[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the select standing committees of the house, as follows:
PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS Messieurs:
Anderson
Beaubien
Bennett
Bertrand (Laurier)
Both well
Cahan
Campbell
Chevrier (Ottawa)
[Stage Direction]
Factor
Fleming
Fournier (Hull)
Gariepy
Hall
Lawson
Maclnnis
Mackenzie (Vancouver)
MoCuaig
McLarty
McNiven (Regina)
Massey
Pouliot
Power
Ryan
Sinclair
Slaght
Thorson
Turgeon-29.
Kuhl
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Barber	MacKinnon
Beaubier	(Edmonton)
Bertrand (Laurier)	MacMillan
Brown	McCann
Cameron (Hastings)	McCulloch
Cameron (Cape Breton) Mclvor	
Clark (York-Sunbury)	McKay
Crerar	McKinnon (Kenora)
Damude	McNiven (Regina City)
Deslauriers	Marcil
Duffus	Maybank
Dupuis	Mercier
Edwards	Mills
Elliott (Kindersley)	Mullins
Emmerson	Mutch
Girouard	O'Neill
Gladstone	Parent (Terrebonne)
Grant	Pelletier
Hamilton	Pouliot
Hansell	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Hanson	St-Pere
Harris	Stevens
Heaps	Stewart
Howden	S freight
Hushion	Sylvestre
Isnor	Vien
Jean	Walsh
Johnston (Bow River)	Wermenlinger
Lockhart	White
Maclnnis	Wood Young-60.
(Quorum 20)	
MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS Messieurs:
Ahearn
Barry
Boulanger
Bradette
Brasset
Brown
Chevrier (Stormont)
Clarke (Rosedale)
Cleaver
Coldwrell
Deachman
Douglas
Dubois
Evans
Fair
Ferguson
Ferland
Gariepy
Girouard
Glen
Goulet
Hov'ard
Hyndman
Johnston (Bow River) Lacombe Lacroix (Quebec-Montmorency) Lalonde Little Lockhart MacDonald (Brantford)
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
MacLennan	Robichaud
Maephail	Ross (St. Paul's)
McDonald (Souris)	Senn
McGeer	Sinclair
McGregor	Taylor (Nanaimo)
McPhee	Telford
Mercier	Verville
Mulock	Wilton
Parent (Quebec	Winkler
West and South) Pottier	Young-50.
(Quorum 15)	
BANKING AND COMMERCE	
Messieurs:	
Baker	Lawson
Bennett	MacDonald
Blair	(Brantford)
Cahan	Mackenzie (Vancouver)
Clark (York-Sunbury)	McGeer
Coldwell	McLarty
D each man	McPhee
Donnelly	Mallette
Dubuc	Martin
Duff	Maybank
Dunning	Moore
Edwards	Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Euler	Perras
Fiset, Sir Eugene	Plaxton
Fontaine	Quelch
Fournier (Hull)	Raymond
Fraser	Ross (Middlesex)
Harris	Rutherford
Hill	Stevens
Howard	Thorson
Hushion	Tucker
Jacobs	Vien
Jaques	Ward
Kinley	White
Lacroix (Beauce) Landeryou	Woodsworth-50.
(Quorum 15)	
PUBLIC	ACCOUNTS
Messieurs:	
Ahearn	Graydon
Anderson	Leader
Barry	MacKinnon
Beaubien	(Edmonton)
Betts	MacNeil
Black (Chateauguay)	McCann
Blais	McDonald (Pontiac)
Blanchette	McKinnon (Kenora)
Bothwell	McLean (Melfort)
Brooks	Marshall
Cameron	Mullins
(Cape Breton)	Needham
Casselman	Patterson
Church	Purdy
Douglas	Rickard
Dussault	Rowe (Athabaska)
Elliott (Kindersley)	Slaght
Factor	Stewart
Ferland	Streight
Fleming	Taylor (Norfolk)
Fournier	Thauvette
(Maisoniieuve)	Tremblay
Fraser	Turgeon
Glen	Verville
Golding	Wermenlinger
Goulet Grant	Wood-50.
(Quorum 15)

AGRICULTURE		AND COLONIZATION
	Messieurs:	
Beaubien		MacKinnon
Beaubier		(Edmonton)
Bertrand (Prescott)		MacLean (Prince)
Black (Chateauguay)		Maephail
Bouchard		MacRae
Boulanger		McKenzie (Lambton)
Casselman		McLean (Melfort)
Clark (Essex)		McNevin (Victoria)
Cleaver		Mitchell
Cochrane		Motherwell
Coldwell		Needham
Davidson		Patterson
Donnelly		Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Douglas		Reid
Dubois		Rennie
Dupuis		Rheaume
Evans		Roberge
Fafard		Robichaud
Fontaine		Ross (Middlesex)
Fraser		Ross (Moose Jaw)
Furniss		Rowe (Dufferin)
Gardiner		Senn
Golding		Spence
Gosselin		Stirling
Graydon		Taylor (Norfolk)
Hayhurst		Thompson
Lacombe		Tomlinson
Lalonde		Turner
Leader		Ward
Leclerc		Weir-60.
Lennard		
	(Quorum 20)	
STANDING ORDERS		
	Messieurs:	
Baker		MeCuaig
Barry		Plaxton
Bertrand (Prescott)		Poole
Brunelle		Pottier
Denis		Rowe (Dufferin)
Fleming		Rutherford
Heaps		Thauvette
Isnor		Thompson
Jacobs		Turgeon
Leclerc		Turner-20.
(Quorum 8)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Brasset	McDonald (Souris)
Brooks	Marcil
Brunelle	Michaud
Clark (Essex)	Neill
Duff	Pelletier
Farquhar	Plunkett
Ferron	Pottier
Fiset, Sir Eugene	Reid
Gauthier	Rickard
Green	Ryan
Hanson	Stirling
Hill	Taylor (Nanaimo)
Kinley	Telford
Lapointe (Matapedia)	Tomlinson
MacLean (Prince)	Tustin
MacNeil	Veniot
MacNicol	Ward-35.
McCulloch	
(Quorum 10)

		Bureau for	Translations
MINES,	FORESTS AND WATERS	THE LIBRARY	
	Messieurs:	(Members to act on the part of the Commons)	
Black (Yukon)	Johnston (Bow River)	Mr. Speaker	and Messieurs:Blais	Lacroix (Beauce)	Blackmore	MacKinnon (Edmonton)Bradette	Little	MacNeilCampbell	MacKenzie (Neepawa)	Blanchette	Macphail, MissCochrane	MacLennan	Bouchard	MalletteCrerar	MacMillan (Mackenzie)	Cameron (Hastings)	Parent (Terrebonne)Crete	MaeNieol	Chevrier (Ottawa)	RaymondEsling	McDonald (Pontiac)	Duffus	ReidFarquhar	O'Neill	Emmerson	RennieFerguson	Parent (Quebec	Hvndman	WalshGreen	West and South)	Johnston (Lake Centre) Winkler-21.	Hamilton	Patterson	Lennard	Hanson	Plunkett	Hartigan	Roberge	Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex) moved that the	Hayhurst Hill	Stevens Svlvestre	report be concurred in.	Hurtubise	Taylor (Nanaimo)	Motion agreed to.	Hyndman	Tremblay-35.	(Quorum 10)	POWERS OF	COMMITTEES

Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General) moved:: Messieurs:
Barry	Maclnnis
Betts	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Black (Yukon)	MaeNieol
Blackmore	Macphail, Miss
Church	McGeer
Crete	McIntosh
Deslauriers	Mclvor
Dubuc	McKay
Gladstone	McLean (Simcoe)
Grant	Martin
Hartigan	Massey
Hill	Neill
Howard	Perley, Sir George
Howden	Perras
Isnor	Rogers
Jean	Rowe (Athabaska)
Lacroix (Quebec-	St-Pere
Montmorency)	Tucker-35. (Quorum 10) DEBATES Messieurs:
Chevrier	McIntosh
Esling	McNevin (Victoria)
Finn	Marcil
Gauthier	Perley, Sir George
Hall	Pouliot
MacKinnon (Edmonton) Ryan-12.
(Quorum 7)



PRINTING

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messieurs:
Chevrier (Stormont) Damude Denis Dussault Ferron Hansell Hurtubise Hushion
McIntosh
McKenzie (Lambton)
Mills
Muloek
Purdy
Ross (St. Paul's) Taylor (Nanaimo) Tustin
Lapointe (Matapedia) Veniot MacKinnon (Edmonton) Weir MacLean (Prince)	Wilton-23.
McGregor
That the select standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I desire to lay on the table copies in English and in French of a tabulated statement of tariff changes under the Canada-United States trade agreement, signed at Washington on November 15, 1935.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order for introduction of bills:
Mr. Pouliot-bill intituled "An act to repeal 24-25 George V (1934), chapter 25, an act respecting the Bureau for Translations."
Mr. SPEAKER:: With reference to this bill, I suspended my decision yesterday, and I have considered this matter most carefully and am prepared to render decision in the matter.
There are only two clauses to this bill:
1.	Chapter 25 of 24-25 George V is hereby repealed.
2.	Hereinafter each translator shall be under the head of the department concerned.
Under standing order 76, every clause of a bill must be considered by the committee of the house in its proper order. If clause 1 of the proposed bill were passed, the result would automatically be the abolition of the positions
Bureau for Translations

of nearly all the translators in the civil service, as they have been practically all absorbed by the bureau for translations.
When the house would reach clause 2 of the bill, there would be no bureau for translations. New appointments would have to be made if each department were to do its own translating. Clause 2 therefore provides for the appointment of additional civil servants. Such a bill cannot be introduced by a private member. Its introduction must be moved by a minister of the crown on the recommendation of the governor general, and it must be preceded by a resolution in committee of the whole.
I may quote as a precedent a ruling of Mr. Speaker Rhodes who on May 17, 1918, decided that a motion to amend a bill so as to provide for the appointment of additional government officials is out of order as it involves an increased grant of public money.
On March 17, 1933, Mr. Jean moved for leave to introduce a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act so as to provide for a joint superintendent of bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker Black moved it out of order on the ground that the bill provided for the appointment of an official and would therefore entail a charge upon the revenue. Such legislation, he stated, could be introduced only by a minister on the approval of the crown.
Another element which places this measure in the category of money bills is that its adoption would mean the transfer of the authority under which appropriated money is to be spent. The translators' salaries have been voted as part of the estimates of the Secretary of State's department. This was done by resolution in committee of supply and it was subsequently embodied in the appropriation bill. When money is voted, the main conditions imposed on its expenditure are embodied in resolutions. All the circumstances concerning its destination form part of the appropriation with which they are considered, and if any alteration is to be made it must be by the same process as the original resolution.
A money bill is defined in the British house as a public bill which contains only provisions dealing with, inter alia, the "custody" of public money. The custody is undoubtedly the placing of an appropriation under a certain minister. The translators' salaries, which cannot be separated from the proposed bill, have been placed in the custody of the Secretary of State, and the bill provides that it be given to several other ministers.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier. speaking on an alleged money bill in the session of 1911-12 (Hansard, column 3633-3641), said:

The time when we should dispose of the manner in which the money is to be expended is when the money is appropriated and therefore it should be first of all introduced by resolution where any objections which may properly be urged against the resolution should be urged.
This opinion of Laurier goes to show that the circumstances under which an expenditure is to be made are indivisible from that expenditure. The choice of the minister responsible for paying out the money is a material condition of an appropriation, and in order to change it the house would have to amend the principal clauses of a money bill.
I am therefore of the opinion that the proposed measure has all the earmarks of a money bill and cannot be introduced by a private member. I declare it out of order.



ELECTIONS AND FRANCHISE


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That a special committee, the members thereof to be selected at a later date, be appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act 1934 and amendments thereto and the Franchise Act 1934 and amendments thereto and to suggest to the house, such amendments to the said acts as they may deem advisable, and, furthermore, such committee shall study and make a report on the following subjects:-
(a) The proportional representation system;
(ib) The alternative vote in single-member constituencies;
(c) Compulsory registration of voters;
(d1) Compulsory voting;
and that the said special committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and report from time to time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is self explanatory and requires very little comment. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that if changes are to be made in the election laws of the country it is better that they should be made in the first days of a parliament rather than immediately before an election, because then there are suspicions of ulterior motives.
The committee to be appointed will consider the recommendations made by the chief electoral officer and the franchise commissioner and will study any suggested amendments to these acts as they are to-day. That is general. The four subjects which are mentioned do not subtract anything from the general aspect of the question. The proportional representation system is the first subject to be sent to the committee for consideration. This has been discussed and debated in this house on

Elections and Franchise
various occasions, I must say with indifferent success as to the support it has been given. The other method, the alternative vote in single member constituencies, seems to have enlisted more favour on the part of hon. members, to such an extent that at one time or another both major parties have proposed it in some form. As Minister of Justice in a former government, prior to 1930, I introduced a bill to establish the alternative vote in single member constituencies, but the bill had to be withdrawn because it met considerable opposition and would have kept the house sitting for a very long time. Then last year, just before the expiration of the last parliament, a proposal was made in the form of a bill to experiment with the alternative vote system in one province, Saskatchewan. The objection raised at that time was very strong; first that it was late in the day, and second that it was thought undesirable that there should be a special system of voting in one part of the country which would be different from that in other parts of the country. I submit, however, that immediately after a general election is a propitious occasion for the consideration of the whole question of both systems, proportional representation and the alternative vote in single member constituencies.
As to the two other questions that are submitted, compulsory registration of voters and compulsory voting, these were referred to the other day by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). They are in force in Australia. I do not know that they are applied in any other country. It would be of interest to have the committee study them and consider whether the conditions in that country could be applied with the same success, if there has been success, to Canada. However, I submit this motion to the house, and if it is carried we will select at a later day the members to serve on the committee.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question before he quite concludes. I notice that the resolution limits the number of subjects that the committee may consider to the four enumerated. Does that preclude the committee from considering any other type or form of voting than those mentioned?


Ernest Lapointe: The idea is to make it as general as possible, and I think the first part of the motion will permit that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As long as that is understood.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
understood.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with what the minister has said as to the desirability of a committee considering possible amendments to the Franchise Act and the Dominion Elections Act at the beginning of a new parliament. The hon. gentleman will perhaps recall, as will the house, that owing to the census having been taken in 1931 many matters of this kind could not be dealt with until it was possible to determine upon a redistribution measure. The circumstances in connection with the introduction and passing of the Franchise Act are known if not to all hon. members of the house at least to some; for from time to time we had been endeavouring to secure some form of lists in this country for elections. We abandoned the preparation of lists something like twenty years ago, except just prior to an election, and now that we have reverted to the method that prevails in Great Britain and other countries, the method that formerly prevailed here, I think it is important that we should have a report made to this house as to whether or not this method has been found satisfactory.
As to the methods of voting, as long as the committee has a free hand to consider such methods I do not see any particular objection. The enumeration of three particular methods, with a suggestion as to compulsory voting, may have the effect of directing attention to them only; it will be observed that the resolution provides that the committee shall study and make a report on "the following subjects," and then these subjects are set out. However, from what the minister has said I take it that if it is thought desirable by the committee that the scope of its activities should be enlarged, that may be done without coming again to the house. There is one other matter that I suppose can be discussed without its being specifically referred to in the motion, and that is the date of elections. It will be recalled that as the law now stands the election day is fixed for a Monday, and owing to one Monday falling upon a holiday -not a general holiday as is provided for in the act, but a holiday to certain people in this country-we were compelled to postpone the election for a whole week. I suppose we can consider that as something that arises out of the submission of the franchise act and elections act to the committee.
The minister has not indicated anything as to the number he might have in mind for the committee. That may or may not be important. I thought probably he would have referred the whole matter to the com-
Elections and Franchise

mittee on privileges and elections, but perhaps under all the circumstances a special committee will obtain better results and give the matter more consideration. As long as it is clear that there is no limitation proposed or intended by specifying particular subjects, and that the fullest possible opportunity will be given the committee to consider every matter that arises out of the operation of the franchise act and the elections act. I heartily support the submission of this matter to a special committee.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec Ea9t):: Would
my right hon. friend give me his views as to the number of members who should sit on the committee? I think it should be a fairly large committee, in order to give representation to all the provinces and the various sections in the house-perhaps nearly thirty; twenty-nine or twenty-eight? I am told that the last committee consisted of twenty-nine members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long as the quorum is fixed low enough. It has been found necessary I observe in other legislatures dealing with public matters recently to provide for a small quorum because of the difficulty of getting attendance. As long as the quorum is reasonably low I think a committee of between twenty and thirty would be satisfactory.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I quite agree with the proposal that this matter should be introduced early in the life of the parliament. We have made many attempts since confederation to get a proper basis; we have amended the law over and over again, both as regards the franchise and as regards the composition of the house. As I see it, there are two most important features to be considered. One is that we have in this parliament a large number of members who represent a minority of the electors in their constituencies. That should be remedied, so that the man who is elected represents an absolute majority of his constituents. The other is that we should aim to place upon the voter a sense of responsibility, a realization that the election of a member of parliament is a matter of concern not only to the candidate, but that the elector himself is called upon at that time to fulfil the greatest obligation and duty which devolves upon the citizen, the election of a government to administer the affairs of the country. That will give the new committee plenty of work, and I hope that a change will be brought about so that a large vote may be assured and that those who are elected will really represent the people of their constituencies.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether there will be any opportunity when the bill is presented to discuss and correct any irregularities that occurred in the last redistribution bill? I venture to suggest that the minister be not too decided in his answer. I wish a loophole could be left so that we can discuss some glaring irregularities which should be corrected. I agree that these matters should be discussed not on the eve of an election but before there is any thought of an election.


Ernest Lapointe: The subject mentioned by my hon. friend, if it is to come before the house, would be better dealt with by a separate committee, because I am afraid it would be discussed more from a political angle than the various subjects which are being referred to this committee. It would be quite a different question. I do not say it should not come before the house and be submitted to a committee, but it would have to be considered quite independently of the subject matter of the present motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) in reference to dispatches appearing in the newspapers this morning to the effect that drastic cuts are being effected in payments to ex-soldiers in hospitals. Would the minister be good enough to tell the house whether the statement carried in the press to the effect that lower hospital allowances to war veterans and ex-service men other than privates come into effect as of March 1, and if so can he give us some information on the subject.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The reports carried in the press, although quite true, are perhaps of a nature to alarm needlessly the interested parties. The situation is this: from the termination of the war down to the present day any ex-soldiers who were taken into hospital on account of their pensionable disabilities were immediately placed on pay and allowances of the rank which they held during their service in the army. That is to say, a private soldier was placed on pay and allowances approximately equal to those which he received

Pension Regulations
39?
as a private soldier in the army, and a general or colonel was placed on the pay and allowances of the rank which he held in the army. The divergence has always appeared to me to be pretty wide, and after considerable study the officers of the department and myself came to the conclusion that perhaps at this time, twenty years after the war, we should not perpetuate the system of pay according to rank which existed during the war. So that by order in council which comes into effect March 1, an attempt is being made to equalize in some degree the rates being paid. Under the present system, which will be changed on March 1, a private soldier when he goes into hospital receives $45 per month. If he has a wife and say six children his pay can run to $137 per month. After March 1, he will still receive S45 if he is single and $137 if he is married and has six children. There is no change whatsoever made in the rate of pay to private soldiers. At the present time a colonel, if he is single when he enters the hospital, receives $228 a month. After March 1, he will receive $127. At present a colonel who is married and has six children receives $288 a month; after March 1 he will receive S219. For a major general-which is perhaps an extreme case, though if I may be permitted I might say that we did have in the hospital some years ago a gentleman who, at the rate of pay he was drawing together with the pension he received from the militia department, was being compensated at the rate of about S14,000 a year for lying in the hospital with a very minor ailment-


An hon. MEMBER:: He would never get
better.


Charles Gavan Power: At the present time a major general in hospital receives, if he is single, 8670 a month, and if he is married and has six children, S722. It is proposed through this order in council, which is to become effective on March 1, that a major general who is single will have to get along on $195 per month, while if he has a wife and six children he will receive $287. Those are the rates which will become effective on March 1. In no case has the rate of compensation for private soldiers, who compose 90-7 per cent of the hospital population, been touched. However there are perhaps some adjustments which might be made with respect to persons who have been in hospital for some considerable time. A sudden or drastic cut in their allowances might effect some hardship. We are prepared to go into that question. If it is shown that delay is necessary in order that readjustment may be possible, perhaps that could be arranged. The
other ranks, however, other than private soldiers, will in no case receive less than if they were placed on one hundred per cent disability pension less the usual amount deducted to cover partial cost of maintenance. That is to say, the amount of money which they receive while they are in hospital will never be less than if they were outside hospital on a one hundred per cent total disability pension, less $30.00 per month.
With respect to other sections of the order in council in question, there has been some misunderstanding between officers of the department and officers of the Canadian Legion, chiefly with respect to the interpretation of certain phrases, and to the definitions of certain legal terms contained in the order in council. It is my hope, in fact I am quite confident, that after some discussion with officers of the legion it may be possible to iron out these difficulties. It will be found that, with the exception of the decrease in pay and allowances I have pointed out, the order in council does nothing more than clarify and carry out existing practice?
The following table summarizes the figures
I have given:
Maximum Monthly Hospital Allowances For Certain Classes
Rate,
Present Mar. 1,
Private-	rate	1936Single	
$ 45	$ 45Wife and	six	children..	..	137	137
Colonel

Single	
$228	$127Wife and	six	children..	..	288	219
Major General-
Single	
$670	$195Wife and	six	children..	..	722	287
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Experimental farms, including investigations concerning plant diseases, $2,015,900.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask
about the number of experimental farms in each province. I note that there are two in Prince Edward Island, two in Nova Scotia, one in New Brunswick, six in Quebec, two in Ontario, in addition to the experimental farm for all Canada here in Ottawa; two in Manitoba, six in Saskatchewan, two in Alberta and four in British Columbia. Then there are additional stations doing somewhat similar work, one of which is in Quebec, two in Saskatchewan, four in Alberta and one in British Columbia. I am wondering on what
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

basis experimental farms are allocated to the various provinces. With the exception of the one in Ottawa, which serves the province of Quebec and in fact all of Canada, as well as Ontario, we have in this province only two small experimental farms.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is inquiring as to the basis of distribution of experimental farms, in view of the fact that there are only two in Ontario, two in Nova Scotia, and so on?


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are six in Saskatchewan.


James Garfield Gardiner: The reason there are not more in Ontario is that work of that kind for western Ontario to a great extent is done by Guelph college, which is supported by the provincial government. Much of the work done by the experimental farms in other provinces is done for Ontario at the college I have mentioned. There are three different ways by which the department brings information and develops lines of education in different areas; one is by establishing such stations, another by establishing demonstration farms or illustration stations, and the third by establishing experimental farms. If the entire list is studied it will be found that posts of one kind or another are distributed throughout all the provinces, and that they assist by carrying on work somewhat similar to that done at experimental farms.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Does this item include an appropriation for the forestry farm at Indian Head?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, for the two stations, one at Indian Head and the other at Sutherland.


Thomas Miller Bell: I understand that only recently the department has established experimental reforestation areas in Saskatchewan. What arrangements if any have been made for their supervision-


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member's question could be more properly discussed under another vote. There will be a special vote in the supplementary estimates providing for rehabilitation work. It is under that vote that these protection belts have been established in different parts of the prairie provinces, particularly in the drought areas. I would suggest a discussion when we reach the vote I have mentioned.


Thomas Miller Bell: Very well. One other question: I have heard complaints regarding

the wages and working conditions of men working on the experimental farms. For instance last year the average wage at Indian Head was twenty-one cents per hour on a basis of a ten hour day for eight months of the year, amounting to about $2 per day, or less than $50 per month. In Saskatchewan, where housing and heating arrangements are costly, that is considered too low. The rate of wages set by the provincial authority varies from thirty-five to forty cents an hour in the towns. These men live in the town of Indian Head, and the government is paying twenty-one cents an hour. If the men desire meals I understand that at harvest time they have to pay twenty-five cents for a meal, which is a very serious consideration. Does the minister know about that situation?


James Garfield Gardiner: This matter was brought to my attention some little time ago by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), and I found that the minimum rate paid for labour at Indian Head was twenty-one cents an hour. Of course there is this to be taken into consideration, that the labour employed is paid at about the same rate as is being paid by farmers in that particular area, but I am not so sure that the rate is as high as it might be in view of the fact which was brought out, that at certain times it is necessary for the individual to have his meals at the farm, and in such cases he is required to pay for them. I am not entirely satisfied that the rate of twenty-one cents is as high as it might be, in view of the fact also that the labourer is required to have his meals at home at other times, but that question is being inquired into and will be dealt with in a way that I believe will satisfy the people locally and others that a wage is being paid which compares favourably with the rate of wages being paid by farmers in the surrounding districts.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: Are these men employed the year round at a fixed rate of wages, or are they laid off in the fall after the rush of work? Is their employment only seasonal? The same condition prevails at Brandon experimental farm that my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has just mentioned, and the answer to his question with regard to wages is equally applicable to the Brandon district.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: May I ask who sets the rate? Is it the department, or is it left more or less to the local superintendent or farm officials?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department and the superintendent confer with regard to the matter and the rate is governed partly at least by the prevailing rate in the community. Some of the permanent employees are more likely to be men with some technical knowledge, and they are probably paid more because of that, but the man who is picked up casually for a job that needs to be done is probably to be compared with the ordinary labourer in the community.


Mr. VENIOT:: May I ask the minister a question for information? I understand what an experimental farm means, but I do not understand the functions of an experimental station. Would the minister explain the difference between the two?


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps what the hon. member has in mind is the substation.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: The method followed
is this: The department chooses in a community a man whom they think capable of carrying on experiments that will be helpful to others in the community. The department pays a rental for a man's farm, and directs the work which is carried on by the farmer on that part of his farm. He is re. quired to take instructions, and then he is entitled to the whole crop, I understand, that is produced as a result of the work so carried on. The work is done for the benefit of the people in the community who can come and see the experiments being carried on.


Peter John Veniot: I thought that was a
demonstration farm. There are three categories, I understand-the experimental farm, the experimental station, and the demonstration farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: The illustration station
is conducted somewhat on the same basis except that only a part of the farm is used instead of the whole farm as under the substation plan.


Ernest Edward Perley: What progress is being made in developing a rust
resistant wheat? Have there been any developments in that direction?


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter of rust
resistant wheat is something which becomes of interest periodically in western Canada. I remember three outstanding years during the time I have been in the west when we had great destruction of crop as a result of rust, and after each one of those years there was strong agitation for the development of a rust resistant wheat. We experienced very little success in that direction until the last ten or twelve years, during which there has been a decided effort on the part of the department to develop a rust resistant wheat, working in cooperation with agricultural colleges on both sides of the line, provincial authorities and others. A few years ago, I think it was while the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) was Minister of Agriculture, he emphasized the importance of the development of rust resistant wheat, and secured funds with which to set up a laboratory at Winnipeg. That laboratory has been operating since. Certain lands have been set apart on which wheats have been developed. These wheats have been distributed to the experimental farms, at Indian Head and elsewhere, and to agricultural colleges, and certain developments have taken place. I understand that as a result of those developments, there originated three strains of what are generally recognized to-day as rust resistant wheats which are now in the course of development. It has been fairly well established by the experience of last year, when we had one of the worst attacks of rust the west has experienced, that at least three of these strains are likely to be rust resistant. It is not the intention, so far as these strains are concerned, to give them wide distribution until the fall of 1937. Those who are familiar with the distribution of wheats in western Canada will recall that there was some difficulty in the distribution of Reward wheat because of its having been distributed while it was still affected by loose smut. The department is anxious to avoid any such difficulties in connection with the distribution of rust resistant wheat. The wheat will probably be distributed in the fall of 1937, I assume in the usual way, a few bushels being sent here and there to farmers who are interested in having it. They will grow' a crop from it, and that crop will be for sale to other farmers to sow on their land, so that eventually it will be sown fairly widely over the west.
There is a wheat called Thatcher wheat which is being brought in from the state of Minnesota, where it was developed. It is being sown this year by some of the farmers
Supply-Agriculture-Farms

in western Canada. The department has taken some action to assist the farmers to get this wheat across the line, but is not taking any part in the real distribution. The wheat is being applied for by the farmers and is being brought into western Canada to be sown. No doubt this will prove of assistance in carrying the farmers over until next year when a distribution of these other wheats will be made.


Thomas Miller Bell: Has the minister any information regarding this rustless wheat that is coming in from the Dakotas?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the Thatcher wheat.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Is there anything in this item to cover the control of noxious weeds, or is that matter dealt with by the federal department?


James Garfield Gardiner: The control of weeds is carried on almost entirely by the provincial governments. Legislation is passed from time to time and the provincial governments work in cooperation with the municipalities in the control of weeds.. All this department does is to carry on a certain amount of research work at the experimental farms.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr. Chairman, every time during the past ten years when this vote has come before the committee I have protested against the treatment given my section of the country. I had a certain amount of support in my protests from 1926 to 1930, but from 1930 to 1935 I received very little, although I was promised a lot. I am asking for an increased expenditure for the Kapus-kasing experimental farm. When the twenty million dollar public works program was inaugurated two years ago I was told by the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Weir, that a certain amount of money would be expended on buildings on that farm. I know the situation at that farm and I do not have to go to any officials for information. I believe the officials there are the best in the land. The minister must know the situation. During the war the land upon which the farm is now located was cleared by German prisoners of war. These men were quartered in shacks which at that time were probably fairly comfortable, but some of these shacks are still being used to house the workingmen on the farm. I really believe the cattle are better housed than the workingmen. Surely a certain amount of money could be voted to erect buildings more suited to human habitation. This experimental farm is the only one in northern Ontario and Quebec and it serves a new agricultural population of nearly a quarter of a million people. I believe the

minister is aware of the fact that the last census show's that the growth in population was greater in northern Ontario than in any other part of the country. I contend this farm should receive more consideration than it has received in the past. I believe the minister will be astonished to learn that there is no adequate barn accommodation on that farm. Everyone knows the kind of weather encountered in that part of the country when the crops are being gathered. With no barn available losses will be incurred in gathering the early crops. Surely it is possible to provide a decent barn.
If the estimates of any department are increased, it should be those of the Department of Agriculture. The settlers in these new sections are entitled to the benefits of an experimental farm. Wonderful work has been done at this farm, work which has proven beneficial to the entire country. An increase in the work of this farm would, I believe, be the best means of taking fifty per cent of our farmers off direct relief. Three years ago the federal government placed a poultryman on this farm. This young man continued to work for three or four months. He gave lectures in all sections of that country in an effort to give the settlers an idea of what could be accomplished by raising poultry. There is a fine domestic market for these products in that section of the country. Many of these settlers went ahead and built hen coops and bought other equipment at considerable expense, but without any explanation whatsoever, either to the man or to the settlers, this poultryman wras withdrawn. Upon making inquiries at the department I was told that this man was fully qualified for the w'ork he was doing, but without any explanation he was withdrawn. If this was done because of economy, I believe it was false economy. Many of these settlers still have uncompleted hen coops which they started on the advice of the federal government. The government is being penny wise and pound foolish when it takes such action as this. All the people in Canada benefit from the work carried on at these experimental farms. I believe the minister is fully acquainted with northern Ontario and Quebec. I am not asking that millions of dollars be expended; all I am suggesting is an expenditure of about $10,000 or $15,000 so that the men who work on this farm can be housed in a decent manner and the administration of the farm may not have to surmount the difficulties it has to face at the moment.

Supply-A gricullure-Farms


James Garfield Gardiner: I should like to point out that the total expenditure provided for the Kapuskasing farm is S42,000, which compares very favourably with the expenditures being made at other places. As a matter of fact, in only a few cases is the amount more than that. The total vote under this item is being decreased by only $18,000, which decrease is comparable with what is taking place in connection with votes for other branches. I understand that there are three log cabins on this farm and probably there was some reason for complaint as to their fitness for living quarters. However, three new cottages are being constructed by the Public Works department. These would not come under this vote, but I understand that the estimates for that department provide for $1,200 to complete these cottages. I understand that there are barns on the farm, but as they are not considered to be sufficient for the purposes, another barn is being requested. Up to date the department has not seen fit to construct this other barn as we have no money with which to do the work. I think we are doing as much at this point as is being done at other points throughout Canada, I understand that so far as the poultryman is concerned an effort was made in the department a year or two ago, and that effort is being continued, to remove so far as possible any duplication of the work in connection with agriculture as between the provinces and the dominion; and the work that is being done by some of these officials, one of whom I understand is the gentleman under discussion, is really considered to be provincial work. Some of these men were removed in so far as the federal staffs are concerned, and it has not been the intention of the department to reestablish them, but rather to place the responsibility for that work upon the province.


David Wilson Beaubier: Reverting to the subject of rust resistant wTheat, a Mr. Orchard, who farms north of Brandon, had a crop of wheat of about fifty acres in which there was no rust. That was not at all a common condition in the vicinity of Brandon, as rust affected all wheat crops very badly there. I took the matter up with the manager of the experimental farm, Mr. Tinline, informing him that there were fifty acres of wheat which had no rust upon it. It so happened that an official of the seed department at Ottawa whose name I cannot now recall was visiting the Morden farm, and Mr. Tinline called me up and I went out with him and viewed this crop of wheat. There was no rust perceptible on that wheat, which this
gentleman from Ottawa identified, I think, as No. 27 and it appears that the experimental farms had been experimenting with this particular wheat to see if it was not rust resistant. Afterwards the experimental farm, I suppose through orders from Ottawa or some place, bought that man's entire crop. I should like to know what information, if any, the minister has about that. It appears that the experimental farm bought the entire crop and had it threshed at their expense, and they are taking it over, I understand, for distribution for seed from that farm.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there was
very little opportunity prior to last year, since the department has been attempting to develop this particular strain of wheat, to have it really tried out, and the strain that is spoken of is one of the strains developed at the laboratory in Winnipeg. When these wheats are put out to the experimental farm some trouble is taken by departmental officials at the farm to see that the wheat is not removed in any way whatever from the farm. Of course it is always possible for persons who live in the vicinity, or even persons who are travelling by plots on the experimental farm, to gather some of the heads or to take samples of it and perhaps make experiments of their own and develop crops on their own land as a result of having done so. Probably it was as a result of something like that that we got into difficulties in connection with Reward wheat. Reward wheat was found to be shown at exhibitions before the department really knew that it had been distributed, and some investigations were made with regard to that. Of course care is taken in the development of all these strains. It was found that this field of wheat in the vicinity of Brandon was a rust resistant wheat; the wheat was examined into as indicated by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Beaubier) and was found to be the same strain as that which is being developed at the laboratory in Winnipeg. As a result the department took steps to see that this wheat was all purchased so that the distribution will be made from the department and in the proper way. The wheat was all secured by the department; it is under the control of the department now, and will probably be used in connection with further experimentation down to the fall of 1937, when general distribution will be made.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: I am not quite clear
about the minister's reference to a distribution of rust resistant wheat in 1937. Will any



Supply-A griculture-Farms
of the three kinds that we are experimenting with in the dominion be ready for distribution for seeding this spring?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, none of it will
be available for distribution this year. The purpose of the department is to bulk this wheat during the next two sessions and to have sufficient of it to permit rather general distribution over the western provinces in the fall of 1937.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask another
question of the minister with regard to wheat? I have read several articles, I believe by a Professor Hanson attached either to North Dakota State college or at least to one of the American colleges, on experiments with perennial wheat. Is the department doing anything with regard to experimentation with perennial wheat, and if so is there an appropriation here, and to what extent have the experiments been successful?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, some work is being done, with the idea of producing not grain but hay.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would like to pursue
a little further the line of questioning I started earlier in the afternoon. The minister, in his reply to a question I asked about the number of experimental farms in the various provinces, remarked that in western Ontario the provincial government's experimental farm at Guelph is being used-I understood- by the federal department of agriculture. I assume also that the provincial government's experimental farm at Kemptville is also being used. Does this department compensate the Ontario government or its experimental farms for the service rendered to the federal department of agriculture? The federal government apparently has only two experimental farms of its own in Ontario, one at Harrow and the other at Kapuskasing.


James Garfield Gardiner: Some funds are provided for special work carried on for this department at the college at Guelph and on the farm at Guelph, but generally speaking this department does not take responsibility for the work that is done there. There is cooperation as between the college and those who are connected with the farm there, and the officials of the department. I think that cooperation has been carried on quite successfully over a term of years. But no considerable part of the cost of running the farm or institution at Guelph is supplied by the federal government.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would like to ask
the minister, Mr. Chairman, if this appropriation contains any grant for laboratory or

experimental work in connection with the universities where some of this work is done; if so, are these grants being maintained, increased, or decreased? I have in mind a recent article by Doctor Cora Hind, who stated that on her recent tour through Russia she found that there were something like eight hundred agricultural laboratories fully equipped, with hundreds of scientists working on agricultural products. Whatever we may think about the Russian experiment, of this we have to take notice, that we shall be faced ultimately with competition from the fields of that particular country. I was wondering if we are keeping our experimental and laboratory work up to a standard which will enable us to keep in the forefront of agricultural development.


James Garfield Gardiner: The department has a chain of laboratories across Canada where work of the kind the hon. member has mentioned is being performed. Much of that work is being done here at the Ottawa station. Included in this vote is some 837,000 for cooperative assistance to provincial institutions. That vote is used for pretty much the same purpose; that is, as far as the province from which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar comes is concerned, certain work is carried on at the agricultural college at Saskatoon and this government cooperates, financially and otherwise, with that college in carrying on that work. Work of the type suggested is being done all the way across Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: Are the grants being maintained?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. BARBER:: I notice a decrease of $18,000 in this vote. Perhaps it would be interesting if the minister would give the committee the details of this vote and also the reason for the reduction.


James Garfield Gardiner: Practically the entire decrease is accounted for by the fact that publicity work, previously done in this branch, has been transferred to the publicity section. I might read over the various items and give the reduction on each:
Decrease
Equipment	 $1,500
Land, buildings and works	 1,884
Miscellaneous	 5,773
Wages	 7,111
Rents	 3,538
Supplies and materials	 4,700
Feeds, bedding, etc	 823
Transportation of things	 2,665
Travelling expenses	 3,020
There is an increase of $12,364.64 in salaries and, of course, the decrease in the other item

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
I mentioned, which does not show here as a decrease but which will be shown elsewhere in the estimates.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are any automobiles being purchased under this item?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there will be a few replacements of cars already in use that have gone their distance.


Mr. SENN:: The minister mentioned an item called "miscellaneous." In that case he gave only the reduction, and I wonder if he would itemize that account so that we may have an idea of what it includes.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry I have not the itemized miscellaneous account.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could the minister give us the main items under that account?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a list of headings, of course, such as salaries and wages, lands and buildings and so on. Expenditures under the miscellaneous headings are small current expenditures that do not properly come under any of these other headings.


Mark Cecil Senn: I understand that different branches are provided for under this item. For example, there is the experimental farms branch, and in the auditor general's account we have the itemized expenditure from year to year. There is also a department of animal husbandry, a bee division, a horticultural division and so on down the line. What I was trying to get at was this: Are the expenditures of these different branches under this particular item kept separate or are they all mixed up in the auditor general's account.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total votes under the different headings, according to division, are as follows:
Expenditures 1935-36-Experimental Farms
System
Equipment	$	82,487 00Lands, buildings and works..	42,029	00Miscellaneous current expenses	70,503	00
Supplies, materials, feeds,
bedding, etc	
185,350	00Transportation of things.. ..	25,241	00Travelling expenses	
110,348	00Salaries	
636.994	86Wages	
755,596	00Rents	
44,823	00


Mark Cecil Senn: There is a department of animal husbandry within this branch, as I understand it. Can the minister give the total cost of the operation of that branch, as separate from the operation of this whole division?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our estimate this year
for the animal husbandry branch is $50,000.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is the minister able to itemize that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes:
Equipment	$	900
Lands, buildings and works	 100
Miscellaneous current expenses..	.	855
Salaries	 1,881
Wages	34,164
Rents	  700
Supplies and materials	 8,000
Feeds, bedding, veterinary supplies. 800
Transportation of things	 800
Travelling expenses	 1,800


Mark Cecil Senn: While we are talking about
this matter of animal husbandry, I understand that a year and a half ago the department purchased some hogs, known as Landraee hogs, from either Sweden or Denmark. I understand that since then they have been experimenting with these hogs, from which I believe Danish bacon is produced, and experiment is of very great importance indeed. Would the minister tell us just what progress has been made, whether the hogs are ready for distribution, and give all the details?


James Garfield Gardiner: Some of these hogs were purchased in Sweden a little more than a year ago, and certain experiments have been carried on with them at the farm since that time, with the idea of determining whether or not they are suited to our climate, whether the feeds we have been using produce the same results as are obtained in other places, and generally whether it is wise to have them distributed in this country for breeding purposes. The hon. member will understand that a year's time is not sufficient to carry out these experiments. No general report has yet been made in regard to the experiments, but I understand that in the tests so far made the meat does show up as being a very acceptable product. The department, however, is not yet in a position to say that these animals should be distributed generally throughout the country.


Mark Cecil Senn: Is this experiment being conducted in any other place besides the central experimental farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: Three lots were sent out, to three of the western stations, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to determine whether or not these hogs would be suitable to weather conditions there.


Mark Cecil Senn: I suppose during the year a number of them will have grown to maturity.

Supply-A griculture-Farms
Can the minister tell us the feeding results and what gain they made? How do the gains compare with other breeds of hogs with which the department has experimented?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have no detailed information that I can give the hon. member with regard to costs. So far as the experiment has gone they compare very favourably with our best Yorkshires, but there are some drawbacks in connection with which the department would like to make further experiments before saying they are equal to our Yorkshires.


Mr. MARSHALL:: For 1935-36 the amount under this heading is shown as $2,034,549.86. Is that the amount that was actually expended or the amount of the vote in that year?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the estimate for last year, and at the moment we estimate that the expenditure will be a little under that.


James Alexander Marshall: May I follow that with a further question? According to Appropriation Act No. 1 in the statutes of 1935, page 37, the appropriation under this heading was $1,937,898. On page 256 we find the same figure. There is a difference of $96,651.86. Could the minister explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: The explanation is that last year's amount is increased by the statutory increases less the five per cent deduction on salaries.


Mr. BROOKS:: How much is allocated t each of the experimental farms in Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amounts are:
Charlottetown, P.E.I	$37,000
Summerside, P.E.I	17,000
Kentville, N.S	" 58'000
Nappan, N.S	 43,500
Fredericton, N.B	 46,000
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Que.. 44,000
St. Joachim, Que	 7,000
Cap Rouge, Que	26'000
Normandin, Que	16,000
St. Clothilde, Que	 8,000
Lennoxville, Que	 39,000
Faruham, Que	14.500
L'Assumption, Que	 29,000
La Ferme, Que	10,000
Kapuskasing, Ont	 42,000
Harrow, Ont	 40,000
Delhi, Ont	 8.500
Morden, Man	 45,000
Brandon, Man	41,000
Indian Head, Sask	 42,000
Regina substation, Sask	 5,600
Indian Head forest nursery station,
Sask	 30,000
Sutherland forest nursery station,
Sask	19,000
Rosthern, Sask	17,000
Scott, Sask	 37,000
Melfort, Sask	17,000

Swift Current, Sask	 40,000
Lethbridge, Alta	 52.000
Lacombe, Alta	41,000
Manyberries, Alta	 28,500
Beaver Lodge, Alta	16,500
Windermere, Alta	13,500
Surramerland, B.C	 49,500
Kelowna, B.C	 6,000
Agassiz, B.C	 38,000
Saanichton, B.C	31,500
Substations	14,000


Mark Cecil Senn: When was the experimental
farm at Delhi set up?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is a tobacco substation, set up two years ago,


Mark Cecil Senn: Can the minister tell us how
much money is being expended on demonstration farms, and where they are situated? I do not mean that we should have the location of each one, but perhaps he can give the information by provinces.


James Garfield Gardiner: The total for all the
provinces is $72,000. I have not the amount itemized by provinces.


Mark Cecil Senn: Could we have the number
of stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are as follows:
British Columbia	 20
Alberta	 20
Saskatchewan	 47
Manitoba	 16
Ontario	 15
Quebec	 49
New Brunswick	 18
Nova Scotia	 18
Prince Edward	Island	 13
The number in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta includes those -which were specially set up in the drought area last year.


Mark Cecil Senn: Just what is carried on at
these demonstration farms? Does it vary with the different localities or is it all one line of agriculture that is being demonstrated?


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to answer the
question fully I would have to go right across Canada and deal with each of them separately; I do not think the hon. member expects me to do that. The object the department has in mind in connection with the stations is that of developing experiments in different soil and climatic conditions, and different products grown in the various parts of the country. For instance, where tobacco is grown there would be a station dealing with tobacco, developing experiments as to conditions under which it can best be grown. Experiments are carried on and investigations made in connection with fox raising in Prince Edward Island, and other investigations concerning other kinds of production right across

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
Canada. The type of station depends upon the type of agriculture carried on in the district.


David Wilson Beaubier: Are there demonstration
farms under the operation and control of any of the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: A number of provinces
have them, but I do not wish any information I may give to be considered complete. I believe there is one in Manitoba, one in Saskatchewan, one or two in Alberta, and quite a number in Quebec. I do not think Ontario has established any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there not one at Kempt-ville?


David Wilson Beaubier: Is it not generally understood that there is a great deal of overlapping of services in agricultural departments of the provinces and the dominion? Could there not be some line of demarcation whereby federal and provincial departments would not give the same service, thereby reducing the expense of operation both to the provinces and to the dominion?


James Garfield Gardiner: Before coming to Ottawa I had always understood that there was considerable overlapping, and I had heard many discussions on the point. At the time of the dominion-provincial conference I was still more or less of that opinion. At the conference the whole matter was reviewed, first by branch heads of the federal department and afterwards by representatives from the provinces, and it was apparent that the provincial representatives had no complaints in this regard. I could find very little of what might properly be described as a duplication of work carried on by both federal and provincial departments. We are examining the situation and, from information I gave a few moments ago, I would judge the previous minister was doing much the same thing. Some of the overlapping was removed by eliminating certain employees, as I indicated a few moments ago.


Harry Leader: The cost of doing this
work has many times been the subject of discussion throughout the country. I have been asked how it is that the provinces maintain so many demonstration farms when the dominion maintains experimental as well as demonstration farms. I am fully aware that the experimental farms are not self sustaining, and yet some revenue is produced. Looking at the auditor general's report for the last five years we find that the deficits on our experimental farms amount to $9,000,000. I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to consider that point; he might be able to effect an economy in this regard. I am not finding fault with the management of our experimental farms under either the last administration or the one that held office before that; I believe those farms have done much useful work. But in view of the fact that the work of the provinces and the dominion overlaps, I suggest that the government consider seriously turning the work over to the provinces. I do not mean that the dominion should forsake the work altogether, but I believe it could pay annually a substantial sum of money-nothing like S9.000.000, but perhaps as much as $500,000-to help the provinces carry on the work. In addition, I would give a bonus to experts who have developed many of our cereals and whose horticultural work has been beneficial to the whole dominion. The cost would not be great, but the expenditure would be an incentive to some of these men to complete their work and perhaps to develop something of material benefit to the dominion. There is a feeling throughout Canada that there is too much overlapping, and the dominion government would be well advised to leave the work to the provinces, the officials of which are most familiar with their respective soils and needs.


James Garfield Gardiner: There must be some
confusion in the minds of those who have made the criticism to which the hon. member has referred. So far as I know in the western provinces the demonstration farms are carried on as the result of activities of the federal, not the provincial department. The fact that these demonstration farms are scattered here and there throughout the provinces may have led some to the conclusion that they are provincial activities, whereas in fact they are federal. Until I came to Ottawa I was under the impression that the demonstration farm established at Lockwood, Saskatchewan, by the provincial government for the purpose of making demonstrations in regard to weed control was financed by the province, but since looking at the records here in Ottawa I found that it is financed partly by the federal government. In other words the work carried on in the provinces is financed at Ottawa.
I believe the suggestion to turn the work over to the provinces would not be kindly received. If I understand their condition correctly, if anything the provincial treasuries are in a little poorer condition than the dominion exchequer, and I doubt very much if the work could be carried on successfully at this time by the provinces. As was indicated by

Supply-Agriculture-Farms
one hon. member, research work is undoubtedly essential. Over ninety per cent of all agricultural research work done in Canada is done by the federal department. I think a continuance of the work is necessary, and at the present time I do not know of any place, with the exception of the dominion treasury, where it could be financed.


Mr. THOMPSON:: Why is it necessary
to have six farms and two stations in Saskatchewan, and six farms and one station in Quebec, when in Ontario, the greatest agricultural province in Canada, we have two farms and no stations? I note, further, that the amount of money spent in Ontario by the federal department is less than half the amount spent in some of the other provinces, despite the fact that Ontario pays approximately forty-five per cent of the taxes of the whole dominion.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: No, no.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: The province of Quebec pays about thirty per cent, making a total of seventy-five per cent for the two provinces. I should like to know why in Ontario we have only two farms.


James Garfield Gardiner: When giving the explanation before I did not go very much into detail, but I think it will be obvious to all members of the committee that naturally the greater part of the expenditure on this kind of work is being made right here in the city of Ottawa, which is in the province of Ontario. The most complete plant that we have in the whole dominion is the experimental farm at Ottawa, and the most complete plant that we have, from a provincial point of view, in the whole dominion is at Guelph, which is the central western part of Ontario. With these two plants operating to the extent they are, and with the amount of money that is being spent on them, I think my hon. friend will agree that Ontario is receiving its share. Perhaps I might mention one or two items of work which is being done by the plant here, and being done in the interests of all Canada, although of course those who are nearest to it get the greatest amount of benefit. On botany, for example, the expenditure at the central laboratory and nine branch laboratories was $280,000. I could give other items which would indicate that the greater part of the money is really being spent in Ontario, in which my hon. friend has a particular interest.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I realize that, Mr. Chairman, but I also realize that the money spent on the dominion experimental farm is for the benefit of the whole dominion, whereas the college at Guelph is a provincial institu-

tion. Ontario does not seem to be fairly dealt with so far as expenditure on experimental farms is concerned.


Malcolm McLean: A few moments ago an hon. member made the statement that there was a deficit of nine million dollars on experimental farms. Is that an accumulated deficit over the years since the experimental farms were established in the dominion, or was there a mistake in the statement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the hon. member said that the cost for the last five years was nine million dollars.


Malcolm McLean: "Deficit" was the word he used.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: May I ask
what amount was granted to the Guelph institution in 1935?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amounts that are
paid are not in the form of grants. It is cooperative work that is carried on in connection with soil surveys, and it would not represent, as I said before, any considerable part of the cost of carrying on the organization which they have at Guelph. I would not claim that this department is doing any considerable part of the work there. I thought I said that the expenditure was comparatively small, probably not more than four or five thousand dollars.


Thomas Miller Bell: How does the appropriation this year compare with, say, 1929? I am asking that because on a rough calculation the expenditure for experimental farms is just over one million dollars, and while that seems a large amount, I do not think this is the place to economize,' particularly when we remember that in the estimates of another department which we were discussing the other evening there was an item of $300,000 for a subsidy to one shipping firm. So far as our stations in western Canada are concerned, it is a new country, and while we do not raise the greater portion of the revenues of this country, I would nevertheless take issue with the statement made a short time ago because we are undoubtedly paying very heavy duties in the way of tariffs and other exactions.


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimated expenditure in 1929-30 was $2,369,000, and the actual expenditure $2,354,551.60, which is about $300,000 more than the estimate for this year.


Malcolm McLean: I wonder if the
minister would answer now my question with reference to the alleged deficit of nine million dollars.

Supply-A griculture-Farms


James Garfield Gardiner: I heard the remark
made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), but I have no records here by which to check the figures, taking it simply as a statement of revenue and expenditure. I should like to point out that it is imposible for anyone to determine whether there has been a loss or a gain through the expenditure on experimental farm work. You cannot simply take the expenditure that is made upon the farms and compare that with the proceeds from what is sold off the farm, because this is not an attempt on the part of the government to run a farm and demonstrate to farmers in the surrounding area that a farm can be run and made a financial success. That is not the intention at all. The intention is rather to carry on research and experimental work, and I would say that the research work carried on which led to the production of Marquis wheat resulted in vastly greater profits to the Dominion of Canada and greater possibilities of paying revenues than could possibly be measured by anything that might be charged up against the farms as a result of any work they did. The experimental farms are there for the purpose of trying to benefit all farmers in Canada and the dominion as a whole. We had in western Canada down to the middle of July last year, for example, one of the finest crops that anyone who has lived in western Canada has ever seen standing in our fields. Looking at that crop one could have asumed that we would harvest one of the greatest crops in bushelage in the history of western Canada. But between the middle and the end of July that crop was practically wiped out of existence over a considerable part of western Canada, all because of the fact that under certain climatic conditions the wheat -which we had sown was subject to rust. We got those climatic conditions, and the result was that our wheat crop was practically wiped out over about one-half of the western provinces. If the development during the last twelve years of a rust resistant wheat results in there being sown in western Canada a wheat with the same qualities for milling purposes as, say, Marquis wheat, and which will produce the same volume per acre as Reward or Marquis wheat, no one can estimate either the deficit or the surplus in the operation of the station at Winnipeg which resulted in the production of that wheat. I would not attempt, therefore, to justify or to explain any statement to the effect that nine million dollars had been lost through the operation of our experimental farms.


Mark Cecil Senn: We have been talking about
demonstration farms. May I ask for my own information if they are the same as what are known as illustration stations?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed thait the demonstration farm as it is understood in the province of Quebec is not the same as that operated by the department. We operate demonstration stations which are conducted partly for demonstration purposes and partly for fact finding purposes. Some people call them demonstration farms, while others call them illustration stations.


Mark Cecil Senn: The minister gave us certain figures with reference to the number of demonstration farms in Ontario, but I find in the report of the Department of Agriculture that quite a large number of illustration stations are scattered throughout the dominion. Was he referring to the illustration stations or to the demonstration farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: There seems to be some confusion as to the terms; "illustration station" is the proper term. .


Mr. OOLDWELL:: I asked a question just now, but I do not think the minister got it quite cleanly. I think he said there were thirty-eight stations listed and that the expenditures would be just over a million dollars. Are the services being maintained at the same level as they were in 1929? I know that one or two additional stations have been started, such as at Delhi and other points in Ontario, but I want to know if the work is being kept up at the same level. The minister mentioned an amount of approximately $2,000,000, some of which was being spent for other purposes, but I am interested in seeing that these illustration stations and experimental farms get the needed support. I agree with the minister when he says it is impossible to estimate the value of the work carried on by these farms and illustration stations, and I disagree entirely with those who suggest that we should economize on these services.


Mr. REID:: The fact remains that in British Columbia we have a considerable overlapping of experimental stations. Good results may be obtained from the farms in the prairie provinces, but I have yet to be convinced that good results are being obtained from those located in British 'Columbia. I suggest to the minister that he consider doing some forestry work in these experimental stations. The forests in British Columbia are rapidly being cut down and I suppose the time will come when there will be no trees. I know it has
Supply-A griculture-Farms

been said that this is a provincial matter, but I think the dominion could undertake some forestry work in addition to the other work being carried on at these experimental stations.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wonder if the minister could answer the question which I asked before the last speaker rose?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount of work as indicated by the money voted is absolutely the same. Of course, there have been some changes. Some things which were done at that time have been discontinued while some of the things being done now were not done at that time.


Mark Cecil Senn: Before this item is carried I should like to say that certain members indicated to me their intention of speaking on this vote. I have no objection to the item passing if the minister will assure the committee that if at any time an hon. member wishes to discuss this item, an item will be left open to afford that opportunity.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have been wandering somewhat afield in connection with this item. As a matter of fact the last matter discussed really comes under the Department of the Interior. I have not placed any obstructions in the way of any hon. member who desired to go a little afield and I shall not do so if the item is passed.


Mr. LENNARD:: How do the expenditures this year on the Vineland station compare with those of last year?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am informed that the Vineland station is a provincial horticultural station; we do not operate it.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there no cooperation between the two governments?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is cooperation in the work, but nothing is paid by this government in connection with that station except for entomological work which is carried on in a separate building.


Mr. SPENCE:: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the observations made by hon. members and by the minister, whom I congratulate upon his ability to handle his case. I remember that when a previous minister was in office, the present hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), I criticized the extravagance of the Department of Agriculture; I claimed that this department was costing the country much more money than the whole thing was worth. Hon. members have risen in their seats to say that economy

must not be studied here or must not be studied there, as it suited their own purpose, but I say that economy should be studied everywhere. The estimates for the Department of Agriculture have increased enormously in the last ten or fifteen years. I am not criticizing any particular government, but it seems to me that this department is the place where everyone can get a nice fat job and be able to live on the government. The present minister (Mr. Gardiner) will be lacking in form if he does not see that a lot of his friends are given jobs here and there. The number of employees is steadily increasing. I do not say that the activities of these experimental farms and demonstration stations should cease, but much of the work could be eliminated. We should let the people do some thinking for themselves. We are doing so much thinking for the people to-day that we are making them more stupid all the time. They are not depending upon themselves; they are depending upon the department to tell them how to build a chicken coop or how to do this or that. I contend that the people should do a little more for themselves, they should not be spoon fed all the time. Half the time spent in debating this particular item has been wasted. What we should do is economize. I should like the minister to compare the present cost of his department with what it cost a few years ago and also note the increase in the number of employees. The government is harassing the business world; even the farmers are bothered to death with inspectors who want to know this and that. I hope the minister will exercise a little economy and save the taxpayers some money. The taxpayer is being hit harder all the time. This country has gone wildly extravagant. If some of the people here had to earn the money that they advocate spending, they would not be so generous. The trouble is that most hon. members have not been brought up in the college of hard knocks. I have had to earn every dollar for myself, and I have very little left. I do not criticize the minister any more than anyone else. The minister has been getting his way, but that is what a minister should do. As long as the minister gives nice smooth answers, his estimates will all go through. But our agricultural representatives in the house think of nothing but agriculture; we in the business world get no consideration whatever, nor do people who are living in the urban centres. All the money is going to the farmers, and generally speaking we are not getting real results from it.

Supply-Agriculture-Farms


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the hon. member say whether he was in favour of an expenditure of a million dollars for the Toronto tunnel when (the matter came up last April?


James Houston Spence: I was in favour of it, yes. You have to keep this country up to the standard of other countries. Toronto must be in keeping writh similar cities in the United States. We did not get what was asked for in Toronto because this government came into power and threw out the appropriation, but some day we will get it. Do not forget that.


Mr. YOUNG:: With one remark of the hon. member opposite (Mr. Spence) I entirely agree; that is that there has been too much spoon feeding in Canada. I suggest that the hon. member make that speech to our Canadian manufacturers.


James Houston Spence: Will the hon. gentleman please speak up so that I can hear him as he heard me?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I said I quite agree with the statement that there is too much spoon feeding in this country, and I suggest that the hon. member make that speech to some of our Canadian manufacturers.


James Houston Spence: I would do that too.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Because if anybody has been spoon fed it is that group.


James Houston Spence: The hon. member will agree with me that he and everybody else in his part of the country have been spoon fed for a long time.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I should like to explain to my hon. friend that we in western Canada do not know what spoon feeding means in comparison with the way in which he understands the term. If there is in this country anything to which we must pay some attention and spend money on, it is the item which the minister has been discussing this afternoon. There is no item which is of more importance to the whole Dominion of Canada. Rather than cut down on these expenditures I suggest that the amounts should be increased rather than diminished.


Mr. McIVOR:: I should like to mention
that there is in Ontario a district 700 miles wide which has not an experimental station. If we are going to progress in any line of life we must develop specialists. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) knows that medical science would be in the backwoods stage to-day were it not for specialists. We must not cut down on expenditures to get results that are going to help the men back on the land.


James Houston Spence: I do not wish to have any misunderstanding. I am not opposing anything to help the farmers, because I have a great admiration for them, but I think we are probably doing more than need be done, and if they were allowed to do some of the thinking for themselves they might be able to do better. They are not so foolish as some hon. members think they are. At any rate I hope they are not.


Mr. FAIR:: As a practical farmer who has been out in the west for the last twenty-two years, I can say that the western farmer has come through quite a lot of hard times. Some of our friends here who talk of spoon feeding are the ones who, I believe, know most about it. They need to recognize a little of what the farmers have gone through. It might have been well if, even in those good times when prosperity was supposed to have come around the corner, they had gone out with all their past business experience and tried to make a success on a farm. It has been stated that Ontario is paying forty-five per cent of the taxes of the dominion. I would ask what percentage of the easy money of the dominion Ontario is receiving and has received for the past number of years.


James Houston Spence: In what way?


Robert Fair: Any way you want to take it. Figure it out for yourself.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not social credit,
anyway.


Robert Fair: I compliment the Minister of Agriculture upon the stand he has taken today and his ability to answer questions that have been put to him. I believe he is going in the right direction, because just as soon as you put the farmers out of business you put these hard-headed business men out of business. If you want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, put the farmer out of business. Quite a number of hon. members who have spoken to-day are receiving their living indirectly off the farmers; and if they want to have something that is not good for them, then let them put the farmer out of business.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I do not like this phrase "we are thinking for the farmer." We should keep in mind that educational facilities are provided for perhaps every other class of business in the Dominion of Canada; we have technical schools and subsidized universities-


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much of that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -'but practically nothing was done to put farming upon a scientific

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
basis until this work was taken up by the Department of Agriculture. To say that you are not allowing the farmer to think is nonsense. You cannot provide every farmer with a microscope; you cannot enable him to investigate the properties of mycelium; that must be done by specialists, as in all other business. This talk of thinking for the farmer is nonsense. Most of the farmers are taking the information that has been disseminated among them, learning wisely and profiting thereby. The Minister of Agriculture is to be commended for advancing these proposals with the object of helping the farming population.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions, $1,490,700.
Harry James Barber: Will the minister give some information -concerning grants to fairs? I notice there is a reduction in the item. Does this reduction apply to fairs, and particularly B -class and regional fairs? Is it contemplated to reduce the grants this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Grants to fairs have
been on a certain basis for some years: they have been changed from time to time. Last year they were, I think, as high as they have been at any time in the history of Canada. It is not our intention to continue them at the same level as they were last year. For example, in the A class fairs the cut will be $1,000; it will be -made $4,000 instead of $5,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt the
minister to say that I think it would serve a useful purpose in the house, which has so many new members, if he would indicate what are classes A and B fairs, so that the members may be thoroughly seized of the whole situation, or at least understand more about the matter than they otherwise could.


James Garfield Gardiner: Fairs have been classified into A class fairs and B class fairs in accordance with the work that is carried on by them. For example we have the fairs conducted in cities like Toronto, Regina, Saskatoon. -Calgary, Edmonton, Brandon, Ottawa, New Westminster and elsewhere. I need not go over them all, but agricultural exhibitions of this kind usually are visited by breeders of stock and persons interested in agriculture generally from all over the dominion and sometimes from outside Canada. These -persons, who are principally breeders of stock in a big way, exhibit at these fairs. Most of these exhibitions have means of producing revenue that are not open to the smaller fairs

known as B class fairs. Fairs of the B class are held in smaller towns, sometimes even in what we would -class as villages. They are a little closer to the farmer who is actually on the land, and they invite the people in that locality to exhibit what they have produced on their land.
The plan that has been followed in giving these grants is to provide a grant of from $2,500 to $5,000 to A class fairs. Last year it was possible for them to earn $5,000; for next year we propose to make it $4,000. The year before last the grant was $2,500, so it will be seen that the grant this year is $1,500 more than it was a year ago last summer and $1,000 less than it was last summer. As I understand the situation, until last year B class fairs always received a general grant of $1,500. Last year that grant was increased to $1,800, and in addition there was $200 for judging, $500 for boys' and girls' exhibits and $500 to provide for expenses in connection with developing regional areas in the vicinity of these fairs, making a total possible maximum grant of some $3,000. This year it is proposed to reduce that maximum to $2,500, which will be higher than in any year prior to last year but $500 less than it was last year.
One reason for the reduction is this: I believe it was thought by those in a position to know that the grant of $500 for boys' and girls' work was probably more -than most of these fairs could earn. The experience of the past year has indicated that to be true, so that grant may be reduced to $250.


Harry James Barber: Where does the other $250 reduction come in?


James Garfield Gardiner: The reduction may be made in the general grant, back to $1,500. Grants to winter fairs, which we consider to be at least as beneficial to agriculture as any of the others, will be continued the same as last year.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: How much prize money is it necessary for a local fair to pay before it is placed in B class?


James Garfield Gardiner: Until last year the
amount was $3,000. Last year, for new fairs, it was $2,500.


Mark Cecil Senn: Does the prize list have to
be $3,000, or is it necessary to have $3,000 actually paid in prize money?


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand that
$3,000 is supposed to be actually paid in prize money.

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock


David Wilson Beaubier: Is it not the case that
the contribution to A class fairs is based upon the amount of prize money donated by the fair itself? In other words, you will not pay them more than $4,000 this year unless the prize money actually arranged for amounts to a certain sum of money?


James Garfield Gardiner: These are the maximum amounts.


Mr. McNEVIN:: I should like to say that I think in many agricultural districts class B fairs serve an excellent purpose, and we should consider the matter very carefully before cutting down too much on class B fairs.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have attempted to
be as generous as possible with class B fairs as compared with previous years, with the exception of last year.
I should like to make a general statement to the committee as to our policy in connection with these fairs. Since coming into the department I have found some difficulty in arriving at a conclusion as to whether certain fairs should be given these grants. Quite different practices are followed in different parts of Canada, and I have asked the head of the branch concerned to visit different parts of the country and look into the matter. Already he has been in the maritimes; he has visited certain organizations in the central part of Canada and has been in Winnipeg, where he met those interested in the promotion of exhibitions. At the moment, however, we are not in a position to arrive at a final decision as to what ought to be done. My desire is to have established for the payment of grants to these different classes of fairs right across Canada a standard to which we can adhere and which will apply in an equitable way to these fairs wherever they may be held, at the same time giving, from an agricultural point of view, the greatest possible service to the people. With that end in view during the coming year we intend to investigate these different fairs right across Canada in order to try to arrive at some system of regulation and some method of paying the grants that will be generally satisfactory. So at the next session we hope to bring down some standard upon which this can be based, and it can be discussed then in the light of the information that has been gathered. At the moment I do not fee' that the information I have been able to gaiher since coming into the department has put me in a position to arrive at a satisfactory decision with regard to this matter; I feel I should know more about it before coming to a definite conclusion.
There are one or two things, however, that I think should be mentioned. We find that there is more overlapping as between the dominion and the provinces in this activity than in perhaps any other, without having accurate information as to what the qther departments are doing. For example we find that in one province we were offering a maximum grant of $3,000 to class B fairs while the province was paying $1,000 to the same fairs. We feel that there should be some cooperation between the provinces and the federal government in arriving at a decision as to what the grant ought to be, and that before we arrive at a decision as to that we should know what is being paid by the various provinces. We pay the same grant all across Canada, but different provinces pay different grants, and we do not think this makes for equality of assistance to the different fairs. So we intend to gather all available information as to what is being done by the provinces and as to what are the needs of these various exhibitions and fairs; then we will bring down with regard to the payment of grants some method or policy which we hope will be satisfactory right across Canada.


Harry Leader: I should like to commend
the minister for his action in making a general review of the fair situation in Canada. After ten years of exhibition w'ork on the fair circuits of the dominion almost from coast to coast I can say that I do not know of any other place where there is more confusion, at least to the exhibitor than at these fairs, and we must acknowledge that without the exhibitors the fairs could not carry on. One of the greatest handicaps and most discouraging features about the fairs is the lack of uniformity in their prize lists and classifications. For instance some fairs will call for an aged herd, a bull and four females, all over two years of age. This necessitates a man carrying two cows and two two-year olds, and so on. Then the next fair he goes to he will be required to bring perhaps two females and a bull, or perhaps a graded herd which calls for a bull, cow a two year old, a yearling and a calf. When a man goes to the expense of getting a herd , of cattle fitted for exhibition-and it is considerable expense -he wants to get all the prize money he can or he is out of pocket. This lack of uniformity in prize lists means that an exhibitor has to carry far more animals than he should have to carry. That is expensive. It acts as a hardship and a discouragement to young breeders in this way, that when an exhibitor carries two or more in one class he is going to exhibit them, and an experienced breeder

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
may take perhaps first, second and third, while the farmer who may have just as good an animal but not in as fit condition, gets only the tail end of the prize money. He has paid freight and the result is that he goes home out of pocket. This discourages the young breeder and he does not continue exhibiting. I know dozens of cases where this has happened. I think exhibitors should be discouraged from carrying more than one animal in each class, and I believe uniformity in prize lists would have that effect.
I am glad the minister has seen fit to undertake this investigation. I wish to take this opportunity of saying that I have no fault to find with the Hon. Robert Weir's administration of the fairs during his term of office. But I do not agree with his policy of regional fairs. In my experience it has not worked out to the advantage of the breeders, or of the fair boards for that matter.
I also wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) upon his administration of this department. From my experience I would say that we never had a better policy in regard to our fair boards and exhibitions than we had under his regime.
No w may I ask the present minister whether it is the intention of the government- to encourage the policy of regional fairs?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a difference
of opinion as to whether the policy inaugurated in recent years of encouraging regional fairs should be continued. I understand in connection with the development of regional fairs in Quebec there is a policy which has worked out very successfully. In Saskatchewan there are two or three districts in which regional fairs have been established and in which the people consider the system is working well. I understand in the district represented by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) the people are not so well satisfied. As far as I am concerned I have not yet had sufficient experience, or examined sufficiently into the activities in the different regions to enable me to formulate a final opinion. It was recommended to me at the beginning of the preparation of these estimates that if we were going to cut down we might cut down in that direction. But as a result of what I had heard in different parts of Canada I came to the conclusion that it might be a good thing to continue some encouragement at least of the regional fair idea during the coming season, and that our decision on the whole matter should be de-
ferred until we make our final survey in regard to exhibitions and fairs during the ensuing summer.


Mr. STIRLING:: I understand the minister to say that he does not propose to cut the amount for regional fairs this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Grote Stirling: The cut is to be made partly in the amount allowed for junior farmer work and partly in the general vote?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, that is correct in part. The way the grant is arranged at present is this: prior to last year the grant to class B fairs was SI,500; last year it was raised to $1,800. Then for regional fairs there was a grant of $500; for boys' and girls' club work, $500, and to assist in paying judges, $200, making a maximum of $3,000.
The intention this year is to continue to pay the $500 to boys' and girls' clubs, or such part as the fair may be able to earn, and the grant of $200 towards the judges and the regular grant of $1,500 to all class B fairs. If they undertake the regional work it will be possible for them to get another $300; in that way there is a $300 grant to the fairs for regional purposes. So the total grant they can earn of $1,800 is the same as last year, but in order to earn that they must have the regional feature.


Grote Stirling: I understood the minister to say before that for the boys' and girls' work they had not always been able to earn the $500, and therefore a cut of $250 was to be made there. Now I understand that a portion of the cut is to be made in the general grant and a portion of it in the regional


James Garfield Gardiner: I was under a wrong impression in regard to the $500. It is possible to earn the $500 still for the boys' and girls' club work. I should have said that our experience is that very few of them earn it or are warranted in trying to secure it and that on the average they will probably earn only about $250. It is possible for them to earn a maximum of $500 but many of them will not be able to fulfil the conditions necessary to entitle them to that amount.


Grote Stirling: I hope the investigation that the minister is going to carry on will cause him to look kindly on this regional grant question. My experience is different from that of the hon. member (Mr. Leader) who spoke just now. I think the assistance towards regional competitions has been of great benefit. It certainly has been in the Okanagan valley in British Columbia. Years

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
ago we used to have small fairs dotted about the valley, but in recent years they have been concentrated in one fair, the North Okanagan Exhibition, held at Armstrong. This change has given great satisfaction. The regional feature of the fair has induced the farming population to come and see what can be done on such land. I want to know whether this treatment is being meted out to all class B fairs. For instance, is the cut equal everywhere, and are there any class B fairs which received grants last year but which will be cut out of the list this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all treated alike, and at the present time so far as we know none will be cut out.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I have had many years of experience with agricultural fairs. No doubt it is the intention of the department to encourage farmers to produce good stock and good grain, and to bring exhibits to the fair. Of late years however a great evil has grown up in connection with country fairs, namely, the professional exhibitor. Some men will get a few head of cattle in good shape, put them in a truck and take them round the country from one fair to another, thereby taking the prizes from the farmers of those localities. These professional exhibitors come from no one knows where. Others are -bringing in poultry from all parts of the country. These professional exhibitors go from one fair to the other, and in many instances they take away a great percentage of the prize money which should have been distributed among the farmers of the localities in which the fairs are held.


James Garfield Gardiner: The regional fair idea was devised with the idea of trying to prevent the professional exhibitor from coming into a region and taking the prize money. That was probably the reason for the plan in the first instance. I understand that in the development of regional fairs in Quebec that difficulty has been fairly well eliminated, and any encouragement given to regional fairs is with the objective of bringing ,about the result the hon. member has in mind.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I should like to commend the minister's idea of promoting a survey of fairs, because I believe through such a survey in certain instances the department might question the advisability of large grants. 1 believe, further, it would illustrate the point that even in smaller centres there may be fairs which would qualify for substantial grants. By the united effort of a large numbeT of citizens in the constituency I have the
honour to represent we have developed a successful fair. Although we are a centre of only about 8,000 population I think our fair would rate about fourth or fifth in attendance among fails throughout the province, and I do not mean only class B fairs; I am including fairs in general, either class A or class B. We are keenlj'- interested in securing a grant so that the fair may be kept up to its present standard. I extend an invitation to all hon. members to attend ithe Lindsay central exhibition next year.


Mr. DUFFUS:: Will the grants being considered this afternoon be subject to any revision when the supplementary estimates are brought down? If not it would certainly be a matter of great discouragement to and serious hardship on fair boards which have already budgeted on the basis of the grant given them last year.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no intention of increasing the amount in the supplementary estimates. This is intended to be the total amounit to be voted for this particular purpose. The grants I have indicated are those which -would be payable under this vote, and there will be no change after it is passed. I understand some difficulty may be experienced by exhibitions and fairs which have already budgeted, but judging from the correspondence I have had I believe many of them have been waiting for the announcement made on the passing of this estimate.


James Alexander Marshall: I wish to go a step further in discussing the point I raised a few moments ago. In the year 1935-36 the amount indicated in the estimate for this item was $1,695,062, whereas according to Appropriation Act No. 5, in the dominion statutes for 1935, the appropriation is SI ,628,302, or a difference of about $67,000. The reason I raise the point is this:	The total grant for
agriculture in 1935-36 is shown in the estimates as $7,445,582.14, leading one to believe that the estimates for 1936-37 are about $328,000 less, whereas according to the statute we find that the grant was $7,025,105.94, indicating an actual increase this vear. instead of a decrease. Would the- minister kindly explain the difference of approximately $67,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The explanation lies in the statutory increase. As I understand the situation, one year ago when the estimates were prepared the intention was to deduct ten per cent from all salaries, a deduction which had been made because of the difficult times through which we were passing. During the year it was decided to deduct only five

Supply-Agriculture-Live Stock
per cent, leaving an additional five per cent of all salaries to be paid. I believe that accounts for the additional amount.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: Most of the fairs in Quebec are known as county fairs; I should like to know what has been given to them. I imagine they would be class B fairs. I do not expect the minister to give definite figures, but I should like to have an approximate or average figure.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are county fairs classed as class B fairs. All county fairs classed as class B fairs get the same grant as is received by class B fairs anywhere else. That is, last year it was possible for them to get $3,000; this year it will be possible to get $2,500. But there are in Quebec county fairs which are not class B fairs, and which are looked after by the province. Any grants given those fairs are given by the provincial government.


Mr. McCUAIG:: I was particularly interested in the minister's statement that a survey was going to be made during the coming year with regard to grants to fairs because I feel that during the past few years the smaller towns have not been fairly treated. Referring to the fairs in my own county, during the last three or four years we have built buildings costing over $50,000, and yet when an application was made to enter the class B fairs we were told that we were a few hundred dollars short to qualify as class B. Had more money been paid out in prizes, the larger grant received would have more than made up the difference, I feel that it would be better if some sliding scale were adopted whereby the grant would vary in accordance with the class of fair, instead of a lump sum being paid, providing of course the fair comes up to a certain standard, and I would appreciate it if the minister would consider a sliding scale when this survey is being made.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: What classes of live stock will be eligible for grants under this vote which reads: "Live stock, including assistance to fairs and exhibitions"? I should like to know the amounts and how these grants are distributed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The term "live stock" there applies to the branch of the department. This has to do with moneys expended in connection with grading and other work in connection with live stock throughout Canada.


Mark Cecil Senn: There is a large reduction in this item, and perhaps the minister would kindly follow the course he took the first

day his estimates were up and give us an itemized statement of the whole expenditure contemplated under this vote.


James Garfield Gardiner: For advertising and
publicity there is no expenditure this year, as against $5,000 last year, a decrease of $5,000. The explanation is the same that I gave on the previous vote. That comes now under the general publicity branch. Communication services, $27,000- a decrease of $3,500; equipment, $74,700-a decrease of $6,000; grants, $544,834-a decrease of $118,391; buildings, $5,000-an increase of $5,000; that is for building an experimental pig testing station; miscellaneous, current expenses, $6,200-a decrease of $6,200; personal services, $518,301-an increase of $11,723, largely made up of statutory increases; professional services, $3,200-an increase of $200; rents, $7,500, the same as last year; supplies and materials, $54,145-a decrease of $15,000; transportation of things, $35,175-a decrease of $5,400; transportation of persons, $214,645-a decrease of $61,794.


Mr. POULIOT:: What was the amount paid out in grants to county fairs since 1930? I understand that before 1930 the grant to county fairs was larger than it is now. What was the grant in the fiscal year 1930, and what is it now? Is it the intention of the minister to restore these grants to the former amounts?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as class B fairs are concerned, which I undertsand are the fairs to which my hon. friend refers, the country or county fairs, the general or regular grant was always the same, $1,500, down to last year, when it was increased to $1,800. With additional amounts which brought the total grant which might be earned to $3,000. This year we intend to reduce the total to S2,500, which will be $1,000 more than the general grant was prior to last year. That is for class B.


James Houston Spence: In the list of items which the minister read I noticed a substantial increase for personal services. Is that for more employees or something of that nature?


James Garfield Gardiner: The amount for personal services is $518,301, as against $506,578. The increase is made up largely of the regular statutory increases, although there may be one or two individual salary increases.


Mark Cecil Senn: The largest reduction was in the item of grants but the total reduction is not by any means accounted for by the reduction in grants to fairs. Will the minister give the committee the other items in which there are reductions?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a net decrease of $118,391. The decrease for field services is

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
$36,000; exhibitions, a decrease of S98500; general grants, a decrease of $20,569. That makes a total of $155,069. Then there is an increase of $36,678 for market services, which makes the net decrease $118,391.


Mark Cecil Senn: What is meant by general grants? Are they for small associations?


James Garfield Gardiner: There are other small
organizations of one kind and another to which small grants have been given; in other cases it has been considered that the grants have served their purpose and they have been discontinued.


Mark Cecil Senn: May I ask which ones?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be very difficult to go over them all. They range from $25, $50, S75, $100, up to $200. I can get a list and bring them down if necessary.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: The minister referred
a short time ago to the country fairs but, as I understood him, his reference was to fairs serving small districts.	Sometimes a
county fair is much larger than the usual country fair and I should like to know what conditions have to be complied with before a fair is entitled to a regular allowance.


James Garfield Gardiner: The	question of
whether a fair becomes a class B fair depends largely upon the amount of money expended for prizes and other purposes. There are some fairs that do not spend the same amount of money in prizes; these fairs receive no grant from the dominion, but they do receive grants from the provincial governments.


Robert Fair: I believe economy should be practised wherever possible, when it is not detrimental to the interests of those concerned. Henry Ford once said that we have lots of time to do everything except to make mistakes. I believe these grants should be kept up to the level of last year, particularly in the west. That part of the country has had six years of pretty tough times; in fact I do not think people in other parts of the country realize just what the people of the west have been through. Along with the rust spoken of by the minister, many of these districts have suffered from hail and other damage. The district which I have the honour to represent suffered from a severe frost which cut the value of crops at least fifty per cent, and reduced the yield by a like amount. In the interest of agriculture and live stock raising, these grants should be kept where they are. I have the honour of representing that great district of Lloydminster where several well known prize
winners reside. I also have the honour of representing the district of Dina, in which reside Orlen Bratvold and Burney Nicholson, two young men who came to Toronto and took first prize in the swine judging competition. This achievement of no small character is largely due to the work of the fairs in that particular constituency. I suggest again that these grants be kept up to the 1935 level.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the predecessor of the minister I think it is only right to say that there is nothing new in this survey with respect to these grants being made to fairs. The regional fair policy was established because it seemed to be the one that appealed most to the various provinces. Whether or not it has worked out as satisfactorily as was expected, I am not expressing any view. At the time it was inaugurated it carried the judgment of those who were most interested in the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr Reid for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate last night on Bill No. 2, I did so because I thought many hon. members from western Canada would want to speak on the bill when they realized the importance of it to the people of that section of the country. This bill does not ask for a change in railway rates; it asks only to have a full application of the Crowsnest rates westward as well as eastward. When in 1897 the Crowsnest rate was first brought into effect commodities shipped eastward from western Canada were given a stated rate under the Crowsnest pass agreement. At that time the rate for grain and flour was set at three cents below the regular rate of that time, and the agreement was that the rate would remain in effect for all time.
Later, during the war, that rate was suspended. In 1925 it was again put into effect by a government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Some

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
people have argued that if we were to pass the bill we would affect the whole freight rate structure of Canada. That is not so. When by order in council in 1925 the government instructed the board of railway commissioners to look into this matter they asked that freight rates be equalized in the different parts of Canada. I have in my hand order in council P.C. 886 which at that time dealt with the Crowsnest pass agreement. I am going to read only that part of it which affects the bill. Speaking of the Crowsnest pass agreement, by order in council the government of that day said:
The committee observe that the agreement in question was made at a time when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was the only company having a through line of railway extending through the prairie provinces and British Columbia, and before the creation of the board for the control of railway rates under the provisions of the Railway Act of 1903, and subsequent acts. And further, that the underlying purpose of the rate control inaugurated by the Railway Act of 1903 was to do away as far as possible with all unjust discriminations and undue preferences, and to secure a fair and reasonable rate structure, which, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions would be equal in its application to all persons and localities.
The committee are of the opinion that the policy of equalization of freight rates should be recognized to the fullest possible extent as being the only means of dealing equitably with all parts of Canada, and as being the method best calculated to facilitate the interchange of commodities between the various portions of the dominion, as well as the encouragement of industry and agriculture, and the development of export trade.
Then, in another paragraph I find the following:
The committee are further of the opinion that as the production and export of grain and flour forms one of the chief assets of the dominion, and in order to encourage the further development of the great grain growing provinces in the west, on which development the future of Canada in large measure depends, it is desirable that the maximum cost of the transportation of these products should be determined and known, and therefore are of opinion that the maximum established for rates on grain and flour, as at present in force under the Crowsnest pass agreement, should not be exceeded.
The Crowsnest pass agreement in effect to-day between western points and Fort William and Port Arthur is a rate that carries grain, whether for export or for domestic purposes, to Fort William and Port Arthur. For many years I have been shipping grain from western Canada, and I can bill any kind of grain to my order at Fort William or Port Arthur, and there take delivery of the grain myself, or deliver it to anyone to whom I see fit. At the time this order in council
	.
was passed the government intended that the maximum rate should apply west, as well as east, and therefore if their intention had been carried out by the board of railway commissioners of that day rates on all grain and flour to British Columbia ports would have been the Crowsnest pass rates, whether for export or for domestic purposes. However, the board of railway commissioners of that day did not carry out the intention of the government. Let me read from a speech delivered by the then and now leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King), on this point:
I would say to the house and the country that if this government remains in office it will not take the view of the order in council which my right hon. friend takes-
Upon that occasion he was replying to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen.
-but -will regard that order in council as a direction to the railway commission as to how it expects this policy to be worked out, and will see that the policy is worked out in accordance with the terms of the order in council. The order in council sets out the government policy. It is a direction to the railway commission to equalize rates. That direction indicates how this government expects this policy of equalization to be worked out. And I would remind hon. members that there remains, as the commission itself well knows, an appeal from the commission to the governor in council with respect to matters of railway rates. This government has stated what its policy is with respect to the equalization of rates, and unless that policy is carried out in accordance -with its intention'-if this government is in office *when the question comes up -and I have not the least doubt it will be- it will take care to see that the policy is carried out in the spirit and intent of the letter as expressed in the order in council itself.
The intention expressed in the order in council was that the Crowsnest pass rates should be extended to British Columbia ports -the same Crowsnest rates that were given to Fort William and Port Arthur. Therefore I claim that for the past ten years a right belonging to the people of the western provinces has been denied them by a ruling of the board of railway commissioners. This is a very important matter at this time, now that the trade treaty with the United States is in operation. Under that treaty it will be found that feed grains are allowed into the United States under a duty of ten per cent ad valorem. This means that feed grain shipped to Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster or Prince Rupert can go into the United States, to Oregon, Washington and California, where there is a very large market for it. If this amendment is adopted it will mean that anyone will be able to take delivery of grain at terminal elevators in the western

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
ports. It does not mean that this rate will be applied to shipments to local points, but it does mean that at the terminal elevators on the coast anyone may take delivery of grain shipped under the Crowsnest pass rate.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, in this amendment we are not asking for any change at all in the rate structure. No one can raise a quid pro quo in this regard, because this is a right we had under the Crowsnest pass agreement, and it is a right for which every western man in the house should stand up and fight, because it means an expanding market for the grain we produce on the prairies. I hope that when other western men in this chamber have spoken to the bill the government will seriously consider amending the act in this regard. It may be necessary, first of all, to send the bill to the railway committee, where all the facts may be gone into. Our position is that we have only a portion of the Crowsnest rate westward, only that portion for export, but that eastward we have the full Crowsnest rate that is spoken of in this order in council. By this bill my hon. friend is endeavouring to give back to us in western Canada a right which we have been denied for the past ten years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask the
hon. gentleman a question. I did not wish to interrupt him during the course of his remarks. Do I gather from what he has said that he considers that rates on feed grain are any different now from what they were?


John Gordon Ross: The tariff rates,
not the railway rates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about the
customs tariff.


John Gordon Ross: I believe the
rate on feed grain is now ten per cent ad valorem.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been ten per cent ad valorem for years. If the hon. gentleman will look at page six of the document tabled to-day he will see that.


John Gordon Ross: I was not aware
of that fact, but it does not alter the argument at all.
There is something else I did not say that has been brought to my attention by the remark of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett). There was a change in freight rates on grain to western ports, but that change has never been made effective by the board of railway commissioners. It was simply a voluntary change made by the railway companies, and they can alter that rate whenever they see fit to do so. So far no legislation 12739-27	*
has been passed and no order of the board has been issued putting that rate into effect. Therefore the rate is still 414 cents per hundred pounds as against the export rate of 204 cents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. gentleman will not charge me with desiring to interrupt, but that is hardly correct. Any railway company may reduce its rates, and those rates become effective on reduction. The company cannot increase its rates, however, without the consent of the board.


Mr. O. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) say that this bill would not disturb the present rate structure in any shape or form. I can substantiate what the hon. gentleman has said with regard to the alteration in rates which has not been submitted to the board of railway commissioners for approval. The rate is thirty-seven cents as against the regular rate of 484 cents from Lloydminster, say, which is approximately the dividing line in connection with rates. As has been stated by the sponsor of this bill, the export rate from Edmonton or Calgary, is 204 cents, while the domestic rate is 414 cents. So it will be seen that there is a very considerable discrimination against British Columbia. It is stated, of course, that this 204 cent rate, from the point of view of the railways, is for the purpose of subsidizing export trade.
There is also another feature of the transportation of grain for export; that is, that there always must be sufficient traffic from all points on the line so that if they have cars of fruit or the odd car of live stock, enough traffic will be available to provide full tonnage for their trains so they will not have to order out crews from any terminals to transport trains loaded with only half tonnage. If it should become necessary to alter the rate structure generally the railways might be compelled to curtail some services in order to make up the loss. The curtailment of these services, together with the possible abandonment of branch lines, would impose quite a handicap upon various parts of the community. It has been said that the rail service would be replaced by truck service, but experience has shown that where branch lines have been abandoned rates on commodities have more than doubled. The Grain and Feed Review of Minneapolis cites this instance:
... the grain rate by rail to Sioux City and the east was three cents per hundred from the farthest point on the line.



Railway Act-Rates on Grain
This line which had been abandoned was fifty miles long.
Now the rate is ten cents a bushel to Sioux City. Coal was laid down in the farthest town for twenty cents a ton, while at present truckers are offering to deliver coal to close-in points at $2 a ton.
There are other services maintained by the railways, such as their colonization departments, free of cost to the general public. At times they send their engineers to different business ventures of the country and give their services free. Special rates of course are given to meet competition, and I believe that with the increase in traffic which we are experiencing at the present time and which will possibly continue to increase, competition will compel the railways to reduce rates to a proper basis. The subsidy on wheat to British Columbia in order that export traffic in grain may be maintained is really paying a dividend to consumers in foreign countries so that they may consume our grain. If the people of this country had their revenue increased so that their consuming power would be greater our difficulties with the rate system would not be so acute. So I have no hesitation whatever in favouring this bill from the social credit point of view.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am in favour of this proposal of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). He discussed the problem chiefly from the point of view of British Columbia; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) presented very ably the case for the prairie farmers. We regard this as a measure of justice not only to the people of British Columbia, but to the people who are producing grain on the prairies. This year it has become particularly apparent that the need for legislation of this kind is urgent. There were potential consumers of low grade grain in British Columbia, and on the prairies, for owing to rust and other climatic conditions, there were hundreds of thousands of tons of low grade grain. It seemed to us that it was an unsound principle that rates to the western coast for export should be considerably lower than to the Canadian consumer in British Columbia. Moreover I point out that a subsidy to the foreign consumer of our grain is in reality a subsidy to our competitors. By getting our low grade cereals carried to them cheaply, foreign producers of live stock, poultry and eggs, etcetera, may be enabled to produce at a lower cost than can people who live in certain parts of Canada. We have the same difficulty in relation to the farmers of Ontario, who are unable to get the freight rates which 
the distances would warrant in this province, as these rates are also on an export basis.
It seems to me that this whole problem is one on which the parliament of Canada should give a decision. I know it is sometimes said that this house should not interfere with the freight rate structure. May I point out that the Dominion of Canada is to a very large extent the result of transportation agreements made in days gone by. I bear in mind that British Columbia, as a condition of entering confederation, stipulated that transportation facilities should be provided to link that province with the rest of Canada. In the west we feel that we have paid, perhaps dearly, for the railways. Millions of acres of our western land were alienated in order to bonus various railway companies. Now the producers on the plains are asking for a measure of consideration from the body which alienated their natural resources years ago, and I am glad that the hon. member for New Westminster has brought in this proposal from the point of view rather of the British Columbia consumer than that of the western producer. This bill is in line with the agreement that was made with British Columbia as a condition of confederation, and we should adopt it not only from the point of view of British Columbia, not only from that of the prairie provinces but for the welfare and unity of the whole of this Dominion of Canada.


Malcolm McLean: I
would have no desire to speak on this measure at this time except for one fact. Ten years ago in the house I recall some of my friends from British Columbia proposing a resolution asking that help be given to the poultry keepers of that province, and they made a strong argument for their case, pointing out among other things that poultry keepers there were handicapped by a climate somewhat harsher than that enjoyed by some of their competitors in Georgia, Florida and other southern states. To me their argument was not convincing, because I well knew that nature had provided poultry with protection against cold weather, but as far as I knew nature had not provided any ventilating apparatus for poultry kept in hot climates. Therefore I was regretfully obliged to tell them that I could not support their appeal for higher protection on eggs and poultry products. Naturally I had to look further into the question and see whether there was something else that might be a handicap to feeders of poultry and other live stock in the great western maritime province. I formed the opinion at that time, and

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
expressed it, that if they were able to buy their supplies wholesale and get them laid down at a lower freight rate than they were then paying this would help them a good deal more than if they ware to secure some artificial protection. As I say, hon. members who at that time were representing British Columbia made a very eloquent appeal for that industry, and some went so far as to say that the poultry industry was dying and that unless it got this additional protection it could not last much longer. But figures given by other hon. gentlemen in the same debate showed that British Columbia was turning out a tremendous production of eggs right along, an increase of something like one hundred per cent in a few years; my memory is not certain as to the precise figure, but poultry production had been increasing very greatly.
I advocated then, as I say, that freight rates should be reduced. I went further and assured my friends from British Columbia that if they should introduce either a resolution, or better perhaps a bill, providing for lowering freight rates on grain and feed stuffs going into that province from the prairies I should be glad to lend them what support I could, sitting at that time on the government side of the house, as I am now, and they sitting on the opposition side. I recall very distinctly that on the occasion of that debate I was reproached by the then right hon. leader of the opposition, who made the statement that one of the leading ministers on this side had said that no reduction of freight rates could be given. It is true that the minister had said there was not likely to be any general reduction in freight rates. But this was not a general reduction we were pleading for; it was a specific reduction to do away with what many looked upon as an economic injustice to a large group of people in Canada. It may be that I do not attach quite so much importance to it from the standpoint of the prairie farmer as some of those do who have spoken before me, because the total amount of grain that would go from Saskatchewan or Manitoba to the western coast to be used in domestic consumption would not be very large; the percentage of the whole crop that was shipped in that way would not be great. We realize that the railroads of this country made a very reasonable bargain with the government of the day when they arranged for the Crowsnest pass agreement, but that was at a time when very little grain was being consumed locally by way of feed stuffs, very little being used for stock within the dominion. When the Crowsnest pass arrangement was negotiated nearly forty years ago, localities that are now asking for cheaper rates on grain were not producing live stock to anything like the extent they do now, and in most cases they were probably producing a large percentage of the food required within their own borders, so that domestic freight rates were not nearly so important as they have since become.
A few years after the discussion to which I referred in my opening remarks I enjoyed the pleasure of a trip in part of British Columbia, through the Fraser valley. By the kind invitation of the organized boards of trade of that great valley, conveyed to members for the three prairie provinces through the courtesy and kindness of the hon. member for what was then, I think, the constituency of Fraser Valley, I took part in a trip up and down through that district for about three days. I and those who went with me had an opportunity to visit poultry farms, dairy farms, general farms and farms where they made a specialty of growing rose bushes and many other special products of that great province. On many occasions in the course of that visit, speaking to farmers who were engaged in the dairy business, particularly, in the poultry business, I asked what their greatest handicaps were. I do not need to tell the house that none of them complained of the wonderful climate they enjoyed in British Columbia. That was one thing upon which they were unanimous: they were under no handicap as far as climate was concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the girls.


Malcolm McLean: Well, I had better say nothing about them. The farmers of British Columbia were under no handicaps as far as the growth of fodder was concerned. We could see the cattle wading in clover up to their knees. They had abundance of feed of that kind. The climate was mild, even in the winter time. But when it came to feed grain the farmers there had their difficulties because very often they were not able to buy in carloads or in large quantities, and so they were particularly susceptible to being compelled to pay too dearly for what they had to buy, regardless altogether of the freight rate. But it was so easy at times to lay a good deal of the blame on the excessive freight rate which they had to pay.
I would go further after asking that question, and inquire what other difficulties they had. Whether it was a coincidence I do not know, but I remember that no one quoted any other particular difficulty they had in feeding chickens and in feeding dairy cows than the

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
high cost of grain and the difficulty of getting it at a low enough rate. In the past five years, reading the proceedings of the house, I have been interested to see that that difficulty still remained, and at a time when grain was very cheap in the prairie provinces. Perhaps it would not hurt if I gave the average price of No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William during some of the last few years. I find that from January to July in the year 19'31-32-that is the crop that was harvested in 1931-No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William was worth an average of 60 cents in January; 63 cents in February; 63 cents in March; 62-6 cents in April; 62-9 cents in May; 55-1 cents in June, and 54-7 cents in July of 1932. There were three or four years about that period when prices averaged somewhere about the figures I have quoted. If ever there was a time when feeders of dairy cows or of poultry in British Columbia should have been able to get feed of good quality, and lots of it, cheap, those were the years, for remember the prices I have quoted were the prices of No. 1 northern wheat landed in Fort William. But I noticed from the discussions in the house that the poultry keepers and feeders of British Columbia still had the same complaint. It is true the government of that day, through the then Minister of Railways and the railways themselves, negotiated an agreement which provided some remedy for the people of British Columbia who had to buy their feed. I am quite sure that they appreciated this, but I am afraid it does not go far enough. Not only does it not go far enough in terms of money, but just so long as an injustice of this kind is being perpetuated, just so long will people feel they are not getting fair play or fair treatment, and that will do perhaps more harm than the partial remedy that has been given them will help financially.
I have another reason for speaking in favour of this bill, and it is that I believe in many parts of Canada to-day we are suffering from unfair railway rates. No particular institution is to blame for that state of affairs- neither the board of railway commissioners nor the railways themselves, nor governments present or past. Railway rates are in a somewhat chaotic condition. I do not think they were ever made at all; like Topsy, they "just growed;" they grew into a state of confusion. No railway man is going to try to disentangle them; no minister of railways is going to try to rearrange them so long as this can possibly be avoided. But not until changes are made which will be more equitable to parts of the dominion which are now penalized, until imaginary miles are taken out in one place and real miles inserted in another, until freight

rates are given somewhat on the basis of ton miles, will injustices be done away with in certain sections of the country.
I know that my advocacy to-night of even the measure introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is not going to go very far towards the end we have in mind, but every bit along that line helps. I am satisfied that if the railroad companies and the railway commissioners see that the Canadian people are determined to rectify what apparently is an injustice in so far as it compels them to pay more money for the service given than is asked from the people of foreign countries for the same service, these organizations will help to bring about what we ask.
Some will say that this will- cause a great loss to the railway companies and that they are in trouble enough at the present time. I know they have been having their share of trouble. Various matters contribute to their difficulties, to the lack of revenues which they have been securing from their operations, but I am quite sure that the greatest handicap they have suffered under in the last few years is lack of tonnage because freight was not moving. In 1929, if my memory serves me aright, 137,000,000 tons of pay freight were moved by the railroads in the dominion. Two years ago only 67,000,000 tons of pay freight were moved. It is easy for anyone to see why the railroad companies are in difficulties, why railroad men are idle, why after having worked overtime and long hours day and night to keep up with the demands of the traffic, so many of them are laid off, and why to-day many railroad employees can hardly be said to hold a steady job even after twenty or twenty-five years seniority in some of the running trades. I am in favour of the principle of this bill; I am in favour of its details. I am not quite sure that it provides for all grain products in the matter of feed. I am afraid it is lacking in that respect, but as the bill stands, applying to grain and flour as it does, I want to support it.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I did not equip myself with the necessary details to speak authoritatively on this bill to-night, but so far as the principle of it is concerned some glaring inequalities have come to my attention, and for that reason alone I should like to draw two or three facts to the attention of hon. members.
An hon. member speaking a few moments ago spoke of the equalization of freight rates. Apparently, even though we recog-

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
nize that the agricultural products of western Canada constitute the bulk of the wealth produced in the west, we find that because of their geographical position our western people are discriminated against. There is a great deal more to be said about the equalization of freight rates, and the day will come when it will be recognized that as a matter of justice we shall have to equalize our freight rates.
One point that particularly struck me was that so far as eastern Canada is concerned there is a single freight rate, and we call that the rate to eastern Canada, but when we ship grain westward we find that there are two Tates, an export and a domestic rate. The other evening when an hon. member was speaking another hon. gentleman interrupted to suggest that the railway companies were carrying grain at what they call the export rate to pay their out-of-pocket expenses. Of course, it is all very well not to lose money in doing business but the difference between what is called the export rate and the domestic rate is so great that surely we in western Canada should not be expected to bear entirely the burden of this discrimination. Not very long ago, simply because of drought conditions in the western states of the United States there appeared in the Canadian tariff books a feed grain rate to that republic to enable feed grain to be shipped to those drought areas. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I am not equipped with the necessary details to give comparisons of freight rates this evening, but I do know that feed grain rate was very favourable and it was established simply to help those people who had suffered from drought conditions.
It is admitted in the house that when we in western Canada ship our grain it is mostly for export; that not a very large quantity is consumed locally. That being the case we must take it for granted that the bulk of the grain of western Canada is being exported, and we find that British Columbia is really being discriminated against because of this difference between domestic and export rates. I can see no reason why those two rates should exist.
I find by the explanatory note that subsection 5 of section 325, to be amended, reads in part as follows:
-and to change and alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation may from time to time require, shall not be limited or in any manner affected by the provisions of any act of the parliament of Canada.
Note those words: "Change and alter rates as changing conditions or cost of transportation may from time to time require." A great deal
of domestic grain is to-day consumed in British Columbia because of the growth of the poultry industry in that province, and I submit for the consideration of hon. members that apart entirely from the benefit which has been derived by western farmers we should consider the needs of this ever-growing industry in British Columbia.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fairness I can see no reason why the people of the west should be discriminated against by having two rates apply to them when only one rate applies to eastern Canada, and as a Canadian I would simply say that on grounds of fairness and equality I am entirely in support of this bill.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, I rise to-night to say just a few words on this bill. In the first place I should like to congratulate its sponsor (Mr. Reid) upon the excellence of the arguments which he advanced. His arguments were clear; they were logical; they were forceful, and they were thorough.
One point which impressed me more than anything else was the fact that his argument had a ring of sincerity, and behind it all there seemed to be the feeling which he was expressing on behalf of the people of British Columbia, that they were suffering a real injustice.
It has been said that the House of Commons, constituted as it is, is not the proper place to discuss the whole complex matter of the freight rate structure, and I believe we are all agreed on that. But may I suggest that it was not the board of railway commissioners that settled the Crowsnest pass agreement. That particular part of the freight rate structure was settled by the house, and it seems to me that if what the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) said to-night is correct-and I have no doubt of its correctness-it was ordered that any discrimination between east and west should be removed. The hon. gentleman went on further to say that grain could be moved to Fort William and Port Arthur and further east and sold there for domestic consumption, and that the rate on such grain for domestic consumption would be the same as the export rate. As I understand the law and the rules and regulations and orders in council that have been passed, it was intended that the same thing should apply to grain and flour moving westward. Now if that be true, what is the situation? This simply means that the domestic rate on grain and flour moving to our western ports should be the same as the export rate.

Railway Act-Rates on Grain
The hon. member for New Westminster the other evening gave to the house the export and domestic rates, and there does seem to be a very great discrimination. If parliament did order a certain rate, and the board of railway commissioners does not see fit to put that rate into effect, I suggest that parliament or perhaps the government has a duty to perform. I remember very well, as a former member of the house, speaking on the question of discrimination in freight rates. When the Crowsnest pass agreement was introduced it applied not only to the original lines of railway existing at the time but to all other railways constructed thereafter. It so happened that in wesitern Canada on certain lines of railway there had been a discrimination of about two cents per hundred pounds on grain moving eastward, and the law of this country directed that the board should see that all these discriminations were removed. These discriminations were not removed immediately. From western Canada we sent east some of our ablest lawyers who argued this case time and time again. Some of us came to parliament and we found that this discrimination still existed. I remember that I advanced in the house the best argument of which I was capable against these discriminations. I even went so far as to say that if the board of railway commissioners did not see fit to carry out the laws over which they had jurisdiction, then we should see that the board was removed. The hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien), who spoke in the house the other night, was a member of the board at that time. If he were in his place this evening I would have pleasure in stating that he was one of those who believed that the discrimination should be removed. The fight was carried on to such an extent that the board of railway commissioners removed the discrimination.
If I am correct, and if the hon. member for Moose Jaw is correct in stating that there exists to-day a discrimination which is not intended under the law, I submit it is the duty of the board of railway commissioners to see that the discrimination is removed. One of the curses of this country has been the restrictions placed upon trade. Restriction of trade may be caused by too high a tariff; it may be caused by a manipulation of the tariff; it may be caused by manipulation of exchange or in various other ways. There is still one further way in which it may be caused, and that is by an unfair railway rate structure. I believe that to be true in the case of gasoline; I believe it to be true of the commodities which are the subject matter of this bill. If it is true, then we as a parliament

have a duty to perform. If there are injustices, we should see that they are removed. What is this House of Commons for; what is this parliament for, except to make laws in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole? The people of British Columbia feel that they are suffering under a heavy handicap because they cannot get their poultry and stock feed at a price which seems to be fair. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid) said the other night, our wheat can be shipped to Vancouver, then to Japan and reshipped back again to Vancouver for twenty-five cents per ton less than it costs to ship it to Vancouver under the domestic rate. I believe I have remembered the figures correctly. If they are right, surely something is wrong with our freight tariff. I rise to support this bill because I believe an injustice exists. My further observation is that we as a parliament should see that any injustice which does exist is removed.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, this bill refers to a matter now on appeal to the governor in council. A case covering rates on the commodities mentioned in the bill was presented to the board of railway commissioners in January, 1935. A decision was rendered and I think the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), on behalf of certain British Columbia interests took the appeal himself to the governor in council. That being so, I think it would be manifestly unfair for me to express any opinion as to the merits or demerits of the subject matter of the bill. I can assure my hon. friend that this appeal will be heard at the earliest possible date, probably shortly after the completion of this session. At that time the evidence heard by the commission will be studied, the representations of my hon. friend will be weighed against representations which may be made by other interested parties, and I am sure that a fair decision will be reached. As I say, it would under these circumstances, be quite improper for me to express an opinion of the bill, but I do not think it would be out of order for me to say something about rate making.
It has been stated two or three times during the debate that parliament is not the proper place to discuss railway rates as these matters are very technical. I know I am not qualified to discuss them and I doubt whether any hon. member is qualified to discuss the pros and cons of this intricate problem. This debate seems to indicate that the impression of everyone is that rates should be lower. That is quite natural and I would be much surprised if anyone other than the Minister

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
of Railways stood up in the house and suggested that it might be a good thing to have higher rates. However speeches of this kind give the people an idea that the railroads are being very unfair.
I might mention one or two matters which perhaps will show the other side of the question. A good deal was said about domestic and export rates on grain to Fort William being the same. Why Fort William? I would point out that Fort William is located
1,000	miles from the seaboard; it is 600 feet above sea level and is by no means an export port. It being nine o'clock I move the adjournment of this debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair. '



RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
Hudson Bay railway and terminals-
Construction and betterments (including E. B. Jost at $2,375), $217,500.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister give us some information as to what this money was spent on and the particulars of the $87,000 decrease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is a capital vote for work at Churchill. It is intended to spend this year $84,500 on completing the capital work at the port and $133,000 on capital account on the railway. I may say that the port at Churchill has been under construction for a number of years and is now nearing completion. The reason why the vote for the terminal is much less than last year is the fact that we expect to complete this year all work on capital account.
In connection with the railway I may say that it is nearing completion. Of course the difficulty has been to find an equilibrium between the railway road bed and the icy conditions met in that northern country. Not nearly as much work remains to be done this year. There are several culverts to be filled and a certain amount of track lifting to be done in the swampy sections. There again, however, we are coming to a time when capital expenditures on the railway will be practically at an end, and when both the port and the railway will be in an operating state.


Grote Stirling: There is $84,000 to be
spent on the terminal; what capital work remains yet to be done?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I made a mistake
in giving my explanation; $84,500 is on the railway, and $133,000 on the terminal.


Grote Stirling: Of what does that
consist?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the terminal there are
dredging operations to complete the dredging of the basin, at a cost of $50,000 and an amount of $3,000 for the reconditioning of floating plants used in dredging operations. Then there is $7,000 for improvements to the roof of the freight shed. Probably I should say that the freight shed was built to Canadian National railway standards, but it was found that the high winds at Churchill rendered this type of construction unsuitable, and we plan to rebuild the roof to withstand weather conditions found at that point. Then, there is a building to house two Plymouth locomotives; this will cost $4,000; general supplies and equipment, $25,000; one-half of head office expense, $12,000; one-half of local office, $14,000; one-half of machine shop operating cost, $13,500; and settlement for land expropriated, $4,500, making a total of $133,000.


Grote Stirling: Will the dredging have
to be carried on perpetually? Does the river bring down much silt?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is not anticipated that any further dredging will be required after this year.


Grote Stirling: Could the minister give
us the number of ships that have used the port this year, together with information as to their cargoes? Last year they carried a good deal of merchandise other than grain; did they do that again this year? What wheat is there in the terminals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had eight boats last
year, and they exported a total of 2,407,000 bushels. One incoming boat had 2,582 tons of cargo made up of general cargo, window glass, barbed wire, steel balls, and bunker coal.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Were any cattle shipped through that port last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


James J. Donnelly: What is the insurance
rate on boats coming into Hudson bay as compared with the rate to Montreal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is roughly four times as much.


James J. Donnelly: Could the minister
give me the figures?
424	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Clarence Decatur Howe: A ship and cargo from
Churchill pays a total insurance of $7,875, and from Montreal the same cargo pays $1,812.50.


James J. Donnelly: What reduction in insurance has been made since the port has been opened?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1931 the insurance was
two per cent, and it is now cut to one per cent. In the same time from Montreal it has practically remained stationary at a quarter of one per cent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would further aids to navigation assist in lowering these rates?


James J. Donnelly: What are the prospects for freight shipping out of Hudson bay next year? I noticed in the paper a few days ago that greater shipments out of Hudson bay were expected during the coming season.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have 2,300,000 bushels
in the elevator now, but it is a little early to determine shipments. We anticipate a better year. Of course this depends to some extent upon rates on the great lakes. The rate from Churchill really compares with that from Fort William to Europe.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister give
me the freight rates on grain going from Hudson bay to Liverpool as compared with rates from Fort William to Liverpool?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member mean for last season?


James J. Donnelly: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was two shillings and
four pence halfpenny last season. The first season it was three shillings and nine pence. Last season however it was down to the amount I have mentioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About seven cents a
bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is roughly correct.
In the same period it was one shilling and six pence halfpenny from Montreal. To that must be added the rate to Fort William which last year would average about four and a half cents a bushel.


James J. Donnelly: Is the Department of
Railways and Canals considering any arrangement whereby they would be able to cut insurance rates on vessels coming into Hudson bay?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is governed by experience, more than anything else. As boats use the bay more and more, and as experience remains favourable there is no doubt rates will come down automatically. Unfortunately

in the second year of operation the Bright Fan sank in the straits, an event which has had a marked effect in delaying a reduction of rates.


James J. Donnelly: What company insures? Is it Lloyd's?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe it is Lloyd's,
chiefly.


James J. Donnelly: Is British shipping insured with Lloyd's?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think Lloyd's is the chief
agency; there may be others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Private companies, including Lloyd's, the Alliance insurance company and many others, insure them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I might say that the rates are set by the Joint Hull Conference. That is an independent body, just as we have rate making bodies on this side, which checks and sets the rates which the insurance companies apply.


James J. Donnelly: Do we still have aeroplanes on the Hudson bay route to look for ice and broadcast conditions?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; we have not the aeroplanes but in the straits we have an icebreaker which keeps track of the ice. We also have a complete system of direction finding stations so that after a ship gets into the straits it is quite independent of compass readings. It can secure its position from shore stations at any point.


James J. Donnelly: Can the minister tell us the length of the season last year and whether any trouble was experienced with regard to ice, icebergs or anything of that kind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that the low insurance rate, under which ships prefer to operate, commences August 10 and extends to about October 10. Last year all ships operated within that season. That is a matter fixed by the insurance companies; if it were not for that the season could be somewhat longer.


Ernest Edward Perley: Could the minister tell us whether the government is giving any consideration with regard to the storage rate on grain stored during the winter in the terminal there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I think under the circumstances the rates are fair. Of course this is a little different from a regular elevator on a regular grain route. The charge there is 1} cents for elevation, and then we follow the same principle as is followed in Montreal,

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
in having a higher rate during the season of open navigation than during the closed season.
I believe the rate is one-twenty-fifth cent per day during the open season and one-ninetieth cent per day in the closed season, with a maximum of one cent for the period.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The minister spoke of the great variation in insurance rates as between the two rates. I have seen in the press statements-whether they are authoritative I do not know-by captains who say that the Hudson bay route is just as safe as the St. Lawrence one. Has the minister any evidence which would go to substantiate those statements that have appeared from time to time in the press?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have spent a good deal of time at Churchill, perhaps more than any of my officials and more than any other hon. member, and on several occasions I have talked with captains who have brought in ships. There is no doubt that ordinarily the trip is a very safe one. The Hudson straits are about seventy-five miles wide at the narrowest point, and they are very deep, so except for ice danger, which is more or less eliminated by keeping the icebreaker there, the trip is a very safe one. On the other hand it is an out of the way route; it is a new route, and it is perhaps from an insurance point of view subject to risks to which other routes are not. For instance, some question has been raised and I think there is still some question whether the Bright Fan met with an accident or whether there was some intent behind that loss. That sort of thing, of course, is more liable to happen there than on a route more frequently used. There were some strange features in connection with the Bright Fan, but I just mention that as a case in point from the insurance point of view. I have no doubt in the world, however, that after another season or two have gone by the rate will come down, provided nothing else happens in the meantime.


Grote Stirling: How does fog compare on the two routes for the ninety days during which navigation is open?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no particular fog condition at Churchill during the season. Of course we dp have fogs in the1 St. Lawrence to some extent.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: We have heard a good deal in this country about infant industries and their need for protection. Owing to the very high insurance rate on this route I should like to ask whether the government has considered the advisability of itself carrying the
insurance on ships using the Hudson bay route until that route is more firmly established.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I cannot say whether that has been considered; certainly it has not since I have assumed office, but I doubt whether it would be advisable. This route has been constructed and I believe over a period of years it will develop naturally. I might remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the first grain elevator in Vancouver was completed in 1916 but that it did not handle its first substantial grain movement until 1923.
I believe that as the transportation situation on the great lakes improves and as rates go up there will be a decided differential from certain points in northern Saskatchewan through Churchill that will send more and more grain there. I believe that if this route is allowed to develop naturally, with such reasonable help as may be given it, it will build itself into a port over a reasonable period of time.


James J. Donnelly: We have built this line of railway and western Canadians have great faith in this route; we still think it will be a success. During the last few days we have heard a good deal about subsidies to steamship lines running to China, to Hawaii, to New Zealand, across the Atlantic and in every direction, and I do not see why we should not give a little subsidy in order to develop our own route, by helping to lower insurance rates so that they will be more comparable with rates out of Montreal and other Canadian ports. If this is done I think it will encourage navigation to that port; we will put into more complete use the facilities we have provided there, and Churchill will probably come into its own much more quickly than otherwise would be the case. I think the government should seriously consider the advisability of helping with these rates, just as the government helps steamship lines crossing the Atlantic and Pacific.


Malcolm McLean: I should like to ask a question with regard to the other costs entering into the movement of grain by the Hudson bay route, particularly with regard to stevedoring. It may not be fair to expect the minister to have all the figures under his hand, but I should like to know how the cost of loading grain at Churchill compares with the cost at Montreal and other ports. I should like to know also how the service is organized, whether the government is responsible for the loading or if the ships coming in make their own arrangements.
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Clarence Decatur Howe: Ordinarily the loading is a responsibility of the boat in any port, and the boat makes its own arrangements. The grain that has been loaded at Churchill has been loaded by Louis Wolfe and Company, who are the principal stevedoring agents in Montreal for account of the steamship company. They naturally do not bring all their stevedores there from Montreal, but the superintendent is there and from the men at the port he is furnished with sufficient labour to do the work as and when required. We simply turn the men over to Louis Wolfe and Company and charge them the ordinary rate of pay of the men plus thirty-five per cent to cover transportation in and out and other charges that we have to pay against those men. The results have been fairly satisfactory. The cost of loading grain in Vancouver is 82 a thousand bushels; at Churchill it is $4 a thousand; it is also 84 a thousand in the port of New York, so that really stevedoring charges at Churchill are not sufficiently high to interfere very much with the traffic.


Malcolm McLean: That I understand is in addition to the part of the loading that the elevator does. That is simply the stevedoring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Malcolm McLean: It looks like a particularly high rate for levelling a thousand bushels of wheat in the hold of a ship. When that wheat comes down at great pressure from a height I would think it could be stevedored for a good deal less than that. I wonder whether the minister would not look into that further during the coming season and see if that cost cannot be brought down. When wheat comes down a spout fast enough it will spread itself almost to every corner of the hold, and very little levelling is required.
I am advised that very little labour is used in levelling those cargoes, and for a ship taking
250.000	bushels at S4 a thousand, this means a lot of money, almost as much perhaps as the insurance.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me that my hon. friend is thinking of trimming on the great lakes rather than at an ocean port. There is much more to the matter than merely levelling the grain off. An ocean boat has between decks, often two sets of between decks, and the grain has to be shovelled back under those decks absolutely tight against the deck. Then shifting boards are put in and elaborate arrangements have to be made, as the cargo is finished, for settling of the cargo. In addition to that the top section has to be bagged before the boats leave the dock at Churchill; a certain amount has to be bagged to prevent I Mr. M. McLean.]
shifting on the voyage. There is much more labour than my hon. friend would have us believe in trimming a wheat cargo in an ocean going ship, especially at Churchill.


Malcolm McLean: 
Clarence Decatur Howe: The total cost to date is about $52,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That includes the elevator.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Including the elevator, the railroad, the work at Port Nelson that was abandoned-


Grote Stirling: Including the railroad
from the Pas?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Including the railroad from
the Pas, every expense connected with the Hudson bay part of the work of every kind about $53,000,000.


James Houston Spence: The other question is:
What does it cost to maintain the railway during the time that navigation is closed, and how long is navigation open? We get different information from different sources, there is uncertainty. The minister should be able now to let us know just how long navigation is open, and what time of year it opens and closes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does the hon. member
mean: how long do ships use the port, or how long is it free of ice?


James Houston Spence: How long is navigation
open? I suppose it is free of ice then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This cannot be said to
be a political matter, because both parties have participated in the construction of this route and the terminals. But there are a few matters that perhaps the newer members of the house would like to be informed on.

The total cost is about $53,000,000. We have there, as I understand the situation, an elevator, wharves and docks, a station building that we put there, on which the roof is now to be placed, some facilities for taking care of the dredging, and a few buildings. That is, I understand, the entire expenditure on what you might call the equipment of the port.
Now I should like to know this:	In 1934
what was the movement out? I do not carry this information in my head, but members of the committee I am sure would like to know the number of ships that came in with cargo and the number that went out with cargo. In the season of 1935, the port was opened in June and closed in October, but it is effectively open for only sixty days because of insurance rates, I understand. The insurance is effective from about August 10 to October 10. That insurance rate has been reduced by the board that deals with it in Great Britain. During the years 1933, 1934 and part of 1935 constant pressure was being exerted upon the board by the high commissioner and his office for reduction of rates. But the loss of one ship, as pointed out by the minister, had the effect of preventing any further reduction being made. The board has declined to make further reduction, I understand, until in the light of further experience they are able to determine that this rate is not too risky from the underwriters' standpoint. I think there were two ships lost, were there not? That is my memory, and the loss of those ships involved the underwriters in the payment of such sums that they declined to reduce the rate further. That is, as it stands at the moment on balance, the number of ships that went in there and went out, with the price they paid to the underwriters for their insurance, has not recouped the underwriters for the losses paid on the two ships referred to. That I think was taken up with the board in England and they were able to produce figures demonstrating that at the present time they stand a substantial loss.
No cattle were shipped out of the port last year. I think there was a cargo that went out in 1934-


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -but none went out in
1935. I think the minister realizes that we are all deeply interested in knowing just what the position of matters at that port is. The first question may be as to the physical condition and the expenditures being made this year to maintain those facilities in their integrity. The next question is the extent to
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
which the port has been used and incidentally the question as to the use of the elevator and terminal facilities for storage purposes. My memory is that the Continental Grain Company use the elevator, which has a capacity of about two and a half million bushels. The Continental Grain Company used it as a storage depot during the winter of 1934 and shipped the cargoes out in 1935. The number of ships that went to Churchill can be determined roughly by dividing the quantity of grain stored by about two hundred and fifty thousand or two hundred and forty thousand. The information that, I think, the committee would like to have is: What use is presently being made of the elevator? I am told that it did not draw to itself any quantity of grain during the harvest season of last year. At the time we left office the crop was being harvested, and it would be later in the year that the elevator would be filled up-I do not know whether it is full or not-at least partly filled up with grain. Is that the property of the Continental Grain Company ? Is it their storage?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is all Saskatchewan
pool grain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the first time
the pool have endeavoured to use the elevator to any considerable extent. That is the reason I asked the question.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If you will excuse me, the
pool have always supplied the grain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was loaded by
somebody else. The Continental Grain Company had the cargoes there. The minister spoke a moment ago of the stevedores' charges. As I understand the matter, the ship only takes the cargo there, as in all other ports, at the ship's tank. The charter party calls for the cargo being delivered to the ship's tank, and in this case the ship is put up against the dock and the elevator begins to put the grain down the hatches. But because there is no permanent business at the port the grain stevedores come from the port of Montreal, stay at Churchill during the season and then go back to Montreal again I think that is correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That applies only to one
man, the stevedore foreman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should say, stevedore.
And the staff does not reside permanently at Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: During the winter the
elevator has to have a watchman, and the property is looked after by a number of

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
people who are constantly employed, and who are employees of either the government or the national railway?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Roughly there are twentyone men at the terminal. Of course the government operates the railway, so they are employees of the . government in any case. I think they are chiefly on the terminal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the operation
of the railway, entrusted to the Canadian National, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, for government account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course. But we do
not operate the railway. The Canadian National operates on our account.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it involved us in
a loss last year of a fairly substantial sum of money; I do not know what it was. The hon. gentleman has it beside him, probably.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The loss on the railway last year was $244,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that just the operating loss?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The operating loss.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not include any interest on investment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, purely operating.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far as the elevator is concerned, I forget what we put into that. The hon. gentleman will remember better than I what it was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Elevator and galleries and power plant, $2,200,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the income from the elevator last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty is that there is another income vote on this. We are on the capital vote. I think I have the information here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the question might as well be answered, so that we may get the whole matter at once.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There was revenue of about $102,000 and expenditure of $116,000, a loss of about $13,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is on the elevator?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the elevator, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many bushels of grain are in the elevator this winter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two million four hundred thousand or a trifle more.


Grote Stirling: Is the railway completely closed from some date in the fall to some date in the spring?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the railway is kept in operation all winter. One train each month goes through to Churchill, and there is a weekly service, I think, to mile 233. I may say that there is very little snow trouble there. The high winds blow the snow clear of the track.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think it is generally recognized that all through the ages new trade routes had great difficulty in' getting established, because they had to compete with older established routes. In addition to that the Hudson Bay railway has had no great pressure upon it because in the last four or five years the crops have been light and the peak load did not demand it at that particular time. Hence the wheat and cattle pool, were the only bodies that made any effort to use the route in spite of the extortionate insurance rates that have been charged since its inception.
I do not know what insurance rates were charged on the Panama canal at the outset, but I remember it was with great misgivings that the first few boats went through the Panama. Probably the minister has some information as to how long it took to start wheat rolling through that canal and how many cargoes went through in the first, second, third and fourth years. I remember quite well there was no very pronounced flow of wheat until after the Crowsnest rates were extended to the Pacific, and then the quantity of wheat carried via the Panama increased very rapidly.
If we should have a similar experience in reducing insurance rates on the northern route I have no doubt that the Hudson Bay railway would be very much more used than it is.
I wonder whether the minister could tell us if the freight rate is also charged on the excess mileage that it takes to get to Churchill over and above what it should have taken had we gone directly there. Does the minister know? The Hudson Bay railway was built through an engineering blunder with the idea of going to Nelson, an impossible port, and was diverted to Churchill, occasioning about forty or fifty miles more mileage than if it had gone directly to Churchill in the beginning.
If the freight rate is charged on that excess forty or fifty miles it is an unjust charge against that wheat. Why should farmers pay the freight on a joy .ride of forty miles rendered necessary by somebody's blunder in going to Nelson first? The minister may have information to answer some of the ques-

Supply-Railivays-Hudson Bay
lions, particularly with regard to the excess mileage occasioned by going the zigzag way to Churchill, as to any excess insurance rates that may have been charged during the early days of the use of the Panama canal, and as to the total cargoes that went through the canal in the first three years after it opened.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My understanding of the
freight rates is that the rate from Winnipeg to Port Arthur and that from the port at Churchill have been equalized. They are roughly the same distance; I do not think the difference is a matter of forty or fifty miles. I think this was done in. a more or less arbitrary way. The Crowsnest pass rates apply from the Pas in the case of Churchill and from Winnipeg in the case of Port Arthur So I do not think there is any detrimental effect from the fact that the railroad does not go in an absolutely straight line.
My recollection is that the elevator in Vancouver was completed in 1916, and that except for one test cargo no grain moved from there until 1922, when I think two cargoes were loaded. Then in 1923 the elevator handled 53 million bushels, so it came into its own very quickly after some seven years.


James Houston Spence: I hope the minister does not think I wish to embarrass him at all but I did not get an answer to my first question. I did get some information from my leader as to the insurance in effect from August until October. Is navigation open in this port for only two months! I should also like to know how much it costs to maintain the port during the months when navigation is closed. I was wondering whether it is a paying investment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the answer to the last question is no.


James Houston Spence: How' long is navigation
open there?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Insurance rates permit boats to operate there at the minimum rate for two months, from August 10 to October 10, and if it were not for the insurance I suppose boats might navigate there for probably another month. It is quite possible that the insurance rates will gradually be extended to cover at least two and a half months or possibly three. So far as the cost of maintaining Churchill in the winter is concerned, there were twenty-one men kept there in the winter season, and their wages, plus a little food, was the total cost during the winter. There is nothing spent there in the winter.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister said that he thought we would probably have to wait
for the port to develop naturally, but many of us think the department might do a great deal to popularize the port. There is a feeling among many people in western Canada that attempts are constantly being made in one way or another to see that the port does not become particularly popular. We have a very large investment there, as has been shown by the figures produced to-night, and it costs the country a great deal of money to meet the deficits. I would ask what steps the department has considered or is considering to popularize this port at home and abroad. We have our Canadian trade commissioners in Great Britain and Europe, and as I say many people believe that the port could be used much more than it is being used at the present time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as the grain movement goes, I doubt whether anything can change the situation very much. It is well known that a fraction of a cent will change the routing of grain; every exporter of grain in the world is alive to the fact that Churchill is there, and I think perhaps they have their eyes on it. I fancy the day will come sooner than we expect when it will be worth while to make a great effort to get a real movement of wheat through that port. I hope to see the day when 25 million bushels will go out during the season, and when that day comes the railway will pay a fair return on its capital investment. I hope I shall live until then, but this department can hardly expedite that day. I think it will come naturally.


Major James William Coldwell: What has been the experience in shipping cattle through that port? Cattle have been shipped, and I know at least one young man who accompanied a shipment of cattle across to Great Britain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; four hundred cattle were sent across. It is a very good route for cattle but the difficulty is that it is quite expensive to fit a boat for cattle. In the St. Lawrence a boat, with one fitting, can make six trips in the season, but at Churchill the maximum is two trips a season, and the return hardly pays for fitting up the boat. That, I understand, is the difficulty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the minister can hardly be asked to say what has been done for the purpose of endeavouring to popularize the port because when he came into office the port had been closed for a year. But the former Minister of Railways, being pressed very strongly by many members from western Canada, undertook last year to endeavour to
430	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
promote traffic through the port. Unfortunately he was told what I fancy we all know that the government cannot tell people how they shall ship their commodities, and the people who owned the grain preferred to ship it via the St. Lawrence route to sending it to Churchill. The only grain that was shipped from Churchill, if my memory serves me aright, was the grain that was stored there during the winter. There was a little more added to that, and last year I think eight ships took out a couple of million bushels in all. I speak subject to correction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We moved four million
bushels last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Four million bushels last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A year ago last season.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But in 1935.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We moved four million bushels in 1934 and two and a half million bushels in 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I wanted to make perfectly clear. I said that the amount shipped in 1935 was substantially the quantity of grain that was stored in the terminal during the winter, somewhere around two or two and a half million bushels. The former Minister of Railways endeavoured to secure a greater movement of grain through the port, hoping to get a continuous movement during the sixty days from August to October, but it was not an easy thing to interest people in the matter, and to the extent to which they claimed the right to ship their grain as they saw fit, his efforts were, of course, of little avail. The people who buy the grain in the west for shipment overseas determine the route they will send it by. As the minister said, sometimes a difference of one-eighth of a cent a bushel determines the route, and they ship accordingly. It has been extremely difficult, as the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) said a moment ago, to interest shippers in a new route having regard to the fact that the cargo itself, which is the property of the persons who acquire it in the west or wherever they do acquire it, carries a higher insurance rate than it should carry according to the views of those interested in the port. Then the unfortunate loss of the ship I have mentioned had a bad effect upon our efforts to reduce the insurance rate. Sir Halford Mackinder was greatly interested in the subject, being chairman at the time of the board that was dealing with these matters, and I fancy that the minister must have seen the reports regarding the efforts that were made to lower the rate. But finally the board definitely decided that it would not lower 
the rate below two per cent until there had been a larger experience so that it could be determined by actual movement of traffic whether a lower rate was warranted. That is the position as I understand it at the moment.


Mr. DUNNING:: There was only one ship lost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Were there not two?


Charles Avery Dunning: Only one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the name of the other ship? There was some trouble, I think.


Charles Avery Dunning: The ship lost was the Bright Fan.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have no doubt many hon.
members were surprised to hear that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe) had visited Churchill so frequently. Living at Port Arthur I suppose it was a great treat to him each time he saw the port. I see in front of me two former Ministers of Railways in previous Liberal governments. One has been moved to Finance and the other one is taking care of so many departments I do not intend to mention them all. I would suggest to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar), who should be very familiar with Churchill, that he consult with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on this insurance question. Rightly or wrongly, there is a feeling throughout the country, particularly in western Canada, that not as much has been done to popularize this route as might have been done.
I have listened to the remarks of hon. gentlemen to-night and I am impressed with what has been said about new routes. When we have expended a total of $53,000,000 on establishing a new route I think we should go as far as posible in all directions to see that the route is used. It seems to me that high insurance rates stand in the way of this route being used more extensively than at present and I suggest that the government give serious consideration to the question of taking over for the time being this underwriting. I appeal to the Minister of the Interior, who knows the port very well, that he press this matter before the government. In my judgment high insurance rates constitute one of the difficulties hindering the use of this route. I make one more appeal; if anything more can be done by the government to popularize this route, it should be done. Instead of taking out 25,000,000 bushels of wheat, some day I am sure we shall be taking out a much larger amount. I believe we can advance that day by doing everything possible to make this route known throughout the world.

Supply-Canals-Welland


Mr. CRERAR:: The hon. member for
Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has been good enough to refer to me as a former Minister of Railways who was interested in the development of this port. My experience as Minister of Railways was rather limited due to the fact that the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Bennett) put out of business, not only the government of that day, but me as well. I am interested in the development of the Hudson bay route because all of this railway lies within the riding I represent at the present time. It is a fact well known to all hon. gentlemen, and certainly to those from western Canada, that the building of the Hudson Bay railway, the development of the port at Churchill and the route across to Europe have constituted a matter of vital concern and interest to the people of western Canada for a great many years. I can recall having made many speeches on this subject when I was in the house many years ago.
I know there are in eastern Canada many critics of this development, and I was interested in the question asked by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) as to the total cost up to the present time of the whole development. It is true that this has cost $53,000,000, but it is only fair to say that included in that amount is the money that was expended on the development of Port Nelson. When the late Mr. Cochrane was Minister of Railways over twenty years ago, the government of that day undertook the completion of the road and fixed upon Port Nelson as the terminus. Notwithstanding any criticism that may have been made of it I do not think any mistake was made when the terminus was moved from Port Nelson to Churchill. Port Nelson had an open roadstead and would never have made a successful port, but several millions of dollars were spent before it was finally abandoned. Churchill has one of the best natural harbours in the world, being completely protected from storms of all kinds. I was there on July 1 last and at that time the river and bay were clear. There was some drift ice along the shore, but nothing which an icebreaker could not get through. Although the port is at the present time open for navigation for only about two months in the year, this is because of high insurance rates, and my settled conviction is that the day will come, and before many years, when the port will be used for three and a half or four months in the year. I think all the available data-and there is a good deal of it-goes to substantiate that view.
Reference has been made to the Bright Fan incident, but I think I am correct in saying
that the inquiry into the sinking of that ship disclosed that it was at least sixty miles off its course and that practically everyone, including the captain, was intoxicated when the accident took place. I know my predecessor from Churchill constituency expressed the view in the house that the Bright Fan had been deliberately sunk, but whether that is true I cannot say. We all know the effect of an incident of that kind upon underwriters. I have no doubt they hold that as a black mark against the development of the route. Personally, I find myself a good deal in sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly), and I assure the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) that I shall not forget the admonition he has given me to-night. If I cannot prevail upon the Minister of Railways (Mr. Howe), who is I know wholly sympathetic to the development of the route, and if I cannot touch the stony heart of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), it will not be for lack of carrying out the injunction he has given me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal-construction and betterments, $60,000.
Grote Stirling: Is this the only amount
in the estimates for the Welland ship canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is for construction, but
there is another item for operations.


Grote Stirling: What is this money to be spent on?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is to be used for flattening slopes. When the canal was constructed the slopes were put in at an angle which was known to be nearly the limit and it was a matter of trial and error as to whether they would stand. In two or three places it was found that they would not stand and some flattening process is necessary. The vote this year is for $60,000, but I may say that $23,000 is the unexpended balance of last year. In other words $23,000 of the $60,000 is a revote.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What is the total cost of the Welland ship canal?	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is $132,000,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What progress is being made in filling in the old canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is all filled in through the city of St. Catharines. We have no filling operations in progress at the present time.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What is the revenue from the canal?
Supply-Canals-Welland


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are no tolls on the Welland canal.
Mr. YO'UNG: And no revenue?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is certain water power revenue.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the cost of maintenance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Operation and maintenance cost is about $600,000 per year.


Mr. LOCKHART:: Is anything included in the estimate brought down for levelling the balance of the former Welland ship canal?
A portion of the dewatered canal is not levelled. Is there any estimate covering that work, or is this only the original estimate which is to be supplemented later?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No work of the kind described by the hon. member is contemplated now or in the future.


Otto Buchanan Elliott: How many American vessels from American ports go through the Welland canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We do not seem to have that information at the moment, but I shall be very glad to get it and present it to the committee. Speaking from memory I would say that the tonnage is about fifty-fifty American and Canadian. Of course there is a certain amount of tonnage of other nations, the chief of which would be Norwegian tonnage.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What is the operation and maintenance cost of the Welland ship canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: $600,000 per year.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Did I understand the minister to say that in future no provision would be made for levelling the balance of the dewatered canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I said that there was no provision for the immediate future; there will be nothing done next year, anyway. Perhaps beyond that we would be open to suggestions, but my officers tell me there is no work there which seems to be needed at the moment.


Mr. TUCKER:: Why is it that while vessels using the Panama canal have to pay tolls we carry a great amount of American traffic through the Welland canal free of tolls?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is purely a matter of government policy. Of course the matter is restricted in some ways. We have treaty obligations with the United States which require that tolls for Canadian and American shipping must be equal. Tied to that are treaty relations with favoured nation coun-

tries, which provide that their shipping must be on a basis equal to that of the United States. Possibly the only countries not covered are Germany and Holland, and if we put them on a different basis we would be in trouble.
The matter of tolls for passing through the Welland canal is connected with government policy. Until 1904 tolls were charged, but at that time an order in council was passed which provided that as a matter of government policy no tolls should be charged on the canal. I have not gone into the matter very carefully, but I am not sure that the time is not near when we might examine the situation once more and decide whether tolls should be imposed. I am simply making that observation, without having looked into the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the minister is looking into the matter he might find it interesting to get the state papers of the United States and read the story of the construction of the Soo canal. We did endeavour to give a preference to our own ships. We were giving them a rebate when they came to Montreal, coming through the Soo canal with cargoes bound for Montreal. The Americans protested and ultimately, as will be recalled, they built the American Soo canal. As the matter now stands, the reason the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier removed the tolls in 1904- and I believe the minister had the correct date-was that they imposed an additional burden upon the grain growers of the west; that is the real reason. As every ship, whether American or Canadian, or one of a country enjoying favoured nation treatment, had to pay a toll, it followed that that meant just an additional burden upon ships which brought cargoes from the west to Montreal. If it was a Canadian ship it meant that freight charges were enhanced, as happened in connection with other ships as well.
The real reason of this arrangement, one which some people thought was misunderstood philanthropy, was really an effort on our part to lessen the charges on the movement of wheat from Fort William and Port Arthur to Montreal, destined for export to the markets of the world. I recall that I was pressed very strongly to deal with this matter of tolls, and I am sure the minister has probabaly had representations made to him in the same sense. We must remember however that, to begin with, there are treaty obligations with the United States, and we cannot discriminate against their ships. Then there are favoured nations, who stand in exactly the same position, and lastly there is the economic feature of the matter namely, the additional cost per

Supply-Canals
bushel which would be involved in the movement of grain for export from the head of the lakes to Montreal.


Walter Adam Tucker: Do United States ships
going through the Panama canal pay the same tolls as do ships of other nations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Except coastwise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will recall that President Wilson had one of the greatest struggles of his career in carrying into effect that promise of the United States, under the old treaty that preceded the present one, 'by which there was to be equality of tolls. The debates of congress indicate on the one hand the violent opposition to the president's action, and on the other his grim determination to maintain inviolate the honour of his country as expressed in the treaty, and he succeeded in doing so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the question has been answered by others more competent than I am. It is my understanding that all ships pay tolls.


Mr. KINLEY:: Has Canada made any commitments with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that comes under a separate vote.


John James Kinley: The Welland canal is part of the St. Lawrence waterway, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I can produce the correspondence in that connection and I doubt whether I can answer my hon. friend's question. I would not attempt to answer it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister will not think I am interfering, the fact of the matter is that this has not transpired since the minister has been in the department, so perhaps it is my duty to say something. The fact is that Canada and the United States entered into an agreement, one of the terms of which was that it must be ratified by the United States senate before being submitted to the Canadian parliament. The United States senate declined to ratify the treaty made by the president; therefore Canada has made no commitments, and no commitments can be made of any kind, nature, form or description unless and until the treaty has been ratified by the senate of the United States. Then it will depend upon Canada's ratification, this country having the last word in determining whether or not it shall accept the terms of the treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canials-Improvements, $270,100.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister be good enough to explain this vote, particularly the decrease?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This vote covers the replacement of structures which, in the course of years, have become unstable, obsolete or beyond repair; the replacement of equipment which is worn out; the enlargement or realignment of navigation channels, where such improvements are warranted; the substitution of more permanent construction on works where the maintenance of the existing structures involves abnormal costs and general improvements necessary for the proper protection of canal property or that will give a reasonable return for the amount expended. The items are as follows:
Williamsburg canals-
One pair of lock gates, lock No. 24, Rapide Plat canal, $4,000.
Earthfill dam across old Galops canal above old lock No. 26 at Cardinal, $1,500-Total, $5,500.
Rideau canal-
Completion of control dam and highway bridge at Hogsback lock station, $70,000.
Construction of a new and modern swing bridge at Beckett's Landing, where provincial highway No. 16 crosses the canal, $35,000- Total, $105,000.
Trent canal-
Drilling, dredging and blasting Bobcaygeon, $20,500.
Reconditioning portage road culvert, $14,000.
Completion of replacement of the fixed span crossing the canal at village" of Lakefield, $2,000.
Completion of the reconditioning of the Queensville road bridge, Holland river division, before turning over span to the county authorities, $1,500.
Completion of reconstruction of Koshlong lake dam, $2,000.
Restoration of concrete structures, Ontario-Rice lake section, including backfilling of certain sections of river walls at Campbellford, $35,000.
Concrete cut-off wall at lock No. 14, $15,000.
Wallace point bridge, Otonabee river; contribution of one-half of cost of replacement of the damaged river pier, the work to be done by municipal authorities, $4,500.
Rebuilding and repairs, reservoir dams, $3,000.
Miscellaneous surveys, investigations, etc., $2,000-Total, $99,500.
Welland canals

Welland ship canals

Reconstruction of part of Port Colborne breakwater, $15,000.
Alterations to discharge culverts, Twin Flight locks Nos. 4 and' 5, $25,000.
Alterations to valve stop-logs, $6,000.
Hand rails on top chords of ten vertical lift bridges, $3,000.
Sanitary conveniences at thirteen bridges, $2,500.

Supply-Canals

Feeder canal-
Protection of aprons, weirs Nos. 1 and 2, Dunnville dam, $4,500.
New ferry scow for Port Maitland, ferry, $4,100.
We are building the swing bridge at Beckett's Landing in cooperation with the province; it is our duty, because of the navigable feature, to provide the bridge, and the province does the rest of the work. In connection with the Queensville road bridge, this has been an item of expense to us, and we have worked out with the province an agreement under which we put the bridge in shape and they take it over for future maintenance.


James J. Donnelly: Could the minister
tell us the amount of freight transported on the Trent canal during the past year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is mostly a tourist route.
Last year there were about 12,000 lockages, showing a fair business in smaller craft. There was quite a substantial revenue from this canal by way of water powers, so the situation is not as bad as it seems. It is an old, historic route, and the revenue from water powers was about $100,000.


Grote Stirling: Could the minister give
us similar information with regard to the Rideau canal? Is there any revenue from it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The revenue is about $10,000 per annum.


Grote Stirling: There is tonnage carried on that canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, or you might call it
poundage.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under this item is there any provision for repairs to the Newmarket canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, nothing at all.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: According to my hurried figuring maintenance of the Welland ship canal is to cost between $50,000 and $60,000 this year. How does that compare with the amount spent in maintenance and repairs last year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Maintenance is practically the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hudson Bay railway-
Amount to provide for difference between expenditures for operation and maintenance, and revenue accruing from operation during the year ending March 31, 1937, not exceeding, $336,500.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister
explain this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is the deficit item, the expected loss for operating the railway during next season.


John James Kinley: Which is the bigger item, the revenue or the deficit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The revenue is a trifle bigger, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals and harbours-
Operation and maintenance, $2,145,100.
Grote Stirling: Is this the item which includes the operation of the Welland ship canal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct; all of the canals.


Grote Stirling: That is about $600,000, I think.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: What is the balance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are grain elevators there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another item. Could the minister give particulars of the item of $2,145,100?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have the Hudson Bay terminal at Churchill, $79,000; that is the terminal exclusive of the elevator, operation and maintenance. There are also:
Murray canal, operation, $13,300.
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals-
Headquarters, $43,000.
Cornwall canal, $148,500.
Williamsburg, $86,250.
Quebec canals, $665,475.
Headquarters, $34,000.
Carillon-Grenville, $58,000.
Chambly, $47,000.
Dredging fleet, $34,800.
Hungry Bay and St. Barbe dykes, $5,000. Lachine, $335,000.
St. Anne's lock, $10,375.
St. Ours lock, $9,300.
Soulanges canal, $132,000.
Rideau canal proper. $132,200.
Dredge vessels, $27,000.
St. Peter's canal, $11,000.
Sault Ste. Marie canal, $55,000.
Trent canal, $201,500.
Welland canals, $682,625.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there anything to show what the revenue is from all those canals and power privileges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. The last full year we have is 1934-35:
Murray canal, $254.
St. Lawrence canals-
Ontario, $28,000.
Quebec-
Beauharnois, $59,516.
Carillon-Grenville, $1,627.

Supply-Railways-Elevators
St. Lawrence canals-Cone.
Quebec-Cone Chambly, $1,243.
Laehine, $187,113.
St. Anne's lock, $385.
Soulanges, $4,257.
Rideau canal, $10,133.
St. Peter's canal, $168.
Sault Ste. Marie canal, $217.
Trent canal, $6,067.
Welland canal, $175,104.
Chats Falls canal, $1.
Miscellaneous, $3.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the $6,067 receipts from the Trent canal include the power income?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; I think there is something over $90,000 revenue there. I suppose we had not collected the power account; the figure given is the collections at that time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister mentioned the Rideau canal. Has the Tay canal been totally abandoned and everything pertaining to it washed out?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is operating.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As far as Perth?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, right at Perth.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I read in an article
some time ago that the basin at Perth was filled up.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister give a short statement in regard to the Beau-harnois canal? Is it owned by the dominion government? Has it now been turned over?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my right hon. friend would help me out. I think we own the canal as far as navigation goes.


Grote Stirling: Do you receive revenue from it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We received some revenue, yes.


Grote Stirling: Was some expenditure incurred by us?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No expenditure was incurred by us. We have some little supervision there, I think we appropriate about $5,000 for that this year.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Does the dredging of the delta mouth of the Cowichan river at Duncan come under this vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, under Public Works.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister mentioned a revenue of $254 from the Murray canal. What is the revenue received for?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The ground rental, I am
told. That is, we own the property there. We rent certain of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are any harbours
included in this item?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; there are no harbours
in this.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Elevators *- Operation and maintenance, $327,000.
James J. Donnelly: What elevators are
referred to?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Churchill elevator, the
Port Colborne elevator, and the Prescott elevator. The total vote for Churchill is $124,000; for Port Colborne, $100,000, and for the Prescott elevator, $103,000. I may say that on balance those elevators show a profit. This is the vote to cover the op*r ations.


James J. Donnelly: These are operated by
the government?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only elevators to
which this item refers are the three that the minister has mentioned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has no reference to
any of the government-owned elevators at any terminal at the head of the lakes or at any other port in Canada except Churchill?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The elevators at the head
of the lakes and the Ontario elevators are under the Department of Trade and Commerce and the harbour elevators are under the various harbour commissioners. We shall have a vote for those later.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that there is some rearrangement of the activities of the commissions at Vancouver, a situation is developing by reason of which elevators that are now leased, I think, and whose lease falls in shortly will again be offered for leasing. When that matter is considered, I have a suggestion to make, in view of certain representations that have come to me recently regarding those elevators. I suppose that would be more properly considered under the Department of Trade and Commerce?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the elevators at Vancouver are the property of the Vancouver harbour commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not those dealt with by the minister now?
Supply-R ailways-Ele vators


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; it is the Department of Marine. By the national harbour board when it is constituted, which we hope will be very shortly.


Grote Stirling: In the case of the expenditures the minister has just read, taking Prescott as a typical one, I think he said that the expenditures were $103,000.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Can he give us an idea
how that is disbursed?	-


Clarence Decatur Howe: The largest item of course
is labour. We do not seem to have the details, but that expenditure would be broken down to about fifty per cent labour and about thirty per cent power and the rest, I suppose, would be maintenance and charges of that sort.


James J. Donnelly: What is the quantity
of grain that went through the Prescott elevator during the past year, the revenue from it, and the cost of operation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The quantity handled during the current year at Prescott is 8,750,000 bushels. In 1934-35 they handled 6,545,000 bushels and the revenue was $69,542.75. The elevator in that year showed an operating loss of $16,774. It will be turned into a substantial profit this year, I should say.


Mr. HANSON:: What department is
handling the elevator at Prince Rupert? Is it under the Department of Trade and Commerce or under the Minister of Railways and
Canals?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Department of Trade and Commerce.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The minister said that the operation of Churchill elevator was more costly than the operation of the elevator at Port Colborne. May I ask a question-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might explain to my hon. friend that we have cheap power available at Port Colborne, and cheap power is quite an item in the operation of an elevator. At Churchill we must generate our own power from coal in our own power plant. The cost of coal represents, I think, the main difference.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I quite appreciate that point as applied to two months or less than two months, but what is the quantity of grain that went through the elevator at Churchill as compared with what went through Port Colborne? Power is generated there for only a very short time, and the cost seems to be out of balance with the quantity of grain that went through.
rV*- Bennett.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1934-35 Port Colborne handled 14,380,000 bushels. Churchill in that year handled 3,9/64,000 bushels. The nature of the operation at Port Colborne is the cheapest of any known elevator where it unloads from a boat and discharges to a boat. An elevator at an ocean terminal is quite different. It receives cars; there is a cleaning operation involved, and there is also an extensive gallery equipment for loading boats requiring quite a large operating staff. An elevator such as that at Churchill is the most expensive type. I think my hon. friend, in trying to compare the two, is comparing two very unequal things, and the charges are quite easily accounted for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Clarence Decatur Howe: The only other item has to do with the Canadian National Steamships, and the report is not yet available.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the freight rates item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have to wait until the reports come in.


Grote Stirling: There is the tourist item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of members desire to discuss that item and I think it had better stand.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Monday, February 24, 1936