money are those who receive it under treaty or from the interest funds of the band to which they belong, provided they have a capital sum to their credit with the dominion government.


Eugène Fiset: I had in mind some special cases in the province of Quebec. I wrote the minister a few days ago asking if halif-breeds who are living in the county of Rimouski at the present time and who are absolutely destitute would be entitled to re^ ceive any supplies from the Indian agent at Cacouna. I understand this agent buys supplies and distributes them to the different Indians in the counties of Rimouski and Matane. I am anxious to find out from the minister particularly whether half-breeds would be entitled to receive such supplies from the department.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No, supplies are not furnished to half-breeds. Only the Indians who come within the definition of the Indian Act are supplied.


Frederick William Gershaw: I wonder if the minister
would1 be good enough to explain to me a little further about those supplies, particularly in regard to drugs and medical supplies. How are the Indians on the reserves looked after in this regard?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The drug supplies are furnished to the medical officers on the reserves, or in some cases to missionaries or others where we have* no medical men. The department obtains these supplies from the Department of Pensions and National Health in Ottawa, and they are forwarded to the various agencies throughout Canada. In addition to that, of course, medical men who are called upon to provide medical attention to these Indians may write prescriptions for sick Indians and have them filled at local drug stores, or if necessary they may purchase supplies locally if those furnished by the department are not sufficient or are not of the kind required in any particular case.


Mr. REID:: I wonder if the minister would mind telling the committee if it is intended to construct any Indian schools in British Columbia during the coming year, also if any were constructed last year and if so where.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In British Columbia we
propose to spend the sum of $200 to complete a building for day school purposes at Fort Macleod; $100 to complete a building for day school purposes at Fort Grahame, and SI .500 to erect a new school building at Campbell River.
Mr. MoPHEE:	Reverting to the matter
of constructing a transmission line from Kam-sack to St. Phillip's mission, I wanted to ask the minister another question but another member came in ahead of me. Naturally in the construction of this line the superintendent of utilities of the town of Kamsaok would be in charge, because they have to supply the power. The request I want to make is that the minister have the work done by day labour, which would enable many of the unemployed men of Kamsack to find work, and of course the construction would have to be carried out to the satisfaction of the superintendent of utilities, who is in charge of the power plant.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In carrying on works of
this nature it is our general policy when work is done by day labour to utilize the services of the Indians to as great an extent as possible, and we would probably follow that policy in the construction of this line.


Mr. SMOKE:: A year ago I took a few moments of the time of the committee to present the case of the Six Nations Indians on the reserve at Tuscarora, in the county of Brant. I pointed out that, these Indians always having been wards of the government, like other Indians of the dominion, funds belonging to the Six Nations Indians and in possession of the government of the day were improperly diverted, in breach of trust, for the purpose of building or helping to build a canal known as the Grand River navigation canal. The moneys then misappropriated, as I say, together with interest and other moneys advanced from time to time by the government of the day, amount in the aggregate to over $1,000,000. I am told that the contention of the Department of Justice is that this matter is outlawed or that the present government of Canada is not responsible for what was done by a previous government of this part of Canada. I cannot see it in that way. I do not wish to repeat the arguments I advanced last year, but I shall call to the attention of
Supply-Indian Affairs

the committee the concluding words of the reply the minister was good enough to make following my observations. He said, as reported at page 2416 of Hansard for 1934:
I wish to assure him-
And the minister was referring to me.
-that so far as I am concerned, within the limits imposed upon me I shall endeavour to see that justice is done.
I find nothing in the estimates to cover the expenditure I have suggested. I have not asked for an appropriation of a million dollars. I recognize that there is some merit-not very much-but some merit in the contention that the present government is not responsible for this expropriation of funds. I wish again to suggest to the minister that a substantial sum be placed in the supplementary estimates for the purpose I have suggested. Such an expenditure would go a long way towards wiping out the dissatisfaction which exists among the Indians who were wrongfully deprived of money. I would not expect the amount to be charged this year against income; it is really a capital expenditure which should be charged against capital. The expenditure should not interfere with the financial position of the government, so far as the revenues for the year are concerned. Again I ask the minister to consider the matter and if possible to place a substantial sum in the supplementary estimates for the purpose I have indicated.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The hon. member drew this matter to my attention last year when the estimates for the Department of Indian Affairs were under discussion. He has correctly quoted my remarks upon that occasion. I believe at this time I have nothing to add to my former observations, but I assure the hon. member that I shall be pleased to take the matter into the fullest consideration when supplementary estimates are being considered.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, there are some circumstances I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Last year I communicated with him in connection with a man named Edouard Moreau who lived at Ste. Agnes de Charlevoix, a village behind Murray Bay. In a letter addressed to me under date of March 16, 1934, the minister said the man in question should present himself to the nearest Indian agency and apply for relief, in which case he would receive the necessary attention. Ini this instance the nearest Indian reserve is at Bersimis, and the next two are at Seven Islands and Mingan. At those points are located the three large Indian reserves in my constituency, and all are at 
great distances from this man's home. Would the minister indicate what could be done in circumstances such as these? Then, at a place called Les Escoumains in the county of Saguenay, there is a small settlement of Indians. They have their quarters near the village. Apparently they do not belong to any of the reserves, but live on their own lands and are educating their children. I believe the children of these Indians go to the village school. It would seem however that they do not receive any grant. The next reserve is at Bersimis, a point about sixty or seventy miles away, and these people would not be in a position to travel that far. In such circumstances w'hat may they expect from the department?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the event of the Indians in question being located at points distant from Indian reserves they would be required to write to the department at Ottawa or, if they were unable to do so, have someone write for them bringing their condition to the attention of the department. In such circumstances proper arrangements would be made for their relief, in the event of their being in need. As I said a few moments ago, in some of the remoter areas where we find difficulty in having agents operate we have utilized the services of the missionaries. In other cases where there are only a few Indians at one point, so few in fact that it would not be proper to have an agent to look after them, the Indians or some persons on their behalf would write to the department, and in the event of its being shown that they were in need of food, fuel, clothing, or medical services, proper steps would be taken by ihe department.


Wilfred Hanbury: What amount is provided under the vote for the education of the Indians? Further, how long have we been educating Indians, and are those educational facilities supplied as a result of treaty arrangements? Is there any compulsion in matters of education?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, the total amount allotted for education in the year 1935-36 is SI,846,000. Where school facilities are furnished the Indian children are supposed to attend school. In other words compulsory attendance applies.


Wilfred Hanbury: Possibly the minister did not hear all my question. I asked how long we had been educating Indians, and to what extent the education had been given.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the first instance education began through the efforts of various

Supply-Indian Affairs
missionary societies in Canada, that is to say through the efforts of the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican church, which were followed in the work by the Methodist church *-now part of the United church-and the Presbyterian church. These religious bodies sent missionaries among the Indians, and in order better to explain their doctrines they attempted the education of Indian children. Many schools were organized throughout the dominion which, in the first instance, were carried on as the sole charge of the various churches. Then later-I cannot give the exact date- these churches made appeals to the dominion government for grants to assist them in the education of the Indian children. As a result the dominion government has for a number of years provided per capita grants to the various schools conducted by different church denominations. Again at a later point day schools were built on the reserves where the Idians had more or less settled habits. In that way the Indian child of to-day is obtaining or should obtain a public school education.


Wilfred Hanbury: Could the minister g:ve any information to indicate whether or not the education given to the Indian children has been of any real benefit, and in what way the results ars shown?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That is a question to which one could scarcely be expected to give a dogmatic or explicit answer, nor could one prove his answer were he called upon to do so. I have discussed the point with those in authority, and with people who are deeply interested in the education of the Indians in Canada, and they are unanimously of the opinion that the education has been beneficial to the Indians, and particularly to those who are living in what might be described as the more civilized sections of Canada. Where children living in the more remote districts are taken to points hundreds of miles distant and placed in residential schools, going back after their school term to the wilder parts of Canada to make their living by the chase, the results are not so satisfactory as in the case of those living in the more settled parts of the dominion. I am told by the church authorities particularly that on the part of children of former pupils of the residential schools there is a noticeable difference in the ability to absorb education; that is to say, the second generation attending school show more evidence of benefit than the first.


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I ask the minister
if there is any government inspection of assisted schools?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, the Indian schools are inspected by the various public school inspectors throught Canada with the exception of British Columbia and New Brunswick in which provinces the department employ its own inspectors.


Angus MacInnis: In regard to relief
assistance for needy Indians on the reserves, is there any definite schedule of relief?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No, there is no definite
schedule, because as the hon. member will realize the conditions on all the reserves are not the same, and the supplies that it may be necessary to furnish to the Indians in Ontario might vary considerably from the supplies necessary in British Columbia. The agents of course use their judgment in furnishing those supplies to the Indians who are in need, whether it be food, fuel, clothing or medical services.


Angus MacInnis: May I put my question
in another form? Suppose an individual or a family on a reservation applies for assistance, is there in British Columbia a definite schedule that applies in all cases?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is no definite schedule of supplies, but the agent is under certain limitations as to the supplies he may purchase for those in need.


Mr. VALLANCE:: There is a matter that I wish to take up with the minister, and I am wondering which of these four items he would wish me to bring it up on, item 184 dealing with Indians, or the item dealing with the government of the Northwest Territories, item 187, or item 189, government of the Yukon Territory, or item 190 dealing with dominion lands and parks. These are the only four items that I can find in the estimates, apart from the Department of the Interior, which the minister will be bringing before the committee. I have already drawn to the attention of the minister the fact that I wish to discuss on the floor of the house the matter of the old R.N.W.M.P. property in the old town of Battleford, and I should like to know on which item I should bring up this question.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That item would be properly discussed when the estimates of the Department of the Interior are before the committee. We are dealing now with the Department of Indian Affairs, which is a separate department from the Department of the Interior, although the same minister is in charge of both departments. I suggest to the hon. member that the matter might be properly discussed under the item dealing with dominion lands and parks.

Supply-Indian Affairs


John Vallance: There is no other item in the interior department that it would come under?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It can be discussed when the interior department estimates are before the committee.


John Vallance: Under the item for
dominion lands and parks?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, dominion lands and
parks being one branch of that department.


John Vallance: Very well.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I see in the annual
report of the Department of Indian Affairs for 1934, at page 22, this paragraph:
The north shore.-Along the north shore of the gulf of St. Lawrence, the Indians have been taking a marked interest in the fishing industry. At Mingan, Natashkwan, Romaine, St. Augustin and Moisie, the fishing is under departmental supervision. Salmon and cod are the principal marketable fish, and are a source of considerable income to the Indians.
I would like to know what comes under the heading of departmental supervision of the fishing that is done by the Indians? What kind of supervision does the department exercise, how many Indians are interested in this fishing, and what is the considerable income that they derive from it?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The supervision that is
given in this case would be given by the Indian agents. I am sorry I am unable to give any figures to the hon. member as to the results of the catch or as to the amount earned by the Indians by this fishing, but I shall be pleased to obtain any figures that are available and give them to the hon. member. I am sorry I do not have them here.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister let
me know if those timber limits in the Ber-simis reserve have been leased recently? 1 mean those timber limits which were under the control of the Brown corporation some years ago and were giving some revenue to the Indian fund.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am unable to give an
answer at the moment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I know that the leases
were operated by that company some years ago, but now nobody is operating them. Another question I would like to ask the minister is whether any roads were built last year or are intended to be built this year at Bersimis, Mingan or at Seven Islands, within the limits of those reserves?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: An item of $1,000 has
been provided for the completion of the main road in the Bersimis agency. It was started this year, and $200 is provided for repairs to three bridges.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any other
roads to ' be built in the reserves in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, in the Mingan reserve, at Bersimis or Seven Islands?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: No.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I ask if the agent
at Mingan has been replaced by a permanent appointee? Last year there was an advertisement of the civil service commission calling for the appointment of an agent there.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The present agent at
Mingan is M. G. Hamilton.
Mr. CASGRAI'N:	Has he been definitely
appointed?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am informed that no
permanent appointment has yet been made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When will it be made?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It is in the hands of the
civil service commission at the moment.


Thomas Reid: Have any leases been granted
in the Semiabmoo reserve?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have not that information before me but to the best of my recollection no lands have been disposed of there, though I speak subject to correction.


Thomas Reid: I wish the minister would look it up. Two years ago I urged that no further leases should be granted from that reserve. It is the intention ultimately to use part of the reserve for a park in conjunction with the park on the American side of the line. Individuals have been trying to obtain leases for building lots and I have urged that nc further leases be granted there. I should like the minister to obtain the information, because I have been informed that there have beer at least two more leases granted.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have no recollection of
any leases of land granted in that district but I shall be pleased to get the information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Did the minister last
year receive a letter from the Indian chief at Seven Islands and from other persons regarding certain complaints about the treatment he had received in hospital in Quebec? Last year I submitted a letter to the department and there was to be an investigation, but I have not heard, anything further since that time.

Supply-Indian Affairs


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Was the letter addressed
to myself or to the department?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: To the department.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am informed that the
matter was investigated by the department through the agent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has there 'been any
report regarding the accusations made at that time? There were some serious complaints against the agent and the request was made for an investigation.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am informed that an
investigation was carried out and the report is in the hands of the department.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I have a copy of
the report?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Certainly.


John Vallance: On page 77 of the
estimates, giving the details of civil government, I notice towards the bottom of the column provision for one packer and helper, $1,300. What function does this packer and helper perform in the Department of Indian Affairs? What does he pack and whom does he help?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: He is engaged in the packing of supplies for the various agencies-such supplies as stationery, school requirements and so on.


John Vallance: Is he a resident of
Ottawa?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes.


John Vallance: There is another item
-confidential messenger. To what Indian is he confidential messenger?


Wilfred Hanbury: And who is the Indian?


Mr.   MLTRPHY@: He is confidential messenger to the department at Ottawa.


John Vallance: To the minister?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: To the department, not
to the minister.


John Vallance: I see provision for a
director of medical services, $5,100. How many medical men are under the supervision of this officer?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The director of medical
services has a very important duty to perform. The health of the Indians in Canada is under his direction and responsibility, under the minister. As regards the number of medical men throughout the country, I cannot give any information offhand, but it would be considerable. There are 112,000 or 115,000 Indians in Canada, scattered from the Atlantic to the
92582-92}
Pacific, and some having habitation in the northwest territories. In the circumstances the hon. member will understand that it is necessary for us to avail ourselves of the services of a great many medical men. It would be easy to ascertain the number.


John Vallance: How many men have been added to the staff in the last three years? Does this medical supervisor report to the department, and, if so, is his report available to the house to show his findings in regard to the general health of the Indians throughout the country?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I cannot give the exact number of medical men who may have been added to the department in the last three years, and I am not clear in my mind as to vhat the hon. gentleman meant.


John Vallance: It is obvious what I mean.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Just a moment. As to whether the number have been augmented in the last three years, I do not think we have any more now than we had three or four years ago, with the exception of one or two. We did appoint a man for a very special duty, namely, to make a survey of the trachoma situation in Canada, but the numbers in general have not been increased. I doubt whether we have any more now than we had three or four years ago; the number would be approximately the same. As to the reports of the director of medical services, the hon. member will find them in the annual report. They are available to him at any time as a member of the house.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Has the minister given an explanation of the increase of $320,000?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, I have, but I shall be glad to give it again.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: I shall see it to-morrow in Hansard. With regard to supplies of coal at the Blackfoot reserve, Alberta, what was the total cost in the seasons of 1933, 1934 and 1935?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The total supplies of coal for that agency for all purposes are obtained from a mine on the reserve, and the coal is mined by Indians.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: I want to find out how much it cost in 1933, 1934 and 1935.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I have not that information before me but I shall be glad to get it.

Supply-Indian Affairs


Charles A. Stewart: Are all the Indian agents in the Northwest territories medical men?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: They are all medical men, although I should supplement my answer by saying that at the present time Doctor Bourget, who is situated near Great Slave lake, has found it necessary on account of illness to come out for a time, and it may be necessary to replace his services.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: What is the total amount of grant to the Indian school at the Blackfoot reserve? There are two schools there, one at Cluny and the other at Gleichen. Is it the same grant for each school or does it differ?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In this reserve there are two residential schools, the Crowfoot, with seventy-five pupils and a per capita grant of $149, and the Old Sun's, with a pupilage of one hundred and a per capita grant of $149.


Mr. PARENT:: I note that in the estimate for Indian Affairs $320,000 is asked in excess of last year's amount, and I also note that the estimate covers bridges, roads and other necessary works. May I ask the minister whether there is any appropriation for the upkeep and repairs of bridges on the road across the Indian reserve in the township of Doncaster, county of Terrebonne, province of Quebec? During the last two years correspondence has been exchanged with the department and the reply has been that there was no appropriation. As there is $320,000 more for next year, will the Department of Indian Affairs during the winter take care of the road crossing that Indian reserve and have the bridges repaired so that there will be no further accidents?-because some took place last year.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is in the estimates no appropriation for work on the road in question.


Louis-Étienne Parent: This is a public road about fourteen miles in length. It was built more than twenty years ago, and seven or eight years ago an agreement was made between the provincial government and the Department of Indian Affairs whereby each was to spend about $9,000, so that $18,000 was spent between the two governments. That was to repair and build bridges on the road from the parish of Ste. Lucie through the parish of La Merci in the county of Montcalm. The road has been in fairly good condition for six or seven years. Since this government has been in power, it has been very difficult to have the road kept in good repair and accidents

have taken place. I think some action has been taken against the government. It was claimed by the department that the road was not a public one, but it is a question whether a road that has been built and maintained and on which bridges have been constructed in conjunction with the provincial government, is a public one or not.
There was also a reply given by the department stating that the road into the parish of La Merci in the county of Montcalm had not been repaired. That was used as an argument by the department for not spending any more money on that road. But last year the provincial government spent the necessary amount of money to put its part of the road right through for about sixteen miles into perfect condition. The last reply we had from the Department of Indian Affairs was that the road was to be closed and signs were to be put at each end of it stating that it was not a public road and that the public using it did so on their own responsibility. I think that is a very bad step to take. The road to my personal knowledge has been open to the public for the past twenty years, and I think the necessary appropriation should be made and the road given proper attention. It is divided into three sections; one into the county of Montcalm in the parish of La Merci; a section of ten miles into the Indian reserve, and then about four or five miles into the parish of Ste. Lucie in the county of Terrebonne. Therefore each of the three parties is bound to keep its own sections in order that the public may not suffer from having a very bad road, especially in the winter when the road is blocked by snow. I am asking the minister to give his attention to the matter.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: As the hon. member has stated, there has been certain correspondence about the road in question. I am informed by officers of the department that there is only one Indian family living on the reserve. While I believe it is true, as the hon member has stated, that this road is a public one, that is, it serves the people surrounding the reserve, allowing them to travel from one place to another, I can only repeat what I said a moment ago: no appropriation has been made in the estimates for the road in question, I shall be pleased, however, as requested by the hon. member, to give the matter my attention.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I thank the minister.


Samuel William Jacobs: The minister a few minutes ago said that the Indian population of this country was from 112,000 to 115,000. Does

Supply-Indian Affairs
that comprise those who are wards of the government unemancipated, or all the Indians in the country, those emancipated and otherwise?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Those who are classed as Indians as defined by the act; that is to say, those who have become enfranchised are not classified as Indians after that action has been taken.


Samuel William Jacobs: Indians who are wards of the government live on reserves in different parts of the country. Do I understand that missionary supervision is provided for all those reserves?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: That depends on the missionary zeal of the various churches. I may say though that in practically every part of Canada the Indians are receiving religious instruction from various denominations. It may be that in some of the remoter parts of Canada they are not receiving religious instruction. If there are such I am not aware of it, because the department is continually receiving letters from the various denominations from every part of Canada. Prom my personal knowledge of the last four or five years I think it can be generally stated that the Indians throughout Canada are receiving religious instruction.


Samuel William Jacobs: That is they are attached to various Christian denominations, as I understand. Has the government anything to do with the allocation of those Indians to the various denominations? Do they settle which are to be Roman Catholics and which are to be continuing Presbyterians or United Church and so on?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The Indian exercises
freedom of choice the same as the white man. He may select his own church.


Samuel William Jacobs: But he has not the freedom of exercising the franchise while he is a ward of the government.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Only when he becomes enfranchised.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: A little while ago the minister informed the committee that the expenditures in respect to schools on the Blackfoot reserve in eastern Alberta were $149 per head. Are there any other expenses in connection with those two schools? If so, what are they?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I find that the sum of $200 is allocated for a windmill at the Old Sun's school and $1,400 to be used for the erection of a henhouse, pig pen, silo, and for paint for the buildings and barns.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: These expenditures are in respect to the Old Sun's school?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Those I have just mentioned, yes.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Are there any for the Cluny school?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is no specific item in the estimates for the school in question, although we have a general item on which we draw for the purposes of general repairs and such things.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: Have any requests been received during the year for additional expenditures in respect of the Cluny school?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, I am informed that there have been.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: What were they?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I am informed that last year there was a fire in the school, and that some $1,500 was spent during the fiscal year
1934-35 on repairs, and that certain other repairs have been requested, which are being taken care of out of the general item that I mentioned a moment ago.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: May I be assured by the minister that they will be taken care of?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: All necessary repairs will be attended to.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: We shall see
next year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How many Indians were enfranchised, if any, in the district of Charle-voix-Saguenay?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: None.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Could the minister tell us if the Indian fund, which belongs to the Indians and out of which they are supposed to receive grants, has been depleted or increased within the last year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: At the beginning of the fiscal year the total to the credit of the Indian trust fund was $13,580,007.18. At the end of the fiscal year it stood at 813,602,564.74-a slight increase.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where did the increase come from-interest earned, or new sources of revenue?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: It would come from
general sources such as sales of timber, pos-
Supply-Indian Affairs

sibly sales of land; and in addition it might be augmented by the interest credited by the dominion government at the rate of five per cent per annum, which may not all be used or distributed among the Indians.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Were there any sales
of land or timber on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I can assure the hon.
member that there was no sale of land. I would have to ascertain if there were sales of timber or any other resources.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the department
received any requests for leases of timber limits of which I spoke a few minutes ago in the Bersimis district?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The officials have made
a note of that request. I have not the information now but I shall be glad to get it.


Mr. EULER:: May these Indians leave
the reserves and become regular citizens of Canada with voting privileges?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: They are free agents,
that is to say there is no law which compels an Indian to remain on the reserve. He may leave the reserve and still be classed as an Indian, or he may apply to the department to become enfranchised, which action is taken if after investigation it is thought proper to do so. If he becomes enfranchised then he has the privilege of voting.


William Daum Euler: Are the Indians showing a
tendency to leave the reserves and become assimilated with the rest of the population, and if so to what extent?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: In the eleven months of
the present fiscal year thirty-one have been enfranchised. Adding the twenty-seven dependents makes a total of fifty-eight enfranchised during those eleven months.


William Daum Euler: Is the Indian population on the reserves increasing or decreasing, or does it remain stationary?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Generally the number of Indians is increasing, with possibly very few exceptions in certain reserves. The Indian population is increasing at about the rate of one thousand a year.


William Richard Motherwell: As the minister
is aware, the Indian department have been putting up certain parcels of Indian lands for sale by auction from time to time and by arrangement with the Indians their wards. During the abounding years of 1926, 1927, 1928, when land prices were very buoyant

a quantity of such land between File Hills Indian agency and the town of Hubbard on the Black Bear reserve was sold to white settlers, who now find great difficulty in paying either the interest or the principal. It has occurred to me that possibly these settlers might have the benefit of the legislation that is available to those who purchased land from other vendors such as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Hudson's Bay Company and many private vendors, and even from the Indian department themselves. These lands now are priced very much lower than they were in those earlier years, and I was wondering if anything could be done with respect to the principal owing on these lands and also in regard to the interest, which I think is six per cent. These payments are being defaulted. As my hon. friend knows, crops have not been too good and prices for all farm products have been simply terrible. Has any particular policy been adopted by the department that would give these settlers the opportunity of rearrangement that other settlers may enjoy who bought from vendors other than the Department of Indian Affairs?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised a question which has given the department and mysellf a great deal of concern. As he has stated these lands were sold to white settlers, but in the first instance they could be sold only after a proper surrender had been given by the Indian owners. In consenting to the surrender the Indians themselves laid down the terms and conditions under which they were prepared to surrender ithedr rights in the lands; consequently the crown acts as a trustee for the Indians in those sales. I take it that of itself the department has no power to vary the terms laid down by the Indians in regard to the surrender, but last session parliament in its wisdom passed a measure known as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, of which the farmers are availing themselves to a great extent. Settlers who purchased Indian land, I have been informed, are in the same position as other settlers who purchased land from white people or from companies. Therefore the purchaser of Indian land has the same recourse open to him that is open to other settlers throughout Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: That would seem to be quite satisfactory, provided that the same machinery is available in each case. I suppose the same courts will deal with both cases, that the same facilities will be available and that the possibility of reducing the rate

Supply-Indian Affairs
of interest will be the same in every case. I realize that the government is acting as the guardian of the Indians and that these sales have 'been made under agreement as to price, but there is no reason why the Indian would not be as reasonable as any other person. At the present time he is agreeing to sell similar land at a much lower price, and I think if the matter were presented to him as a creditor, like other creditors, he would possibly agree to a lower price which would correspond with the prices being received under the sales taking place at the present time, as well as a lower rate oof interest. I can see no di. .culty in that. The Indian may say a bargain is a bargain, and of course that is so, but in the years from 1927 to 1929 many bargains were made that it is simply impossible to carry out. Many of these settlers have put their all into the improvement of these lands. They have erected houses. A good many of them of course are log bouses, nevertheless it has taken a good deal of labour to put them up, together with the necessary outbuildings. This is largely wooded land, and a great deal of clearing has taken place. These settlers have every dollar they own invested in their land, and they simply cannot pay those high prices. My hon. friend is a reasonable man; he understands the conditions which exist among both the white settlers and the Indians. I do not think he would find very much difficulty in making such rearrangements as I have mentioned. But if these settlers can take advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act and possibly secure a reduction of their debt if the circumstances warrant it, all would seem to be well. Can the minister see anything that would make it difficult or impossible to achieve this result? I think the difficulty largely disappears if these settlers are put in the same category as other purchasers of land from vendors other than the government.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: To answer the first question of my hon. friend I would say that I do see some difficulty in asking the Indians voluntarily to make settlements with those who purchased the lands in question. I think the hon. member will realize that each case must be dealt with on its merits, just the same as though the settler had purchased the land from a white person or a company. All cases are not the same. Some purchasers may have almost paid for their land in full; they may have kept uip their interest payments, while others may have allowed their interest to accumulate. There will not be two cases exactly alike; each case would have to be considered by the Indians on its merits. If
it were merely a question of reducing the price of the land or of reducing the interest, a matter on which a general judgment could be given, that might be accomplished, but certainly these cases will not be all alike. Each case will be like a matter coming before a judge and jury; it will have to be decided on its merits. That is why I think the second alternative would be much better, namely that the purchasers of Indian land avail themselves of the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, just as is done by the purchasers of land from others than Indians.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that is
reasonable. If there is a good settler on a piece of good easily cleared land, a man who has been making his payments, of course the assumption is that he will be able to make the rest of the payments. On the other hand another settler, due to different causes, may have gone behind; he may have made no payments, or very few. I do not know which of these men would get the better treatment. I could imagine that the official receiver might consider the man who was pretty well paid up should receive the better adjustment, because he would have the best chance of eventually paying whatever figure is arrived at. On the other hand sometimes a man gets away behind through no fault of his own, and there may be a disposition to be a little hard on him. I recognize that the merits or demerits of each case must in the main be the basis of the arrangement. I do not know that I can take any exception to that, but I would urge the minister to facilitate these arrangements in every possible way. I have seen some of the correspondence between the department and some of these purchasers of land. Sometimes, you know, when you read an official letter in black and white it sounds very harsh and exacting. The settlers are supposed to come through with their payments, but they have nothing to come through with. I hope that at least some nicer official letters will be sent to them holding out some hope of adjustment downwards, because they are now hanging on by their eyelashes and toe-nails just wondering what is going to happen next. ' Here is a government exercising supervision over this matter, and teaching ethics in business to other people, although it would seem they are not practising very nice ethics themselves. That is the way they reason. Of course, we will have to wait until we see how this matter turns out in practice, but if the same privileges were freely given these settlers as are .given to
Supply

Indian Affairs

others I believe the difficulty would be removed. I do not believe the Indians themselves will throw anything in the way of a rearranged valuation of such lands. I have found that if Indians believe other people are playing on the up and, up they also will play on the up and up. The Indian boys who are farming on the same reserve also have difficulty in making ends meet, and have no doubt little trouble would be experienced in bringing about any compromise which may be ne-' cessary to meet the exigencies of the situation in general and each case in particular. I thank the minister for his interpretation of the position, and we will now have to await events. I hope the minister, as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, will make public his interpretation, and the interpretation of the Minister of Finance on the same subject.


Samuel William Jacobs: Is there any particular
disease from which the Indians on reservations suffer? I understand that in olden days many Indians suffered from tuberculosis. Could the minister tell us about their health in these days, when new treatments are being adopted.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: When the Indian first
came in contact with the white man and contracted the white man's diseases he was found to be extremely susceptible to them, and once having contracted them the mortality rate was very high. Through the years, however, the Indian has developed resistance to the diseases common to the white man, and that while tuberculosis and certain other ailments are prevalent among them, we are assured by our officials who have charge of the health of Indians that there is a marked improvement in their general health.


Vincent Dupuis: I should like to learn from the minister how much of the S4,260,000 is spent in the province of Quebec, in Ontario and in the other provinces. Following that I should like him to tell me how much is being spent at the Caughnawaga reserve in the county of Laprairie?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The amount is divided
among the various provinces as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 10,110
Nova Scotia	 143,234
New Brunswick	 110,464
Quebec	 379,931
Ontario	 774.969
Manitoba	 417,930
Saskatchewan	 599,843
Alberta	 564.791
British Columbia	 920,888
Northwest Territories	 128,521
Yukon	 41,160


Vincent Dupuis: Could the minister tell
what amount is to be spent at the reserva-

tion at Caughnawaga, and what proportions will be spent for irrigation, dwellings, agricultural activities, dyking and education?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: For the Caughnawaga
reservation we have estimated expenditures as follows:
Administration	 $ 3,465
Medical services	 11,650
Relief	 40,000
Roads, drainage, bridges and	so on	1,800


Vincent Dupuis: Nothing for bridges.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, the last item is for
drainage, roads, bridges and other expenditures.


Vincent Dupuis: But there is nothing for
bridges.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Yes, it is included in the $1,800.


Vincent Dupuis: May I tell the minister
that at that point there is no bridge to be built or maintained and that for that reason I conclude no money will be spent for bridges.


Mr.   G ARLAND@Bow River: They
burned their bridges.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, as the hon. member
for Bow River has said, I suppose they have burned their bridges. In previous sessions I asked the minister to place in his estimates an amount sufficient to cover the installation of a water system in the reservation. A high percentage of the mortality in the reservation has been due to lack of hygienic conditions, the inhabitants having to get their water from the river. I have asked him further, to provide an amount for the rebuilding or the repairing of the hospital, which in fact is only an old stone building. At no place do I see any evidence of anything being done to implement the requests I have made.
Prior to last year the agent in the reservation was a gentleman named Lorenzo Letourneau. I do not know any man better qualified than he was to perform the duties he had to perform there. He is a highly educated gentleman with a large experience in municipal affairs, and moreover Mr. Letourneau not only fulfilled the functions of agent but the additional functions of distributing the relief in the whole reserve. For some unknown reason he was put out and there was appointed in his stead, without any public advertising of the position in my riding of Laprairie-Napierville, which should have been done in the normal course, a gentleman from the county of Two Mountains, the constituency of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. I have nothing to say

Supply-Indian Affairs
against the gentleman who was appointed, but I can certainly say this, that Mr. Letourneau had nobody superior to him to fill that position. It is true that when Mr. Letourneau was retired and this gentleman from Two Mountains was appointed, the Department of Indian Affairs also gave him a deputy or assistant agent, if I may call him such, who performed the functions of distributing relief in the Indian reserve of Caughnawaga. So to replace Mr. Letourneau they were obliged to appoint two men. Moreover, if I am well informed, they increased the salary of the Indian agent and gave a very high salary to the assistant agent. In view of the need for economy I am sure the hon. minister will agree with me when I say, without any undue reflection on the present administration, that certainly the government have no money to throw in the river, even in the St. Lawrence; but instead of keeping Mr Letourneau, who carried out the functions of Indian agent and relief agent, the government appointed in his place two men, one head agent at a higher salary and an assistant agent at a very big salary.
I would like to know from the minister what the reason was for retiring Mr. Letourneau on pension and replacing him with these other two gentlemen. What is incomprehensible is this, that whereas it was the usual thing whenever there was a change of administration in Ottawa and a vacancy occurred in this position, for the government to appoint as agent a citizen of the riding in which the reserve was situated in this case they appointed a gentleman from the riding of Two Mountains, in the county of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. I assume that the minister will reply that this position was filled by promotion. He may say that the agent being unable to perform his duty was retired on pension and replaced by a superior officer from another part of the country. But in answer to that let me say that to justify themselves the administration will have to prove that Mr. Letourneau was unable to carry out his duties. Although he had asked for help from the Department of Indian Affairs they gave him only a subagent or assistant agent, and then when the department finally retired Mr. Letourneau they concluded that the work he was doing required the services of two officers, so they appointed another gentleman with an assistant from another part of the country. The Department of Indian Affairs never offered any additional help to Mr. Letourneau, although he was strenuously overworked, and finally he was compelled by the department to retire on pension.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that in the circumstances an injustice has been done to that agent, unless the minister can explain satisfactorily why he was let out and another gentleman from Two Mountains appointed in his stead, with an assistant agent.
Before. I resume my seat I would remind the minister of a petition that he must have received from his own supporters in the riding of Laprairie-Napierville, or if he did not receive it, at all events the petition was sent to the Prime Minister from the Conservatives in the riding of Laprairie-Napierville protesting. very strongly against the appointment of a gentleman from outside the riding to the position of Indian agent. They claim that it was contrary to the custom, and insist that if the department was justified in relieving Mr. Letourneau he should have been replaced by a citizen of the county of Laprairie-Napierville.
To summarize I would like to know from the minister if anything has been done tc improve the relief system in the Caughnawaga reserve; has anything been done to improve the hospital situation; is there any amount in the estimates for repairing the hospital, and finally what was the reason for retiring Mr. Letourneau and taking on in his place a gentleman from the county of Two Mountains?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I find that there is an item of $200 in the estimates for the reconstruction of a bridge over the river Suzanne at St. Isidore which is in the Caughnawaga Indian agency. In regard to the hospital about which the hon. gentleman has asked a question, it is not a departmental but a private institution Over the years the department has assisted those in charge of the hospital in many ways, by cash grants and also by providing repairs and assisting in different directions in order that the hospital might fulfil its function. In fact, a very large sum has been spent by the department on this hospital.


Vincent Dupuis: What is the amount this year?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: There is nothing in the estimates for it this year. As regards the administration of the reserve, I stated a short while ago the amount of money we have placed in the estimates fort it: $3 465 for administration; $11,650 for medical services; $40,000 for relief; $1,800 for drainage, bridges and so on. I visisted the Caughnawaga reserve and met the former agent Mr. Letourneau, who lived at Ste. Constant, a village some twelve miles distant, where he carried on his private business as well as acting as Indian
Supply-Indian Affairs

agent for the reserve. I agree with the hon. member's remarks regarding Mr. Letourneau; I found him a very estimable gentleman. But that is not the point. The point is the proper administration of the reserve-and I did not say that it was improperly administered under Mr. Letourneau. But when the department is spending the amounts of money which are spent annually on that reserve, I think the hon. member will agree that it is a full time job; and Mr. Letourneau, having his private business to attend to, did not give his full time to the reserve, spending only two days a week there.


Vincent Dupuis: Was he ever required to give his full time to that work? If so, did he refuse?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not to my knowledge. But I consider that the administration of this reserve requires the services of a full time agent, and I may say that this is not the only reserve in Canada which demands the services of a full time man and which is not receiving it at the present time. Mr. Letourneau was retired, not because of any fault found with his services but in order that a better administration might be brought about. He had reached the retiring age, being sixty-seven or sixty-eight, and he was not in good health,


Vincent Dupuis: Did he ever complain?


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Not to my knowledge. The civil service commission were requested by the department to reclassify the agency, and on recommendation this was done and a promotional competition was held, which under the circumstances was, I think, the correct procedure. As a matter of fact that is what the civil servants of Canada state as one of the cardinal points of their policy, namely, that promotions should be held within the service wherever possible in order that those in the service may be encouraged in their work. The promotional competition was held by the commission and the present agent was appointed by the commission, not by the department, as stated by the hon. member. He has been provided with the services of a clerk, not an assistant agent, who is receiving SI,080 per annum; and under the present arrangement, with which I entirely agree, we expect to have a better administration of that reserve.


Vincent Dupuis: What was the salary of Mr. Letourneau when he was pensioned, and what is the salary of the gentleman who is now *gent in his stead?
fMr. Murphy.]


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The former agent received $1,380 plus $300 allowance, making a total of $1,680. The present agent receives $2,100 per annum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To provide subsidies for wrecking plants, Quebec and British Columbia, $40,000.
Vincent Dupuis: How much of this is for Quebec and how much for British Columbia?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: This appropriation is for subsidizing wrecking plants, one at Quebec and one at Victoria. The division between the two companies has not yet been made. I might say ito my hon. friend that the department has had a ten year contract with the Pacific Salvage Company, Limited, for a subsidy of $10,000 a year. This contract will expire in July next. We have had a yearly contract with the Quebec Salvage Company Limited for a subsidy of $30,000. This contract will expire next April. These subsidies are given in order to assure a perfect salvage service on the St. Lawmence and below the gulf by the Quebec Salvage Company and a similar service on the Pacific coast by the Pacific Salvage Company.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Would the min* ister tell the committee whether the Pacific Salvage Company at Victoria have made application for a renewal of the contract?


Alfred Duranleau: They have made
application not only to renew the contract but to get a larger grant for years to come. We are now asking the committee to vote only $40,000, 'because we do not think we should increase these subsidies for this year. I cannot at present tell wha/t will be the division between the two companies. The Quebec Salvage Company Limited is insisting on getting at least the $30,000 voted and paid to it every year so far and is asking for more. On the other hand the Pacific Salvage Company Limited is also asking for more. I might tell my bon. friend that the Foundation Salvage Company, which has a plant at Halifax during the winter and also a small plant at Father Point during the summer, is asking for a subsidy. No decision has yet been reached as to what will be granted to the different companies out of the $40,000.


Olof Hanson: The reason I asked the question was that the Pacific Salvage Company prior to two years ago had a sub-station at Prince Rupert which is six hundred miles further north, and with the

Supply-Marine
increase in, shipping this is more needed now than it ever was ibefore. At that time the subsidy was not big enough so' that they had to take away the substation they had at Prince Rupert. As a consequence when anything happened to any boat on the northern coast around Prince Rupert they had to wait for the salvage boat to go the six hundred miles to tlhe wreck. Therefore I would sincerely urge upon the minister that when the renewal is made, consideration be given to the distances on the Pacific coast, the increase in shipping and the necessity of having more than one boat. At the present time the boat is stationed at Victoria, and if anything happens up north they have to send for the boat and depend on Providence to remain afloat until the boat arrives. The subsidy should be increased for that service.


Alfred Duranleau: The Department of Marine realizes the importance of having on all our shores sufficient salvage plants to satisfy the needs of navigation, but on the other hand those private companies are doing a fairly good business, especially on the Pacific coast where the salvage company operates the whole year round. I must say that the Pacific Salvage Company claim a deficit in its operations last year. The Quebec Salvage Company claims a larger deficit. As the latter company is operating only seven or eight months of the year, it does less business than the other firm and thereby suffers greater loss. That is the reason why the Quebec Salvage Company was getting a larger subsidy for some years past. I think my hon. friend is mistaken when he says that the Pacific Salvage Company does not maintain a plant at Prince Rupert. I understand from the company that they are maintaining a plant there.


Olof Hanson: It is a private concern that has a boat there, but there is no subsidy for it.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand that
at Vancouver they have two tugs, the Helac 1 and the Helac 2. They have in addition three powerful floating derricks. I understand that they have at Prince Rupert a salvage station, with derricks, diving gear and general salvage equipment.


Olof Hanson: It is a private
company that has done salvage Work and it used to do it under the direction of the Pacific Salvage Company, but I understand now that that company is not giving it any of the subsidy, so it is having quite a struggle to keep going.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ocean and river service-
Miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses, $8,000.
Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The session before last I put a question to the minister as to what was being done about deepening the harbour of Montreal. At that time the minister gave me a very satisfactory answer when he said that a board of engineers and experts from the department had been formed to study the deepening of the harbour of Montreal between that city and lake St. Peter. Since then I understand work has been carried on by this board of experts, but the situation in the port of Montreal towards the end of the summer season when the water level is very low is important. Can the minister give any information to the committee, the citizens of Montreal and the shipping interests as to what progress is being made in this work of deepening the channel in the harbour of Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: As I told my hon.
friend at that time, a board of engineers composed of experts of the marine, public works, railways and canals and interior departments was formed with the object of ascertaining the cause of the lowering of the level of the St. Lawrence and the means of remedying that situation. This board has held many sittings since last year. Field operations have been carried on during the whole season of navigation, and now for nearly a month they have been working on an interim report. That report on the water levels of the St. Lawrence and Montreal harbour, which will be a very important. one, will be ready, I understand, probably within a week. I agree with my hon. friend when he says that work should be done to deepen Montreal harbour. I do not think that the harbour at Montreal has kept pace with the work done in the channel of the St. Lawrence. Within a few months, probably by June next, we shall have in the channel of the St. Lawrence a depth of at least 32i feet clear at lowest water in the fall. They have not that depth in Montreal harbour. My intention is to try to carry out deepening works in Montreal harbour if the interim report of the board of engineers warrants it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Would that work be done by the department or by the Montreal harbour commission?


Alfred Duranleau: I hope the government will sponsor those works. I do not think the harbour commission of Montreal can carry them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-M arine
[Stage Direction]
Radio service, to provide for the maintenance and construction of radio direction finding stations, radio beacons and radiotelegraph stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the dominion, $590,550.
Radio service, to provide for the suppression of local electrical interferences and for the issue of radio receiving licences, $263,038.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Stand. These go with radio.
Items stand.
To provide for the maintenance and repair of retaining dams in the St. Lawrence river, $100,000.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: What are these retaining dams?


Alfred Duranleau: This is for the maintenance and repair of the underwater dams which were built in 1928 and 1929 at the islands at Sorel. We have to maintain them at the proper level.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Has the construction of these dams produced satisfactory results?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not want to anticipate the report of the board of engineers, but I think it has.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: They have been in existence for some time, have they not?


Alfred Duranleau: The Gibb report
stated that there was five inches more water in the harbour of Montreal, and I think that the report of the board of engineers will perhaps go further. These dams were built during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930.


Vincent Dupuis: Does the retaining wall at Beloeil and St. Hilaire come under this item, or under public works?


Alfred Duranleau: I am pleased to tell my hon. friend that in front of Beloeil and St. Hilaire there is no retaining wall.


Vincent Dupuis: For retaining electors.


Alfred Duranleau: These places are fine Summer resorts where you can go canoeing or yachting or anything you like. There are no retaining walls.


Vincent Dupuis: There was work done at Beloeil and St. Hilaire; what does the minister call that?


Alfred Duranleau: Well, where it was found necessary some protection walls were built, as in other places where the public road was falling into the river on account of the wash from navigation.


Vincent Dupuis: What amount has been spent at Beloeil and what amount at St. Hilaire?


Alfred Duranleau: Very small amounts, around S12,000 to 813,000 for Beloeil and 86,000 for St. Hilaire. I hope my hon. friend will not find any fault with those works, because they are very useful.


Vincent Dupuis: No, not if they are useful.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: Would
the hon. minister tell me if it is the intention of his department to pay for the damages caused by the construction of a dam at lie aux Ours?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, if any claims are sent to the Department of Marine, they will be looked into and submitted to the Department of Justice and I can assure my hon. friend that justice will be done to the people who live in these islands.


Vincent Dupuis: Are there
any bears in these islands?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the investigation of water levels in the St. Lawrence river, $40,000.
Vincent Dupuis: I understand that the level in the neighbourhood of Montreal and Laprairie is now so low that the people are rather afraid of what may come. Has the minister any information as to the cause of the low water level in the river, and is he able to assure the committee that the level will be raised? At Laprairie the water is so low that we can walk on the bed of the river for miles.


Alfred Duranleau: Members of the committee know that the water level in the rivers and the great lakes has gone down considerably in recent years.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Since 1930 when the Tories came into power. But now is their valedictory.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know if there was a valedictory during the regime of my hon. friends, but this lowering started long before the election of 1930.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You were on the crest of the wave then.


Alfred Duranleau: I observe that the level of lake Ontario in certain years was lowered over four feet. This has happened all over the country. The board of engineers has been studying that problem and I understand that their interim report will deal with it, so I would not venture to say anything before their report is laid before the house.

Supply-M arine


Vincent Dupuis: I want to call the attention of the minister to the danger of this situation, and to endeavour to induce him to hasten the matter. The town of Laprairie is suffering considerable damage through lack of water for fire protection and with respect to the w'ater supply generally. I am sure the minister will admit that the situation must by the same in St. Lambert, Longueuil, Boucherville and all those towns and villages on the shore of the St. Lawrence. It is highly important that this matter should be dealt with without delay, and I would ask the minister to see that the officers who are investigating this situation submit their report at the earliest date possible. What would be the situation in Laprairie if a great fire should take place there? They have to go miles from the shore in order to get water. This is not a political question, and I ask that it be dealt with as soon as possible, because at any time we might have a conflagration in any of the towns on the shore of the river. I may add that the water supply of these communities is affected as well.
The minister said that the level of the river is becoming lower year after year, but he did not give the cause of that condition; he said he was awaiting the result of the investigation. I have been told that it is partly due to the fact that the Chicago drainage canal uses more water than that city is entitled to obtain under the international agreement. I should like to obtain the minister's opinion on that point, because the people living on the shore of the St. Lawrence river are very anxious to have this question settled.


Alfred Duranleau: The Department of Marine and the minister in charge are fully alive to the situation. We realize the importance of having sufficient water in the St. Lawrence for navigation and the other purposes mentioned by my hon. friend, but the situation cannot be remedied in a day or a month, I think what I have done by setting up a board of outstanding engineers from the different departments is commendable. This board has been working very hard for over a year.


Vincent Dupuis: It takes a long time.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes. They have had to do field work; they have gathered data and information during the whole season of navigation, and they will continue their investigations next season. This information is of the utmost importance in preparing a report on which we will have to rely in making large expenditures to ameliorate the condition. I do not think it fair that I should be asked to give an opinion on the situation;
I think I should await the report of the board before doing so.


Vincent Dupuis: I just want to tell the minister that if he does not press this matter to a conclusion in the near future the people on the south shore will be able to cross the river on foot, and the bridges will not bring in any revenue. Then the. minister's promise to make the bridges free will bring no result in the next election.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: If they are Conservatives they will be welcome in Verdun and St. Ann.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological service, including magnetic observatory, grants of $450 each to Kingston and Montreal observatories and allowance of $360 to L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa, $360,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the reason for the increase?


Alfred Duranleau: The increase results from the extension of our operations in the western provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $133,072.
Thomas Reid: I wonder if we could get a
little explanation with regard to what the steamboat inspection consists of, what boats are inspected and who are the inspectors.


Alfred Duranleau: This appropriation
is to provide for the inspection of steamboats in accordance with the provisions of part VII of the Canada Shipping Act. Under the provisions of that act the governor in council makes regulations for the testing of boilers, particularly as to their construction and working. It provides for the inspection of hulls, machinery and the equipment of steamboats, and also for the examination and certification of steamboat engineers. Further, it provides for the inspection of tackle used in loading and unloading ships, and the carrying out of the provisions of the convention for the safety of life at sea and the load lines convention.


Thomas Reid: How many inspectors are
there on the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: There are 45 employees in the branch.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the reason for
the increase?


Thomas Reid: The minister mentioned the
inspection of tackle. I wonder if any such inspection is now taking place. Last year
Supply-M arine

when the Canada Shipping Act was under discussion I appealed to the minister to have its provisions put into effect so that the inspection of tackle could be carried on at the port of New Westminster. The minister informed me that until the act was proclaimed an inspector could not be named for that port.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The act has not been
put into force.


Thomas Reid: A moment ago the minister
told the committee that under this vote the inspection of tackle is carried on by the inspectors. I wonder if they really are inspecting tackle at this time. Where are the inspectors? At what ports are they located?


Alfred Duranleau: So far as tackle
inspection is concerned the provisions will not be put into operation until the proclamation of the new act. There are seven inspectors on the west coast, namely:	Mr. Robinson, Mr. Matthews, Mrs. Farrow, Mr Stephen, Mr. Bryden, Mr. Sleigh and Mr Edmonds. The six gentlemen first named are in Vancouver, and Mr. Edmonds is at Victoria.


Thomas Reid: May I have the assurance of
the minister that after the act has been proclaimed by the governor in council tackle inspectors will be appointed at the various ports? I am referring to those ports which have not been subject to the operations of a tackle inspector, and I have in mind particularly the port of New Westminster. Last Year 456 ocean going vessels reached that port. Those were vessels of between 7,000 and 9,000 tons, and no inspection of tackle took place. The minister now informs me no inspectors can be appointed until the shipping act has been proclaimed. Will an inspector be appointed for the port of New Westminster as soon as the act has been proclaimed by the governor in council?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to tell the hon. member that a special inspector will be appointed for the port of New Westminster alone, but I can tell him that reasonable inspection will be made at that port, as is done at the ports of Victoria, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. It may be that the same inspectors would do the job at two places. When we apply the law we will see whether or not it is necessary to appoint a special inspector for the port of New Westminster, and if necessary such appointment will be made. At all events, reasonable inspection will be granted.


Thomas Reid: I do not wish to hold up the proceedings of the committee, but I am

anxious to get the information for which I am asking. At the ports of Vancouver and Victoria are there at the present moment any government inspectors inspecting the tackle on ships?


Alfred Duranleau: No, there are no special tackle inspectors, but there are steamboat inspectors.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like the minister to explain the increase of $5,964.


Alfred Duranleau: This increase is for travelling expenses and a small increase of staff.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Because of the approaching election?


Alfred Duranleau: In order to give better service.
Mr. MaoINN'IS: Over a year ago regulations were drawn up providing for the inspection of tackle. Have those regulations not 'been put into effect?


Alfred Duranleau: No, they have not.
Mr. MaclINNIS: What is the reason? When the estimates were under consideration last year the minister gave us to understand that it would be only a matter of a short time before the regulations would be put into effect. Why was that not done?


Alfred Duranleau: We are awaiting the proclamation of the act.
Mr. MaclNNIS: Is it necessary that the act be proclaimed before an inspector is appointed for the port of Vancouver to inspect the tackle used in loading and unloading ships? Surely that is something which could be done, even if the shipping act were not in effect. Action could be taken under the old act.


Alfred Duranleau: My information is
that effective action could not be taken under the old act.
Mr. MacINiNLS: Were not the regulations approved by the department?


Alfred Duranleau: The department has drafted regulations which have been circulated among the shipping interests, the stevedores and ship workers, and we are awaiting the return of their suggestions.
Mr. MacdNNIS: I think that is the answer I got last year, namely that the government were awaiting the approval of or suggestions from the shipping interests and the stevedores. How long must we wait before the regulations become effective?

Supply-M arine


Alfred Duranleau: As I stated previously, when the new act is proclaimed the regulations will be submitted to the governor in council for approval, and will then be put into effect.


Alan Webster Neill: Is there not a provision in the shipping act amendment bill passed last year to the effect that certain sections alone could if necessary be made effective? I believe it is not necessary that the whole act be proclaimed. The governor in oouncil could proclaim those sections which could not have much to do with international matters. As the hon. member for Vancouver South has said, we received the same answer last year. Apparently the minister has done with the regulations what we urged him to do with the bill to amend the shipping act. Hon. members suggested that before the bill was finally passed it should foe circulated for the information of the interests concerned, so that we might receive the benefit of their suggestions. He did not accept our advice, preferring first to have the bill passed. We are now left in the air, without any act, or at least without any improvements.


Alfred Duranleau: It is the intention of the department to have certain parts of the act proclaimed before the spring.


Alan Webster Neill: Before when?


Alfred Duranleau: Before the opening of navigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To appoint David Ballantyne Carswell as superintendent of the government shipyard at Sorel and superintendent of the dredging fleet at a salary of $8,000 per annum less such deduction as may be provided, $8,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Would the minister explain this item?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Could
the minister tell me why Mr. Carswell's salary has been raised?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, in
reply to my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge, as I have already told him personally, the reason why Mr. Carswell will be appointed not only superintendent of the shipyard at Sorel but also superintendent of the dredging fleet is in order to reduce the cost of repairs. I am pleased to be able to state to this committee that since Mr. Carswell has been appointed acting superintendent of the shipyard at Sorel, we have reduced the cost of our repairs by over $100,000. He is an outstanding marine engineer and a first class superintendent.


Paul Mercier: Then give
him ten per cent. Give him $10,000; he is worth it.


Alfred Duranleau: We felt that it would be in the best interests of the service if he was given power to survey the fleet during the whole season of navigation to see what repairs were necessary, to supervise the personnel and see that repairs were made to the fleet at the lowest possible cost.


Frederick George Sanderson: Following out that
argument, the minister may say that if he had appointed two or three men he would have reduced the expenses just that much more.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Might I ask the minister one last question? Has the department considered the advisability of appointing a deputy minister to the department? This question has been hanging fire for about three years now, and the country is interested in knowing if a deputy minister will be appointed shortly.


Alfred Duranleau: If I remember well,
last session in answer to the very same question of my hon. friend, I stated that the appointment of the heads of the department was the prerogative of the Prime Minister. So I think my hon. friend should direct his question to the Prime Minister. I am pleased to add that the public service has not suffered through there being no deputy minister in my department.


Peter John Veniot: Then why appoint one?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We might as well save the money.


Alfred Duranleau: We have had the
services of an assistant deputy minister and the minister has also done his share.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I know it.


Alfred Duranleau: And all the officials
of my department have been very attentive to their duties, as I think my hon. friend will agree.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I pay tribute to them
myself.


Alfred Duranleau: The department has
been well administered without a deputy minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am pleased to join
with the minister in paying tribute to the officials of his department and himself, and my hon. friend knows that I mean it. But the minister has explained to-night that the administration of his department has not
S up ply-M arine

suffered at all from the fact that there has been no deputy minister in the past three years. In that case you might as well increase the salary of the acting deputy minister and of his first assistant, and why not do the same thing in the other departments? Here is one of the largest departments in the government, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars daily, and for three years it has got along without a deputy minister and things have been running smoothly, the minister says. We ought to know whether the time has not arrived when we should dismiss the idea of appointing a new deputy minister at all and get along with the services of the gentlemen who are now acting as deputy and assistant deputy. If they are giving good service their salaries might be increased and the position of deputy minister of the department abolished. If that is not the idea of the government, they should not delay any longer in deciding when the appointment is to be made. The Prime Minister has a program of reform, and he said that these reforms must start immediately. Well, this question has been hanging fire for the last three years, and each time I have asked the minister about it he has kindly and honestly said that it was the privilege of the Prime Minister to fill that office. But no doubt the advice of the minister also helps. The minister must give his opinion. The country is interested in knowing when this appointment is to be made. I am told that there are a good many candidates for the office and good officials, and the question is whether things are going to stay as they are, or if not, when is the vacancy to be filled?


John Alexander Sullivan: It is very seldom, Mr. Chairman, that I take part in the discussions concerning the Department of Marine, but as the harbour at Montreal is in the riding which I have the honour to represent very humbly in this house, may I suggest to this country, because when a member speaks in this house he is speaking to the country at large, that it return at the next election the same Prime Minister, who will choose the same Minister of Marine who is now acting both as minister and deputy minister of his department with such great efficiency and such a saving to the country. He knows his department and is evidently a great administrator.


Charles A. Stewart: It is all very well to joke about this matter, but either the department needs a deputy minister or it does not. The present situation is almost a

public scandal, not only with respect to this position but the other vacancies which are awaiting appointments. No one regrets the Prime Minister's illness more than I do and that he is not able to be present in the house, but if he were in his place I would say the same as I am saying now, and that is that the government are taking very grave chances, because, if one is any judge of what is about to happen, they will not be in power very long, and it means that they are going to place a group of eighteen or twenty individuals in jeopardy, and that is most unfair to the men they appoint. It is unfair also to the officials of the Department of Marine who have been waiting for three years for a deputy minister. It is in fact a flaunting of authority, as this government has been doing in every direction since it has taken control of public affairs in this country. It is a public disgrace the way these matters are being treated, and the Minister of Marine cannot explain it away by saying it is the business of the Prime Minister to make the appointment. True it is the business of the Prime Minister. As I say, no one regrets his illness more than I do, but now that the matter is up we might as well say what we think about it. If it is the intention to retain this position of deputy minister of the Department of Marine for some member whose riding the government does not want to take the chance of opening- we might as well talk plainly-then I say all the more disgrace. But that is the situation as it appears not only to this side of the house but to this country generally. Moreover, there are officials surely in the department who are quite efficient to take charge of the department, and if the present assistant deputy minister has been able to carry on as stated by the minister, then surely he has some claim on the position. It is all very well to joke about it, but it is really no joke. Either you need a deputy minister or you do not. If it is a case of keeping the position open for some member on the other side and the government is afraid to let him resign and open his constituency and have a by-election, then all the more reason I say why this government should appeal to this country at once


Alan Webster Neill: The trouble extends beyond
an individual deputy minister; the whole civil service is honeycombed with the same thing. Positions have been abolished, possibly with the idea of economy; but somebody has to take the place left vacant and we find that men are put on temporarily. But you cannot get good work out of a temporary man who is likely to be fired on a change of government or for some other reason. And another

Supply-M arine
point to consider is that he is not contributing to the superannuation fund, so that by and by there will be a third of the service not contributing to it. It is not only one deputy minister here and there; it is the same thing right through the service down to some of the smaller officials. Every now and then the government says that all positions vacant at the moment will be abolished; but you are not abolishing a position if you have to fill it the next day. Some man is put on temporarily, receiving the regular salary, but he is not allowed to contribute to the superannuation fund. We find this everywhere-a man doing one man's job, a telegrapher, a doctor, and people of that kind. You must fill the job, and yet under the system that has been inaugurated these positions are left vacant. There must be scores of positions like that, and the morale and efficiency of the service are being destroyed. I am not talking about one man; I am speaking of the whole principle of leaving positions vacant, and I venture to say that if the various ministers asked their deputies frankly they would agree with me that it is demoralizing.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Mr. Chairman, I consider that this raise of salary to $8,000 is unjustified. In 1911, a senior clerk was in charge of the yard and his salary amounted to $2,800, I think. Mr. Lacouture succeeded him and received the same remuneration. Mr. Jackson succeeded Mr. Lacouture with a salary of $3,000. I want to call your attention to the fact that at that time 800 men were employed. From 1921 to 1930, the average number of men at work in the shipyard of Sorel was 800. The position was filled by Mr. Baril and then by Mr. Bridges. The latter received a salary of .$3,500, I believe, and it was afterwards raised to $4,000 and even to $4,500. And I must say to the house that at that time the yard was busy, all repairs to the ships of the government being done there, and up to 1,760 men were employed. Now only 400 are employed and the superintendent gets a raise of salary from $5,000 to $8,000, because the number of workers has dwindled from 1,760 to 400.
Besides, a bilingual man has always been in charge of the shipyard at Sorel. There, in the centre of the province of Quebec, they are putting in charge a certain Mr. Carswell who does not understand a word of French. I say it is ridiculous, it is an insult to the province of Quebec. I have protested and I protest most emphatically from my seat in this house, and I am against the salary increase given Mr. Carswell.
Mr.	CASGRAIN	(Translation):	How
many men are employed in the yard, nowadays?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: 407.
Mr.	CASGRAIN	(Translation):	How
many ships are there?
Mr.	BARRETTE	(Translation):	There
are no	more.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has the
minister any answer to give us?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: I may
point out that there is at Sorel a government-owned fleet comprising several dredges and boats. These1 dredges and boats have not been repaired for several years. It is a matter for wonder that these boats have remained tied to the wharves, without anything being done to maintain or repair them, that they are not used, that they are not placed in commission . throughout the year. None of the dredges have been placed in commission in 1933 or 1934. This year, the sum of $1,140.000 is to be expended and the same number of boats will be used as last year. If Mr. Carswell's salary is to be increased, he should be given more work to do. On the contrary, I hear that work that could be performed at that yard is given to private companies, such as the Joliette Steel Company and others.
I wonder why the interests of the department are not better looked after and why the French Canadians of the district of Sorel are not treated more justly. I have received protests from all parts of Richelieu, Berthier-Maskinonge and adjoining counties. People are asking why such a state of affairs is allowed to continue at Sorel. I have received numerous letters, even from colleagues, asking me to protest. I will read one:
Ottawa, March 5, 1935. Mr. J. A. Barrette, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Re: Carswell, Superintendent of the Sorel Ship-yard
My Dear Colleague,-
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 28 regarding Mr. Carswell, superintendent of the Sorel ship-yard,
Your letter raises several points.
First, the question of salary, which, I presume, appertains to the minister, subject, of course, to the approval of the house, all grants being voted by the Commons.
Secondly, you say that Mr. Carswell is not bilingual. The minister must be unaware of

Supply-Marine

this, for mindful as he is of the interests of his race and of his party, he would not tolerate such a thing. A large number of letters of protest apparently coming from members of the house would suffice to put an end to such a state of affairs.
Thirdly, you say he is a find of the minister's. My answer to that is that, under our democratic system, the ministers are chosen from among the members-a minister has to be a member either of the Commons or of the Senate-and the support of a majority of the house is necessary to form a cabinet. A minister may have his own opinion and ideas, but he must yield to the wish of the majority of the house expressed either verbally or by letter.
In France, as in England, a minister who refuses to accept the wish of the majority of the members of his district would be forced to withdraw. For my part, I have no hesitation in stating that I would abandon a party that departed from the principle of democratic representation as expressed to the minister by the members.
Believe me, my dear colleague,
Yours very truly,
(Signed) John A. Sullivan,
Member for Verdun-St. Ann.
I could read several more letters received from colleagues.


John Alexander Sullivan: Do read them.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Read them.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: Name
them.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Here is, among others, one from Sir George Perley.
Ottawa, March 3, 1935.
Dear Mr. Barrette,-
I duly received yours of February 28th, in connection with the position of superintendent at the Sorel ship-yard.
The appointment to that position being a matter for the Marine department, I mentioned the matter to the Hon. Mr. Duranleau and forwarded your letter to him with the request that he communicate with you personally.
I beg to remain; dear Mr. Barrette,
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) George H. Perley.
I also received a letter of protest from the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche).
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): A good Canadian!


Joseph Arthur Barrette: A real
patriot! Mr. Lafleche's letter reads as follows:
My Dear Colleague,-
Re Mr. Carswell
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 28th, and I wish to state that I entirely agree with you in connection with this matter.

Furthermore, I shall be pleased to support any objections that you might raise concerning the appointment of this gentleman to the position mentioned by you.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) F. J. Lafleohe, M.P.,
Richmond-Wolfe, P.Q.
I also received a letter of protest from Mr. Onesime Gagnon, member for Dorchester.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Read it.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: My Dear Colleague,-
I am in receipt of your letter.
I am quite prepared to help you in so far as it is in my power.
Yours truly,
(Signed) 0. Gagnon, .
Member for Dorchester.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: It is not a very long letter.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Let us have the opinion of the member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil).


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The member for Compton has not as yet had time to reply to my letter. I am waiting for his answer and I shall read it when I have another opportunity.
I feel that after all the protests on the part of members from the province of Quebec, the resolution confirming that increase of salary to $8,000 should not be passed and I strongly oppose such an action.


John Alexander Sullivan: I do not know whether I should talk French or English, but I believe it is better for me to speak the language of the majority of the committee, although it might be easier for me to speak French which is the language I know best. The letter I sent to my hon. friend was not marked confidential. I did not expect it to be confidential nor that it would be read in the house. It proves once more that I have always been a champion of minorities in my province and in the whole of Canada.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Come with us..


John Alexander Sullivan: My hon. friend says
"Come with us." Of course I have belonged to the Conservative party for many years, and so far as I can remember and from reading history, from the days of 1774, from the constitutional acts of 1791, 1840, 1867, and right along, and if you like, from what has happened in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, I believe the Conservative party has always been the champion of minorities. But I am going a little far afield and I beg to be excused.

Supply-M arine
As a member of parliament I am getting $4,000 a year less ten per cent, and it costs me about $5,000 a year to live in Ottawa. The governor of the Bank of Canada gets $25,000 or $30,000 a year. I suppose he is a better man than I am and I presume a man should be paid what he is worth. My good friend the hon. member for St. Henri said to the minister "If this man saves $100,000 a year, give him $10,000; if he saves $200,000, give him $20,000; pay a man what he is worth." I believe in that principle.


Paul Mercier: Pay him what he is worth.


John Alexander Sullivan: The bon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge is a man who has always been faithful to his race. He has always upheld the principle of bilingualism. If this gentleman in question does not understand French, and in charge of men knowing and speaking only the French language, he should be removed. In Quebec, a man is not allowed to go on the bench if he does not understand French and English, and a man should not hold any position of government responsibility in Quebec if he does not speak and understand both languages. That is a principle I believe in. But to come back to my letter, what I said in it I believe in. It was not confidential, but was not intended to be made public; it was sent to my good friend the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge and I stand by what I said in it. I see across the aisle my good friend and ex-partner, the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont, one of the finest of men. He represents a great name and I know at the next election he is likely to be returned; with his name he cannot avoid it. But he is bilingual. When he came to this country he could speak only English. He has the advantage of having a great name; he belongs to a great family and now he can talk both languages. I hope this official in the Department of Marine, if he is going to get $8,000 a year, will learn French. That is my principle and will explain my letter.


Peter John Veniot: When the question arose of this new appointment, because I believe it is actually a new one, at a salary of $8,000 a year, the minister was asked why this man was appointed. He stated that this man was appointed because they were making him permanent now on account of the saving he had made in the maintenance of the Sorel shipyard and matters connected with it. The minister ought to give us a further explanation. The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge, speaking in French, has stated that
<2582-93*
not so much work is being done there; that fewer men are being employed than there were in past years, and that therefore there is not the same necessity for having such an expensive person in charge. Would the minister tell us what the expenditure has been since this man has been in charge? When did he take charge? Was it last year?


Alfred Duranleau: This man was appointed acting superintendent in October, 1933.


Peter John Veniot: So that he has been in
charge for over a year now?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister inform the committee what number of vessels, dredges and other boats have been repaired in 1932, 1933, and 1934, and the cost of each?


Alfred Duranleau: It is now almost eleven o'clock. At the next sitting I shall be pleased to answer any question put to me about these matters, and I shall also answer the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge on the questions he has raised.
Item stands.


Mr. GORDON:: I would like to call item number 9 on page 8.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.


George Gordon: Might I explain to the committee that I would like to open the department of Immigration and Colonization if I can to-night.


Paul Mercier: All right.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and contingencies, $194,150.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 6, 1935