[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.-Mr. McLure (for Mr. Ernst).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting 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 shellfish.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting 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.
Hornby Settlement Plan
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: On February 26 the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) explained to the house at some length that he had received a communication from his constituency stating that some of the enumerators had not been paid for the work they did in preparing the voters' lists. I have made inquiries on the subject and have received the following letter signed by Watson Sellar, comptroller of the treasury:
Section 48 of the Franchise Act requires the auditor general to tax all accounts submitted by the enumerators. On February 14, and again on the 15th, this office received applications for cheques from the auditor general to pay the accounts for North Battleford. Cheques were drawn on each day, and delivered to the auditor general, for they are mailed from his offices.
I believe these payments cleaned up all accounts for that constituency, with one exception. In this case, it is believed a claim could be made, but the person concerned has not sent in an account.
This office has no arrears to catch up with respect to payments to enumerators. Cheques are drawn the same day as the application is made by the auditor general. To date, approximately 39,000 cheques have been issued, and by the time a further 1,000 will have been received, the work should be completed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that when the hon. member raised this question on February 26 all the cheques in payment of these accounts had gone out ten or twelve days before. I submit to the hon. gentleman that although he might not have got as much publicity as in that way, he could have obtained this information more easily, and without taking up the time of the house, if he had telephoned to either the auditor general or the comptroller of the treasury.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I did not think the
right hon. gentleman would be able to give as complete an answer as he has; therefore I am quite satisfied.



BRITISH SETTLERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battleford) :: It has been drawn to my attention

that there are in northern Saskatchewan some British settlers who were brought in under the Three Thousand British Families Scheme, and who now find themselves destitute. These people, because of the fact that they have been in Canada over five years, have no further claim on the scheme under which they came, and the municipalities have refused to accept any responsibility for them. Therefore I would ask the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) if he has any knowledge concerning them, or if he will have the matter looked into.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I know
something of the situation to which the hon. member has referred. I have been in correspondence with the settlers. In view of the question asked I shall look into the matter again and make a more extended reply on Monday or Tuesday.



HORNBY SETTLEMENT PLAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: I received to-day a communication
concerning a policy of immigration by a gentleman named' General Hornby. The first paragraph reads as follows:


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: I am in order, Mr. Speaker; in order to put my question it is necessary that I put the house in possession of this:
One of the reasons why many of us are in favour of an early resumption of British immigration into Canada is that it would result in immediate productive employment for our own people.
My question to the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) is this. Is the-Conservative party still in favour of a policy of immigration on a large scale as enunciated by General McRae, and if so, has it given its approval and support to the scheme of General Hornby?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I can set the hon. member's mind at rest with respect to part, at least, of his interrogation. The Conservative party or this government will not subscribe to the kind of immigration that prevailed under the late government. We have not set up any barriers against British immigration into Canada since we came into power. I am not acquainted with General McRae's scheme; it has been referred to in the house on a number of occasions-

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Coote
Some hoc. MEMBERS: General Hornby's.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think it is General
McRae. As far as I am aware, while the scheme that was proposed by General McRae was rather an extensive one, he at no time advocated a great movement of immigrants into Canada without regard to their desirability. As my colleague reminds me, the provinces have been consulted by this government from time to time in the last four and a half years with respect to the admission of immigrants who have come into Canada. The question is a very large one, and I have no doubt that during the passage of the estimates of the department ample opportunity will be given to discuss it from all angles.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the minister be kind enough to produce all correspondence, telegrams and communications between the government and General Hornby or any other party interested in this scheme of immigration, if any?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This question arose in the house some weeks ago. The Department of Immigration was not in possession of complete details of what has been referred to in the press as the Hornby scheme, I therefore went to the trouble, because of the inquiry that was made, to procure from General Hornby complete details of his activities. About ten days ago all that information was tabled by me and is available to the hon. member.


Mr. GOBEIL:: He is not up to date.



WESTERN POULTRY MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: I would
like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if he is in a position to report on the vote taken recently in connection with the poultry pool scheme in western Canada. If so, can he give details of the result.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: A report in reference to the vote
will be available at the beginning of next week. The officials in charge are expected to return on Monday.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23. to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Farmer's Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to delay the house for more than a few minutes on the second reading of this very important bill, but because I believe there is a misunderstanding in the minds of some members of this house as well as many members of the general public in regard to the question of farmers' debts, I do want to bring to their attention a few facts to demonstrate the need for the legislation known as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Figures which I secured from one of the chartered banks, accompanying a chart published in its recent monthly bulletin in regard to the farm cash income of Canada, show that for the years 1926, 1927, 1928 and 1929, the four pre-depression years the total farm cash income in Canada was $4,012,000,000. In the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, the last four years, the farm cash income was only $1,744,000,000, so in those four years there was a drop of $2,268,000,000, or 57 per cent. That is the cause of the present terrific burden of farm debts which really makes this legislation necessary. The average drop in cash revenue per farm in Canada for the four years amounts to $3,136; that is the loss in revenue to the average farmer during that period. That total amount of $2,268,000,000 would have been sufficient to pay every farm debt in Canada, to wipe the slate clean and leave over an amount equal to $i,000 per farmer. That drop in revenue of $3,136 per farm resulted from a drop in the price level of farm products. It has not been due, as some people seem to think, to crop failures through drought or otherwise. It is true there have been crop failures in some areas, but on the whole production during the last four years has equalled the production of predepression years. I think the fact should be emphasized, that the decreased revenue is due to a drop in price levels.
The article to which I have referred indicates that the farm cash income, converted into dollars having the same purchasing power as in 1926-and I quote these figures to show that the drop in farm purchasing power, while not quite as great as the drop in money income, has been very severe indeed-for the four years from 1926 to 1929, would be $3,994,000,000, while the farm cash income,

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Coote
computed on the same basis, for the four years 1931 to 1934, would amount to $2,384,000,000. As a result there has been a loss of purchasing power to the farmers in the last four years amounting to $1,610,000,000. When you consider that the net cash income of the farmers in Canada is the greatest source of purchasing power in the country it is no wonder that a business man in western Canada should have said a year ago, "If it is true, as some modernists say, that there is no hell, where has business gone, anyway?"
On Monday last I gave the house figures showing the loss of farm purchasing power in Canada for the past four years as compared with Australia, and I need not go into the matter again. I estimated that the drop in farm revenue in Canada was $852,000,000 more than it would have been if we had had the same money policy as Australia. There is an impression in this country, and I think the statement has been made in this house, that farmers in Canada are better off than are the farmers in most other countries in the world. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this impression is absolutely wrong. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) gave us very good proof just a couple of days ago that the farmers of the United States are not as badly off as we are in Canada and I should like to direct the attention of the house to the situation of the farmers in the Argentine, who have a sixty per cent exchange advantage over us. In the old days the Argentine peso, under the old parity, was worth forty-two cents in Canada. It is now worth twenty-five cents. If a shipment of corned beef or any other commodity from the Argentine to Canada brought the Argentine exporter $1,000 in Canadian currency, under the old parity, when the peso was worth forty-two cents, he would have converted his $1,000 into 2,380 pesos. At the present rate of exchange, however, he would receive 4,000 pesos, which gives him an advantage of sixty per cent as compared with the position he occupied previously.


Mr. SENN:: Is the hon. gentleman arguing in favour of the dumping regulations?


George Gibson Coote: 

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Coote
rate for any farmer to carry, and particularly for a man who has had his affairs rearranged under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. It is clear to all of us that if the board of review would write down his debts he must be in difficulties. In many cases however in connection with which action has been taken the farmer has been left with a rate of seven per cent on his remaining liabilities. In a great many cases-and I believe this might almost be said to be the rule adopted by one of the boards-they reduce the arrears of interest by one-third. The farmer with two-thirds of his arrears added to his principal and paying a rate of seven per cent is in most cases in a far worse position than if he had no arrears and was still paying eight per cent. I believe it is safe to say that only in extreme cases have boards of review set a rate lower than seven per cent,- and I am talking now about my own province, because I do not know how the boards function in the other provinces.
My reason for speaking of this is that loan companies seem to be exercised over the action of the board,-or pretend to be. I am informed that some of their eastern officials have travelled out to our province to interview the board and the provincial government, and to tell them that if this policy is adhered to there will be fatal reactions or repercussions. So far as I am concerned I wish to emphasize that seven per cent is too high a rate of interest for farmers to pay. I believe the act should be amended so as to fix a maximum rate of four per cent or five per cent. If that reduction will endanger the position of any of the loan companies then the legislation should be made wide enough so that the reduction may be carried right through to the persons who originally invested in the debentures or bonds of the mortgage company.
Finally I should like to bring to the attention of the house the actual position of the farmers who have been paying this rate of eight per cent for the last twenty or twenty-five years. I have before me a letter which was clipped from a western paper, and was sent to me. It arrived in my mail this morning. This is part of a letter written by a farmer in Saskatchewan to his creditor in Waterloo, Ontario, stating:
Received your notice calling for payment of $6,238.92. Some figures. This amount has grown from $4,000 in 1928, our last crop, to $6,238.92 this year. This is certainly some Tacket. I wish I could make money as fast. Your offer of giving $2 for every dollar paid on interest arrears is a step in the right direction but of no avail, as we have had no crop

this year to pay anything, so you can put a few more figures on for next year, they look nice anyway.
You will soon have it up to $10,090 on paper, and on paper it will remain unless you make a real adjustment of balance and give me a definite amount to pay.
I will now list a few figures. As you know, the original loan when assumed by me was $6,000.
He proceeded to show by figures what payments had been made, the amount totalling $8,355.96, and then he says:
I have paid $8,355.96, and according to notice, I still owe you more than I originally did.
That is the case with so many farmers. Here is a farmer in my own constituency, living only a few miles from my own farm, who has paid eight per cent on a loan of $500 for twenty years. That is, he has paid $800 interest, but he still owes the $500, and the mortgage company is still collecting eight per cent. Now if this man had had a loan at 5J per cent, which I think would have been a fair rate of interest, I think his loan would now be paid off and his farm be free of debt, but as it is he is still carrying that load of $500. When he applied to the farm loan board this year he was told that they were afraid they could not give him a loan large enough to meet all his liabilities. He wanted a loan of $2,000 on 240 acres. The matter is still under consideration by the board. I am not referring to the board's action at the moment. I just want to use this case for the sake of illustration. If there had been a reduction in the rate of interest of even one per cent, if this man had had to pay seven per cent instead of the eight per cent, and that one per cent had been used towards amortizing his loan, I think by this time he would have had it cut in two. I do want to see the rate of interest low enough so that these farmers can look forward with some reasonable expectation of having their farms cleared before they pass out from this world.
In conclusion, I want to urge upon the minister that before this bill is finally taken out of committee he should make the necessary amendment to the last section of the bill to provide a maximum rate of interest on farm mortgages for at least a term of years. I think that maximum should not be more than five per cent at the outside, and I would hope that it could be done at four per cent, and if necessary make it so that it will carry through to the original investor in the mortgage company's bonds. I do not want to bring the mortgage companies into the bankrupt class; there are so many farmers there now, and it would not give me any pleasure

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Bothwell
to see any more people or corporations put into that position, but I think that is the best thing to do under the circumstances. I believe it is far better for these people to have a mortgage under which they will receive their money at five per cent than one at eight per cent when they are not going to get their money, and it is better for an investor to have a bond at three or four per cent when he is going to be paid than one at five per cent which he is afraid is not going to be made good.


Mr. J. T. HACKETT (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments which are before the house are aimed at remedying some of the inadequacies of the act. I think it is imperative that those inadequacies be remedied, and remedied at once, because if the traditional delays of the law are going to overtake the administration of this act it will fail, and fail miserably, in its purpose. It is failing in part now because the delay of sixty days granted to the farmer who makes a proposal under the act, having expired in many cases before they have been disposed of by the board of review,_ the seizing creditor has been able to go on with his action or his execution.
I furthermore note that in Quebec at least that the act is inadequate in that no reference is made to a very common type of transaction by which a property is acquired, and there does not appear to be in the amendments any proposal to meet this inadequacy.
I would draw to the minister's attention that an accumulation of appeals and the delay which must elapse before they can be disposed of endangers the working of the act * itself.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Complaint has been made that this act in its operation has the effect of penalizing the local creditor possibly for the benefit of the mortgage companies and the secured creditor.
The complaint is also made that in the case of a first mortgage on land no reductions are ordinarily made excepting a reduction in the arrears of interest, and possibly a very small cut in the rate of interest. When a farmer finds it necessary to make application to the official under this act, and that official finds that a farmer is in such circumstances that he needs the benefit of the act, then it does seem to me that an adjustment should be made whereby that debtor should not be required to pay more than the legal rate of interest from that time on until he is able to get on his feet, that legal rate of interest being five per cent at the moment. The reduction that was referred to by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) from
eight per cent to seven per cent is of no special value to that farmer at all because he is in such circumstances that he needs a greater reduction than that.
Then I believe, too, that all of these officials who have charge of administering the act should be instructed that they are not to approve of a scheme that only has the effect of penalizing the local merchants and the local people in the community in which the debtor lives and allows the mortgage _ company to get away with what is practically an increase in its security. That is actually what is happening at the present time.
_ I had a reply the other day from the minister in connection with the operation of this act in Swift Current. That reply stated that some thirteen applications, I think it was, had been dealt with and in one a formal order was made. Compromises were secured to the extent of some $52,000. I do not know how it worked out in all cases but I do know this, that one case that will be included within that $52,000, and in which there was a very substantial reduction amounting to several thousands of dollars, would have come about whether we had an official receiver there or not. The creditor who had to suffer the adjustment-we will call it that-stated that had the debtor approached him in the first place he would have made an adjustment himself, and possibly an even better adjustment than was made, without the intervention of the official referee.


Samuel Gobeil: Why didn't he do it then?


Charles Edward Bothwell: He never was approached by the debtor. The debtor, immediately he knew something of the operation of the act, went to the official referee and made his proposition and the papers were sent out calling him into the official referee's office.
But the point I specially want to make is this, that in the operation of this act, while it should be beneficial to many farmers, and there are many farmers particularly in the west who need any benefits this act can afford, there is another class of person in the west who is also entitled to some consideration and whom I think this act should be extended to include. As the matter now stands the farmer is able to get an adjustment, as I said, at the expense of the local merchant and local business man, the local professional man, and so on. But the merchants in these country places are not able to collect their debts, and they are getting no reduction from the wholesaler. They need the benefit of an act such as this just as much as the farmer does. They are giving

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Loucks
the farmer a reduction on his debt, not being paid in a great many instances, although they expect to get it over a period of years. But so far as the merchant is concerned he is getting no reduction, and consequently the merchant, the business man of every description and professional men are gradually going broke. I trust that the minister will give attention to that class of case and consider the advisability of extending the operation of this act to include some of the other classes who are being penalized at the present time just as much as the farmer is.


Mr. W. J. LOUCKS (Rosetown):: I have
no criticism to make of the remarks we have heard from the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). He has pretty well stated the case in this house to-day, and I can endorse what he has said. The unfortunate thing is that throughout the little towns in western Canada the merchant has given security to the wholesaler, either by way of note or in some collateral form, and when he is asked to write down the debts due to him it is not very encouraging for him to find that he cannot get any money. But the wholesaler holds the local merchant to his indebtedness, one hundred cents on the dollar. In my opinion, so far as the local debts in our province are concerned, they could be cut in half if some money were available to take care of the local merchants after they have written down debts. If this were done it would stimulate trade right across the country and give the farmers and others a fresh start.
I may have big ideas, something perhaps beyond the power of this government to put into effect, but I do say that the situation is very serious indeed. I am still convinced that agriculture is the basic industry of the country, and if it were possible either to consolidate the debts of the farmers, not only in western Canada but throughout the dominion, and to write them down fifty per cent, it would have a very beneficial effect indeed. From one receiver I have received a letter informing me that the debts in his locality could be written down from $700,000 to 8300,000 if only ready money were available, and there would be no heed to go to the court of review. This morning I received a letter from a farmer who sold his farm in my district. On this farm he put up a house at a cost of $5,000. On moving to British Columbia he sold the farm and the purchaser owes a balance of $9,000 for it, and the purchaser is now applying to the receiver for a fifty per cent writing down. I have a

copy of a letter from the man in British Columbia-the man who sold the farm in question-and he now offers to take $4,500 in settlement of his claim for $9,000. But he wants ready money.
You will say, but what about $90,000,000 we have already voted for that very purpose. Well, I realize that that is a real move in the right direction, but I cannot help feeling that it will be only a drop in the bucket over the dominion when it comes to satisfying the applications that will flood in to the farm loan board. I have not the figures before me, and I can only speak from memory, but I believe that in 1933 the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), either in the committee on agriculture or in the banking and commerce committee, stated that the debts of the farmers throughout Canada amounted to $1,500,000,000-I am not sure of the amount. If that could be reduced by half, I can think of nothing that would so stimulate business. It would help matters very greatly if the government could issue enough money to wipe out this debt. I would be willing to tackle it. You may say, "But you are not a financier." Well, I know that I am not a financier, but I ask this question: What can the farmers do under present circumstances? If this debt could be written down to fifty cents on the dollar you would really have twice the security that you have now, because the farmers, with things as they are at present, will never be able to meet their obligations. They certainly cannot do so in the west.
I am not a pessimist who thinks that there is no hope for the country, but at the same time it is rather discouraging to the farmer to feel that he cannot get out of debt. The hon. member for Macleod suggests the reduction of interests. I have another alternative. I believe that if it were possible to have a moratorium at this time and to cut out interest it would give the farmers a chance, so that interest would not accumulate for the next five or ten years. If you could do that there would be more hope for the farmer. But when he looks at his mortgage to-day, when he compares his present liabilities with his indebtedness five or eight years ago, he sees that it has about doubled, and he sees no hope ahead; interest will continue around seven per cent. This is not very encouraging to the farmer. We have to face these things whether we are on this side of the house or sitting opposite, and I hope we shall all be big enough to get together on this question, because if agriculture is not once more placed

Farmers' Creditors Act

Mr. Loucks
on a prosperous basis there is no hope for the rest of the country. I think we are all agreed on that.
My hon. friend from Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has painted a very black picture of conditions in western Canada. I do not believe he did it intentionally, but I think he was exploiting the situation yesterday. In January I happened to be in Montana visiting my daughter, and I certainly did not find things there as rosy as he painted them. There was a processing tax of thirty cents a bushel on wheat and there was also a processing tax, which the hon. gentleman did admit, of three cents a pound on hogs; and my daughter told me that there was a personal tax on household effects. The assessor goes right into her house and assesses her silverware and other things, and even her watch is assessed. My son-in-law told me he had to get a licence for his car, and he had to pay a tax on his car on the first of January. And what about the condition of the people there? They are living in shacks, not- such buildings as we have in this country. The housing situation is bad, and if you went there you would endorse what I say. But what is their answer when you point this out to them? They say that if they put up a house they are assessed for it. They are taxed on everything conceivable, from a woman's jewellery, silverware and household effects right down. Down there the farmers feel that in Canada, at any rate, the Prime Minister has tried! to do something.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I would ask him to confine himself to the subject.


William John Loucks: I will try to do so, Mr. Speaker. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the tariff is the source of the trouble. But I compared conditions in Canada with conditions in Montana when I was there last January and I did not find so much difference in the price of machinery. But even supposing any difficulty in that connection could be got over, that would not save the situation to-day.
While I agree that this amendment to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will be a help so far as the farmers are concerned, I believe we must igo further. Even with good crops in western Canada-and I am speaking about the west particularly because I am more familiar with it-the farmers, with the prevailing prices cannot recover. There are other aspects of the question. I know farmers in my constituency bought land at $70 or $75 an acre and I know it is impossible for them ever to meet their obligations because there
is no such earning capacity in any farm in western Canada. With wheat at $2 a bushel, there might be hope of writing off their debts but we cannot expect such prices for some time to come.
When I suggested, as I did recently that a moratorium be introduced and an assurance given to farmers that for five years interest would be wiped out, I was told that to do so would be ridiculous. The question was asked: What about the poor fellow who depends on that interest for his livelihood? Well, according to the figures given by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), these people have been pretty well paid and in many cases the debt has been doubled. If I were holding a mortgage on a farm for S10,000 at seven per cent interest, knowing conditions as I do, as the mortgage companies and as individual lenders do, I would be very happy if any government were to come to my -rescue and say: If you will consider giving the mortgagor a chance and will wipe out the interest, probably we can assure you that at some time in the future you will get the principal. I think most people or companies who hold mortgages on farms to-day would be very glad should some such assurance be given-. If that were done, it would be a great help to the farmers of western Canada.
I want to stress the point again that I cannot see how the farmer is to ask merchants and professional men to write off 50 per cent of his debt and yet we cannot come to their rescue and give them a dollar to help them back on their feet. I know I am on this side of the house and I am speaking plainly. These are matters that we must consid-er and I do not care from which side the suggestion comes. Surely we are big enough when we are sent here -by the people to represent them as a whole. The h-on. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) made that very plain. He has given the situation as he knows it in his particular constituency and the same is true of m-e. We are hoping for a scheme which will prevent similar conditions from again arising in western Canada. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) beside me suggests: What about gambling? The farmers in the west say that the whole thing to-day is a gamble, but if we can get some of the streams dammed up under the scheme put forward by the Department of Agriculture, we shall forget that it is a gamble and I believe such a scheme is a move in the .right direction.
So far as gambling is concerned we have all had a lesson, but I will not speak further about that because I shall be called to order by the chair and rightly so. The Minister of
1336	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Roberge
Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has done much for the farmers and I want to give him every credit for it. He is thinking seriously of the condition in which the farmers generally find themselves, and I believe there is some hope for them if something like this is brought about. I realize that $90,000,000 is a great deal of money, a splendid sum, but it will never save the situation and I can see where trouble may arise. When the minister said yesterday that $7,500 was the maximum, he is right, because I know we shall have many applications for the maximum amount and I can see how quickly $90,000,000 will disappear.
I am strongly of opinion that if we cannot wipe out the interest altogether, it should be reduced to four per cent. There is a justification for doing so at this time and such action would be of still further assistance. When we consider the arrears of taxes, the other debts piling up, the deterioration of machinery and the necessity for immediate and drastic action, we must devise some way of taking care of the situation. Let us start at the foot of the ladder, the basic industry of this country.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Before this bill receives its second reading I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to a point raised in New Brunswick and perhaps elsewhere by parties interested in this measure. It is said that in the compromise effected by the farmer there is no protection to the farm labourer for his wages due. I understand he has to come in as an ordinary creditor and take his cut. In all other acts where a compromise is effected, I believe the labourer is always protected as a preferred creditor. The question arises in that province: Should the labourer not be a preferred creditor under this act?


Mr. EUSEBE ROBERGE (Megantic) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, introduced in this house last year by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) with the approval of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), is now back before us for amendment.
This act may suit some of the provinces, but it is not in the interest of the province of Quebec, for it is doing more harm to .the credit of the farming class of Quebec than any other bill ever introduced in this house, except the conscription bill of 1917. When the prime minister moved the adoption of this bill, last year, he thought he had found the remedy for all our evils. I think he was greatly mistaken, as this bill means the con-

scription of the capital of the retired farmer and the ruination of the credit of the farming class.
Throughout the beautiful countryside of the province of Quebec you will find, Mr. Chairman, in nearly every village, fifteen or twenty retired farmers who, after having worked their farms during twenty, thirty or forty years and, in most cases, raised a large family, are ending their days in the shadow of the village church. Through the practice of economy, they have succeeded in setting aside for their old days from $4,000 to $10,000, and sometimes more. These worthy farmers, who have spent their lives on the land, have, in many cases, invested their all in first and second mortgages on farms. In our province, as you know, very little investment money comes to rural regions from outside; most of the mortgages are held by retired farmers in the villages and the surrounding country.
This infamous act, in force since last year, has given the worst possible results. It provides that if a farmer goes to the representative appointed by the government in each county to effect compromises between creditors and debtors and hands him the list of his debts, the receiver will immediately call upon the creditors to appear before him and, in many cases, the amount due by the farmer is reduced from forty to fifty per cent. Can it be considered reasonable to take away nearly half the savings of a worthy farmer who has toiled during forty or fifty years to provide himself with a small nest egg? I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that it is a crying injustice. A prime minister who proposes the adoption of such a law proves by the very fact that he knows nothing of the distress of the farming population of the province of Quebec.
Our farmers are quite willing to pay their debts, but, in order that they may do so, we must assist them instead of acting as the government does. Since this government came to power, they have done everything possible to penalize the farmer. First, they have not kept their pledges of 1930. The Prime Minister had promised everyone better prices for their products; he was to open new markets abroad, and thus relieve the situation. But, on the contrary, since he came to power, year after year he levied new taxes on farmers and, by this great bill, he takes away from them what was their most valuable assest, and that is credit. In the rural centres, nobody will now lend money to farmers because of bill No. 10. Why has the government such a grudge against the farming community, seeing that they ruin their credit; and why have

Farmers' Creditors Act- Mr. Gagnon
they such a gnulge against the small investor, the rentier, seeing that they are conscripting the capital which it took so many years for that man to gather? Why is the government always going after the small investor instead of the big capitalist?
The right hon. the Prime Minister, who, on more than one occasion, has paraded as a dictator after the fashion of Mussolini and Hitler, ought to read in the papers how Hitler is acting to get the money he needs, He does not go after the poor fellow only; he begins with those who have wealth. Our Prime Minister would do well to follow that example; he would do well to assist those who have no money and to get the money from those who possess it.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The other day the Liberal whip objected to an hon. member on this side of the house reading his speech. He was at the time making a very careful statement that he wanted to be accurate. I object to the hon. member reading every word of his speech.


Mr. FAFARD:: He is just consulting his
notes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will
kindly not follow his notes too closely.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister was following Hitler's example, our farming community would be better off.
Here is what we read in the newspapers concerning Hitler:
Conscription of money by Hitler:	Large
powers have been given Von Krosigk, finance leader in Berlin. Money levies are made from banks and individuals who will be forced to deplete their reserves.


Mr. GAGNON:: Still reading.


Eusèbe Roberge: Mr. Speaker, I am against conscription not only of money but against all sort of conscription. But that is the principle on which is based every legislation brought down by this government since they came to power and which has been so injurious to our farming population and our working class.
I have put questions on the order paper in respect of this farmer's creditors arrangement act. I suppose the hon. member for Compton will not challenge the accuracy of answers which were given by the Minister of Finance. Here is my question:
How many farmers of the county of Megantic-Frontenac have effected a settlement under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
Mr. Pdiodes:
Records are kept on the basis of judicial districts. The county of Megantic-Frontenac is partly in the judicial district of Arthabaska, partly in the judicial district of St. Francis and partly in the judicial district of Beauce.
In the judicial district of Beauce 35 settlements were reported to the end of January.
In the judicial	district of St. Francis	35settlements were	reported	to	the end	of
December, 1934.
In the judicial	district	of	Arthabaska	3settlements were	reported	to	the end	of
December, 1934.
On February 25, the Minister of Finance gave an interview to the press and here is what I find in the papers:
Hon. E. N. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, announced that, at the end of January, 9,290 farmers of the province of Quebec had asked for information from official receivers regarding the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. 1,703 proposals had been submitted and there had been voluntary settlements in 226 cases.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a county with a population of more than 5,000 farmers. According to the minister's answers and his interview in the papers, only three farmers in my constituency have taken advantage of that act and that same act has been injurious to the 5,000 farmers in my county. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this act is the most unfair ever passed by this house, that it is ruining the farmers' credit and is creating conscription of the money owned by the village rentier in our beautiful province of Quebec.


Onésime Gagnon: 
Mr. MARCIL:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Onésime Gagnon: Yes.


Charles Marcil: I ask the question only
for information, because the hon. member is apparently well posted in the matter. Would he tell us what has been done by the legislature of Quebec in connection with a moratorium, or something of that kind? Was not some legislation passed, either last year or the year before?


Onésime Gagnon: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Is the question now pending before the legislature?


Onésime Gagnon: Yes. The point raised
by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is well taken. It is true that in the province of Quebec there is a moratorium whereby a creditor who has a claim guaranteed by a mortgage on a farm cannot sue the debtor if that debtor has paid his interest and his taxes. Of course that legislation is only of a temporary character, and if I were too much of a partisan I might take the view, a view which has been taken in some quarters, that the moratorium may have helped to destroy the credit of the farmers. I will not make that statement, however, because I want to approach the problem from a non-partisan standpoint. We must realize, however, that the moratorium legislation is only of a temporary character.
This new legislation, however, will have the effect of settling once and for all the difficulty existing between farmers and their creditors. When a farmer and his creditor appear before an official receiver they have the opportunity to agree upon a settlement which will give a satisfactory arrangement to both. According to information apparently in the possession of many hon. members it would appear that in many cases in the province of Quebec the amount of the claim registered against the farm has not been changed, and that only the rate of interest has been affected. In some cases money has been loaned at rates of five per cent, six per cent or seven per cent, and now we hear that creditors and debtors have gone before a board of review and in some instances have agreed to reduce the rate to two per cent or three per cent. I believe we cannot too greatly congratulate creditors who have such a commendable sense of justice as to reduce

interest rates to such an extent. A creditor who would do that ought to receive the congratulations of every hon. member because he shows he is endowed with humanitarian principles. In some cases the amount of the claim has not been changed, but the creditor and farmer have agreed to postpone the date of settlement.
All these details go to show that this legislation will not deprive the creditor of his legitimate rights, but will serve to indicate that it is a law of compromise and one which will tend to make for peace between the debtor and creditor. Once a debtor has made an amicable and equitable settlement with his creditor his credit is restored. It may be advisable to pass an amendment to the law whereby it would be enacted that the legislation we are now passing would not affect future deeds. I realize that in the future some people may have difficulty getting money from rentiers. An amendment might be suggested whereby it would be enacted that in the future this legislation would affect only past transactions. However, I leave that matter to the judgment of the house and for the attention of the Minister of Finance.
There is another aspect of the legislation which I desire to bring to the attention of the minister. If hon. members will read sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of chapter 53 of the statutes for 1934, namely:	The Farmers'
Creditors Arrangement Act, they would find that that legislation is complementary to the Bankruptcy Act, because the official receivers are given powers which belong to receivers under the Bankruptcy Act. I would respectfully draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in 1932 we amended the Bankruptcy Act and the effect of that amendment was that the Bankruptcy Act does not now apply to the farmers of the province of Quebec. In other words, whilst the farmers of other provinces may go into bankruptcy and make an arrangement with their creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, the farmers in the province of Quebec have no such rights, and that might be dangerous because of section 6 of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, which reads as follows:
(1)	A farmer who is unable to meet his liabilities as they become due may make a proposal for a composition, extension of time or scheme or arrangement either before or after an assignment has been made.
(2)	Such proposal shall be filed with the official receiver who shall forthwith convene a meeting of the creditors and perform the duties and functions required by the Bankruptcy Act

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Gobeil
to be performed by a trustee in the case of a proposal for a composition, extension of time or scheme of arrangement.
Now if the official receiver gives a notice of discontinuance of proceedings, for instance, his rights might be impeached because a creditor might argue before the courts of the province of Quebec that the powers which the receiver has are very limited in nature because he gets his powers from under the Bankruptcy Act, and the Bankruptcy Act does not apply to the province of Quebec. I wonder if it would not be worth while to refer that point to the Department of Justice to find out whether it would be necessary to amend the Bankruptcy Act. But I may be too presumptuous; the minister may have an answer. Nevertheless we read in the newspapers of the city of Quebec that a creditor is serving notice upon the attorney general and the Minister of Justice that this bill which we are discussing is unconstitutional. I do not see myself why it would be ultra vires; I cannot see why the creditor would allege its so-called unconstitutionality. Since the matter is pending before the courts it might be wiser not to discuss it further, but in view of the litigation which is going on perhaps it would be wise to study the question anew from all angles so as to prevent any abuse of the rights of creditors before the courts.
May I finish my humble remarks with the wish that the negotiations which are now pending before the hon. Minister of Finance and the attorney general of Quebec may be successful. I do hope that a way will be found whereby the rights of a creditor whose rights are guaranteed by a deed of sale under a clause of redemption might be recognized. On the other hand, the debtor will be able to redeem his property and make an equitable settlement with his creditors and hope for better times.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Speaker, if I rise to make a few remarks on this bill it is only to endorse the remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who stressed particularly one or two points.
He commenced by referring to the speech which was made by the hon. member who preceded him, the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). When I rose to a point of order while the hon. member for Megantic was speaking, some hon. members may have thought I should have allowed him to proceed, but I did it for the reason that has just been given by my hon. friend from Dorchester. If you, Mr. Speaker, or the house, understood, the remarks sometimes made by the hon.
member from Megantic I do not think he would be allowed to make them because I regard them as unworthy of this house.
The hon. member for Dorchester translated a few of the remarks made by the hon. member for Megantic, but he did not translate them all. I shall not translate his whole speech but I should like to translate one other remark which the hon. member for Megantic made. He said that there never was a law passed by this parliament so infamous as this one except the law of conscription in 1917. The other day I heard an hon. member opposite say that conscription was a dead issue. My hon. friend from Dorchester said yesterday or the day before that it was not a dead issue, and you can see very well, Mr. Speaker, what is likely to happen in the few months that are ahead of us. That is why I objected to the remarks of the hon. member for Megantic. In a most inoffensive way he proceeds to read his speech, every word of it-


Mr. DUPRE:: And in a low voice.


Samuel Gobeil: -and in such a low voice that even those who understand French could hardly hear him, but he gets his remarks in Hansard, remarks that I do not think any other member of the house would dare to make. I have almost come to the conclusion, and I suggest, that it looks very much as if the hon. member for Megantic was not speaking for the house when he speaks in this chamber but rather for the purpose of having his words put on Hansard so that he can send his speech out to his electors. Just now I know that the hon. member is using his frank to mail out thousands of copies of the remarks he made last week, some of which were just as bad as what we have heard to-day. That is all I have to say on that matter, Mr. Speaker, except to repeat and endorse what was said by my hon. friend from Dorchester that some of the leaders of the members from Quebec should take a stand and state whether or not they endorse the remarks and opinions expressed by my hon. friend from Megantic.


Maurice Dupré: Hear, hear.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for Megantic says that this law is infamous, unjust, unfair, and that it is causing a lot of damage. Certainly not to the farmers, Mr. Speaker. This house has unanimously expressed the opinion from all sides that our farmers are a class of citizens that have been the hardest hit by the depression. If that is so, it may be a reason for this law which is perhaps in a certain way a law of exception, giving to the farmers of Canada perhaps a little advantage
1342	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Willis
over other classes of the population. If that argument is true, if the farming class has been the hardest hit by the depression, I do not see any objection to their having this little advantage, and if they are not harder hit than any other class, then the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) and by the hon. member sitting on this side of the house might pass, and there might be a general reduction of debts between individuals and of all internal debts in this country. But it seems to be unanimously agreed that it is the duty of the government to protect the poor man, and that is why in my opinion this law is being passed. I understand that in certain cases in the small rural villages the people are being led to believe, and I am very much tempted to say that some hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible for this opinion that has been spread around the country, that this law was doing damage to the creditors. In my opinion that is altogether wrong. This does protect the creditors, just as much as it does the debtor, and I know personally of cases where it has been clearly shown that the act has operated beneficially to the creditor. I have a letter from a trustee-it is dated February 25 and I received it yesterday-with reference to a farmer who offered his creditors fifty cents on the dollar. They did not see fit to accept.


Vincent Dupuis: The secured creditors also?


Samuel Gobeil: Secured creditors. They did not see their way to accept the offer. They had the statement before them and they examined it thoroughly, and finally they realized there was nothing for them; their claim was lost. Now this law does not put anyone in the position of losing his money. If I have loaned $1,000 and am unfortunate to lose that loan this law does not make my situation any worse; it is intended to help it. In this particular instance the creditors realized that the act was helping them, because after refusing fifty cents in the dollar they came back later and offered to accept it. The man replied, " I thought at the time I made the offer that I could get the money, but on inquiry since I have found that I cannot, and unfortunately you will have to take over the property." Finally, the trustee informs me, a settlement was made on the basis of fifty cents in the dollar for secured creditors and tewnty-five cents for ordinary creditors, and the matter did not go to the board of review. It was settled mutually, and the trustee writes me that the debtor and the creditors went home happy.
[Mr. Gobeil.l
The creditors were not as happy as they would have been if they had got one hundred per cent of their claim, but considering the circumstances of this man they felt that they had reason to be satisfied. I know of another farmer whose debt was reduced; the amount involved was $3,342. There again the debtor and creditors came to a mutual understanding and they parted shaking hands. There are two or three more cases of this kind which I will not bother to refer to just now.
I contend that this act does protect the creditors, if not to the same extent, at any rate in principle, as it does the debtor. In this very instance to which I have just referred, every hon. member knows what it would cost if the property of this man had been sold by process of law at a sheriff's sale. They know very well that quite often the cost is as high as $500, $600, S700 or $800. But by this act the property is disposed of in such a way that the creditors get every cent that it brings. For that reason, therefore, it seems to me that the hon. member for Megantic should make himself better acquainted with the law. I certainly do not suggest that he speaks in bad faith, but either he does not understand the law or his good faith can be very much doubted. I was going to refer to another question but this is all 1 will say for the present.
Mr. ERRICIK F. WILLIS (Souris): While thousands of cases have been settled under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, I would point out that there are many that have been settled outside the act itself; but the fact remains that these settlements have been brought about because of the existence on the statute books of that act. I will cite only one case, which is a good example. A farmer owed the bank in my territory the sum of $9,500. He went to the manager of the bank and informed him that he would make application under the Farmer's Creditors Arrangement Act, and the banker suggested that he wait for two weeks until he could consult head office. The farmer agreed not to make application, and in ten days' time the bank manager called him in and said that the bank was willing to reduce the indebtedness from $9,500 to $2,500, and give him four years in which to pay. That arrangement was made possible by the existence on the statute books of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. It was the Royal Bank of Canada.


Vincent Dupuis: Where was that farm-in the dried out area?

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Porteous


Mr. WILLIS:: It is in the dried out area,
and it is also on the edge of the Turtle Mountain forest reserve, one of the best farming countries in Canada. There were no other reasons in connection with the settlement than the fact that the bank realized that by their action they would place this man back on his feet. If the bank had been unwilling to make that arrangement the man would have left his farm and the bank would have had to start foreclosure action. The bank did not want to go into the farming business and so they did a very wise thing. The result is that this man, having now to pay only $2,500 owing to the bank, finds that his other creditors are willing to extend him credit, which they would not do while he owed the bank $9,500. Through the existence of this act, and without making any application, this man is "back on his feet. I could tell of other instances where individual debtors went to their creditors and suggested the wisdom of applying under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and forthwith the creditors have got together themselves, not under the act, and made a settlement which was satisfactory to the farmer.
In my area, which includes all the dried out area of Manitoba, the official receiver is exceedingly busy. I have seen him on different occasions at the close of the day and he has said to me, "I have made two, three, five settlements to the satisfaction of creditor and debtor alike." The big advantage of this act as compared with the other acts in the provinces, and foojh have their value, is that this is a debt adjustment act; it is not a debt postponement act as the others are. The acts in the provinces are debt postponement acts and they have their value, even as this act has its value. It depends on what the farmer desires, whether he desires to have his debt postponed or to have it definitely adjusted, as to which he ought to embrace. But while evidence. may foe adduced as to thousands who have been benefited by the act, there are also I should say, hundreds and maybe thousands who have been benefited due to the mere existence of the act, owing to the fact that the creditors realize they must make a settlement lest they come before the official receiver and finally the board of review.


Mr. V. C. PORTEOUS (North Grey):: Lest the impression go abroad that the majority of the farmers of the dominion are taking advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I would like to say that only a very small percentage of the farmers need to make application under it. The act provides a wedge as it were between nothing at all and the Bankruptcy Act, and I too should like to support the statement of the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) inasmuch as a great- many settlements have been made as a result of this legislation being on the statute books.
We have in my constituency a very fine official receiver. When I was talking to Mr. MadPherson the other day, he told me that he thought our official receiver was the best man to promote settlements of any one he had in the dominion. Our receiver told me he made almost t(wo hundred settlements which lie never made officially but which he negotiated between the creditors and the debtors. I think he has done fine work and in fact all the official receivers are doing fine work in that connection.
I believe this legislation is only temporary; at least I hope it is. It is serving a temporary purpose. Farmers as a result of the depression and of climatic -conditions find themselves embarrassed financially and they must have more freedom in connection with meeting their indebtedness. I want to cite one- instance because- the h-on. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both,well) Stated that the mortgagees were not as willing to reduce their mortgages as the unsecured creditors were to reduce their accounts. In my constituency we had a case where a mortgage had reached the- sum of $4,500 on a one-hundred- acre- farm. When a meeting of creditors was called, the mortgagee reduced that mortgage to $2,500 and in that case he reduced it more on a percentage basis than was the case with the unsecured creditors. There are a good many instances o,f that character.
I had the privilege of sitting in at the meeting of the tribunal held at Ottawa a short time ago and I saw exhibited by a farmer the finest spirit. This wTas a case where a young farmer had taken over all the indebtedness of his father. In 1920 the farm had been bought by the father for $9,000 in addition to $4,500 worth of stock and equipment. The total purchase price was $13,500 and the farmer had paid $7,500 in cash. Prior to 1930 the indebtedness had been reduced to $4,000, but during the last three or four years this man had found himself with little or no crop and his indebtedness was increased to about 84,900. Together with that he had borrowed S500 in order to meet his obligations. The decision of the tribunal was very fair. They decided to reduce the secured debt to $4,400 and they also reduced the rate of interest from seven to five per cent for the
1344	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Dupuis
first three years. But that was not all. They decided that they would ask the unsecured creditors to take 75 per cent of their claims and this young farmer said he would not be satisfied to do that. He said: "I want to pay these people who loaned me that money every cent I borrowed from them." That is the spirit of many farmers who have to make application under this act. They want if at all possible to pay their debts. They want reduced interest rates, but they are willing to pay so far as possible every dollar of the principal. I believe that young farmer will pay every cent of that indebtedness and in a few years will be again on the road to success. That is the spirit which we should endeavour to encourage and which this bill is lending itself to encourage among the farmers of this dominion.


Vincent Dupuis: I have just a few vrords to say about this legislation. I shall not follow the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) in regard to the provincial field. I have not the advantage of being under the illusion of being a chief of a great party because I never went to the Sherbrooke convention. But I will discuss this matter simply as we have it before us. The hon. gentleman says that he is doubtful about this act having the force of law in Quebec because in 1932 there had been an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act, excluding farmers from its provisions. I would direct his attention to this Compromise and Arrangement between Farmers and Creditors Act, article 2, subsection 2, which reads:
This act shall be read and construed as one with the Bankruptcy Act, but shall have full force and effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Bankruptcy Act, and the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and bankruptcy rules shall, except as in this act otherwise provided, apply mutatis mutandis in the case of proceedings hereunder including meetings of creditors.
I do not know if I am giving a wrong, interpretation of this section, but in my opinion it means that this legislation will apply to the whole country notwithstanding anything contained in the Bankruptcy Act. Hon. members on the other side have discussed special cases, as examples to show that this legislation is of advantage to both farmers and creditors. I do not think we should discuss this question on that basis. We should consider whether the present legislation and the proposed amendment are so drafted as to give power to the board of review and the officers to force a creditor to
[Mr. Porteous.l
reduce his claim even if it is secured as provided in section 7 of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which reads:
A proposal may provide for a compromise or an extension of time or a scheme of arrangement in relation to a debt owing to a secured creditor, or in relation to a debt owing to a person who has acquired movable or immovable property subject to a right of redemption, but in that event the concurrence of the secured creditor or such person, shall be required, except in the case of a proposal formulated and confirmed by the board of review as hereinafter provided.
My interpretation of this section is that even if the creditor refuses the proposal of the debtor-farmer the case may go to the board of review, which in the province of Quebec is composed of a judge of the superior court, a representative of the creditor and a representative of the farmer. If that board of review decides from any consideration whatever that the creditor, whether secured or not, shall reduce his claim, its judgment is final, there is no appeal. That is the law as it stands to-day, and this section 7 is not to be amended by the present bill. That legislation is I submit unconstitutional, because it infringes on the provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. If it has not been applied in the province of Quebec, as stated by an hon. member on the other side, I am under the impression it is because the judges are reluctant to apply it anticipating that such judgment would be appealed and reversed. Nevertheless the law is there, and I submit that as it stands now the board of review can reduce the claim of a secured creditor; as we say in our civil code he may reduce hypothecatory claims just as well as ordinary claims. Consequently I believe that is unconstitutional.
If you permit me I shall discuss this legislation from another angle. We have the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. A few days ago we passed the second reading of the Canadian Farm Loan Act. By that act a farmer will be allowed under certain conditions to borrow money from this country. Let me take a definite case: suppose a farmer from the county of my friend the hon. member for Dorchester makes application to borrow money from this government to cover indebtedness already incurred due to the crisis or to lack of a market or any other cause. Suppose this farmer owns a farm valued at $10,000 in normal times, and that his stock and implements and buildings have a value of $3,000; that leaves him a total equity of $8,000. He owes to secured or unsecured creditors the sum of $5,000, and applies fo.r a loan for that amount. Let us suppose

Farmers' Creditors Act

Mr. Stewart
that the farm loan board is not so severe regarding valuation as they used to be. As it is getting nearer and nearer to the day of the election, which will come like a thief in the night, this commission will foe more ready to lend money to t-lffese poor farmers. "So this farmer is able to borrow that $5,000. As the years pass he finds he cannot repay his obligation to the government. Is it not possible that this farmer will take the weapon that has been given him by this present government, that is the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and make application to have his obligation reduced by 50 per cent, and to defer the payment of interest for three or four years? Under these two acts the farmer will first be able to borrow money from the government through the farm loan board; then years afterwards, he will be able to ask from the same authority a 50 per cent reduction of his debt under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. That is the situation as I see it. Therefore is it not true to say that economically speaking, due to lack of prudence on the part of this government, this Canadian,. Farm Loan Act will result in a deficit of many millions of dollars out of this $90,000,000 that the government is presently ready to place at the disposal of the farmers?
I do mot believe that the farmers are so anxious to avail themselves of the facilities of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Hon. members know perfectly well that generally speaking the farmens are honest and industrious and hate to be obliged to take advantage of such legislation. They would rather meet their obligations. They are sorry to be required to humiliate themselves, as they must do to take advantage of this legislation. The only thing they want is sufficient income to enable them to meet their obligations. I may tell this government that if they are putting forward this legislation in order to please an important class of our community before the election I am afraid this legislation will not help them very much. As I have already said, the farmer is more anxious to sell his goods than to borrow money and have to beg bis creditors to reduce their claims. The farmers know very well that if they take advantage of this legislation they destroy their credit forever. In the province of Quebec farmers generally loan money to each other, and they know very well that if they go before a board of review and have their indebtedness reduced, in the future they will not be able to borrow a single dollar either from other farmers, from loan companies or from banks. If this is put forward as a social
measure I believe it is a kind of socialism that will lead this country to destruction. Many times in this house hon. members have quoted the statement of the Prime Minister that he would succeed or perish in the attempt. I think in bringing forward this legislation he is tempting fate; I believe he will perish.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Bury


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I do not wish to delay second reading of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to say I believe this is extremely necessary legislation, and I am glad these amendments are being put forward to improve the act we passed last year. I think we have had evidence from all sides of the house, from members representing agricultural districts, clearly showing the need for such legislation. If I were to offer any criticism at all it would be that in western Canada the judicial districts are somewhat large, and in some cases we find that men who want to take advantage of the act must travel 150 or 200 miles in order to interview the official receiver. That is one drawback, but I think there are great possibilities in this legislation; up to the present I do not think we have appreciated the good it may do. We have seen something of the possibilities, but I hope that within the next twelve months a great many agreements will be made between debtors and creditors with the aid of the two measures that have been before this house for amendment, the farm loan act and this measure.
I do believe, however, that some provision should be put in the act if possible to limit the rate of interest that may be charged, because up to the present the rates of interest have been altogether too high.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I spoke last year when the original bill was under consideration, but I should like to say a few words on the second reading of this amending bill. The measure passed last year, together with the present bill, did not arise out of any local difficulty affecting the farming community of western Canada or that of eastern Canada; they arose out of conditions which really constitute a national problem. It is a mistake for us to consider that this is a question concerning farmers only. So far as we in the west are concerned I think we recognize the fact that it is absolutely essential for the well being and advancement of the west that agriculture should be assisted and developed to the greatest extent possible. One of the most pressing problems in Canada to-day is that arising out of the terrible burden placed on the people of the country through the financial position of our railways, particularly of the Canadian National Railways. I think we are all agreed that the only possible solution of our railway problem is to increase our population. Certainly it would be disastrous to have the population of the agricultural sections of the west depleted, and if there were no other reason than our railway problem it

seems to me that the need for helping, supporting and developing agriculture in the west would be one of major importance.
In passing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do not think the population of the west can be increased in any way other than through the development of agriculture. I cannot conceive of the development of industry in the west to any great extent unless it is developed by reason of the growth of the agricultural community which may furnish a home market for local industry. Apart from that there is another aspect of the matter which to, me is extremely important, namely that unless the burden pressing down so many of the farmers in the west is mitigated or relieved, and unless farmers who are on the verge of deciding to give up farming because it has ceased to pay are encouraged to remain on their farms, the result will be that in western Canada we shall have large numbers of derelict farms. That of itself would be a calamity. I know that there are parts of western Canada in which the farms have been vacated and have become the seed beds for weeds, with the result that weeds have spread to surrounding lands. Every derelict farm is a menace to all the farms in the immediate neighbourhood. The mortagees or the municipal officials who have taken possession of such farms, due to default in payments of mortgage indebtedness or of taxes are immediately burdened with the additional expense of keeping down the weeds. If they do not keep them down, the provincial weed inspector comes down on them, and they find themselves in difficulties. I cannot conceive of any greater calamity to western Canada or any greater blow to agriculture than that which would result in any considerable abandonment of farms. I view this not as a problem affecting only the farmer and not as a matter concerning only the industry of agriculture, but as a national problem which must be solved if the west is to be developed. If the west is not developed the railway problem becomes aggravated, and the financial burden involved in that great problem magnified to a considerable extent. For these reasons I support the second reading of the bill.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: How many of these cases are settled in the offices of the official receivers, and what proportion are sent to the board of review? Further, how many assignments have been made?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act was passed last year there was not a dissenting voice. In

Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Rhodes
this chamber the principle was adopted unanimously, and so far as I am aware no objection was taken to the passing of the bill. The principle of the bill having thus been accepted, and in view of the fact that the present measure does not disturb that principle but is designed merely for the purpose of eliminating one or * two minor defects which have been discovered in the operation of the act, and to improve the machinery for its operation, and inasmuch as there was no question of the principle of the bill being disturbed, I offered no observations in moving the second reading. That I was right in my assumption is with two exceptions evidenced by the remarks of different hon. members who have spoken. It has remained for the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge) to exhibit absolute hostility to the bill, and for the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) to call in question its constitutionality and in other respects perhaps to indicate that he is not altogether in agreement with its principle.
The hon. member for Megantic may represent the opinion of the farmers in his constituency who, he states, number 5,000. May I observe however that in recent months I have received not dozens but hundreds of letters not only from farmers but from other individuals. Many other people whom in the very nature of things I would not see at all have come to the department, and I have as yet to receive the first letter from a farmer or an individual complaining about the principle of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. To me that seems a remarkable circumstance, if in fact the hon. member for Megantic is speaking for the citizens in his constituency.
I could not help contrasting his remarks with those of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks) who agreed with the principle of the bill but thought it did not go far enough. On the other hand the hon. member for Megantic was bitterly opposed to the principle and said it went altogether too far. The hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville left the impression that the effect of this bill was to humiliate the farmer. As was quite properly pointed out by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) no farmer need be humiliated. He need not call into operation the provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I do not believe any farmer who does take advantage of the act need feel humiliated. What would be the object of his availing himself of its provisions? He would do so to place himself in a position to meet his obligations according to his ability. If a farmer is able to meet his obligations without referring to the act there is no necessity for his doing so.
I have not taken extensive notes, for the obvious reason that the queries which have been put to me are those which could best be answered when we are in committee of the whole, when a better opportunity for questions and answers is afforded. At that time I shall be pleased to give information in detail and to answer the questions of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luch-kovich). Apparently the hon. member for Laprairie-Napierville is confused between the meanings of the word "social" and "socialism." This is social legislation, but it is as far removed from even the pink type of socialism as are the poles. What is the object of the legislation? The object is to keep the farmer on the farm, and surely if there is a capitalist on earth it is the farmer.
What I have said with respect to the questions of the hon. member for Vegreville applies also to references made by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). It is true that I have had some correspondence with Hon. L. A. Tasehereau, Premier of Quebec, and I should be very glad to produce it. I appreciate the difficulties in dealing with an old established law and, as may be necessary, in interfering with the civil code. While as yet there has been no legislation passed in the province of Quebec, my letter received a most cordial response from, the premier, and I feel sure if he can arrange an amendment to the law which will make for a more harmonious operation of this act, he will do so. We must remember that to the extent that the law of the province of Quebec militates against the successful operation of on one hand the farm loan act and on the other the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, just to that extent it militates against the citizens of that province. I have every reason to believe that the government representative of the people of the province of Quebec will take such steps as may be open to it to make the privileges possible under this act available to the citizens of that province, in the same manner as they have been made available to the citizens in other provinces. It must be borne in mind that this act has been in operation only a few short months, and yet notwithstanding that circumstance there have to our knowledge been many hundreds of settlements made outside the scope of the act altogether, but arrived at in virtue of the fact that the parties knew that if resort was had to the act a setlement would be effected. In addition to that, we actually have to-day proposals before the official receivers in the various parts of Canada exceeding seven thousand in number. When it is borne in

1348	COMMONS
Farmers' Creditors Act-Mr. Rhodes
mind that only a fraction, although it may be a large fraction, of the farms in Canada bear a mortgage at all, and that from that number we have upwards of seven thousand proposals already before the official receivers, no more striking illustration could be had I think of the merits of this act than that one circumstance alone.
My hon. friend from Megantic (Mr. Roberge) says that this act is designed to injure the farmer. May I point out to him that I have never known any legislation that was designed for a specific purpose, namely, to assist the farmer, to receive such unanimity of support as has the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
Having said so much I have no doubt it will be found from experience with this act, as with respect to any other, that amendments may be made to advantage as, for example, the amendments which are now submitted, and which I believe will improve its operation. When it is borne in mind that we are dealing with an entirely new set of principles and that the entire personnel having to do with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act consists of men who have never heretofore had any experience in the operation of an act of this kind and have had to learn anew, to my mind it is simply [DOT]amazing how successful on the whole has been the operation of the act.
The tenor of the discussion on the whole on both sides of the house to-day I think has been admirable. Very little politics was injected into it, and that was all to the good. I must however take exception to the references that were made by my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville, which I submit with all respect to him were entirely gratuitous, when he suggested that this is an election measure. As a matter of fact this act was passed over a year ago when there was no prospect of an election, and these amendments, as anybody will know who reads the bill, are designed merely to make a better act of one that has been on the statute book for a year.
There is much more that I might say, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it can be said to far greater advantage in committee of the whole where the various details can be discussed, where the questions that have been submitted can be answered, and where we can have question and answer.
Motion (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. RHODES moved that the house go into committee on the bill.



PRIVILEGE-MR. VENIOT

Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege which I wish to have laid before the house immediately.
It appears, sir, that in consequence of a speech made by myself in this house with reference to 'the mounted police a move was made in the court in the city of Montreal this morning asking for a writ against me for contempt of court, and that I be produced in court.
As a member of parliament I claim my privilege. I do not fear anything for anything I said on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, and if it were not taking up the time of the house I would repeat it. I stand by what I said. It is not on account of any fear that I take exception now. It is on account of the protection that as a privilege belongs to every member of this house.
I see the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) in his place. I would ask him if the Department of Justice has any knowledge of this matter. It was brought up in the court by a gentleman representing those who made the charge in the case, the mounted police, I think.
So far as I am concerned, in the exercise of my privileges as a member of this house, and even in the exercise of my privileges as a citizen of Canada, I am prepared to take my medicine, but I am not prepared as a member of this house to allow any lawyer representing the crown to bring my name up before the courts in a matter of contempt for what I stated on my honour as a member from my place in this house.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, I am taken by surprise.
I did not know anything at all about what my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) has just stated. This is a matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who unfortunately is confined to his house through illness. All I am doing at the present time is to help the Minister of Justice with his work as best I can during his absence. I shall make inquiries about what my hon. friend has said. That is all I can say at the moment.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, if you will
permit me again, so that I may put the Solicitor General in a position to look into the matter, may I say that the press dispatch that has come out reads as follows:
Crankshaw, assistant prosecutor in the Bronfmann case, charges Veniot in contempt of court for charging R.C.M.P. with third degree methods while case proceeding.

Supply-Mines
That is the news that appears in some of the press today. Let me repeat that I am prepared to take my medicine before any of the courts. I am prepared to stand by what I said here, but I do deprecate the idea that anyone representing the crown should introduce the name of a member of parliament before the courts for contempt when he has absolutely no right to do it. We are sitting here in the highest court of this land, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman who has brought my name before that court can be summoned before the bar of this house. We are the highest court and we have the right to do it. When I spoke in this house I spoke in the interests of the public. I spoke in order to draw the attention of the Justice department of this dominion to the way things were being carried on. 1 spoke on behalf of obtaining justice for those who were being ill treated, I felt, by the mounted police, and I will continue to do that so long as I have breath left in my body.
Hon.E.N.RHODES (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make just one observation. I am sure the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) will receive the protection which is his right, and until such time as it is to be found that instructions have been issued by the Department of Justice that action be taken against my hon. friend, I think judgment should be withheld. I should be very much surprised to find that such instructions were given.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was afraid that that implication might rest.


Peter John Veniot: No, no.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then we can get no farther with respect to the matter. Perhaps on Monday, if there is any question arising as to my hon. friend's rights as a member of parliament, we can deal with it then.


Peter John Veniot: I did not Imply at all
that the instructions came from the department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was afraid that was the implication.


Peter John Veniot: I was not blaming the Department of Justice at all. I wanted to know whether they had heard anything of it, because it has been done. Suppose between now and Monday an attempt were made to arrest Your Honour: I want to say to you and this house that I would not Stand for your arrest; I would use force.
02582-86i


Maurice Dupré: I wish to emphasize the fact that this is the first intimation we have had about it.


Peter John Veniot: I admit it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no use in my making any statement in connection with the matter of privilege raised by the hon. member. He has his privilege. What I might say would neither add to nor detract from it. Is the house ready for the question?
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Gobeil in the chair.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is obvious that as we have only five .minutes left before six o'clock we cannot make progress. I therefore move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



DEPARTMENT OP MINES

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply.
For administration of the. Explosives Act (chap. 62, R.S. 1927), $8,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is this vote for?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Explosives Act is a piece of legislation that has to do with the supervision of authorized explosives used in mines and generally where explosives are required. The act contemplates that only authorized explosives shall be used. Explosives are recognized under the act as authorized only after the most careful investigation by the technical officers of the department. The department is required to supervise the storage of explosives and their transportation, in certain instances the board of railway commissioners having authority where they are transported on railways; and the technical officers and inspectors of the department see to the storage wherever explosives are stored, in hardware stores and places of that sort. The services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are resorted to largely to carry on inspectional work, and that is the reason for this vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: Am I correct in gathering that the greater part of [DOT]the expenditure is for the purpose of paying the inspectors, or is any part of it expended on research work in connection with explosives?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The greater part of the expenditures is for the purposes of inspec-
Supply-Mines

tion. I do not think that at the moment any research work as such is carried on. I think I am safe in saying that in all instances where an explosive is authorized it has first been approved of by the British government or by the government of the United States or- both, because extreme care must be taken to see that no explosive that is likely to be dangerous is allowed as an authorized explosive under the act. About a year or two ago a formula for an explosive was presented to the department and great pressure was brought to bear to have it recognized as an authorized explosive under the act. This is an instance that came directly before me. The technical officers were not in agreement with those who advanced the argument that this was a desirable explosive to use in mines. We made investigations into the experience of Great Britain and the United States with respect to this particular explosive and their reports were adverse.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock, Mr. Ross in the chair.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was answering a question asked by the hon. member for Bow River and was endeavouring to explain what an authorized explosive was and the method pursued to admit it. I was recalling one instance where the right to manufacture an explosive was being pressed. The technical officers of the department refused to admit it and the inventor of the process, being quite clear that his explosive was safe and a proper one to be admitted, was in the development of it unfortunately by a premature explosion gathered to his fathers. The committee can see how very necessary it is for the technical officers of the department in admitting an authorized explosive to use extreme caution.


Mr. REID:: How many officers are there in British Columbia to look after the examination of explosives, and who are they? I would like to have their names.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is one chief officer, Mr. Leach, and under him of course there are a great many sub-inspectors, one might call them, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are all over Canada, and take care of examinations and investigations with respect to explosives.


Thomas Reid: Does Mr. Leach go out himself and personally examine powder magazines and so forth?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, he looks after examinations personally and at times of course he instructs his officers, where occasion arises, to make inspections.


Thomas Reid: But there are no officers other than he with the exception of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mines branch-
For investigations of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, and expenses of testing and research laboratories; for publications, English and French; for purchase of books and instruments; for miscellaneous assistance and contingencies; and for investigations by the dominion fuel board including salaries and all other expenses, $220,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister explain the purposes of the increase in this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The increase asked for is $5,000 and the explanation is as follows:	Of
the increase the sum of SI,500 is for the installation of a tailing disposal plant at the Booth street ore dressing laboratory. That was necessitated by a large increase in the last two years in the treatment of ores that had been sent in in order that the proper metallurgical practice may be developed with respect to many new mines, and also by the fact that the low lying ground back of the laboratory is not sufficient to take care of the slimes and tailings. This amount is necessary to take care of the increased accommodation for tailings. The sum of $900 is for field and laboratory equipment that I believe to be quite necessary. Then the sum of $2,600 is asked for increased field examinations. I believe that is very necessary; in fact if more money were available I would like to ask for more, but we have to keep these grants down as low as we can.


Charles A. Stewart: In what
particular area will the investigations be carried on this summer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These are investigations all over Canada. As occasion arises where it seems necessary or desirable to make an investigation, the officers, as my hon. friend knows, go to those places and make investigations; they are not confined to any one place in Canada.

Supply-Mines


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister mentioned the sum of $2,600 for increased field examinations. Is this for the purpose of covering the salary of a new appointee or is it for travelling expenses of one of the travelling officials??


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is no new appointee.


Thomas Reid: Are any of the investigations under this item made with the view of furthering the use of coal as fuel? I notice this includes investigations by the dominion fuel board.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, that would come under a different item.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister kindly give some explanation as to the expenditures made by the fuel board during the year and the investigations carried out by it?


Mr. NEILL:: And the value, if any.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member for Comox-Albemi says: "and the value, if any." There has been considerable criticism of the fuel board and the minister should show that it is worth while continuing its activities.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The amount under this item for the dominion fuel board is only for salaries but I shall be glad to give an explanation when the other appropriation for this board is under consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much of this is for the dominion fuel board?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is approximately $14,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: All for
salaries?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who constitute the personnel of the dominion fuel board and what are the salaries?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The dominion fuel board's employees now are:
Salaries
F. G.	Neate, secretary	
$3,840E. A.	R. Pelletier	
1,500J.	F.	Gray	
1,380E. A.	Reardon	
1,140
In addition to these there are other employees who are taken from the mines branch. The total salaries are $13,014.


Edward Joseph Garland: The estimate reads "for investigations by the dominion fuel board." If that is incorrect, if no portion of this is for investigations, would it not be well to amend that wording so that it
will not be misleading? Perhaps the best way to get at it would be for the minister to analyze the vote of $220,000 and let us know just how it is expended.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps it will shorten the discussion if the suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is followed. The vote is divided under the following divisions:
Mineral resources, $12,400.
Ore dressing and metallurgy, $54,000.
Fuel and fuel testing, $37,200.
Ceramics and road material, $16,000.
Chemistry, $4,000.
Mechanical section, $40,650.
Dominion fuel board, $16,000.
General administration, $9,750.
Publications, English and French, purchases of books and instruments, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $30,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Do I
understand that there is no expenditure for investigation by the dominion fuel board under this vote?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, the hon. member is
quite right.
Mr.. GARLAND (Bow River):	Then I
suggest that the words "for investigations" be struck out. The minister mentioned $37,200 for fuel testing. Why is it necessary to continue such an enormous amount for testing fuel? What new fuels are being tested? This vote has been in the estimates ever since I have been in the house; the federal government has been testing fuels for twelve years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The division of fuels and fuel testing is engaged in scientific investigations of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels, undertaken with a view to substitution of Canadian fuels for imported fuels, and the more efficient utilization of Canadian fuels. The continuation of large scale by-product coking and domestic furnace tests of Canadian coal is contemplated, in addition to research work with a view to better utilization of solid, liquid and gaseous fuels. The department does carry on at its laboratories on Booth street tests of fuels from all parts of Canada, and also of foreign fuels that come into competition with them, with respect to their efficiency as such, and sometimes in order to assist in the administration of the subventions granted, and as to the kind of comparable competitive fuels that our home produced fuels have to meet. These investigations are going on constantly at the laboratories.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
just the point, they are going on constantly.
Supply-Mines

I am anxious to know if during the last year any new types of fuel have been investigated and analyzed and what difference it has made. I should like also to know whether the work of this fuel testing laboratory has had any real effect on government policy or has succeeded in closing out competitive fuels.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think I can confidently
state that the work of the branch has been useful and beneficial. For instance I remember very well that there was a decided opinion in Winnipeg that Canadian coals were not good coking fuel, that we did not have such in western Canada. Tests were carried on both at Ottawa and under the supervision of the officers of the department at Winnipeg, and the result was that the Winnipeg Electric Company now largely use -in fact I believe the proportion is one hundred per cent-coal from Michel in the Crowsnest pass. The same thing occurred in connection with the Montreal coke plant; those engaged in that activity believed that the Nova Scotia coals could not compete with coke and coal from the United States. The department carried on extensive tests there, and as a result large orders were received from the Montreal coke plant for Nova Scotia coal, and I believe that now sixty to seventy per cent of their total purchases are Nova Scotia coal. This is a direct result of the tests and examinations made and research carried out by the officers of the fuel board.


Thomas Reid: Is it not a fact that the
national research council also conduct experiments on fuels?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My information is that
they have never conducted research work on fuels. If they have we have no record of it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are not
the provincial governments carrying on in their mines branches research or analytical work in coal?
country, he could give the committee the total imports of coal and coke for the last two years, together with the total consumption in this country, for comparative purposes?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am afraid I cannot give
as complete a picture as I would like. I did not anticipate having to answer such a question, but I hope the information I have may be helpful. The importation of anthracite was as follows:
1933	1934
Tons Tons 1,429,831 1,804,133 *374 809 1,605,776	1.643M6
[DOT]	37.740
150	89.660
89,510
United States.
Increase. . Great Britain.
Increase. . Other sources. Increase..


Alan Webster Neill: What countries would be involved in those last figures?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Largely Germany. The
importation of bituminous coal was as follows:
1933	1934
Tons	Tons
United States	 8,092,158 9.945,953
Increase	 1,853,795
Great Britain	 338,061	330,459
Decrease	 7,602


Edward Joseph Garland: Now could the minister give us the production and con-sumpton of Canadian coal during the same periods?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In 1933 the production
of Canadian coal amounted to 11,903,344 tons, and in 1934, the production was 13,891,138 tons.


Edward Joseph Garland: I also asked the minister to give us the consumption in Canada, if he has that figure.
Mr. GORDON': I have not the figure here, but I assume the total production was consumed.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not in
Canada.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I believe Alberta is doing some work, but I do not think any work is being done by any other province. If the hon. member has in mind overlapping and duplication I may say that in connection with the mines department it has been my desire to eliminate that as far as possible, because it is a pure waste of money. There is no overlapping in this department, so far as I am aware.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wonder
if, following the minister's statement as to the advantages to the coal industry and the


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There may have been,
and doubtless were, some exports, but they would not amount to very much.


Edward Joseph Garland: The point
I want to raise at this stage is that the minister should give the committee at a later date, when he is prepared for it, some further statement as to the usefulness of continuing the activities of the fuel board. The figures he has just given the committee would indicate that the imports from other countries have steadily increased. It is true that there also has been a slight increase in the produc-

Supply-M ines
tion of Canadian coal, but there is a feeling throughout the country, and particularly in the mining sections, that neither this government nor the previous government have done all that might be done for the coal industry and to encourage the consumption of Canadian coal in Canada. The minister is as well aware as any member of the committee of the vast and valuable resource we have in our Canadian coal, and I am very sorry to see that there has not been a greater increase in the consumption of that coal in the - central provinces, notably Ontario. Before this session ends I hope the minister and the government will take the necessary steps-I may have to suggest one or two of them later- to see that no stone is left unturned to increase the consumption of Alberta coal, which is of the finest quality for domestic purposes, in Ontario. I anticipate with some hope the statement of the minister on the fuel board and the investigations carried on by the mines branch.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister did not state
the importations of lignite coal into Canada. Could he give those figures, and could he also give the production of anthracite in Canada?


Edward Joseph Garland: While that information is being looked up, Mr. Chairman, may I through you ask another question? Have there been any importations of coal into Canada from Russia during the last three or four years, and if so to what extent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: These are questions which probably should be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I am not entirely unacquainted with the situation. I think I can safely say there have been no importations of Russian coal into Canada since 1931. I believe that was the year. I have no figures with respect to the importation of lignite coal. I am afraid I would have to resort to the Department of Trade and Commerce for the figures with which to answer the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Alan Webster Neill: What about the production of Canadian anthracite?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That, I know, is a subject that is very dear to the heart of the hon. member, who knows perhaps better than any other hon. member the history of the production of Canadian anthracite coal. I have to rely entirely on my recollection, which is not too clear, as to the history of the development of anthracite coal mining in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: I was not asking that; I was just asking what was the production for the last year.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have no figures, but I believe the one anthracite mine is located near Bow River. It is operated by the Wheatley family. At one time they did produce a very considerable quantity of anthracite coal, although I have not the exact amount in my mind. I believe it is still being operated by the family with an annual production of between 800 and 900 tons. That is the only anthracite coal I know of that is being mined in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for Bow River asked the minister about the production of coal in Canada and the importation of coal into this country. The minister gave figures presumably from his record, and it seems curious that he does not have under his hand figures showing the importations of lignite. I understand some few thousands of tons come in along the Pacific coast to Vancouver, but there seems to be no record of it. It should not be necessary to go to the Department of Trade and Commerce for that information.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as the records of the Department of Mines are concerned I would say that if lignite is being imported at Vancouver it would be listed under bituminous coal. At any rate I would have to refer to the Department of Trade and Commerce to get the figures.


Alan Webster Neill: I tried for years to have it, as it should be, under bituminous coal, but I could not get the minister or his deputy to make the necessary simple changes to bring it under the proper heading. The definition of lignite was arbitrarily and more or less carelessly made in years gone by when the amount of moisture content did not matter. Only a slight change in the definition would have placed it under bituminous coal, and subject to duty. Lignite came in free. I failed utterly to get the department interested in the matter, and therefore I suggest it is not coming in as bituminous coal but as lignite, and it is most extraordinary that there is no record. If the minister is prepared to say no lignite is coming in, that would be a different matter, but he does not appear to have any records on the point. What is the fuel board doing, if it does not know about that?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps the fuel board should not be criticized for this. I have looked through the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the department charged with the responsibility, and I see their records for 1933 indicate an importation of 2,707 tons of lignite from the United States
Supply-Mines


Alan Webster Neill: What is the importation for 1934?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures for 1934. I am told that this is the last report, and that the figures for 1934 are not available.


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to revert to the matter of Russian coal. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said that certain fuel was coming into Canada as lignite when it should have been described as bituminous coal. I have heard it stated that Russian anthracite coal is coming into Canada disguised as Welsh coal, or . that it is being described in that way, and that certain big importers in Montreal were trafficking in it. Has the minister any information about the matter?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is he prepared to say it is not true?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I usually try to be careful about statements as to truth or falsity, and I should not care to hazard an opinion.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I understand a substance knoiwn as peat is found in many places in Ontario, and that only lately a process has been perfected for converting it into a combustible material to be used for heating purposes. Could the minister give information on that point?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, there are peat bogs
in Ontario, and I presume in many countries of the world. In conjunction with the provinces Canada did at one time make an effort to investigate the possibility of converting these peat bogs into sources of useful fuels. A long series of investigations ensued under what I believe was known as the peat fuel committee. As a result a plant was set up at Alfred, a point between here and Montreal, and an expenditure of about $350,000 was made. The experiments did not prove successful. Other efforts were made in Saskatchewan with regard to lignite, and large sums of money were spent.


Edward Joseph Garland: Was that not a briquetting experiment?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, that was briquetting. But it was another effort to set up a new type of fuel.


Edward Joseph Garland: They got
out of one bog into another.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I think so. I believe at the present time claims are being made that by a new process peat may be converted into

fuel comparable with the domestic fuel used in the central provinces. I have heard considerable talk about it, particularly in the last two or three weeks. It may be that a process has been developed which will provide an additional source of domestic fuel.


Alan Webster Neill: In a limited area. Freight
charges would keep it within a limited area, would they not?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I would think so; it is probable that freight charges would militate against its use over a wide area. However the matter has been brought to my attention and I have given it consideration. I propose to study the matter further because if the process is perfected to the point where it will produce from these peat bogs what the proponents of the process say it will produce, then it is something which any government, provincial or federal, should investigate so that such a fuel could be placed on the market. In the meantime I purpose continuing my investigations of the possibilities of this new process which the sponsors say will develop fuel from peat bogs. I have an open mind on the subject; I do not know whether the process is good, bad or indifferent, but I shall continue my investigations and find out the amount of success there was in Denmark, where I believe a plant has been recently set up, and the success in Ireland where similar operations are being projected.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the name of the firm in Canada carrying on the experiments?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
minister know the name of the company interested?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: With whom is the minister carrying on his investigations?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Purely on representations
which have been made by a man who purports to represent the English firm holding the patents.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is his name?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I think his name is Brown.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is he
resident in Canada?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not know.


Vincent Dupuis: Is there any report available concerning the experiments made with peat?

Supply-Geological Survey


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: This Alfred peat bog is an old story. I see the former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) smiling a sardonic smile when he remembers his experience in connection with this same expenditure. I wonder if the minister could now give the committee the total expenditures made on the Alfred peat bog and other bog projects in Canada, in other words, the total expenditure and the effort? made to make peat commercially feasible for fuel. Will he tell the committee whether any of this stuff ever went on the market on a commercial scale, and whether all the money expended was ever worth one cent to the country.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: 
Edward Joseph Garland: And even the sales that were made were they not made at the instigation of this department to other departments of the government in this city, and was not the peat used chiefly in ministers' fireplaces and places like that? In other words, it really was not on the open market.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member is going back before my time. I can assure him that my fireplace was never fueled with peat from the Alfred bog. If he has reference to ministers of the gospel, and not to ministers of the government, I am further at sea than ever.


Edward Joseph Garland: Ministers of the gospel would not use peat for fuel, because they have another preferred type. Would the minister ask his advisers whether any of this peat fuel was ever put on the open market commercially?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps the minister would pardon me if I assured the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that a very considerable number of carloads were used in the city of Montreal. As the hon. member will understand it takes a lot of peat fuel to make up that $31,000 figure which the minister gave. It is a cheap fuel, and while the expenditure was perhaps excessive, there is no doubt at all about the utility of peat as a fuel as it is manufactured at Alfred, as against the use of hardwood; but it was not in any way a competitor with
coal. I am told, and now I am speaking of something of which I have no personal knowledge, that as a result of experiments and investigations in England and Denmark they can now briquette the fuel, and they claim that it is a competitor with low grade coals. We were never able to succeed in inventing a process for briquetting peat, although we tried for a number of years to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geological Survey-
Por explorations, surveys, and investigations; for publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., relating thereto; and' for salaries and wages of explorers, topographers and others, $190,000.
For maintenance of offices and museum; for purchase of instruments, chemicals, books of reference, museum equipment and specimens, and related supplies; for expenses of the Geographic Board of Canada; and for miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $75,502.
Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Would the minister tell the committee what proportion of this vote is to be expended on work in British Columbia and the places where work is going to be done in that province?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Each year a plan of geological survey work is .mapped out by the departmental officials, and it is largely determined by the assignment of a part of the vote to carry on geological work that has been already started and is under way where it is sought to have a regular progression of the work take place, and by turning towards those areas where information would seem to indicate that geological work would determine favourable occurrences for the deposition of minerals which like gold can easily be disposed of. Those are the factors that underlie the mapping out of the year's geological work. The plan of the work for this year is now under consideration. Perhaps I could not do better than to read a short memorandum that has been prepared in the department, after consultation with myself on a great many occasions, as to the general plan for this year:
Geological and topographical work to aid prospecting for and development of gold placers and other mineral deposits in the Yukon.
Geological and topographical work in the Bridge river area of British Columbia, an active gold producing camp.
The investigation of gold' bearing deposits on Vancouver island.
Geological exploration of regions bordering the lower Fraser river on the west.
That area, as the members from British Columbia know, is almost an unknown area in the province, but an area in which mineral deposits have beeen discovered.
Supply-Geological Survey

Investigation of gold bearing deposits in the Barkerville and adjacent areas in British Columbia.
Investigation of various gold bearing and other mineral discoveries in southern British Columbia.
That, broadly speaking, is the plan that is now under consideration by the branch of the geological service with respect to the work for this year in British Columbia. Their work will be devoted, as I have indicated, to those sections where it is known that the progress of the work is likely to disclose that kind of geological occurrence that is most favourable for the deposition of ores that are more easily sold than others, gold in particular.


Thomas Reid: After the explorers have been in the districts mentioned and made their discoveries, is the information they have gathered disseminated to the public, or is it kept within the department itself?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Just as soon as the year's work is mapped out and determined, the program is made known by the department through the technical publications. Then when the field parties return to Ottawa from their year's geological work, their field notes and other information with respect to the areas in which they have operated are with all reasonable dispatch converted into a formal report which is printed as one of the publications of the department and made available as soon as possible to those interested, prospectors, the mineral industry, and to anyone who cares to inquire.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the work done by this branch is money well spent and that the work is well carried out under a competent head. Would the minister give us more details of the work that is proposed to be done on Vancouver island, and where it is to be done?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: What is the name of the
island? '


Alan Webster Neill: No, but where. Is it around Nympkish?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not acquainted with the names of the places; the best I can say is, it is the northern end of Vancouver island. I have never prospected there myself, politically or otherwise.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sure the minister would be well repaid and welcomed if he prospected it politically.


Olof Hanson: I know that
representations have been made to the department from the territory called Unik river

area, between southeastern Alaska, Yukon and Peace river, as well as from Buckley and Nohaco area, extending from the coast as far as Smithers on the Skeena, linking up with the survey made from the Alberta boundary and from the Bella Coola area, extending into the Cariboo district.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot say whether the
department has received any direct specific request for investigations in the first named field, but negotiations are at present going on between the officers of the government of British Columbia and our own department, with a view to having geological work carried on where, in the best judgment of those who are perhaps most familiar with the locality, it will be of greatest use. I am in thorough accord with what has been said by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I am sure it commends itself to all other hon. members, that no more useful work can be carried on in what is generally called the northern part of Canada than geological research work, particularly for precious metals. That work has been going on, as hon. members know, since 1842, as a department of some government, though not then of course the dominion government. But the first director of geological survey was Sir William Logan, and the work has been carried on continuously down to the present time. Personally I should like to see it greatly extended. Of course, none of us will ever see the time when even fairly well known mining areas will have been completely explored geologically. I well remember that at a meeting of the institute of mining and metallurgy not many years ago a person who should have known better suggested that, this work having been carried on in Canada since 1842, it was strange that they did not know all about the geological occurrences of the country by now. Well, if anyone will review the history of Britain he will find that for hundreds of years geological records have been kept of the work done there, a very small country compared with Canada; and last year they had a larger vote than ever devoted to geological work in Britain. At least therefore we can get some comfort from the reflection that there will be activities in geological work in Canada for hundreds of years to come, and then we shall know very little about the riches that may be hidden, not sticking out for people to go and dig them up easily, but hidden where they will challenge the curiosity and the courage of the people of to-day and of those who will come after us.

Supply-Geological Survey


Edward Joseph Garland: Are any
other departments of government carrying on geological survey work, or is this the only geological survey provided?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This is the only one that
the dominion government is carrying on. Some provincial governments in later years have started geological work, principally in Ontario and latterly in Quebec. I doubt whether there is any in the other provinces. Where Ontario and Quebec carry on geological survey work, it was the practice of the late government, a very proper practice too, as it is of the present government, to have a meeting perhaps once or twice a year to see that the provincial work did not overlap the work that was being done by the dominion. That is essential, because it is only throwing money away to have a second set of geologists going over the same field that is being pursued by this government.


Olof Hanson: I am glad that there is an increase in this vote, and I am pleased to have heard the minister's explanation, because in my opinion any assistance given to the exploration of our natural resources must be taken seriously. I notice that the daipartment is working in conjunction with the mines department of British Columbia. The Department of Mines in that province, especially in the northern portion, is making investigations and sending suggestions to this department, and I am glad to know that recommendations are coming from the province for further explorations. I am sure from what the minister has said that the matter will be given the consideration it deserves.


Vincent Dupuis: Has any survey investigation been made in Quebec and, if so, how much was expended out of the $190,000 last year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes; there is geological survey work being done in the province of Quebec, but I have not before me the amount actually expended. However, from the chart I have before me, I should say that there was more money spent in geological survey work in the province of Quebec last year than in any other province. That of course, as the hon. member knows, arises from the fact-


Vincent Dupuis: The discovery of a new field.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, the very valuable discoveries that were made at Noranda and to the northeast through Chibougamau. There
is also keen interest being taken in the development not only of gold mining but copper mining and the mining of other metals in the northern part of the province. This may give my hon. friend some information. I see that more parties were sent into Quebec last year than into any other province. Quebec is now doing some geological work itself. Ontario of course has for many years been expanding its geological work, and in order that overlapping may not take place the amount of work that the dominion government has been doing in Ontario is gradually becoming less. At the moment more work is being done in Quebec than elsewhere, although they are now developing a geological survey branch of their own, which I think is a verj desirable effort.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much of this appropriation is devoted to the purposes of the geographic board of Canada? Is it all of the $75,502 or only part of it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I must confess that I am not very well acquainted with the geographic board or its operations, but I understand it is the board that among its other duties passes upon the names to lakes and rivers. Under this appropriation we devote the services of the secretary, one man, to the geographic board, and his salary is, I believe, about $2,500 a year.


Edward Joseph Garland: This item reads:
For expenses of the geographic board of Canada.
What are the expenses of the geographic board of Canada under this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am not able to give the total expenses of the geographic board of Canada. I can only say that so far as the Department of Mines is concerned, our contribution is the services of one official whose salary is about $2,500 a year.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is that all then that comes out of this item?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, for the geographic board.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under what other item is the geographic board provided for?


Alan Webster Neill: Is it not more or less an
honorary board?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I confess that I have not been brought into close touch with the geographic board, but I see before me a memorandum which seems to indicate that
Supply-Geological Survey

the board is made up of a number of officials drawn from various departments of government. The mines department supplies to the board the secretary whose salary is $2,160 a year. Then there is a small amount of $600 for printing and office supplies, making a total of $2,760. That is the total that the mines department is charged with respect to the geographic board.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just before this item carries and we conclude the estimates of the mines department, I would like to ask the minister to revert for a moment to Mr. Brown. I understand now that the government is going to undertake rather extensive experimental work at the instigation of Mr. Brown.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, not at all.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, just what is this new experimental work that is being undertaken that he speaks of so highly as having originated in Denmark and having in some degree been carried on in Ireland in connection with peat fuel?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have before me no plan by Mr. Brown. He has seen me and talked to me about the promotion of a company for the manufacture and sale of peat fuel. He has told me that there is in Denmark a plant now operating. He has also told me that the great firm of Babcock and Wilcox, well known throughout the world, have approved the mechanical operations of a plant that was built to take advantage, I believe, of certain patent processes which the companies or individuals that he says he represents, hold with respect to the development of peat fuel. But let me not be misunderstood. There is at the present time so far as I am concerned no intention whatever with the information before me to advise the government to embark upon anything in the way of a project that Mr. Brown has of actually manufacturing peat or, as he suggests, to grant dominion government subsidies in connection with peat fuel until it is made abundantly apparent to me that the plant now in operation in Denmark or Ireland, or wherever it may be, is being conducted and operated on a sound business basis, producing a fuel which is a comparable, competitive fuel in the areas where it might be marketed in Ontario and Quebec. Even then a great deal of investigation work would have to be undertaken by somebody -and I think that somebody certainly comprises those who are advocating the adventure into peat fuel-before any government, whether provincial or dominion, would be justified in subsidizing peat fuel.

Let the committee remember, as I said before, that I have an absolutely open mind in the matter. If there is any fuel that can be provided at lower cost to the people in what we call the acute fuel area, that is the central portion of Canada, and that will better the situation to the consumer of fuel, then we or any other government would be derelict in our duty if we did not at least see that no barrier was thrown in the way of the development of that fuel. But it is quite a different matter as to the desirability of a government subsidizing a private activity of this character, and if the government could be persuaded to do this, it would in my judgment be only after the closest scrutiny as to the soundness not only of the process but of the economics that are involved in the distribution of the fuel. I do not think I can say more than that, but I would be extremely careful to see that when any steps were being taken, the closest scrutiny would be made of any plan that is projected for peat fuel. At the same time I have an open mind. There will undoubtedly come a time -it may be long delayed; it may not he so far away-when peat fuel may have to be resorted to, but at the same time I can only repeat what I said before; there would have to be a very complete disclosure of the soundness of a plan before I could be induced to recommend it to this or any other government for subsidy, because if these peat fuels are able to perform as some of their advocates say, they do not need any government assistance. However, I have the matter under consideration in the hope that more information will be available in order that I may make up my mind whether or not from a national standpoint it is of sufficient value to warrant further investigation.


Thomas Reid: Have any investigations been made into the possibilities of extracting oil and gasoline from coal? The minister no doubt knows that Great Britain was one of the greatest coal producing countries of the world until she lost the market when oil was introduced. Now many of her own battleships are using fuel oil. But Great Britain has seen the seriousness of the situation in the coal mining industry and I understand is making extensive experiments and has now discovered how to extract fuel oil and gasoline from coal. In vew of the fact that we have in Canada large coal fields, and are feeling the competition of fuel oil from abroad, I was wondering if the department had made any investigation into that matter.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is pretty well known that Germany and Great Britain for a number of years have spent through state agencies

Supply-Geological Survey
and private activity huge sums in endeavouring to develop some process to extract fuel oil and gasoline from coal on a commercial basis. Some advance has been made. Great Britain has done a great deal, and some fuel oil and gasoline have been produced commercially, but under a very heavy protective tariff, I think they call it. In Germany the protection is twenty-two cents a gallon, and in England apparently 8 pence. Some work has been done in investigation of the possibilites of extraction of oil and gasoline from our fuels. The advances made in research work by Great Britain are I believe available to us. I do not believe it would be a justifiable expense at present for Canada to set up a large and costly research staff to carry on this work when Great Britain is doing it. It is true that such investigation is also being carried on by private concerns in Great Britain and their results might not be as readily available to us as those from the work being done by the state. But I seriously question the wisdom of our doing more than we are at the moment, which I confess is not very much.


Edward Joseph Garland: Referring again to the question of further experimental work on peat fuel, I think the minister is well advised to be cautious in touching any project that may be brought to him by a person whom he does not know and as to whose nationality even he seems to be in doubt, though his name is Brown. He will doubtless take into consideration also the fact that the situation in Denmark and Ireland is not the same as in this country. In one of them peat has been the traditional fuel used eVer since the country was an inhabited part of the globe; the peat there of course is entirely different from that in this country where it has a high liquid content. In Denmark the population is extremely dense, and in both those countries there are no wooded areas from which to draw fuel supplies, which are carefully preserved for other purposes than fuel. But in this country we still have abundant fuel resources, both underground in the form of coal and on the surface in the form of trees. Therefore I do not think there is any necessity at this time for further experimental work in connection with peat fuel, and I am glad the minister is giving the matter careful consideration before he goes into it again.


Alan Webster Neill: In reference to the remark made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). I did not intend to deal with that matter-it seemed so hopeless -but as he has brought it up I join with him in pressing on the department the need for consideration being given to the subject
of making our large coal resources available in some form other than in the raw state. Their location makes it often difficult to market the product just as coal. I notice, and I am sorry to notice, the remark of the minister that they are not doing very much. I entirely agree with that; I do not think the Department of Mines are paying anything like the attention they ought to that branch of a very important subject. I will go further and say that I think the officials are wholly unsympathetic.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh no, not at all.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, that is my opinion, as a result of ten years', experience.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Department of Mines to-day is one of the busiest departments.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know what they are busy at.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Supply-Geological Survey
example England, and Germany. I rather think Australia has made a bargain with some oil company with English capital to make a start there. But I do not know, and I certainly shall not get my information from the department, 'because when I write them they say; "We have no information beyond newspaper accounts." I am not an official paid to give these subjects intensive study, but I get the information as soon as they do. I do think the. department should make a special effort to develop investigations, not along the line of elemental scientific discoveries but by taking advantage of the acquired knowledge of other peoples. In Great Britain, certainly where governmental aid is introduced, we could get that information readily enough; unless it is in connection with a distinctly private patent-which I do not think is the case here-I believe the British people are not unwilling to afford assistance to one of the dominions in this way.
I am not finding fault with the minister. I know the multitudinous duties he has to perform, and I know he has to rely on his various deputies. I do claim, however, that the officials of the mines department are not paying enough attention to this subject. One of the crying needs of Canada to-day is to get our coal mines working to capacity; we so much need work for coal miners. People are coming here every day asking the government to increase the subventions in order that coal may be shipped from one place in the country, where providence or nature has placed it, to the centres of population. It may be difficult bo transport coal as such, but it is easy to transport it in the shape of gasoline, fuel oil or the like. I am not saying this with any suggestion of political antagonism to the minister; rather I am asking that he use his influence to stir up that branch of his department and get some action.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The department would have to be greatly enlarged to undertake work like that.


Mr. MYERS:: I just wish to direct the attention of the hon. member for Bow River to the fact that there need be no doubt in the world as to the nationality of Mr. Brown. He is a native of Prince Edward Island, and therefore he is a citizen of no mean country.


Edward Joseph Garland: My point was that the minister was not able to tell me, and he was the person concerned. I am glad to have the information from the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Mines-
Salaries, $485,910; contingencies, $20,000.
Charles A. Stewart: I think the hon. member for South Perth requested that one item be allowed to stand in order that there might be some discussion by some of the members who are absent this evening.
I do not think it makes much difference which item stands, if the minister will just leave one item open.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is quite right; I remember that the hon. member for South Perth asked that an item stand, and I shall be glad to let this item stand.
Item stands.
To provide for payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $2,450,000.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton); What proportion of this amount is used for the movement of coal from Alberta eastward?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Perhaps I can give both east and west at the same time; it might shorten the discussion. The total of eastern coal moved under subvention in 1984 was 1,824,656 tons, at a cost of $1,729,552.81. The total of western coal moved under subvention was 544,147 tons at a total cost of $531,610.86. The total moved was 2,368,803 tons at a total cost of $2,261,163.67.
Mr. REID; I wonder if the minister can tell us if any of that money went to _ coal moving from Alberta to British Columbia or vice versa?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No, none of this money was devoted to coal moving from Alberta to British Columbia.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Do those figures include the movement of coal from the Estevan coal fields in Saskatchewan?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Robert McKenzie: Has there been any change in the subvention rate in connection with the Estevan coal? A year or two ago the rate from the Saskatchewan coal fields was very much reduced, and I wondered if there had been any change in that rate during the last year or so.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: In May of last year the coal operators of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia came to Ottawa with the idea of trying to adjust the coal subventions in order as nearly as possible to bring the assistance into a horizontal shape, if I may put it in that way, so that one would not

Supply-Geological Survey
be preferred over another. At that time there was a general scaling down of the subventions, it being found that mainly by reason of subventions which had been granted for quite a number of years, and which were increased in the last three and a half years, the Manitoba market is largely and almost entirely supplied by the coal mines of Alberta, the Crowsnest and Saskatchewan. I may say that the meeting of the coal operators was not acrimonious at all. They recognized that the subventions they had been getting had secured practically the entire Manitoba market, and that the rates then effective were no longer necessary. Therefore there was a gradation downward of the subventions with respect to the coal of all three provinces coming into Manitoba, and it applied with equal force, as nearly as we could determine it, to each of the coal fields. So far as I know there has been no great complaint made by the operators since. I am very glad to tell the house that with the least possible expense to the state the coal mines both east and west have been able to reach further into the great consuming part of Canada. I need not tell hon. members how extremely difficult this whole matter has been and will continue to be, because we cannot change our geographical situation or our political boundaries. Mistakes will be made. I know that my administration of this most complex question has not been without error, and I am happy in the thought that perhaps all my errors have not yet been found out. At any rate we are endeavouring as best we can to apply these subventions throughout Canada, both east and west, in order that the maximum amount of Canadian coal may be consumed in Canada and the greatest number of Canadian coal miners may get work.


Robert McKenzie: The minister mentioned a meeting last year. I wondered if there was any change with regard to the basis on which this subvention is paid. Is it still on a mileage basis or is it just a flat rate of so much per ton?
While the minister is looking up that point I might say that when the subvention first * operated, I believe about 1930, the rate from the Estevan coal mine was 25 cents a ton to Winnipeg. I believe the rate from Alberta was set at about one dollar a ton. Then two or three years ago it was changed and put on a mileage basis of one-seventh of a cent per mile. The Estevan coal mines being about 280 miles from Winnipeg the subvention was reduced from 25 cents down to about 15 cents, or approximately that amount I wonder if any change has been made since.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The prevailing rate is one-seventh of a cent per ton mile from Saskatchewan with a maximum of 15 cents to Manitoba. That was the change made to which the hon. member has referred.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Do these subventions now permit western coal to come east so as to meet Nova Scotia coal?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No. There is a gap in
the central part of Canada which has never been closed.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
where we could put the peat.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I think that is where the peat would come in.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister was. going to tell me the total amount last year under subvention from Alberta as compared with the amount for this year. I believe he said that for 1934 the amount was about 544,000 tons.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is the total western
movement.


Edward Joseph Garland: For 1934?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is it for 1933?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It is 451,073 tons.
Progre.ss reported.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 9.35 p.m.
Monday, March 4, 1935