[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Yesterday my right hon, friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to a news 'broadcast from Rome on the evening of Wednesday, June 17, which stated that the Canadian council of ministers at a meeting held the previous day, that is June 16, had decided to favour the abolition of sanctions. I replied that I would make inquiry as far as possible to see if there was any ground for believing that this statement indicated knowledge in advance of the policy of the government announced in the House of Commons on June 18. I do not think it does.
The statement quoted is incorrect since as a matter of fact the question was not discussed in council at all on June 16 as stated. The general position had been discussed some days earlier, and council's decision reached at the time, but the final wording of the statement of the government's position was taken up at the special meeting of council on the morning of June 17. I notice in the Montreal Star of June 16 the following disipatch from Ottawa:
It is understood that the government is giving consideration to-day to its position in respect to sanctions against Italy. What precisely will be the attitude is not officially determined. It is believed, however, that the government is practically certain to join that section of British thought which favours the lifting of the penalties.... Discussion is tentatively fixed for Thursday. The Prime Minister on that occasion is expected to define the attitude towards a continuance of sanctions. Inasmuch as these penalties in time of active war did not frustrate the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy, their continuance, in time of peace, may be regarded as futile.
I think there is little doubt that the statement to which my right hon. friend referred was simply a more positive expression of the above, or similar anticipations. For some days before the announcement of the United Kingdom government the press contained similar surmises as to the decision which would be announced.
I may repeat that there is not the slightest indication that the decision of the government was communicated to any outside person.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I have only to say that it

was not a press report. It was at seven o'clock p.m. Atlantic standard time, as I indicated, that it came over the radio from the Rome station in the terms I have indicated. That station, fortunately or unfortunately, seems to have been very accurate in its statements during the last six months, especially regarding the Ethiopian situation.



CANADIAN MINISTERS ABROAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have pleasure in informing the house that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Sir Herbert Marler as Canadian Minister to the United States, and the appointment of the Hon. Randolph Bruce to succeed Sir Herbert Marler as Canadian Minister to Japan.



VIMY WAR MEMORIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: The other day a return was brought down in regard to questions I had asked with respect to the names of those who had been invited to attend the unveiling of the Vimy war memorial. My question this morning is to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to attend that ceremony?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reply to my hon.
friend I may say I should like very much to be able to be present at the ceremony at Vimy next month, particularly because of the nature of the ceremony and also in view of the fact that His Majesty the King has accepted the invitation of his Canadian ministers to be present, and the president of the French republic has accepted the invitation of the government of Canada to be present on the occasion. I have however had to ask myself what may be involved in the way of absence overseas during the next twelve months, and as hon. members know, the coronation ceremonies will take place in London in May of next year, to be followed by an imperial conference, and I expect, unless something unforeseen happens, to be present in Great Britain at that time. I had anticipated that it might not be necessary for any reason other than in connection with the unveiling ceremony at Vimy to visit Europe this year; I am inclined, however, to believe that the importance of the meeting of the League of Nations Assembly which is to be held in September, and which will have to do with the critical situation in Europe and the revision of the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
covenant and which may mark a fresh start in the affairs of the League is so important that it would be desirable for the leader of the government of Canada to be one of the representatives of the government at Geneva at that time. In these circumstances I fear I may have to forego what would be an exceptional privilege, namely, being present in France at the unveiling of the monument at Vimy. I have asked my colleagues the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) to represent the government at the Vimy ceremony, and it has been so arranged.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this would seem to be the appropriate place to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has any information to give the chamber regarding the probable date of the opening of the next session of parliament. I quite appreciate the difficulty to which he has referred with respect to his own personal *movements, but I recall that on more than one occasion he made similar inquiries of the late administration, and it occurred to me that this might be a suitable occasion on which to indicate generally his intention. I agree that if the League of Nations is to revise the covenant this year it is highly desirable that the Prime Minister of Canada should be present. Whether or not that would interfere with any plan which might be prepared for the early opening of a session of parliament of course I do not know. But it is quite clear that the right hon. gentleman would have to be absent moderately early in 1937, and it is probable that we would not have parliament continuing to sit in his absence. This is a matter of some interest to hon. members, and I have been asked to try to ascertain whether the government has any information to communi-[DOT] cate in this regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, my right
hon. friend is correct in anticipating that the date at which parliament may reassemble will necessarily be contingent, in part, on what may take place at Geneva. It is possible that some action taken at Geneva may necessitate the calling of parliament in the
12739-262J
fall of this year. There is also the circumstance which my right hon. friend has mentioned, namely that the coronation ceremonies take place on May 12. Obviously in order to permit those who may be attending: the coronation ceremony, and the conference which follows, to be present at these meetings it will be necessary for parliament to have adjourned either at the conclusion of the session's deliberations, or during the proceedings of the session itself.
If it is found necessary to have a fall session hon. members may expect that the house will be called together during the latter part of November. The present hope of the government however is that if we meet in the early part of January, it may be possible for us to conclude our labours before the coronation ceremonies take place.

Canada's foreign policy-method of dealing



WITH ESTIMATES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a few words to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before you leave the chair. Hellas intimated that he may attend the meeting, of the league at Geneva. I am sure the house will be delighted to learn that he has made that decision. It seems to me the world situation is important enough to necessitate the attendance of the Prime Minister, but may I point out that he has not given the house a clear statement of the policies he will advocate at Geneva. I recognize that if there is to be a reorganization of the league there has to be a good deal of latitude allowed, because the whole subject would be one of negotiation. At the same time, since the issues of peace and war are so largely dependent upon what is done at Geneva, it seems to me only right that the Prime Minister should give us, even now, some indication as to the general lines he intends to advocate at Geneva.
Further than that, in this session the opportunities for the debating of international affairs have been obviously very unsatisfactory.. Last night the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) intimated that she had been very anxious to present her views in the matter. She had not been able to do so earlier in the session. Near the last of the session we were promised that we would be given a day to debate the subject, although
4124	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
at an earlier stage that opportunity was refused us. The "day" we were promised dwindled down to two hours.
Last night we had the curious spectacle of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) attempting in the midst of considerable disorder to present a highly technical and learned dissertation on some of the constitutional issues involved in the action of the government with regard to Geneva. It was impossible for any of us to give careful attention to his presentation. That is an absurd situation. The only opportunity we have to discuss a matter of such great importance is in the dying hours of a session. I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not he could give us the assurance now that near the beginning of the next session a *committee may be appointed charged with the definite responsibility of studying Canada's foreign policy. I cannot see where there could be any objection. None of us is anxious to drag to the light of day matters which ought to be kept quiet. We recognize clearly that certain things may come to the knowledge of our Department of External Affairs which could not at all times be made public, but surely we must get away from anything like secret diplomacy. More than that, it seems to me very desirable that the public at large should take an interest in its external affairs. It was all very well when Canada was a colony for us to confine our attentions to matters within our own boundaries; but to-day Canada is part of a big outside world. I believe it is the responsibility of this house to debate these matters, and that of the government to afford opportunities for wider discussions leading to greater public interests. I offer this suggestion to the Prime Minister.
I have one further suggestion along another line. No person could sit in the house last night and fail to be impressed with the ridiculous situation which results when we try to pass a great variety of estimates at the last moment. Indeed, I have often thought that the present method of handling estimates in committee of the whole is not the best that could be devised. Last night in connection with a particular estimate the minister in charge quite naturally did not know exactly the details in connection therewith. He had to wait until his deputy was called in. All along the deputies must attend in the house, and there is the curious spectacle of the minister leaning over to get a few sacred words from his deputy in order that he may pass on the information to the house.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Sacred, or
salient?
{Mr. Wermenlinger.]


James Shaver Woodsworth: "Sacred" is the
word I used, and perhaps in this connection it is as good as "salient." We as members of the house are supposed to remain in our places to hear wide discussions covering the whole range of government departmental administration. It is obvious that a good many of us are interested in only one department, and can be interested in only a few departments; certainly we cannot all be interested in the whole wide range of subjects covered by all the departments.
Some of us have earlier advocated a change of procedure. It might be possible, just as we have experimented a little with a special committee on national railways, to have the estimates referred to appropriate committees. The fisheries committee could deal with the fisheries estimates; the agriculture committee with the agriculture estimates; the external relations committee, if one can be set up, could deal with external relations. In such a committee we could call in the deputy ministers who could be questioned in the easier and less formal atmosphere of a small committee. If necessary we could even call in outside witnesses who might give expert evidence. The members would be able to specialize in certain departments, and that specialization carried on year after year would give a great deal of added interest to the lives of a great many members who are keenly interested in specific affairs and in certain details but who are not so much interested in the general debates in the house.
Someone may say, "Well, but that would not give all the members an opportunity to speak." It would, because the report would come from the committee, and if there were any outstanding evils or any questions of importance we still would have the opportunity to discuss them in the house. We would not be precluded from doing that. Of course it may be said that Hansard would not get it all. From my standpoint I think that would be a decided advantage. It would shorten the session tremendously if we did not have Hansard record all the casual observations made during the discussion of the estimates. I venture, therefore, to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not at least consider some change in procedure by which the estimates may be placed for consideration before appropriate committees, thus saving an enormous amount of the time of this house, as well as adding to the efficiency of parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend, first with respect to his desire

Estimates-Mr. Mackenzie King
that I should make a clear statement as to the government's policies on matters pertaining to the League of Nations and the European situation, which I presume would be the most important feature of all, may I say that I think I made a very full, very complete and very clear statement to this house as recently as Thursday of last week. From what I have since seen of the press comments on the statement then made it would appear that the journalists of the country at least had the same impression. I confess that at the moment I cannot think of anything further that could be said with advantage. What will have to be considered at Geneva in September will depend very largely upon what appears on the agenda of the League of Nations at that time. As my hon. friend and members of the house generally know, the assembly of the league meets again on the thirtieth of this month to resume .the session which was adjourned last fall. After that session is held the government will be in a better position to know what questions will be uppermost at the meeting of the assembly in September. Until that session is concluded I do not think there is anything I can add to the statement which was given to the house the other night. I feel, however, that my hon. friend and other members of this house may with some degree of confidence rest assured, that the position which will be taken by myself and the colleagues who may be present with me at the assembly will be one which will very much accord with the views of this house. As far as I am able to sense the situation I believe members of all parties in this house are pretty well united with respect to the views they entertain on Canada's foreign relations. There may be differences here and there, but as a Canadian people I think we are singularly united in the essential features of our foreign policy, and certainly those essential features will be kept to the fore at the meeting in September.
My hon. friend has spoken of the desirability of having a committee to study foreign relations. May I say that there is nothing to preclude any number of members of the House of Commons forming themselves into a study group for any purpose at any time. In Great Britain that is done in connection with many matters in the House of Commons, and I see no reason why those who are interested in foreign affairs should not constitute themselves at any time into a committee for the purpose of making as complete and thorough a study of foreign relations questions as can be made. I would point out, however, that we have a standing committee of this house which deals with industrial and international relations. That would appear to be
an appropriate committee to consider, as far as one of the standing committees might consider, matters relating to Canada's foreign policy.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But may I point out, without any desire to interrupt that in practice that or any committee can consider only such matters as are referred to it. As far as my memory goes, the only matter ever referred to that committee with regard to foreign affairs was a motion of my hon. friend from Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) some years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend has just said only emphasizes what I am saying. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce evidently suggested that some question should be referred for study to the committee and the suggestion was acted upon. If hon. members have suggestions to make as to particular subjects to be referred to that committee I think there is every reason to expect that their suggestions would be favourably considered and the necessary references made if it were apparent that the desire to have them so referred was at all general.
However, the matter of procedure is quite secondary to the importance of having subjects themselves carefully considered, and I must say that I entirely agree with my hon. friend as to the desirability of having the fullest study given .these all-important questions. Probably the more study that is given to them the less will be the desire for premature discussion in many phases. With regard to discussion I am one of those who believe in the wisdom of the fullest possible discussion except where it is perfectly obvious that such discussion in this house and this country may have the effect of adding to the difficulties of those who are contending with very great problems in other parts of the world. I must say that, with the knowledge the government has had of the very critical nature of the European situation this year, I make no apology to any hon. member of this house for having done my utmost to prevent premature discussion of questions that were inflaming the minds and the passions of peoples in the old lands. I think we owed that much to them, to see that nothing should be done here in the way of adding fuel to what I believe was very near to becoming a pretty serious conflagration across the ocean.
With respect to the procedure to be adopted in connection with the discussion of estimates, what my hon. friend has suggested has been discussed on previous occasions. There is much to commend his suggestion, but at this
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

stage of the session I should not like to say more than that between now and next session I will ask my colleagues to consider with me the wisdom of adopting a course such as my hon. friend has suggested. Perhaps when parliament reassembles, if hon. members feel it their desire so to do, we might have a discussion of the matter on the floor of the house. In regard to the estimates and the time of bringing in supply, may I say that this year the main estimates were laid on the table of the house during the very first week of the session, so the house has had the supply before it for a long time. If we have not concluded with the supply I would say it has been because we have had an exceptionally heavy and important sessional program with a great deal of legislation embodied in bills on one subject and another, which was relatively of much greater importance than anything which appears in the supply. In the estimates we have sought to avoid as far as we could items that we believed might prove to be contentious. In this first session of parliament we have not only endeavoured to get through but have actually succeeded in having enacted legislation which in other parliaments would have occupied the time and attention of this house over two or three sessions instead of being brought as has been the case with this year's program within the compass of a single session.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair might be a .proper opportunity to mention a matter of privilege. The other evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) stated that the house had been compelled to spend fifty-two per cent of its time in sitting and listening to the leader of the opposition. I hope his other remarks were nearer the truth than that. The fact is that not twenty-five per cent of the percentage stated by the Minister of Agriculture was taken up by the leader of the opposition.
I desire to point out that I occupy a statutory position and am paid the salary of a cabinet minister. During this session, except for the time when I was indisposed, I have been here continuously six hours a day, from three to six o'clock and from eight to eleven o'clock except for two days. It may well be that I have had a good deal to say, but I can assure the house that the Minister of Agriculture was not present during all that time to hear me, because his duties, kept him elsewhere for a considerable part of the time. I
have a duty to perform and I have endeavoured to perform it. I have been continuous and assiduous in my attendance in this house because I conceived it to be my duty to do so as long as I occupy the position I do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that I think all the members of the house will agree with me when I say that he has earned his salary. If he will be good enough to allow us to prorogue at noon, he will be entitled to a bonus.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fisheries protection services, $878,600.
Mr. NEILL:: guilty and they would cover it up at any cost. Finally I gave it up in despair. There were too many cooks.
I want to quote a typical letter I received the other day:
I think the government is doing wrong by cutting down on the fishery patrol. I think it would be better to cut down on the office staff and increase the fishery patrol. There are a number been fishing and selling blue back salmon for the past two weeks-
And that is illegal.
-and they get away with it. At Powell River you can buy fish all the year round both in season and out of season. What is really essential is the conservation of fish; clean out all the streams that the salmon go up to spawn and find a market for the fish.
On one occasion a number of men got together and proposed to the government that if they would appoint a man to round up offenders against the regulations they would supply a man who would do the work for nothing-and men do not generally work for the government for nothing. Obe man wrote me to this effect: "The main thing is that the Vancouver office will have no strings on our man." Do you get the idea? If the government would send out an independent man, someone not directly interested in the department, the cost of the Vancouver office could be cut in half and that would provide a good deal of money for ground officers, because the permanent man is paid by the year while the ground officers are paid only six weeks or three months.
In this connection may I quote the leader of the opposition. The other day we were discussing the estimates of a department, and while the right hon. gentleman was not criticizing, he used this language:
The department is an efficient department and I think it reflects great credit upon the deputy head, but I think if you said to him, "Go and cut down that staff by twenty-five per cent," he would do so and have a more efficient organization than he has to-day.
And he was not contradicted. The Minister of Railways the other day, giving the reasons for the amalgamation of the various branches of his department, said that there was a central purchasing office in one branch, with a staff of twelve, in another a staff of five, in another four, and so on. Then the leader of the opposition made the statement that in his time they cut out 12,000 officials, and he said:
That is a terrible thing to say, and yet the service was more efficient by reason of it.
And he added that that was a still more terrible thing to say. He went on to warn
fMr. Neill. |
the minister that even, if he found that some of the superfluous staff had to be paid he should nht keep them in the office but if necessary' pay them to keep them away from the office, because the organization would be improved by having a smaller and more practical staff.
Coming to the'question of hatcheries, I believe that in British Columbia some ten are closed out of sixteen or fourteen; yet the cost of overhead has been cut down only two per cent. It is notorious that there must be a good deal of work in overhead connected with the running of the hatcheries, and yet the cost has been reduced only two per cent, whereas some of the praetical works have been cut down seventy-five per cent. What do we want with a purchasing agent and a statistician in the Vancouver office? The minister may reply that there are no 6uch officials. That may be true; but I was a member of the house when they were appointed in 1928-29 and I know what they were called then. I protested against them at that time; I said we did not need men filling those positions. Now they are called something else, but they are still there drawing salaries. Then we have an inspector of chartered boats. We might as well have a chaplain; indeed he would do more good. These boats are chartered by the government, but the government takes no responsibility. If the boat is unseaworthy, if there is anything wrong with the engine, that is up to tie owner; the government will not even be responsible for insuring it. The owner must insure it himself. All that is necessary is to see to it that the boat is reasonably seaworthy, the engine capable of running; and the inspectors who travel on boats under their own control can readily discern anything wrong with them. But we have a man whose ostensible business is to inspect these boats.
Unfortunately there is an idea abroad that any official with a high salary and a fancy title is bound to produce results, but that is not so. A Welsh rabbit, which is neither Welsh or rabbit, sounds nice, and I compare the two, because in the case of the Welsh rabbit the element is ennobled by a fancy name and some skill in cooking, while in the other case an ordinary clerk is dignified by a fancy title and a high salary. But the fundamental basis in both is the same-just a plain ordinary piece of cheese, useful and wholesome, but just-cheese. A gentleman who was once appointed for the first time to the position of minister was struck by the enormous number of officials in his department, and he conceived the brilliant idea of

Supply-Fisheries
making inquiries, not of his de&ity, who would say at once that there were not nearly sufficient officials, but of the officials themselves. He sent a circular to them inquiring of each official what his or her duties were. One official exlaimed, "What a shameful thing to ask us to do. What do I do anyhow?" Many years ago a certain man was elected as alderman in a certain city and,'being one of those pestiferous fellows who ask a lot of questions, he fixed upon two employees and demanded to know what they were doing. This was in February when there was four inches of snow on the ground, and by steady persistence he elicited, against the opposition of the officials, that these two men had been put on in the previous June to make hay in the park, and they were still making hay in February. In this house I was once approached by a man who asked me to help him in connection with his superannuation. In the course of conversation he said, "After all, the government have not treated me too badly, because my job petered out four years ago and they have only fired me now." That is an illustration of how things go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us the whole story.


Alan Webster Neill: It is good to put these departments now and again through the threshing mill and separate the wheat from the chaff. They are honeycombed with dry rot in some cases, and bureaucratic and departmental politics. An official in one of the departments once told me: "I have been here a long time; I have not suffered myself, but I have seen more harm done to the public service of Canada by the exercise of departmental politics than ever any of you political chaps could exercise, because you have a nemesis waiting for you in the House of Commons; you can be exposed, but departmental politics is subtle and underhand and you don't know what is going on." I was very much struck the other day by the remarks of the leader of the opposition when the Minister of Marine was introducing the bill in connection with the harbour board. He complimented the minister for doing it right away, and he said, "If you had not done it then, you never would have done it," and he instanced his own experience where he had the same desire to do it and was not able to; and I think the Minister of Marine knows now that if he had not done it when he first went in he never would have done it at all. This is a parallel case. The Minister of Marine was taking control of a thousand men; this is a much smaller thing and could
be very much more easily done. I do beg the minister to put his hand to the cleansing of the Augean stable; I know it would be a great boost to his reputation. We need a great shake up, different views, and different policies.
Let me quote an illustration. I will not take the trouble to look up the page, but in the last fishery report the chief supervisor of fisheries for British Columbia said that the pack of salmon was "very satisfactory"; he said it had amounted to 1,582,000-odd cases. But the record year a few years before that was 2,000,000-odd cases. That is a drop of practically half a million cases, equivalent to three or four million dollars, a heavy drop, about twenty-five per cent, but he said-it is "very satisfactory." Well, there is the official point of view. It is "very satisfactory" that we have dropped our output twenty-five per cent. What are our competitors doing? Here is the record of Japan. A few years ago she was not in the picture. Last year she put up 2,418,000 cases, nearly a million cases more than we did; say, at $5 a case, 85,000,000 more than our total output. But the official says everything is "very satisfactory." Is it?
Then take Newfoundland. A complete reorganization of Newfoundland fisheries is provided for by the newly appointed fisheries board. Yes, they are taking time by the forelock and doing what is necessary to a complete reorganization. That is what we want in British Columbia, but the answer is, "very satisfactory." Is it? "Now" is the watchword of the wise; now is the time; now is the accepted day, as it is said. If the minister would cut loose from these palsied influences of the past he would have an opportunity to create a reputation and a record for himself that have not been attained by any minister for many years past, because we have never had for any length of time a separate minister of fisheries, although for a few months the Hon. E. N. Rhodes was a very efficient minister. But now the present minister is making a new start and he has got a chance to make a record for himself that may do wonderful things for the industry and for his own reputation. He can cut down on the overhead, and, as the leader of the opposition says, with better efficiency-not with less efficiency but with more; that is the point. Let him spend the money he saves in that way on patrol men, on guardians, on air patrols, on the destruction of sea lions and hair seals, on the building of fish ladders to let the fish get up where sometimes now they cannot for lack of water; on the cleaning
Supply-Fisheries

of creeks to help natural spawning. If these things are done the fishermen will have their livelihood assured, and that is about all they want. All they need after that is a market. If the minister would take out of the $300,000 vote sufficient money to help with the freight charges, they would have a market. The British Columbia government, I understand from Victoria the other day, has expressed no desire to take up the $50,000 out of that grant, so that that $50,000 will rest with the department and I suggest that this would be the most profitable use to make of it. Let me quote this one sentence from an editorial in a fishery paper published in British Columbia:
Fishermen realize that the best aid given them is the guarantee of an assured future and the maintenance of a source of income which, if allowed to go to ruin, no appropriation, least of all to "needy fishermen," will be able to reestablish.
That is the spirit of our men out there. They do not want pork barrel aid. They want to be helped to help themselves, and they will be only too glad to do their share.
One more thing I suggest, and it is all important. Make the Fisherman's Loan Act workable. Was not a question answered the other day that not one loan had been granted under it? Certainly not, because the regulations are such that loans cannot be made, and never will be except to a very small extent. Make the act workable, and then there will be a chance for these men to help themselves. The British people are doing it. I have a record here showing that they are going into a scheme of this kind. Now the minister has got this $50,000 that is available, so to speak, that should be credited to British Columbia out of that $300,000, I suggest that it should be used to help the causes I have indicated and make the Fisherman's Loan Act workable. By "workable" I mean, conditions by which they can take advantage of it. Make it apply to sums greater than a thousand dollars if necessary, and make it apply to the boat and gear. It is now confined to the man who has got real estate which, forsooth, he must occupy. How can a fisherman be occupying real estate? But he has to occupy it and it has to be worth double the amount granted. Take the halibut man with a boat worth $25,000; he may not have enough land to put a henhouse on, but for that reason he cannot get any loan. If the act were made workable in that way it would be a tremendous advantage.
I put forward these views without any desire unduly to criticize the minister. I have not criticized the minister; he is only new at

the thing, but I am pointing out conditions as I see them and have seen them for a long time. I claim to have some knowledge there. I have lived in a fishery district for over forty years, and for nineteen of those years I have represented it either in the house at Victoria or here, so I may claim to have some working knowledge of conditions. I should appreciate it if the minister would investigate the matters along the lines that I have indicated.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: Just a word in respect of
the remarks that have been, placed1 before this committee by the hon. member (Mr. Neill). I am pleased to be able to inform him that, with the additional amount provided in the supplementary estimates, it will be possible this year to have expended for patrol work the same amount that was expended last year, and have the same patrol and the same force that we had last year. There is the amount as requested in the main estimates this year, in item 145. With the amount provided in the supplementaries, added to the amount which we are asking the house to vote in the first column, we shall have exactly the same amount that was expended last year-not that was voted by parliament, but that was expended for the service of patrol that my hon. friend has pointed out.


Alan Webster Neill: Item 145?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes. With the additional amount provided for in the supplementary estimates we shall have enough money to give to British Columbia the same amount of patrol work that the government did last year.


Alan Webster Neill: H the minister will allow
me, the decrease is $141,548, vote 145.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is the whole vote.


Alan Webster Neill: No, that is vote No. 145.
It is decreased $141,548 and increased $40,000 by the supplementaries.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: But last year of that
vote $913,702 was actually spent. This year we are asking parliament to vote $878,600 plus $40,000, which will make almost $5,000 more than was actually expended last year. That is why I say I shall be able after this vote goes through to implement the recommendation made by the hon. gentleman as well as other hon. members representing fishing districts, and give the patrol that was provided for last year.
My hon. friend has complained about the Vancouver office, about there being too many cooks, too many officials. Unfortunately I

Supply-Fisheries
am not familiar with the local situation there, but I promise my hon. friend that as soon as it is possible for me to do so I shall have this investigated and see for myself what the conditions are, and if they are as represented I can assure him that not only fifty per cent but seventydive per cent or one hundred per cent if necessary will be dismissed if they are superfluous. Of course there are some officials whose work may not appear to be necessary, but when one considers that in British Columbia during the year we have twenty-one boats belonging to the government, two large boats and nineteen smaller ones, and besides that during the summer we hire on an average eighty-two boats for patrol work, the amount of work involved is apparent. There is an official there, I understand, whose duty it is to supervise that fleet of small craft, direct them and see that they are in working order. But if the work of that man after investigation is found to be unnecessary I can assure my hon. friend that his services will be dispensed with.
My hon. friend made one remark which I think was not justified. He said that the books or accounts of that department were kept in a disgraceful manner. If that be so this department is not responsible for it, because the books and accounts are kept ,by the treasury department. They have officials of their own keeping the books and accounts of our department as well as of other departments, and the officials of the Department of Fisheries are not responsible.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister will allow
me, perhaps I should not have said that the books are kept in a disgraceful way; I should have said that the system is such that it is almost impossible to ascertain what was spent on this or that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Well, the criticism should be directed to the Department of Finance, which has jurisdiction over the treasury department. However, this matter I am sure will be taken note of by those responsible.
As to departmental politics, I am safe in saying that I know nothing about it, and I have had no actual fact pointed out to me. But if any hon. member has a complaint to make about political activities by officials of the department I shall be pleased to have the facts laid before me, and if after inquiry the official is found guilty of breach of his duties the minister will not countenance any such activities on the part of any official.


Mr. KINLEY:: Even at this late hour in the session I desire to say a word. We are
now dealing with the main fisheries estimates, on which we would naturally discuss both matters of policy and matters of routine. I hope the presentation of that vote at this late hour in the session is not an indication that the fishing industry is not considered of paramount importance in this committee and to this country. Coming as I do from a county which is largely interested in the fishing industry I regard it as my duty, as far as I am able, to place before the committee and the government the importance of the fisheries.
Fisheries are of national importance, anc have an international aspect. While the fisheries department has direct control of the fisheries I regard our fisheries as an industry with which practically every department of the government is concerned. I know of no man who could do more for the fisheries than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, by making proper trade arrangements with other countries whereby we should be able to sell our products and bring new money into this country. The fisheries invite foreign trade. For that reason I trust that the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the recess, in conjunction with the Minister of Fisheries, will give his attention to the matter of marketing our fish products in foreign countries.
The same is true of the Minister of Transport. Transportation is a big item in connection with fish. It is a bulky product, freight rates are high, and transportation is all important. The Minister of Transport can give great assistance to the Department of Fisheries in facilitating transportation, both as to cost and as to speed, and making fish more readily available to people throughout Canada and to the people of other countries. The Minister of Agriculture also, through the acts relating to cold storage and farm loans, in which the fishermen are interested, can do his part. So that while the fishery estimates have to do principally with the regulation of the fisheries, all these departments are represented in the picture. The fish trade is unique and important and should appeal to the imagination of every member of the government.
Fisheries are of greatest importance to us in the maritime provinces. We are a maritime people. If we are to prosper as a part of Canada it must be in the industries that are naturally ours; I refer to activities on the sea-the fisheries and the mercantile marine. If we build up the industry that is naturally ours, when we get it to a state of efficiency and secure the trade it will be ours
Supply-Fisheries

against competition and will be economically sound. For that reason I say that as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, while we have our interest in farming and other industries, common to other provinces also, if we want to excel as a port of Canada it must be in our activities upon the sea. That has been our history in the past. There was a time when we had more ships per capita upon the ocean than any country in the world. Our men sailed to every port on the seven seas. Our fisheries sustained us and were the admiration of foreign countries. In fact one of the reasons set out for the pact of confederation was that this country would develop the fisheries of the maritime provinces.
We hope that the minister who has now taken charge of the fisheries of Canada will amplify these thoughts and see to it that this natural primary industry of the maritime provinces receives every consideration. The main countries with which we are in competition are stimulating their industry, and we must put ourselves in a position to compete. Geographically we are in a favoured position; Nova Scotia and the maritimes are adjacent to the finest fishing banks in the world. There is no good reason why we should not meet competition of every kind. This is one thing which will help to relieve unemployment in my constituency. I therefore enlist the sympathies of the Minister of Labour, because he too must be interested in the fisheries. Fishermen are a class who can live on a smaller amount of this world's goods than can most people, and they deserve consideration.
Something has been said about cutting down the fisheries estimates. The votes for fisheries are very low, and perhaps they have been pared down lower than is justified. But we must realize that we have supplementary estimates which to a certain degree make up the loss.
I notice that the wages of guardians have been lowered, and I must say there is some justification for that action. In the rural parts of Canada I believe it is a mistake to have government men getting more money than people engaged in private industry. The man who works for a private company should not be placed in the position where he must envy the government employee. Everybody is looking for a government job, because it is paying more than anybody else. I believe hon. members will agree that the reduction per day of wages of these men is in some degree justified, because it shows a disposition on the part of the government to save money

-for other active items of fisheries estimates. If we are serious in our efforts to save it in the Department of Fisheries I am sure the fishermen will cooperate as far as possible. At any rate the total expenditure this year will be greatly increased.
The last government made provision for loans to fishermen who offered real estate as security. The principle of offering loans is a step in the right direction, but it was inadequate for the purposes of the fishermen because, as 'a rule, they hold no real estate. I suggest that the legislation should be amplified so that the fisherman may get a loan on his gear or boats. The proper way to do that would be to give the loans through the people who know how to give them, and know what credit should be given. I suggest that the government could make some arrangement with the chartered banks, branches of which are found in every fishing village. If the government would guarantee or share the guarantee of the loans the fisherman could get the small amount of money he required, because he usually does not need very much.
The Minister of Finance might look into the matter during the recess in an effort to reestablish the fisherman. I believe with a proper expenditure of money and proper attention our fisheries will stand the strain and stress of days to come.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $1,400.
Alan Webster Neill: I suggest the amount in this vote is unreasonable, to the last degree. Last year there was a vote of S6,000, and this year it is only $1,400. I can point to one island alone where we could use all that. I know the minister has arranged for a further sum of $3,000 in the supplementary estimates, but when we are shutting up the hatcheries we must surely give further help in building fishways and clearing rivers. The total amount will be only $4,400 as against $6,000 for last year, and I suggest that instead of a decrease there should have been an increase towards helping to preserve the fish. There is a general idea that the best way to help them is by clearing rivers and building fishways. I realize the minister has obtained a substantial increase, but to begin with he suffered a cut which was out of all reason. My quarrel perhaps should be with the Minister of Finance; possibly the Minister of Fisheries did not present sufficient of what we call in the west a "skookum tumtum," or a strong mind, that is he did not take a sufficiently firm stand with the Minister of Finance.

Supply-Fisheries
Mr. IvINLEY: May I say that if hon. members want the thrill of their lives they should come to Nova Scotia and catch a tuna. In that way we would enlist the interest of the tourist department in the fisheries of Nova Scotia.


Thomas Reid: And if you want good salmon, come to the Fraser river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $240,000.
Alan Webster Neill: This is an expenditure for fish culture and, I assume, includes hatcheries. The cut is no more than two per cent. Could not the minister have made a greater cut in this vote, in view of the reduced expenses in connection with hatcheries?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is a fact that the closing of the sockeye hatcheries in British Columbia will bring about a saving of about $50,000, but I wish to repeat-if I did not make it clear yesterday-that only the sockeye hatcheries are being closed. All other hatcheries in the rest of the country are maintained. Further I must add that they are not closed because it was found that artificial propagation was not proper or adequate, but because it was found the natural propagation of sockeye salmon was sufficient to meet the requirements. The money we saved by closing those hatcheries is being expended on other hatcheries throughout the country-in British Columbia as well as in the rest of Canada. We have estimated that out of the $50,000 we will spend $43,500 to improve other hatcheries.


Alan Webster Neill: After the minister closes what he is going to close in British Columbia, are there not only four left? He is going to close ten of them.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We are closing Anderson lake, Babine lake, Smiths Falls, Kennedy lake, Lakelse lake, Pemberton, Pitt lake, Rivers Inlet and Harrison lake.


Alan Webster Neill: That is nine; you are keeping four.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We are keeping Cowichan lake, Argenteuil, Lloyd's creek, Nelson, Penask and Summerland.


Alan Webster Neill: Those are merely sport
fisheries. They are little better than breeding ponds, in some cases. I cannot see where we can save $50,000 out of certain hatcheries, and then spend all of it on these small hatcheries.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No, on the rest of the country.


Mr. BARBER:: The minister said something about a fifty thousand dollar reduction in the amount to the fish hatcheries in British Columbia. Would he give us the reduced vote to British Columbia?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is not a separate vote for British Columbia; it covers all the hatcheries in the country. Fish culture was taken under one vote. We have closed some of the hatcheries in British Columbia; the closing of the hatcheries I have just enumerated will cause a saving of $50,000, but the money is to be expended for the improvement of some hatcheries in British Columbia and others in the rest of the country.


Harry James Barber: I take it that the minister proposes to reduce the vote to British Columbia by fifty per cent, and to distribute it in other parts of the country.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No.


Harry James Barber: Well, that is the only place hatcheries are being eliminated.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; it is because British Columbia is the only place where there are sockeye hatcheries.


Alan Webster Neill: No; yesterday I spoke about the building of a new hatchery in Nova Scotia last fall. Can the minister explain why, when the government had in view a change in policy, it should build a new hatchery? What was the cost of it, and where was it built?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that the hatchery in Nova Scotia was constructed to carry on the artificial propagation of Atlantic salmon in order to maintain the supply, while the report of the biological board is to the effect that on, the Pacific coast, in connection with sockeye salmon, natural propagation is sufficient to maintain the supply.


Alan Webster Neill: I can hardly agree with that; if you look up the report of the biological board they do not say that. What they do say is this: they have decided that while propagation by artificial means can be done, the results are not sufficiently more profitable than the natural propagation to make it desirable to continue that, but certainly they do not say that the natural system is sufficient in British Columbia, because the facts are against that. We are going down every year, a thousand cases this year and perhaps a million cases next year. I cannot quite grasp why, in view of the information gained by the biological board, it should be necessary to start a new station on the Atlantic at a considerable expenditure. One would think the conditions
Supply-Fisheries

on the two coasts were practically similar. Was there some depletion of a run on some particular river that justified this expenditure, or what was the idea?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that it was in order to build up the Atlantic salmon fisheries in the eastern part of Nova Scotia.


Alan Webster Neill: What particular rivers were concerned?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told that practically all the rivers in the eastern part of Nova Scotia were concerned.


Alan Webster Neill: And what was the cost of the hatchery?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Some $30,000.


Alan Webster Neill: And for that we had to go hungry in British Columbia.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, no.


Alan Webster Neill: Officials were discharged from the hatcheries in my district in the fall of the year, when there was work for them to do. When I inquired as to the reason I was told that the vote had petered out. I inquired further, and I have a letter from the deputy minister saying that the construction of a new hatchery in Nova Scotia took up a good deal of their money.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not think it is fair to draw the conclusion that the hatcheries in British Columbia were closed in order to provide money for the construction of a hatchery in Nova Scotia. There was no relation between the two.


Alan Webster Neill: The minister misunderstood me; that was not what I was trying to convey. I did not say the hatcheries were closed, but in the fall of the year, when the hatcheries in British Columbia were still running, their work was hampered. Men were taken off, and when I asked why I was told there was no more money. If you put a man in a hatchery to do the work of two men, provided he was not underworked before, the assumption is that the work will suffer.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand that in the fall of last year the appropriation was practically exhausted, and the work in the hatcheries all over Canada was curtailed to the limit in order to make the vote extend to the 31st March.


Alan Webster Neill: Let us be frank about it; was it in order to help the political fortunes of Mr. Ernst?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I do not know anything about that.
IMr. Neill.]


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni with regard to the appropriation for the hatchery in Nova Scotia. I think that salmon hatchery is destined to do a very good work with regard to the rivers in eastern Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine Biological Board of Canada, $188,300.
Alan Webster Neill: What is the extra $13,000
for in the supplementaries?


Mr. DUNNING:: We will come to the
supplementaries in. a moment.


Harry James Barber: I notice that the total
vote for this board, including the item in the supplementaries, is $201,000. Would the minister explain whether this covers salaries and expenses and, in case an investigation is carried on. such as was carried on at Cultus lake, whether any money comes out of the fish culture vote to assist in that work?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Harry James Barber: Would the minister give
me the details of the salaries and expenses?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The salaries at Nanaimo station are as follows:	Doctor Clemens,
$5,400; Doctor Foerster, $3,900; C. R. Elsey, $2,760; Doctor J. L. Hart, $3,000; C. Mc-Mottley, $2,400; Doctor A. L. Pritchard, $2,760; A. L. Tester, $1,620; J. P. Tully, $1,740; W. E. Ricker, $1,800; Miss D. Dickinson, $960; Miss E. Robinson, $960; Miss E. Keighley, $1,020 and T. Russell, $1,200. Then there is the foreman at Cultus lake, W. F. Baxter, $1,500; E. L. Kennedy, $1,200, G. G. Thomson, $1,200. J. H. Stannard, foreman, Queen Charlotte Islands, $1,500, and D. Crocker, $1200.


Harry James Barber: I am not so much interested1 in that. The information I wanted was whether this vote for the biological board, totalling $201,000, is for salaries only.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes, for salaries and
investigations all over the country.


Harry James Barber: No expenses connected
with it? Are the expenses paid out of the fish culture vote?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: There is the cost of
publicity and the travellling expenses, and there is the salary of Doctor Huntsman, as well as the salary of Miss Rigby, who is assistant editor and clerk. There are ex-, penses totalling about $18,000, but this covers salaries for the Prince Rupert station, the Halifax station, the Nanaimo station and the St. Andrews station.

Supply-Fisheries


Harry James Barber: I just wish to point out
that the vote for fish culture, which has been condemned by some, amounts to $240,000. That has to do with one of our main industries, perhaps the best of all the industries having to do with fish, the sockeye salmon industry. To-day, on the other,hand, we are paying $201,100 in order to maintain this board of scientists. Once' more I wish to stress the importance of the minister taking into consideration the application of a little more practical knowledge and consultation with some of the practical men engaged in this industry, instead of leaving it all to a board of scientists.


Alan Webster Neill: I asked the reason for the
$13,000 that appears in the supplementary estimates.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That	provides $10,000
for a biological station in the lower St. Lawrence and $3,000 to pay the salary of a lobster investigator in the maritime provinces. The lobster supply is getting low and for some years the lobster fishermen and the lobster packers have been requesting that a scientist should be entrusted with the duty of investigating the cause of his diminution of supply.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: There are one or two general observations that I wish to make. The matter to which I shall refer may be new to the minister, but it certainly is not new to the department. For a number of years the fishermen in Nova Scotia have been agitated over the continued use of the beam trawler. Several royal commissions have been appointed to consider this matter and have made reports adverse to the continued use of the trawlers.


Mr. ISNOR:: Did the hon. member say
that all those reports were unanimous?


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I did
not use the word "unanimous" at all.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What did you say?


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I said
that the reports were against the use of the beam trawlers.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: All the reports?


John Charles Alexander Cameron: All of
them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is not quite correct.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I know
some of the reports were not unanimous, but in my training a report of the majority is the report. I was going on to say that what
might be termed a makeshift policy was adopted some years ago for the licensing of these trawlers, and I understand some licences have been issued this year. Before a licence is issued the department must be satisfied from evidence that the issuing of a licence is necessary in the interests of the trade. My idea of evidence is that an opportunity is given to both sides to be heard, and my complaint is that on this occasion only one side was heard. I am going to suggest to the minister, on behalf of the fishermen whom I represent, and I know I can speak for the fishermen in many other counties, that no licence should be issued until both sides to the controversy have been heard.
I am sorry I must differ with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley); I do not believe sufficient money is appropriated for the purpose of properly guarding our streams. One of the best assets that the province of Nova Scotia could have from the tourist standpoint is streams well stocked with sport fish. I do not know where the hon. member got the idea that the salaries paid to these guardians were too large. The hon. member's idea was that they were so large as to be almost discriminatory when compared with other industries. These guardians are paid only $25 or $30 per month.


John James Kinley: Not in my county.


John Charles Alexander Cameron: I have
the figures under my hand. They are employed for only two or three months and I do not think you can expect to have an efficient guardian when you pay such low wages. If you want to have your streams properly protected you must pay more money for this service. I cannot recall the term used by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), but whatever it was I hope the minister will remember it in his attitude toward the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in the coming year when estimates are being considered.


John James Kinley: Mr. Chairman, I think
my hon. friend must have misinterpreted what I said. In one stream in my county we put on more guardians, but the department is paying them less. I think that is sound business. I am not saying that our streams should not be properly guarded; on the contrary what I say is that it is better to have more guardians, and that can be done at the lower rate; the same money employs more guardians.
I should like to say a word about the use of 'beam trawlers. In the light of conditions that exist I cannot see how anyone in authority
Supply-Fisheries

in this country can think that the beam trawler is necessary at the present time for the success of the fisheries. Some years ago the Maclean commission was appointed to report on conditions in the maritime provinces and they reported against the use of the beam trawler. Doctor Cyrus Macmillan was perhaps the strongest member of that commission advocating abolition, and he became Minister of Marine and Fisheries later on. He is now a professor at McGill university. It is true that Judge Maclean, for whose opinion I have a high regard, had a different opinion from that of his colleagues, but that difference was quite small. In effect he said that the beam trawler should be used only for the purpose of taking up the slack, to use the vernacular of the fishermen; he said that it should be used only when necessary to provide a continuity of supply.
The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, presented an order in council to the government, which he said had been prepared with the assistance and on the opinion of his deputy. The government passed that order in council, which in effect, entirely prohibited the use of the beam trawler. This order in council was questioned and it became the subject of litigation in the courts. After an adverse opinion had been rendered by one court, an appeal was started, which was later withdrawn. The tax was paid back to the one firm that had paid it.
Another order in council was passed by the government of the right hon. gentleman to my left which set out in effect that beam trawling would be permitted only if it did not interfere adversely with the line fishermen, and that before a licence would be issued the minister must be convinced that they would not decrease their purchases from the line fishermen. In the face of this order I have received resolutions from groups of fifty, one hundred or two hundred fishermen in my county who have been laid off by these same companies and who have since been unable to get any work. I contend that if there ever was a time when the provisions of that order in council should be enforced, it is the present.
Then we had the Jones commission which investigated the economic conditions of the province of Nova Scotia. That commission reported, recommending that the beam trawler be gradually abolished. They pointed out that it was not necessary. I am not giving my own opinion. My opinion is the opinion of the fishermen whom I represent, and they are unanimously against the 'beam trawler, but

that is not the opinion I am giving now. I am quoting the opinion of scientific men who heard the evidence. The Minister of Public Works himself travelled along the coast taking the views of fishermen from place to place. The beam trawler people themselves say it is not essential to the carrying on of the industry.
This matter was before the price spreads committee at the last session and that committee reported against the beam trawler. With one exception, Mr. Young of Weyburn, the committee was unanimously in favour of the report against the beam trawlers. Mr. Young was in favour of the trawlere but all the others reported absolutely against them, and in the course of the evidence given before the committee the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who was then chairman, made a comment which I should like to read. I quote:
By the Chairman:
Q. Just before you leave that, may I say this:	your idea is that an international
arrangement be made to discontinue the use of those trawlers?
A. Surely that would be the logical thing to do, for there is not any necessity for beam trawlers to have continuity of supply; and they are a great expense to the companies who are operating them. They admit that themselves very frankly. I know the president of the National Fish Company, Mr. Britton, and that particular year I was here on the subject of advertising, and he admitted to me that the only reason they wanted beam trawlers was that it gave them a certain amount of independence.
In other words, they want the beam trawler as a club to hold over the fishermen. Not a great amount of fish can be caught by the trawlers. There are three trawlers and it is estimated that each can catch nine million pounds of fish a year, or twenty-seven million pounds. Personally, I think that is an exaggeration, but those are the figures. Now that is a large part of the deep sea catch in Nova Scotia. We may be told that they do not catch a large percentage, but the fact is that it puts the beam trawler corporation man in the position where he is a primary producer and he can say to the fishermen, "I have a beam trawler coming in to-morrow; you take what I give you for your fish or you can go home." The fisherman has no bargaining power.
We are not opposed to the beam trawler as an economic factor; we are not opposed to progress. But it is not real progress, for the fishermen can produce better fish more cheaply than the trawler can. And what is more, the fishermen do not destroy fish. At this moment the United States government is concerned about haddock fishing on the banks

Supply-Fisheries
adjacent to Nova Scotia, and there is a suggestion that beam trawlers be prohibited west of St. Pierre. The banks off the coast of Nova Scotia are being ruined by the beam trawler. However, that is an international matter with which we are not concerned at the moment. The point is that we want the Canadian market for Canadian fishermen, and we think that they should have some way of determining the price for which they must sell their product. But the beam trawler is one instrument that defeats that object. We may have to come to a minimum price for the fishermen. To my mind the fishermen of Canada, whether they are right or wrong, will never be satisfied until the beam brawler is abolished. We have a population of only 10,000,000 while in the United States there is a large market with a population of 120,000,000. If we had a population of 20,000,000, the beam trawler might be necessary, but we have a condition that does not exist in any other country. Ground fishing is only one part of the activities of our fishermen; they must fish in the outports to catch lobster, mackerel, herring and seasonal fish that come along the shore. Put these men in Halifax and make them coal heavers and beam trawler operators and you will denude the shores of Nova Scotia and ruin the industry. The government must know, surely, that scientific men like those who composed the commissions that have studied this matter are not men who would be parochial in their opinions or who would give opinions without reason. And the opinions are there.
I submit that in the interests of employment the experiment should be tried and if necessary the beam trawler operators could be compensated. Just allow them the profit they showed in their income tax returns last year. This is a matter that has been before the country a long time and we will keep it before the country, not because we are opposed to progress but because we believe that progress should be genuine, and the interests of our men who need work should be paramount. There is no other means by which men can live than by working, and until you can allow men to sit at the table without working you must see to it that they have work.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My hon. friend from Cape Breton North-Victoria and my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg seem to be under the impression that the Minister of Pisheries has the power to abolish the beam trawler. I have not, nor did I have that power last spring when the time came for the renewal of licences. It is true eminent men have given their opinion as to the necessity of the steam 12739-263
trawler, but one fact remains, and it is this. The parliament of Canada has dealt with the question in all these investigations that have been carried on, and in 1929, I believe, passed section 56 of the Fisheries Act. Under the provisions of that act power was given to the governor in council to make regulations for the operation of steam trawlers. These regulations were questioned before the courts and one tribunal decided that they were ultra vires inasmuch as they were prohibitive in effect.


John James Kinley: The trawlers were taxed by order in council.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The tax was so high that it was prohibitive; it really prohibited the trawler from operating. If parliament wanted to prohibit the trawlers it would have passed a statute forbidding the use of them; but it provided for the regulation of these trawlers. So far the regulations have been made and administered by the Department of Fisheries; and I felt last spring, when the time came for renewing licences, that, not having the power to refuse to issue licences, I should confine myself to renewing those that had been in force in the previous year or for the last few years.


John James Kinley: The minister is no doubt aware that so far as the companies carrying on the fishing business in the maritimes are concerned, it is a matter of privilege, because there is only one company that is allowed to have steam trawlers.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If they complied with the regulations and made application in due form I renewed the licences. Last year one application was refused because the conditions had not been complied with.


John James Kinley: That was in my constituency and I compliment the minister on not having granted it. The minister takes the point that the statute was for regulations, but I want to point out to the minister that the order in council was in effect a prohibition-absolutely-which showed the intent of the government of that day.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the payment of a bounty for the destruction of harbour seals, $15,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Is "harbour seals" a misprint? Is it intended to mean "hair seals"?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Hair seals.


Alan Webster Neill: I compliment the minister
upon putting that item in. It is a very necessary thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Fisheries
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries-Salaries, $113,331; contingencies,
Alan Webster Neill: This is the item dealing with civil government at Ottawa. I have prepared elaborate data that I proposed to unload, but I am going to take mercy on my weary fellow members and cut it down very substantially.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Hand it over.


Alan Webster Neill: I will put it into three minutes if I can. First, I just wanted to correct a misstatement that was made when I was speaking on this matter on March 3. I was reported somewhat generally in the press as having said that in my opinion the civil servants of Canada were asleep. That was a mistake. What I said was, certain sections, and that I am prepared to stand up to. To say it applied' to them all would be doing a gross injustice to the civil service, a large majority of *whom are very faithful, conscientious people, and some of them entirely devoted to their work. I then intended to deal with, though now I am only going to summarize it, some of the statements the deputy minister put into the mouth of his minister in connection with the figures, with which he dealt with the utmost abandon. Discrepancies of twenty-five per cent and in some cases seventy per cent I can readily prove. I proposed to show also the type of figures that his chief supervisor in Vancouver sent out, but I showed it to the minister, so I will not repeat it. It was not a case of typographical error; it was a straight case of faking figures, they faked figures at the bottom in order to make them agree. That was at the least gross carelessness. If the minister wants details I have them under my hand. Page 56.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Intentional?


Alan Webster Neill: Absolutely. If it is not intentional the man is a fool. It is not a typographical error. I will show it to the minister if he wishes.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have seen it.


Alan Webster Neill: The reason I say it is intentional is this. They add up seven columns and they do not add them up correctly, but to make them agree with the other two totals they put in a false statement. You have only to look at the thing, on page 55. If you take the number of cases inspected of sockeye, 270,000, and reject 21,000, you surely do not have 349,000 left, do you? It does not need a statistician or a purchasing

agent to tell you that. But they make the totals correct. Then I show that the deputy minister's own bulletin, the bulletin for May, says that the British Columbia product increased $550,000 last year, but if you compare it with his own report on page 6 you will find the increase is only $452,000, a trifling difference of $98,000. But here are the only points I want to make. I am taking their own figures. They show that the marketed value for 1935 went up $550,000 while the landed value to the fishermen, according to the January bulletin, went down $178,150, showing that the fishermen got less for their product that year while the cannery men got a large increase. That goes to support my contention, and that is the trend of my remarks, that the policies of the departmental officials and their sympathies in British Columbia lie wholly with the big cannery interests, as the men who are prominent in the business world, in the financial world, in the social world, and perchance in the political world also. Their sympathies go there; they are not with the working fishermen.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: The sympathy of the
minister goes with the working fishermen.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the minister for his
kind words, and I shall look forward with hopeful anticipation to his making good on that.
I see in the item there is a purchasing agent in the office at Ottawa. What do we want a purchasing agent for? In the same building there is a purchasing agent for the Marine department; on the same floor or the next one there is a purchasing agent for the Public Works department. There is also a government contract supervising committee that takes charge of the salvaged stuff that has to be disposed of. What does that department need a purchasing agent for? Will the minister tell us why? It will tax his ingenuity, I think.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: It is to purchase all that the department needs. Most, though not all, the purchases for the eastern section of the fisheries department are made in Ottawa through tender from the main office. It is only in British Columbia that we have a special purchasing agent, a man in Vancouver who looks after the purchases in British Columbia, but all the purchases in the eastern section are made in the head office at Ottawa through that gentleman.


Alan Webster Neill: In that case, what does he buy?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: All kinds of things.

Supply-Finance


Alan Webster Neill: Stationery? Coal? Gas?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No. We have boats on the Atlantic. He buys supplies for all the boats, and supplies for all the hatcheries. There are repairs needed for our boats, and everything is done through tender. I think the officer justifies his existence as such by the work that under my observation he has to do. Possibly a concentration of all the purchasing departments of the government might result in some saving, but it is a matter of policy.


Alan Webster Neill: Could we not cut out the man in British Columbia? The Atlantic purchasing is done here; could not the Pacific coast purchasing be done here also?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I doubt it. The purchasing of supplies for British Columbia would be difficult to do from Ottawa. The distances are against us; it is so far away that it takes a long time to communicate. I understand the system that now prevails in Vancouver has been in vogue for over twenty years. Prior to that time the department was administered wholly from Ottawa, and it was not found satisfactory. That is the information I have.


Alan Webster Neill: We have a three day mail service now; try air mail and telegraph and wireless; I do not think the distance has got any greater. Is it not a fact that within the last five or six years the department in British Columbia bought three boats? I forget the names of them all, but one, I think, is called the Vanidis. If my information is not erroneous they have already had to rebuild two of them, or they have rebuilt one and contemplate rebuilding the other two. I do not know whether "rebuilding" or "reorganization" is the correct word, but I understand some very big alterations have had to be made on a comparatively new boat.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I understand some alterations were made in a boat.


Alan Webster Neill: A new boat.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: A new boat which was bought some years ago.


Alan Webster Neill: Then for God's sake get a new purchasing agent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the house will
12739-263J
permit me, there is a statement which I should have made this morning when speaking on external affairs. The Canadian government will be represented at the adjourned meeting of the sixteenth assembly of the League of Nation's at Geneva on June 30 by the Hon. Phillippe Roy, Canadian minister in France, and the Hon. Vincent Massey, Canadian high commissioner in the United Kingdom. Doctor W. A. Riddell, Canadian advisory officer at Geneva, and Mr. Loring Christie, counsellor in the Department of External Affairs, Ottawa, will act as advisers.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SECRETARY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, June 23, 1936.
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, acting as the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber Tuesday, June 23, at 4 p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
To authorize, subject to the approval of the governor in council, appointment of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of any of the items in these special supplementary estimates.
Charles Avery Dunning: This item was discussed last evening. My colleague will move an amendment in the terms suggested by the leader of the opposition, which will place beyond any doubt the question as to the use to be made of the item.


Mr. CRERAR:: 
[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply

House oj Commons
House of Commons-
Publishing debates, including salaries of amanuenses, etc. - further amount required, $13,095.55.	.
To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or on account of death during the present session-notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1927, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $12,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to say one word with respect to this matter. I mentioned it to the Prime Minister when we rose. I refer to the question of the payment of sessional stenographers. During the last regime there were no statutory increases, and it will * be recalled there was a reduction in payments made to civil servants. The policy which had been adopted for many years in connection with the sessional stenographic staff was a salary of $4 per day to begin with; when they had served a second session they went to S4.50 and in the third session they went to S5. But after the failure to provide statutory increases, and the diminution of salaries which took place in consequence of a general reduction in the salaries of civil servants, that was not continued. It has resulted in some ill feeling, if I may use so strong a word, on the part of those who have served in some cases three and four sessions, and in other cases longer than that. Mr. Speaker will no doubt be aware of the circumstances. The old rule of the sliding scale has been discontinued. I remember having personally discussed the matter at the instance of those then in charge, and with the gentleman who looks after the staff. He told me-and I believe it is still so-that beginning with a fixed rate and increasing fifty cents the next year and fifty cents the following year was eminently and entirely satisfactory. I trust when the committee on internal economy makes a final adjustment of these matters at the end of this session they will return to the old rule departed from by the late government at the time I have indicated, when there was a lessening of salaries paid to civil servants and when statutory increases were discontinued.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
To provide for expenses connected with the administration of Indian affairs, including salaries, supplies, relief, medical attendance, hospitalization, dwellings, agricultural activities, surveys, roads, bridges, irrigation, dyking, education, etc. - further amount required, $130,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I have made certain inquiries about this from the Minister of the Interior, and he has explained to my satisfaction that this is to look after increases in salaries provided for by statute and other matters of that kind. I shall not take up the time of the committee with any further discussion.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I might say that the grant for the educational side of Indian work was cut in the main estimates, and this simply restores it to where it was last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Dominion Lands, Parks, etc.-
To provide for the expenses connected with the national parks of Canada, historic sites, care of indigents in the parks, the appointment of stipendiary magistrates in the parks and the payment of their remuneration, etc. 

further amount required, $50,000.
Administration of the Migratory Birds Convention Act-further amount required, $4,000.
To assist in the development of the Canadian section of the International Peace Garden in Manitoba, $12,000.
To provide for the expenses incurred under the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, and under the agreement between the Dominion, Ontario and Manitoba, confirmed, by the Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, for the construction of a dam at the outlet of Lac Seul and its operation by the Lake of the Woods Control Board, moneys expended to be reimbursed to the dominion by the province of Manitoba under the terms of paragraph 8 of the Manitoba transfer agreement, $20,000.
To provide for the expenses incured under the Lake of the Woods convention, 1925, for Canadian participation in legal proceedings in the United States incidental to acquiring a flowage easement over lands bordering on lake of the Woods in the United States, two-thirds of the moneys expended to be reimbursed to the dominion by the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario under the terms of the agreement of November 15, 1922, $10,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that it may appear on the record, may I publicly direct the attention of the Minister of the Interior to a matter about which I spoke to him privately. In the national park at Banff there is a publicly owned lighting system developed from the water in the river. It is very satisfactory. There are two sets of rates, that which they charge domestic customers and that chargeable against others. With great effort the permanent officials were induced to believe it might be possible to provide a cheaper rate for what we might call heat and power for larger motors. A rate was provided with a minimum of S3 per month. The meters are paid for on a rental basis of twenty-five cents per month, so that that need not enter into the discussion. Unfortunately with

Supply-M iscellaneous
respect to the smaller motors the officials of the department are not prepared to make the experiment. I do suggest that the minister this season might yield to the urgent demand of those who live in the community and try the rate which has been suggested, as an experiment to see how it will affect the revenue. I do not believe there will be any added cost, for the power is there and might just as well be utilized. If the minister will try that experiment certainly I shall be entirely satisfied; for I had intended, if we had been in the place that he is now in, at least to make the experiment during this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for a contribution to the government officers guarantee fund and to authorize the establishment and administration of such fund including payments therefrom in accordance with regulations prescribed by the treasury board and to authorize payment of interest on such fund at the rate prescribed by the treasury board, $20,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether anything can be done in the near future in connection with social insurance? I am thinking now of the present act having been declared ultra vires, and I should like to know what will be the next step taken by the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The officers of the Department of Justice at the moment are carefully studying the opinion given by the supreme court, and the Minister of Justice is also giving thought to the matter. I think later he will make a recommendation to his colleagues with respect, possibly, to further consideration of the intra vires or ultra vires of the measure by the privy council. Pending that time the organization already effected with respect to social insurance will be maintained, and nothing will be done to prejudice in any way what has been established. More than that I do not think I can say at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for expenses of the royal commission on the textile industry, including honoraria as follows:-A. S. Whiteley, secretary, $1,000; Robert Rene, assistant secretary, $350; Gordon E. Hooper, adviser on tariff matters, $500, $100,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a very large expenditure. Does it include the $20,000 covered by governor general's warrant, or is it exclusive of that sum? Can the minister say what it is costing per day to operate this commission?


Charles Avery Dunning: The $20,000 is to recoup unforeseen expenditures already made. The cost per day is rather difficult to give, but I
have some information which may have a bearing upon the matter. It is estimated that a total of ninety days' reporting will be required. The judge, of course, gets no salary; he gets a per diem allowance for expenses. Counsel fees and so on are estimated to require, all told, $38,000 or thereabouts, and travelling expenses will be about $2,000. For auditors and accountants the cost will be approximately $10,000, and for an economist $2,500. Then there are a number of small items, including $3,500 for printing the report and certain honoraria which are mentioned in this item to civil servants who are working on that particular job. There is also a miscellaneous item of $6,000. That will give a rough idea as to the cost of the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To authorize payment of the insurance money under policy No. 16736, written under the authority of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act on the life of Percy William Roper, to Maggie Amanda Roper, notwithstanding the provisions of the said act, $1.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is this item?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a curious case, Mr. Chairman, and I should like to give the particulars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difficulty is
as to why the sum is $1.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I can only explain it by reciting the facts of the case. As I think my right hon. friend knows, there are certain provisions of the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act under which the Minister of Finance has to give a decision with respect to the disposition of the insurance. In this case-I suppose I can mention the name, since it appears in the item in any event- the assured under the Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act named his first wife, Maggie Amanda Roper, as beneficiary. He obtained a divorce in the United States, if my memory serves me aright, and remarried. Both the assured and his first wife were advised by officers then administering the act that the second marriage could not be recognized and that the first wife must remain as the beneficiary of the insurance. The first wife, therefore, continued to pay the premiums and did so until the death of the assured. Later, however, the pension commission recognized the divorce, and therefore the first wife is ineligible to receive any benefits.
When the matter came before me I thought it was very unjust that the first wife, on the basis of an assurance given years ago by responsible officers, should continue to pay
4142	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
the premiums on the insurance covering the life of her divorced husband, and then, on his death, be deprived entirely of the benefits of the insurance for which she had paid simply because, in the meantime, the pension commission had decided to recognize the second marriage. There is no other way to render what appears to be simple justice than in the manner provided by this vote.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is the dollar for?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is merely a nominal amount, because it is the sum of the insurance policy that is affected. It is not a vote of money by this parliament; it is a right. The money is there, to go to someone under the policy of insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister
should have said that the policy was made payable to the wife without designating her name.


Charles Avery Dunning: The name is in the estimate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now, and the difficulty arose as to whether or not she was legally his wife. I recall the circumstances in another way entirely. The policy, like many policies, was made payable to the man's wife. He divorced her, and the new wife said she was the wife. Now, under the provisions of this item, the first wife is recognized as being entitled to receive the money, and very properly so, but the action of the pension commission was limited to the purposes of pension and would have no effect upon this. But litigation might have resulted, and I take it this ends that. There was another case somewhat similar that I recall, and the dollar is a token payment in recognition of the charge against the consolidated revenue fund.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payment of the Canadian Wheat Board on account of the liabilities of Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, assumed by the Canadian Wheat Board, under the authority of paragraph (f) of section 7 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. 1935, $15,856,645.35.
Charles Avery Dunning: I have a word to say, which is due to the right hon. leader of the opposition. Last night I understood him to use the words "cooking the books," and attributed those words to him. I find that he did not use the words I attributed to him; the words, which appear at page 4116 of Hansard, were, "an effort to trim up the books."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a very excellent
expression.


Mr. EULER:: What does it mean?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell you what it means.


Charles Avery Dunning: I make the acknowledgment, and leave the words which were used to speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date upon which this wheat was taken over, what was the price fixed for taking it over, and how many bushels were taken over?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have the memorandum of release which has already been tabled. The aggregate sum is mentioned therein, but of course that involves wheat and wheat contracts, the cash closing price on that day being 84| cents for number one northern. Every contract which existed was treated, for price purposes, according to the contract itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many bushels were there?


Charles Avery Dunning: There were 205 million
bushels, in wheat and wheat contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the figure is
205.060.000	bushels.


Charles Avery Dunning: Approximately, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the date?


Charles Avery Dunning: December 2, 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Any reference to the
1935 crop?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not intended to
have any reference to the 1935 crop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no verification
of those figures before this committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can supply that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was the figure I
was anxious to get last evening. Remember I am dealing with the price of 84f cents per bushel. From the record it will be seen that the price of wheat advanced. According to page 45, the average price on December 9 was 87-849 cents per bushel. There is a difference of three cents per bushel, which on 205 million bushels, amounts to $6,000,000.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Is that price not for May option?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am quoting the figures Mr. Murray gave in answer to this question by the Minister of Mines (Mr. Crerar):
Q. Have you the average price there?
A. 87-26 cents.


The Chairman:: 
Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my right hon. friend from what he is reading?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the evidence given before the committee of the House of Commons that dealt with this matter a year ago. These figures were produced in answer to a request by the Hon. Mr. Ralston. I continue with the figures:
1931	Profit	Loss
Dec. 31. . . .		$ 746,285 82
1932		
July 1. . . .		11,110,107 54
Dec. 31. . . .		33,121,729 84
1933		
May 1			9,450,038 04
June 1. . . .		2,821,713 13
July 1. . . .	$ 9,219,695 48	
July 14. . . .	34,741,959 03	
July 16. . . .	37,158.877 78	
July 17		38,506,044 49	
July 18. . . .	39,566,079 82	
July 19. . . .	32,771,621 11	
July 21. . . .	20,115,809 41	
July 22. . .	14.808,066 91	
August 1. . .	31,915,777 76	
August 31. . .	5,562,064 15	
Sept. 30. . . .		12,756,124 46
Oct. 31			15,817,746 43
Nov. 30			19,048,590 79
Dec. 31. . . .			18,859,827 60
4144	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
1934	Profit	Loss
Jan. 31. . . .		8,521,918 66
Feb. 28. . . .		11,710,353 83
March 31. . .		11,516,348 90
April			17,712,717 85
May 31... .	9,550,f>i5 il	
June 30. . . .		376,962 18
July 31. . . .	14,807,867 78	
Aug. 31. . . .	5.023.150 22	
Sept. 30. . . .	2,300,325 72	
Oct. 31. . . .		13.579,196 86
Nov. 30. . . .		8,782,293 86
Dec. 31. . . .		5,337,205 52
1935		
Jan. 31. . . .		7,821.412 27
Feb. 28. . . .		5,391,721 79
March 31. . .		2,375,943 13
April 30. . . .	6.011,i<36 67	
May 31. . . .		10,295,925 63
June 22. . . .		11,621,399 00


William Daum Euler: Does that estimate include
the charges for storage?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the statement
of the total indebtedness to the banks and the net liability after deducting the cash deposit and grain stocks at market values of the 1931 season, pool special account down to that date. And further, at the top of the page, evidence is given as to the approximate average cost of special wheat on the following dates. I give this because it has a distinct bearing on the figures that have been submitted and on the computation of the amount:
1933	Bushels	Approximate cost per bushelApril 30. June 30.,	1934	. . 72.020 .. 69,342	50*272 cents 50*095 centsApril 30	
June 30	
September 30	.. 107.843 .. 97,919 . . 129,382	63-089 cents 63-052 cents 65-663 cents1935	April 30. May 31..	.. 150,662 ,. . 156,446	76-328 cents 79-011 cents
Therefore if 84 cents was received for wheat in December, I find it difficult to figure out how there could be a loss of seven cents a bushel.


William Daum Euler: Will the right hon. gentleman answer the question whether in that cost storage is included?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it includes everything.


William Daum Euler: I think not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I know is that these figures were produced with respect to cost. Colonel Ralston was anxious to know what the position was from time to time and these figures were produced; and the costs, in
[Mr. Bennett.}
thousands of bushels, were the figures given at the top of page 338. The cost certainly included storage and nearly everything, 84 cents a bushel.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With regard to the figure my hon. friend has quoted, 79 and some cents, what was the date of that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: May 31, 1935, last year. Now there are two points I desire to make. The words I used last night, "trim up the books," were not the best words to use, and if the minister inferred from the use of those words that I was reflecting on him, he was entirely in error and I regret that he should be. What I was endeavouring to say was that, fixing the 2nd of December as the date for taking it over, which was a week before they did take it over, they fixed a price that was lower than the price which was prevailing when they actually took it over. That is unfair; it is worse than- that. Why did Murray do it? The answer is obvious.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That was not done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was. The minister read the figures, and he said the 2nd of December. The evidence given before the tribunal was that they did not take it over at that date. In order that there may be no misapprehension I will look at it again, and the committee will see that it makes all the difference.


William Daum Euler: On what page is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
John Gordon Ross: Is the hon. gentleman not quoting figures based on the May option? He quotes 88 and something as against 84 and something, the figure for taking over the wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that Mr. Murray does not put it on that basis.

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board


Charles Avery Dunning: Cash was the basis of the agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Gordon Ross: But if I remember correctly, in the committee Mr. Murray gave figures all the way through on the basis of the May option.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not on the basis of cash wheat. It works both ways. Whatever he did there he did in connection with this transaction. Now does anyone realize what an unfair thing this is to the previous government and to the farmers and the pool owners of western Canada? Why should contracts that actually sold at a higher price be fixed in value at 84| cents to show a loss? Why the anxiety to get wheat on a rising market? Why, they did not agree to sell at all and in the end it was taken from them by force -the evidence is there on record. It was taken from them by force. Why?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Taken from whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Taken from the pools; the evidence is there. They telegraphed at last and said, "If you don't do this we will shut off your credit and seize this stuff and get possession of it"-and this on a rising market. The market was going up rapidly, three and four cents beyond what it was when it stood at 84f cents. And on that rising market we have an estimate introduced in this house to make it appear that there was a loss of $15,000,000, when the wheat had not been liquidated, not sold, and when the ultimate responsibility had not yet been determined. That is justice in the Canadian House of Commons.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my hon. friend contend that it should have been left with the pool?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, of course I do not, because the statute provided that it should be taken over by the wheat board on such terms and conditions as might be agreed upon; and when these people were not willing to exchange on the proposals made to them the strong arm was used, the wheat was taken from them, and they were threatened with loss of bank credit and other things which are on record in this house. That is what happened. I go to the second point-


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask the right hon. gentleman, just to keep the record clear, what proof he has of that statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is on the record. The telegrams that were sent are on Hansard; they were put there by the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. GARDINER:: The record put on Hansard by the Minister of Agriculture is a record which shows that in spite of any telegrams that passed after that date, the wheat pool delivered on the second day of December, and that is the day they say there. The telegrams were passing back and forth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The actual delivery of wheat was not made then. They signed a document, which is an entirely different thing. What is more, that only makes the point stronger. In the anxiety to get this on a rising market-it was a rising market-


John Gordon Ross: How did anybody know it was a rising market?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It seems that everybody did. That is the answer, that everybody did.


John Gordon Ross: For over five years you did not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And what is more: On that rising market this wheat was taken from the pool by force, by threats, by duress, and it was taken from them at 84| cents. Mr. Murray says, "We did not take over until the seventh, and we commenced our business on Monday, the ninth." What right had he, then, to take wheat at all on the second? He commenced his business on the ninth, and on that date the price of wheat was 88 cents or thereabouts, or four cents more than the price now indicated. That proves beyond peradventure my point that you cannot deal with this except as it is liquidated; you can deal with it, on the terms of the agreement, only on the basis of ultimate responsibility or liability, ultimate loss, and the ultimate loss is determinable only after the liquidation of the security. The security was the wheat indicated by this report, and until such time as that was liquidated there was no determination of the loss. That is apart from the law, which is so simple as not to require argument. When it is provided in an agreement that the ultimate loss shall determine the measure of the liability, the ultimate loss can be ascertained only when there has been liquidation of the security; and that security has not yet been liquidated. Last evening the minister said there is going to be a still greater loss because they sold the wheat for less than the 84f cents at which they took it over.


Charles Avery Dunning: Carrying charges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the carrying charges, the two together. To go to another point: Mr. Murray said he arbitrarily fixed two-thirds of the sales as being attributable to the 205,000,000 bushels that he took over. The crop of 1935 he dealt with in one way. He
4146	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
took two-thirds of the sales and appropriated them against that. What is the warrant for that course? Remember the guarantee of this country was a guarantee only against ultimate liability. What right had he to do that? What right has anybody to do it? This country had given this guarantee; it was outstanding, there it was, against ultimate loss- a guarantee against ultimate loss which could be ascertained only upon a liquidation of the security. Suppose an individual in this house gave a guarantee in those terms, what would he say to the bank? "Realize. You must realize before you can come to me. I gave my guarantee against ultimate loss.'' Then there must be the realization of the security, not on a price fixed of 84 cents when it is still on a market of rising prices going up to 88 cents or 90 cents, which would have shown either no loss or a practically insignificant loss. But in spite of this rising market, Murray wants to take that property over by strong arm methods, and we know the methods he used for the purpose of getting it, when on the Monday he commenced operations the price was rising to 88 cents and had gone to 90 cents.
I say that the introduction of this item estimate is worse than trimming; it is an effort on the part of Murray to make it appear that the losses of the producers were great and that his are not-nothing short of that. Go and tell the pool in western Canada that for the purpose of accomplishing this end, that is what was done: The price on December 2 was 84J cents; on the succeeding Monday it was 88 cents, but the parliament of Canada is asked to pass an appropriation of $15,000,000 for a loss which would not have been a loss if the price had been a little over 90 cents- and it went to 90 cents. It sounds good. It it political propaganda. That is what I mean by "trimming" this account. It is an effort by Murray to repeat the same old story, and had it not been that the wheat was put up by direction of the government to be sold in the markets of the world regardless of what it had cost, this would not have happened, as was pointed out by dealers at Rotterdam and other markets of the world. Not in my time in parliament have I known a parliament that would lend itself to a transaction which permitted its servant to take possession of wheat by force, by the strong arm, and then fix the price at 84f cents, when on the succeeding Monday it had risen to four cents better than that; it did go to over 90 cents, which, on 200,000,000 bushels at 6 cents a bushel, would have reduced the loss by $12,000,000 and left it at the small amount of $3,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Reduced the loss where?

Mr. BENNETT; Reduced the loss just as it has been done here; reduced it on the paper loss that is in this estimate. This estimate would have been $3,000,000, not $15,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does my right hon. friend contend that in the final analysis the loss to the government would have been less?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the product had been sold for the price indicated. That is the point exactly. Here is Murray getting hold of this; he says the price is 84f cents and, because that represents a loss of $15,000,000, he wants the Dominion of Canada to pay that loss, although at one time there was a profit of $39,000,000. But the wheat is not yet sold; until there is a realization of the security there is no ultimate loss, and there being no ultimate loss there is no liability. Until such time as that liability has been determined by the sale of the security there is no knowledge of what it will be. Yet the government of the day is lending itself-and I use the word advisedly-to the scheme of Murray to make a loss of $15,000,000 based on the figure of 84| cents, when a few days later the figure was 88f cents and later 90 cents.


Charles Avery Dunning: And later still?


John Gordon Ross: Later still, 70 cents.


Malcolm McLean: And before it was a dollar a bushel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That illustrates better
than any words I can use just what I have been trying to say to this committee, that to determine a loss before there has been liquidation is a violation of any known rule of conduct that governs in private enterprise, and I cannot see why it should be departed from in a government. There is no such thing as a determination of a loss until there has been a liquidation, and the security, in the case of a private individual, would of course have to be realized upon before the loss was determined. And yet we find the government doing this, for what purpose? What purpose is served by it? Fixing the loss upon an anticipated price, and the minister saying it is going to be larger still, when there has been no liquidation of the security. Go and tell the business men of this country that you put an estimate through parliament to try to show that the late government, or those who operated on its behalf, had incurred a loss of $15,000,000 because they took the grain over at these figures, and ask them what they think about the item as dealing with a transaction in which ordinary business

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
rules should prevail. Let the Minister of Trade and Commerce give a guarantee against ultimate loss in connection with his printing plant, and let the other party call upon him to make good his guarantee; he will say: "Have you realized on the security? because my guarantee was only for ultimate loss." That is all I have suggested. That loss cannot be known until such time as there has been liquidation, and there will have been liquidation only when the last bushel has been sold; until then, that liability does not arise.
To introduce this estimate at this time is an action political in character, inspired by the conduct of Murray, whose evidence given before the committee indicated that was just what was to be done; first of all, sell regardless of cost; send your men abroad and tell the great buyers of the world: We are going to get out of the business, sell at less than cost, and then fix the price for the security held by the banks at 84f; disregard the agreement, disregard the provision for ultimate responsibility and ultimate loss, forget all about it and introduce into parliament a provision to pay $15,000,000 in order that you may go around the country and say:	They lost $15,000,000 on wheat,
whereas if the price were fixed at the price that prevailed on the Monday, the day Murray swears he took holdi, the loss would have been reduced by four cents a bushel; if it were later it would be increased. How then can it be determined until there has been liquidation?. That was the reason for the agreement between the banks and this country, and I say it was the duty of the Minister of Finance to protect this country.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear; I am doing
that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is he?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, by this very vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why is he putting in a vote that fixes the loss at $15,000,000 without knowing what it is going to be?


Charles Avery Dunning: Because the money is
going to be lost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But until there is liquidation of the last bushel it is not lost. The whole of it is not lost.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the principle .upon which my hon. friend handled wheat for five years. On that principle we differ.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the principle.
Oh, hon. members may cheer as much as they please, but the fact remains that until
such time as that agreement with the banks has been implemented, it is not determined. Why depart from that agreement? Why change it? Why change the ordinary rules of business? Why depart from sound business practice in a matter of this kind? Why say: "We will not wait for liquidation; we will not wait until the loss has been ascertained; we will anticipate the loss and say it is $16,000,000 without knowing whether it is $15,000,000 or some other figure?" I ask the hon. minister if that is the way he or anybody else has been accustomed to doing business. Where security is held and the agreement provides for liquidation and the determination of ultimate loss, there must be liquidation before that loss can be ascertained. Until that is done it is a departure from the agreements; it is a breach of the agreement made between the government of the day and the banks-for what purpose? For one purpose and one only: to magnify the operations of 1936 and minimize the operations of preceding years.
I protest, Mr. Chairman. It is all I can do. To depart from law, to forget agreements, to wipe them out as scraps of paper, to fix a price regardless of conditions; on a rising market to fix a loss, which has not yet occurred, at a figure which can be determined only when the security has been realized upon, is to depart from all sound business considerations and to create a precedent in this country that the machinery of the treasury is to be used to show a loss for purely political reasons.
Mr. CRERAR; I have observed in this house that when the right hon. leader of the opposition speaks with the greatest vehemence he is usually on the weakest ground. He never was on weaker ground than he is at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he is prepared to be judged on that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He has been setting up straw men and knocking them down with great vigour. Now, what are the facts of this whole business? My right hon. friend has given some of them himself. The mistake that my right hon. friend has made was that he always looked upon this whole transaction from the time he and his government took hold of it as if it were a great speculation. That was the fundamental error of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will prove it from his own words uttered just a few minutes ago.
4148	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: AH right; I say it is not so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The right hon. gentleman gave us a survey of -prices in 1933, 1934 and 1935, and he reeled off month after month profits and losses on this transaction on which his government had guaranteed the banks. At one time, July, 1933, he had a profit on his own statement of over $30,000,000.


John Gordon Ross: It was $38,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask my right hon. friend why, when Mr. McFarland had that profit on these transactions, he was buying wheat instead of selling it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: To save the market, as the minister knows. Because there was no other buyer.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: How in the world can my right hon. friend say it was necessary to save the market when the market was going up every day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he sold when the market went up. Here is the evidence.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Excuse me; I did not interrupt my right hon. friend when he was making his speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That happened in July, 1933. In May, 1934, Mr. McFarland could have sold his wheat and got out without a loss, on the statement given by my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But he could not sell it. That is just the point.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Why did he not sell it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the same reason that Mr. Murray has not been able to sell it yet.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall come to that. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, why it was. It was because Mr. McFarland had, if my right hon. friend had not, an ambition to make a big showing and make a lot of money on a wheat speculation in which the credit of this country was pledged. That was the fundamental difficulty with my right hon. friend and Mr. McFarland from the beginning.
Now we come to these more immediate transactions. I am not going to say anything as to why the government changed the wheat board, but I am satisfied that time will justify that action, and indeed has already justified it. What position were we in when the new wheat board took charge on December 3? The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, which had been managed by Mr. McFarland from 1930 until

1935, had over 200,000,000 bushels, actual wheat and contracts for delivery of wheat. They owed the -bank not millions of dollars but tens of millions, backed by the guarantee of the government of which my right hon. friend was the head. Does my right hon. friend for a moment contend that when the new wheat board was formed that immense amount of wheat should have been left in the hands of the cooperative wheat producers, free from any control by the government, when the guarantee of the government was outstanding against it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He provided by statute
that it should be taken over.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All right; that is precisely what we did on December 2 when the arrangement was made with the wheat board. Now my right hon. friend says: "You took it over when the price was 84f cents on December 2," and he quotes from Mr. Murray's evidence to show that the wheat was not all delivered to the wheat board until some days after that date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is true. In the very nature of things it could not all be delivered on December 2, but the arrangement with the cooperative wheat producers was consummated on December 2 and the price fixed as of that date.
It was necessary for another reason for the wheat board to have control of that wheat. It was making sales of wheat, and when my right hon. friend criticizes the government for that action and criticizes the wheat board for taking delivery of wheat on that day he is leaving himself in the position of saying that that wheat should have been left in the hands of the cooperative wheat producers, where the government had not a single string on what they would do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He provided quite the
opposite.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is why we insisted
that the cooperative wheat producers should agree to deliver the wheat in question to the wheat board as contemplated by the legislation, and the date of delivery was fixed as of December 2. My right hon. friend makes a great play of the fact that the market advanced for a little time after this date, and he speaks about a loss, and shakes his fist in the face of the finance minister-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; he is too far
away.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, metaphorically he
shakes his fist in the face of the finance

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
minister and says: "You have increased this loss." What an absurdity! If it reduced the amount guaranteed by the government for the cooperative wheat producers it correspondingly increased the wheat board's own account, or vice versa. But the loss to the government in the final analysis does not alter one cent. My right hon. friend knows this, and no one knows it better than he does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so. That is exactly the opposite to what I am trying to make clear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend certainly has not succeeded in making himself very clear to the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, the committee is
all right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Let us go a step further. My right hon. friend has criticized in this house the policy followed by the present wheat board and initiated by this government. Now-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think the committee can hear me. What was that policy? When we came into office we found ourselves with over 200,000,000 bushels of wheat in the hands of cooperative wheat producers, upon which wheat the government had given a guarantee. As a matter of fact, the carry-over on the 1935 crop at the first of August was over 214,000,000 bushels. On top of that we had the crop produced in 1935. If my right hon. friend had been in office and this business had been under his direction during the last seven months the probability is that we would still have the 200,000,000 or 225,000,000 bushels of wheat. Why? Because whenever the market went up he or rather Mr. McFarland would have raised his price still higher. That is precisely the policy that was followed in the past, and the facts prove it. That is the reason the wheat was not sold. Furthermore, why does this loss amount to the figure mentioned here?
I will give my right hon. friend and the committee some further information on that. He takes the price in May, 1935, and he says that May wheat on May 31, 1935, was 79 and some fraction cents. Then he says, "Why do you fix it at 84| cents?" But the carrying charges account for the difference in that period alone-more than that. But-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not one-thirteenth of a cent a bushel.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: With interest and insurance on top of that. But in addition, if I
remember correctly, the price for wheat was fixed on September 6 at 87i cents. Now, will my right hon. friend tell us why his government and why Mr. McFarland, the then chairman of the wheat board, and at the same time manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, acting in a dual capacity-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had retired from
that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No; he was still manager of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited after he was appointed chairman of the wheat board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well he was, and-


John Gordon Ross: How did he
handle any wheat?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That leads to another point. Why did Mr. McFarland in his capacity as manager of the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, on a bank account guaranteed by the government of which my right hon. friend was the head, buy over 10,000,000 bushels of wheat in the market, in the wheat pit in Winnipeg, at a price above 87i cents, after the price was fixed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is obvious. It was given the other day.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, the answer is obvious. The only reason he did it was that he thought wheat was going up in price, and I assume my right hon. friend supported him in that view, because he probably thought wheat was going to a dollar a bushel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did he? Well, he did not. He did not, because an effort was made to fix the price at a dollar, and it failed.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The price was fixed at 87i cents, and after it was fixed at that price why did Mr. McFarland buy 10,000,000 more bushels at a price as high as 94 cents, not from the farmers, but right in the pit in Winnipeg? He bought the future months; why did he do so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He sold it, at any rate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Was it necessary, after the price was fixed at 87i cents to stabilize the market, by buying wheat at as high as 94 cents a bushel?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course Mr. McFaland was ill and could not attend to give the evidence for himself; I do not know.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But there are the facts.
4150	COMMONS
Supply

Miscellaneous-Wheat Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are not the facts, as he understands them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The facts are simple, and clearly indicate the whole course of the transaction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has it to do with the $15,000,000?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The h'on. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, the ex-Secretary of State, would not agree with it. I do not know that he would know very much about it at the time, but I am perfectly certain he would not agree with it. I am sure the hon. member for Yale would not agree, nor the hon. member for York South.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, they all did, as a matter of fact,-if that will do you any good.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But those are the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are not the facts.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Mr. McFarland did not buy that wheat for the purposes given and under the circumstances noted. That is his statement to me, at any rate.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Then why did he buy it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can answer that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It could not have been for stabilization purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was the only machinery that was available for that purpose.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend talks about fixing the loss. Every bushel of wheat that Mr. McFarland bought after the price was fixed, some of it as high as 93 cents a bushel, is in that account shown as a loss. And that loss was established on December 2. My right hon. friend -made a great deal of play about including this in the accounts submitted by the Minister of Finance to the house. I say to the committee that the Minister of Finance would have been lacking in his elementary duties to this country if he had not included it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not shake your fist so hard; you may 'hit the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: This wheat taken over from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited is no longer for the account of the farmers. This wheat, as soon as it was taken over, became the property of the Canadian government, through the Canadian wheat board, and it was operated through their account. If the price went -up the Can-

adian government would make a profit, and if the price went down the government would make a loss. Does my right hon. friend or any member of this house argue for a moment that when there was a known loss in the wheat which was taken over, that loss should not have been disclosed to parliament and to the country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, but the loss has not yet been established.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It was established.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not until the last bushel is sold.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My right hon. friend says, "Let us wait and see; the market may go up."


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no, no; it is a question of realization of the security.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The loss was established when the wheat was taken over. If my right hon. friend is buying wheat-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He never bought a bushel.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: All right. But this is the situation: The Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited had this wheat; the government had guaranteed the bank account and were responsible for every cent of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Against ultimate loss.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes; but when it was taken over it became the property of the government, because it was not the property of the government under the guarantee when the wheat producers had it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it was pledged to the bank as security for the loan.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Yes, but it was not the property of the government; it was the property of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The property of the banks, under section 87 of the Bank Act.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: It became the property of the government, and there was a definite loss at the time it was taken over. Does my right hon. friend or any other hon. member say that that loss should not have been disclosed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall not detain the committee at further length, but I must say that the Minister of Finance would have been entirely lacking in his duty to the house if he had not disclosed those figures. I hope the predictions of my right hon. friend may come true-or possibly they were only hopes. I

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
hope that something may happen to save the country from a greater loss; I hope he is right. But I greatly fear that he may be wrong, and that the loss ultimately will be a great deal more than $15,000,000, the amount for which the Minister of Finance has provided.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last sentence covers the whole of it. You are anticipating by this legislation a loss that has not been established, and it cannot be known until there has been a liquidation, and the securities realized upon. That is my contention; that is my objection.


William Daum Euler: I am not going to debate the matter at length, but before proceeding with what I have to say may I observe that I cannot understand the attitude of the leader of the opposition when he states that you cannot fix losses until a liquidation has taken place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ultimate losses.


William Daum Euler: I wonder where that would carry the government, if we are going to decide that we cannot estimate losses until we have reached the ultimate selling out of all the wheat we had. You may go on for years and years; surely the country has some right to know the value of a commodity which they have taken over or guaranteed, and surely they should know from time to time what the loss has been-because it is a real loss-unless, indeed, this government takes the attitude taken by the previous government and fixes values which did not exist, as they did in the case of some insurance companies.
This seems to me the reasonable way to look at the matter: There was a change upon the formation of the wheat board and the purchase of the wheat by the government of Canada under the administration of my right hon. friend from the cooperative producers. That is the vital point. We were no longer guarantors to the bank for the loss, or the ultimate loss, as my right hon. friend says; we were the owners of that wheat. My right hon. friend often invokes what he says are business principles. Surely, when a business man buys something he has a right to put on his books an estimate of the value which is actually possessed by the commodity when he takes it over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was merely a novation; the bank still took the wheat as security.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but my hon. friend
knows perfectly well that the wheat was purchased. It was his own government that
bought the wheat, that passed the order in council for the purchase of the wheat, which afterwards was taken over by the present government. Yes; there was an absolute change in the situation; whereas prior to that we were the guarantors only to the banks on behalf of the cooperatives, if I might call them such, when the wheat board took charge the situation was changed. Shortly after that my right hon. friend passed an order in council under which the government of Canada purchased the wheat that was in the possession of the cooperatives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; we guaranteed the
wheat board, and they substituted themselves for the cooperatives. That is what took place.


William Daum Euler: I never like to use harsh
terms, but I think that is pretty much of a quibble and hardly worthy of my right hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the fact.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend will
not deny that to-day the government of Canada is the owner of what is left of that wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is pledged to the bank.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but we are the owners of that wheat, and the wheat board is merely representing the government of Canada as its agent. My right hon. friend knows that perfectly well. I will say this further. It was about time, especially when we became the owners of the wheat, that the people of this country knew what they had lost on the basis of what wheat was worth at that time, and I will say this-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But those figures were
all given in the committee last year.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend says
that the wheat board, or the government if he prefers it that way-and I should like him to give attention to this, because I think it is a point worth listening to-forced the cooperative wheat producers to hand over their wheat to us. As a matter of fact my right hon. friend had bought that wheat and we were merely asking for delivery of it under the terms of the order in council. We assured them that their rights were not going to be prejudiced in any way, as to what they should receive; whether it would be the $8,000,000 my right hon. friend voted or whether it would be the $6,000,000 they later received, they were not going to be prejudiced. The point was that we had to have that wheat because the wheat board were selling the wheat; they were supposed to sell wheat; we wanted them to sell wheat and it could not
4152	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
be sold unless that wheat was delivered by the people from whom my right hon. friend himself had made arrangements to purchase it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister allow
me to ask a question?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They needed the wheat to sell, and they sold it. They sold it at an increase of three, four and five cents a bushel during the next two weeks; yet here we have an appropriation providing for a loss of 815,000.000 in order that Mr. Murray may get credit for a profit for the wheat board. That is all.


William Daum Euler: If wheat had happened to go down in price-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it did not.


William Daum Euler: I am sure my right hon. friend does not credit even this government with sufficient omniscience to see in advance that wheat was going to increase four or five cents a bushel, because it did not.
Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this is what I really rose to say, and it is with reference to the charges made my right hon. friend with regard to Mr. Murray, the present chairman of the wheat board. What the right hon. gentleman said was neither generous nor just. In the speech he delivered in this connection earlier in the session the statements he made about Mr. Murray, and he is raising the point himself-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they were proved to the hilt.


William Daum Euler: The statements he made or the charges that he made, if they were charges, were not borne out by the evidence which was submitted to that committee, as my right hon. friend very well knows.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say they were, and that is the difference between us.


William Daum Euler: To-day my right hon. friend makes the charge that Mr. Murray was responsible for forcing the cooperatives, from whom my right hon. friend had purchased the wheat, to hand over that wheat. I want to say to him that anything that was done with regard to the taking over of that wheat was not done on the initiation of Mr. Murray at all. He was not in Ottawa. The wheat committee of the cabinet met from day to day, and that wheat committee is entirely responsible for what took place. Mr. Murray has no blame whatsoever coming to him. In fact, if I may say so in conclusion, I think this country owes Mr. Murray a debt of gratitude for changing
[Mr. Euler.
a situation that was almost ruinous to the people of this country into one that holds at least a certain degree of hope.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two or three words I am not going to let pass unchallenged. Mr. Murray swore that, in Ottawa, he helped to prepare the statement of the grain exchange presented last year to the select committee in June and July.


William Daum Euler: What has that to do with forcing the cooperatives to hand over the wheat?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He swore that he helped to prepare that statement. The hon. gentleman has referred to what I said about Mr. Murray in a previous speech. I said that he was the representative of the grain exchange interests. My hon. friend objects to that, but I proved my statement from the mouth of Mr. Murray himself. Now, in his anxiety to show success and a profit, he is to get credit for the sales of wheat he bought at 84f cents on the second of the month and sold on the ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth for as much as 90 cents a bushel. That is the story, and in some instances those were contracts in wheat. Instead of those being treated as they were realized upon, as one would expect, they were treated in the other way, with the result indicated.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend has absolutely no ground for stating that it was Mr. Murray who forced us to call upon the cooperatives to hand over their wheat to the government. That is the responsibility of the wheat committee of the cabinet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said under oath that he had to have the wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I think in fairness to the chairman of the wheat board and in reply to some of the remarks that have been made by the right hon. leader of the opposition for the purpose, I assume, of indicating to this committee and to the country in general that there is some political virus behind the activities of the government in connection with the handling of wheat, there are one or two things that ought to be said. I have in my hand the second and final report of the special committee dealing with wheat that met during the present session. I notice that the report states:
Mr. Euler, from the special committee on the marketing of wheat and other grains, presented the unanimous second and final report of the said committee-
The report continues:
Pursuant to the resolution of the House of Commons of March 18, 1936, your committee

Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
held ten sessions and heard and examined under oath three witnesses, namely,-
Mr. A. E. Darby, secretary, Winnipeg Grain
Exchange.
Mr. F. 0. Fowler, manager, Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange Clearing Association.
Mr. J. R. Murray, chief commissioner, The Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, Man.
Mr. Darby described the constitution and membership of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and the handling of grain from the producer to the exporter.
Mr. Fowler stated the functions, rules and regulations of the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Exchange Clearing Association.
Mr. Murray, chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, explained fully the operations of the board since its appointment on December 3, 1935.
The committee says that the board was appointed on December 3, 1935.
The report continues:
He was examined closely and at length on the operations of the wheat board since the latter took office in December until the end of January, 1936, with particular reference to the following,-	,, ,	, , .
(a)	To what extent, if any, the board had favoured exporters of grain and Canadian millers in the sales policy it had adopted.
(b)	To what extent, if any, speculative interests alleged to be short in the "Winnipeg market had been permitted to cover their transactions in the large sales made in the month of December, 1935, immediately following the higher price fixed by the Argentine government for Argentine wheat.
After a full examination of Mr. Murray and the records placed by him at the disposal of the committee, we are of the opinion that the course taken by the board in the_ marketing of wheat was consistent with the intention of parliament in enacting the Wheat Board Act of 1935, and with the policy of the government to reduce the wheat surplus to reasonable proportions.
What I should like to recall to this committee is that Mr. Murray was before the committee during the greater part of the time it was considering these matters and arriving at that unanimous decision. The leader of the opposition was a member of the committee. I think anyone who reads the evidence given by the chairman of the wheat board before that committee, in answer to questions put to him by the leader of the opposition, will agree ^ that there is no reason whatsoever for the inferences that have been drawn by the leader of the opposition this afternoon from the investigations of the committee. To say the least* the chairman of the wheat board demonstrated to the committee and to everyone who has read his evidence, that he was quite capable of taking care of himself while in the hands of the leader of the opposition, and also quite capable of handling the wheat of the people of western Canada. I think 12739-264
he is Capable of handling himself while in the hands of the leader of the opposition because of the fact that the latter took occasion, when the chairman of the wheat board had no opportunity of replying to his questions or of appearing on the floor of this house to defend himself, of making upon the chairman of the wheat board attacks which the right hon. gentleman did not make when he was face to face with him in the committee.
My right hon. friend refers to what has happened in connection with wheat and states that back in 1933, in the midst of the month of July, his government could have sold wheat through the then wheat stabilizer, Mr. McFarland, at a profit of $38,000,000 to the farmers of western Canada. I should like to ask him why he did not sell the wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that it
could have been sold. I stated that on that basis, it represented that profit, just as on the basis of the market price on December 2, it represented the loss which the minister now has.


James Garfield Gardiner: We started in at the
beginning of July with 69,000,000 bushels of wheat. During the first half of the month, to July 17, that was reduced to 42,000,000 bushels. Wheat was then selling at 95 cents per bushel, whereas it had previously been selling at the beginning of July at 72 cents. In the intervening period the amount of wheat had been reduced from about 69,000,000 bushels down to 42,000,000 bushels. Immediately following that wheat started to go down, but the gentleman who was then in charge of the handling of wheat bought back until by July 22, he had some 66,000,000 bushels again in his possession. In other words, he did what the leader of the opposition says the present chairman of the wheat board should have done during the two weeks in December last after he was first in charge of the wheat. After having sold wheat at a good price to someone else, as when wheat started to go down on the July market two weeks before the new crop was coming in, he went back into the market in 1933 and bought wheat at a price higher than that at which his other wheat had been previously sold.
Anyone who is going to do business like that in connection with the wheat of Canada is not wanted by the present government of this country. At present we are following the policy of trying to get rid of the wheat with which this country was loaded during the time the present leader of the opposition was in

4154	COMMONS
Supply-Miscellaneous-Wheat Board
charge of the government of Canada. We are not doing this for political purposes; we are not following the poLicy followed by the government of the leader of the opposition, which was indicated to this house when I placed on Hansard at page 1640 the McFarland operations in connection with wheat from 1930 to 1935. What will be found in the first column of the table which I then placed on Hansard? It will be found that they started their operations with a considerable volume of wheat. This table deals with the crop years which run from August 1 to July 31. We find that on August 31, 1932, they had entirely disposed of their wheat and had the whole amount in the form of contracts to the extent of 76,000,000 bushels. What happened during 1932? They left no wheat in that account; they carried contracts in full. What happened through 1933? They left no wheat in that account; they carried it entirely in contracts. In January, 1934; no wheat, all contracts. In February, no wheat, all contracts. In March, they took 1,000,000 bushels into the account. In April they took 2,000,000 bushels into the account. In May they took 19,000,000 bushels into the account. If hon. members will follow the prices on the opposite side of the page they will find that they were going up during May and the early part of June, 1934.
An election was going on in the province of Saskatchewan at that time and this wheat was being passed into an account which had been carried in the form of contracts right through the previous two and one half years. We come to June, 1934, when 4,000,000 bushels were taken into the account. They then get out of it again and by the end of August they have 72,000,000 bushels in contracts and they are out of wheat. They remained out of wheat, having only 287,000 bushels in April, 1935. Then they came back in to the extent of 29,000,000 bushels in April, 51,000,000 bushels in May, 66,000,000 bushels in July and 72,000,000 bushels in August. The price of wheat has been going up until it is 81} cents per bushel. In September, 1935, it rose to 90 cents per bushel.
That was just when we were passing through the last federal election. That is how that gentleman manipulated the price of wheat during those four years for the purpose of indicating to the people of this country that some great profit was going to be made through the transactions of the government in wheat. The present government has no intention of trying to manipulate wheat prices in this country in the interests of any political party. The present government has the intention of placing wheat in the form of bread on every table on which it is possible to place
I Mr. Gardiner.]
it in Europe, more particularly in the British isles. By placing it there we hope to teach the people of the world to eat Canadian wheat. We intend to carry on these transactions in such a way as to keep a constant flow of wheat going from the wheat fields of western Canada to the tables of Europe, disposing of the wheat in the interests of the farmers and not in the interests of any political party in this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
do provide for payment to certain chartered banks of the amount due by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, to the said banks in respect of losses resulting from transactions in oats, the repayment of such sums being guaranteed by the governor in council, including interest thereon, $174,383.34.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this item include any wheat handled by the province of Saskatchewan?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
rhat the reports made by the committee of supply on February 14, 18, 21, 25 and 28-March 3, 11. 13, 19, 20, 23 and 24: April 24 28, 29 and 30; May 1, 4, 8, 13, 19, 28 and 29; June 5, 8, 18 and 23, be now received, read a first and second time and concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1936. and 31st March, 1937, respectively, the sum of $267 621 -461.71 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 115, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of

Prorogation
money for the public service for the fiscal years ending the 31st March, 1936, and the 31st March, 1937, respectively.
Motion agreed to, 'bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: It will be present in the minds of all hon. members that to-day is the anniversary of the birthday of His Majesty the King. As leader of the House of Commons, I should like to avail myself of the high privilege, of extending, on behalf of members of all parties in this house, very hearty congratulations to His Majesty and our best wishes for many happy returns of the day. May I suggest that hon. members give expression to these good wishes by joining in the singing of the national anthem and in this manner bringing to a conclusion the work of the present session of parliament.
After the national anthem:
At 4.30 p.m. the sitting was suspended until 4.50 p.m. this day.
The house resumed at 4.50 o'clock.


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

[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the St. Lawrence and Adirondack Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa and New York Railway Company.	'
An Act respecting Thousand Islands Bridge Company.	.	,,	.	.	,	,An Act respecting the carriage of goods by water.	.	.An Act for the relief of Madeleine St. Clair Peacock Milroy.	,
An Act for the relief of Bella or Bessie Laurie Wozik, otherwise known as Bella or
Bessie Laurie Rabinovitch.
An Act for the relief of Agnes Hannah Wright.	,
An Act for the relief of Margery Brunhilde
Morphy Dunton.
An Act for the relief of Mania Leizerson Oberman.
An Act for the relief of Milton Sandford Enoch Chase.
An Act for the relief of Jessie Dansky Glazer, otherwise known as Jobeth Dansky GlflZGr
An Act for the relief of Mildred Eileen Champion Webster.
An Act respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.	.
An Act respecting the Canadian [National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1936.	m
An Act to amend the Customs Tariff.
An Act to amend the Special War Revenue
^LCt
An Act to authorize the raising, by way of loan, of certain sums of money for the public service.
An Act to assist towards the employment of former members of the forces.
An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.	.
An Act to amend The Excise Act, 1934.
An Act respecting the Department of Mines and Resources.
An Act respecting the Department of Transport.
An Act to amend the Judges Act.
An Act to amend The Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1929.	,
An Act to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
An Act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.	.
An Act to amend The Dominion Franchise Act (dominion by-elections).
An Act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Senne-terre to Rouyn, in the province of Quebec.
An Act to provide for dominion by-elections.
An Act for the relief of Harry Candlish Coughtry.	„ .
An Act for the relief of Jean Malkinson Goldenberg.
An Act for the relief of Edith Lillian Astron Nevitt.
An Act for the relief of Lillian Gladys Cheney Perry.
An Act for the relief of Albert Leonard Johnson.
An Act for the relief of Reva Marcus.
An Act for the relief of Ethel May Luckie Atkinson.
An Act for the relief of Edythe Mary Ross Brown.
An Act for the relief of Joseph Paul George Marcoux.
An Act for the relief of Adjutor St-Jean.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act.
An Act to incorporate The Order of Italo-Canadians.
An Act respecting broadcasting.
An Act to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
An Act to amend The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, 1933.
An Act to amend The Customs Act.
An Act to amend the criminal code.
An Act respecting the establishment of a national park in each of the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
An Act to amend the Pension Act.
Prorogation
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting the National Harbours Board.
An Act to amend The Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936.
An Act to amend The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1936, and the 31st March, 1937.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General doth assent to these bills.
Then the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
May it Please your Excellency:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to lour Excellency the following bill:-
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1937.
To which bill I humbly request Your Excellency s assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General did thereupon say:
1° His Majesty's name, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

[Stage Direction]
After which the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the eighteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech:
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
In relieving you of your duties, I congratulate you upon the care and attention given the many far-reaching measures submitted for your consideration. Your labours have been arduous and exacting; they have, however, served to complete, almost in its entirety, the extensive program outlined in my speech at the opening of parliament.
The trade agreement concluded on Armistice day, 1935, between Canada and the United otates of America, received your early approval, and its provisions have now been in force for some time. Legislation has been passed implementing the undertakings of the agreement and oi the settlement of the trade dispute with Japan. Substantial reductions have been made in the rates of duty on implements of production in the agricultural industry, and on machinery in other basic industries, as well as on articles of domestic consumption. The pronounced increase of our trade during recent months is evidence of the beneficial effects of [Mr. Mackenzie King..J
the government's fiscal policies. My ministers are continuing their efforts to expand trade with other countries.
Comprehensive measures have been enacted to effect a nation-wide cooperative effort to overcome conditions created by the long-continued existence of unprecedented unemployment, and to effect a more complete supervision of the expenditure of funds for purposes of relief. The National Employment Commission has been appointed, and has entered upon its duties. Appropriations have been made for projects to provide work, and to assist the provinces in the granting of direct relief. The government has been authorized to enter into agreements to expand industrial employment. Special provision has been made to supply -work for single homeless men in relief camps, and the camps will be closed on July the first.
Provision has been made for aiding in the reestablishment of needv fishermen and for expanding the sale of Canadian fisheries products at home and in foreign markets.
The Bank of Canada Act has been revised so as to give to the government effective control of the central bank as well as a predominant interest in its ownership.
Existing legislation respecting the Canadian National Railways has been amended so as to provide for the appointment of a board of directors in a manner which will serve to afford a greater measure of governmental authority and responsibility to parliament.
Radio broadcasting in Canada has been made the subject of inquiry by a special committee of the House of Commons. The committee's recommendations have been embodied in legislation which provides for the carrying on of a national broadcasting service in Canada under a broadcasting corporation having complete control over all forms of broadcasting, whether public or private.
Provision has been made for the reorganization and consolidation of important departments and branches of the public service. The consolidation of certain existing departments into the Department of Mines and Resources and the Department of Transport, and the coordination of the administration of the harbours, will greatly further the ends of efficiency and economy.
The royal commission appointed to inquire into conditions in the textile industry is continuing its investigation, and a royal commission has been appointed to conduct an investigation respecting the importation and distribution of anthracite coal.
The War Veterans Allowance Act has been amended to provide for special consideration to veterans having attained the age of fifty-five. A Veterans Assistance Commission Act has been passed with a view to securing more general employment of returned soldiers. Amendments have been made to the Pensions Act to simplify procedure and expedite the hearing of claims.
Amendments to the criminal code have been made, including the repeal of section 98, relating to unlawful associations.
Other important measures have been enacted.
The several opinions of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada touching the validity, in whole or in part, of a number of measures enacted at the sessions of parlia-

Governor General's Speech
ment in 1934 and 1935, have been received within the past few days, and are being carefully studied by my ministers and by the law officers of the crown.
My ministers have given continuous thought to the serious international situation. They have sought to support by all appropriate and practicable means the establishment of a world order based on justice and equity. At the forthcoming meetings of the Assembly of the League of Nations to be held at Geneva at the end of the present month, and in September, the representatives of Canada will seek, in cooperation with other delegates, to further in the most effective way the aims and ideals of the league.
His Majesty the King has graciously consented to unveil, on July the twenty-sixth, the memorial on Yimy Ridge, erected in commemoration of the valour and sacrifice of the Canadian soldiers who fought during the great war. The acceptance by the King of the invitation of His Majesty's Canadian
ministers, and by the President of the French Republic of the Canadian government's invitation to be present on this occasion has been deeply appreciated.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the provision which you have made for the public service.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
The many important measures enacted at the present session, the first of the eighteenth parliament of Canada, constitute, I believe, a substantial contribution towards national recovery.
In taking leave of you at this time, I pray that the blessing of Divine Providence may rest upon your labours.
This concluded the first session of the eighteenth parliament.