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

Mr. THOMPSON:: How many pounds of canned beef were imported into Canada from all countries during each of the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?


Mr. EULER:: Calendar years: 1936, 12,056,904 pounds; 1937, 11,694,759 pounds; 1938, 10,302,404 pounds.

Income War Tax


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any delegates being sent to the League of Nations? If so, who are they, and when did they depart?
2.	Is Canada still a member of this organization ?
3.	How many other visits have been made by any of the 1939 delegates for similar purposes?
4.	What experiences have any of those selected in 1939 on foreign affairs or diplomacy?
5.	Who chooses the employers and labour delegates, and do they pay their own expenses?
6 What is the estimated cost of the visit of 1939?
7.	Will the government give consideration to Canada's resigning as a member?
8.	What has been the total cost of the league since its inception?
9.	Are all the delegates who have been selected accompanied by technical advisers, and what are the duties of these advisers, and what functions do they perform?
10.	Will the government lay on the table the report of these delegates of this league since its inception, for the information of parliament?


ORGANIZATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OP PERMANENT STAFF POSITIONS-TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES PERFORMING CONTINUOUS DUTIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). On April 28 a report was laid on the table, with the approval of the internal economy commission, dealing with the employees of this house. Will the minister allow that report to be concurred in, or if not, what steps are to be taken in this regard? Action such as he foreshadowed yesterday in regard to other employees would be impossible in the case of these, some fifty in number, because they are under the sole control of this house; they cannot be controlled by order in council or by the civil service commission. But if the report that was laid on the table were concurred in-it could be done without commitment-it would at least leave the door open for any possible action which the government might wish to take.


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's * request will be given consideration I am not very familiar with the circumstances, but I shall bring the question to the attention of those who are.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to consideration of amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 142, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the amendments made by the senate to this bill are, in my opinion, far beyond ordinary modifications, as they alter periods during which certain income taxes shall be levied. They are not in the nature of fees or penalties imposed to punish certain offences, which this house sometimes accepts under protest. There was in the bill, as passed by this house, a clause providing that all its sections, except 16 and 17, shall be applicable to the income of the year 1938. The senate's amendment provides that section 6 shall be applicable to the income of the year 1939. This amendment changes the financial scheme submitted by the government and affects the balance of ways and means needed for the service of the year.
The action taken by the senate is inconsistent, I believe, with the undeniable control exercised by the elected representatives of the people over taxation and all financial measures.
The privilege of the House of Commons in this regard is based upon the fact that the house is composed of popularly elected members.
As Redlich, volume III, pages 119-120, says:
All taxes, duties and grants of money, and all measures imposing financial burdens on the people are matters within the sole jurisdiction of the House of Commons. Closely connected with the first of the Commons' rights in money matters is a second, inseparable from it and equally fundamental. They are entitled to order and dispose how the national revenue, whether permanent or annually granted, is to be spent, and to do so in the greatest detail.
Both income and expenditure are therefore completely and exclusively in the hands of the House of Commons.
The House of Commons, adhering to the British North America Act and the fundamental principles of responsible government; cannot renounce its inalienable right to initiate and regulate taxation, and it has never acknowledged the right of the senate to pass legislation imposing a charge upon the people.
Were the session not so near prorogation we should certainly refuse to accept this amendment; but a conference with the upper house for the discussion of this important question would last several days. It is hoped, however, that the senate will not persist in future in a course which we deem contrary to the principles of parliamentary practice and

Income War Tax
which may lead to constitutional conflicts. The motion to concur in the amendment, with this reservation, will be .made by the Minister of National Revenue.


James Lorimer Ilsley: 
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the apparently strong authority in support of the position which he takes that the amendment is entirely irregular and beyond the jurisdiction of the senate, I am surprised that there should be a motion accepting the amendment, even with the reservation which he has attached to it. Reservations of this kind are of no value in respect of this legislation. I am of the opinion once we depart from what is sound, well-established principle we are likely to get into difficulty and conflict in the future. I am not sure that a conference should occupy much time. It would depend upon the conference itself. H the matter is as clear as the Minister of Justice indicates, the conference should not take very much time. Would the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Revenue explain in a little more detail the effect of these amendments upon the legislation?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This was the section relating to the interest on succession duties. The hon. member himself took a very strong position in the house against our amendment to the act, and I am sure that he would agree with the merits of the senate amendment. However, I realize that that is not the point at issue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the amendment? Tell us the effect of it.


James Lorimer Ilsley: By the amendment which passed this house to the Income War Tax Act, only one year's interest on succession duties is allowed from any one year's income-that is, the interest accruing during that very year. By the act which passed this house the amendment related to the income of the year 1938 and subsequent years. By the senate amendment the retroactive feature is eliminated and the amendment relates only to the income of 1939 and succeeding years. There is, of course, something to be said for the amendment, on the merits. Oninions might differ. 
I believe that in this house the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) expressed very strongly the opinion that our amendment to the Income War Tax Act was not just, was not right; and I expressed the contrary opinion, or at least the opinion that it was inline with our usual amendments to the Income War Tax Act: they relate to the income tax returns which are being made, during spring and early summer, for the previous year. However, I can understand that on the justice and the merits of the case there might be a strong contrary view, and the government have decided that they do not particularly object to the merit of the senate amendment. It is, however, an infringement of the privileges of this house to make such an amendment in the senate.
The hon. gentleman said that -we were departing entirely from precedent. On certain rare occasions the House of Commons has done just what we are doing at the moment. We have asserted our position, affirmed our privileges and declined expressly to waive any of them, and had an entry to that effect made in the journals of the house. Nevertheless have accepted the amendment, and I think that that is the reasonable course to take in the circumstances. If there is at any time the slightest disposition in the other chamber to continue with this, undoubtedly we shall have to make an issue of it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not desire to violate the rules, but the minister has discussed one amendment; I take it that there are others. Does the issue relate to just one amendment; are the others which are set out in the votes and proceedings merely for the purpose of carrying it out?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The other two amendments are merely verbal, clerical.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Consequential?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Just verbal corrections-a little improvement of phrasing.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I do not think it is a question of discussing the merits or demerits of the amendment which has been made. To my mind, and I speak entirely as a layman, the question involves the privileges of this chamber, and the fundamental privilege of this chamber is that it shall have unchallenged control of the pursestrings, if I may put it that way. The long history of the development of our parliamentary institutions has been a struggle by the commons for the control of taxation and the expenditure of revenue; and in spite of the fact that the motion which has been moved to concur in the senate amendment is couched

Income War Tax
in very careful language, and sets out the privileges of this house in this regard, I think that it is unwise for this House of Commons to accept that motion, even in the form in which it is made. The time has long since passed when this parliament should have modified the powers of the other chamber. Nearly thirty years ago the British parliament made the House of Commons supreme over the House of Lords, and our position in this parliament is similar to the position of the British House of Commons before the passage of the Parliament Act in 1911. It seems to me that we should not concur in any manner in the action of the senate, that we should affirm our right in the proper way, which is to refuse to admit that the other chamber has any right whatsoever to interfere with a decision of this house regarding a matter of taxation and of revenue. In effect, although the motion to concur is carefully phrased, we are allowing a precedent to be made. We are objecting to it; nevertheless the precedent is there-


James Lorimer Ilsley: It has been done before.


Major James William Coldwell: And the record would show that we have at least accepted under protest what the other chamber has done in this regard. Although the end of the session is in sight I believe the course of wisdom would be for this house to refuse to accept these amendments and, if necessary, to call a conference to discuss them. Under no circumstances would I, as a member of this house, accept any infringement of the rights of the house	by	the other chamber. I
believe the time has come when we should have greater power in this chamber than we have at the present time. Therefore I rise to express a point of view and to declare that so far as we are concerned-I think I am speaking for our little group-we shall have to oppose the motion to concur, on the grounds I have given.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps I might explain the situation with regard to this difference of opinion between the senate and this house touching the rights of the senate on bills relating to money matters or to taxation. It is a long-standing conflict in this country, and the proposal for a conference might be stronger if we were not fully aware of the views of the senate-what they are and what they have been-and of our own views as well. Obviously there will have to be a settlement of this conflict some day. I would refer hon. members to page 172 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citations 582, 583 and 584, wherein they will see that the senate on one occasion went to the extent of asking the 71492-305
legal opinion of two eminent lawyers, the late Eugene Lafleur, K.C., and Mr. Aime Geoffrion, who both gave the opinion that while the senate had no right to originate a money bill, they had the right to amend it as fully as the House of Commons. On May 22, 1918, the senate adopted a report, which of course is an ex -parte document, setting forth certain conclusions. The first reads:
That the Senate of Canada has and always has had since it was created, the power to amend bills originating in the Commons appropriating any part of the revenue or imposing a tax by reducing the amounts therein, but has not the right to increase the same without the consent of the crown.
The House of Commons has never accepted the theory enunciated in the report from which I have just quoted, but has always contended that the senate has not the right to amend money bills, especially bills respecting taxation. As I have pointed out, it affects the balance of ways and means which the House of Commons has fixed to meet the expenditures for the following year, and this is certainly the prerogative and privilege of the House of Commons. As I say, the House of Commons has never conceded that claim of the senate; but in this instance the amendment is not, after all, so objectionable and has been accepted under protest.
Far from to-day's procedure creating a precedent, I find that there is even a formula in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, form 59. The form there reads:
That the clerk do carry back the bill to the Senate and acquaint their honours that this house hath agreed to their amendments, the Minister of Finance accepting the said amendments with a protest against the right of the senate to make amendments to money bills.
Our motion to-day goes further than that, because it is more assertive of the rights of the commons. A conference would be useless. The senate is absolutely firm as to its rights, and we are equally firm on our side, but as I say, ultimately the question will have to be settled. I do not wish to say anything which might be misunderstood, but I believe it would be in the interests of the second chamber not to precipitate a conflict on this question.


Mr. A. G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound):: I desire to express my views, and I can do so without detaining the house by saying that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has stated precisely the opinion I hold on this question.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): Although this bill may contain nothing very objectionable in form and substance, the principle involved in accepting in this

4848	.	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
chamber what we believe to be an infringement of our rights is a principle that should not be entertained. I protest strongly against accepting that principle in this house.


Mr. L. P. A. ROBICHAUD (Kent, N.B.):: I trust that to-day I shall not be denied my just right to speak in this house. I do not think it makes much difference what we do with these amendments. We need not have any fears about establishing a precedent or waiving our right to the sole privilege of imposing burdens on the people. That precedent was established, without protest, yesterday.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the motion carry?


Major James William Coldwell: On division.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
5-iS. Quebec.
Aguanish-wharf, $5,500.
Anse au Beaufils-to complete concrete pavement (revote), $2,400.
Bagotville-wharf repairs, $7,200.
Baie des Sables-wharf extension. $25,000. Baie Ste. Catherine-to purchase and repair wharf, $25,000.
Baie St. Paul-protection work extension (revote $14,800), $23,500.
Berthier-dredging (revote $8,500), $10,000. Berthierville-protection wall and ice-breakers (revote), $20,000.
Black Cape (Howatson's Point)-wharf extension (revote $3,700), $33,700.
Boischatel-wharf extension, $15,000. Bromptonville-protection work, $20,000. Cacouna-wharf repairs, $14,600.
Cap Chat-deepwater wharf (revote $20,000),
[Stage Direction]
Cape Cove (Anse du Cap)-wharf reconstruction (revote), $36,000.
Cap des Rosiers-wharf, $20,000.
Cap Vert (M. I.)-landing pier, $6,100. Chambly Basin-protection work, $10,000. Chicoutimi-contribution towards protection work, $35,000.
Colonie des Greves-protection work, $8,000. Contrecceur-protection work, $35,000.
Cross Point-wharf reconstruction. $56,000. Disraeli-protection work, $15,000.
Drainage schemes, $100,000.
Drummondville-protection work, $25,000.
East Angus-protection work, $10,000.
Garthby-protection work, $10,000.
Granby-protection work, $6,000.
Grande Entree (West Point), M.I.-breastwork extension (revote $5,500), $6,400.
Grand Metis-wharf and dredging (revote), $15,000.
Grande Vallee-reconstruction of jetty (revote), $9,300. fMr. Young.}
Greenlay-protection work, $20,000.
Harrington-wharf extension (revote $20,000), $42,000.
lie aux Coudres-wharf extension, $10,000.
Kamouraska-wharf repairs and improvements, $19,000.
Lachine-protection work, $9,000.
Lac Megantic-protection work, $10,000.
Lacolle River-dredging, the provincial government to contribute a like amount (revote). $5,500.
Lanoraie-protection work, $12,750.
Louiseville-protection work $10,000.
La Tabatiere-wharf extension, $10,500.
La Tortue-dredging the provincial government to contribute, $16,000.
L'Anse a Brillant-fishing harbour (revote), $7,300.
Longue Pointe de Mingan-breakwater, $20,-
Lome dry dock-new power house-pump house equipment and machine shop, $100,000.
Magpie-breakwater, $14,000.
Malbaie-wharf extension, $56,000.
Manicouagan-wharf improvements-one-third of cost to be contributed by the Ontario Paper Co., Ltd. (revote), $26,000.
Marsouins-wharf extension, $21,500.
Matane-harbour improvements (revote $40.000), $78,000.
New Carlisle (Marsh Creek)-fishing harbour (revote $37,000), $100,000.
^Newport Point-wharf	(revote $10,000),
Old Harry, M.I.-breakwater (revote $8,000) $9,000.
Perce-;wharf, $25,000.
Paspebiac (Barachois)-fishing harbour, $20,
Petite Madeleine-wharf, $8,800.
Pointe aux Anglais-breakwater (revote) $16,600.
Pointe aux Trembles-protection work, $50, 000.
Pointe du Lac-icebreakers, $5,400.
Pointe Lebel-wharf (revote $12,000), $25,000
Port St. Francois-wharf reconstruction $52,000.
Quebec, St. Charles River-protection work $60,000.
Quebec-wharf extension, $55,000.
Rageneau-wharf (revote $14,700), $20,000.
Rawdon-wharf, $5,000.
Richelieu river-improvements, $325,000.
Richmond-protection work, $15,000.
Rimouski-harbour improvements, $186,200.
Riviere au Renard-fishing harbour (revote $25,000), $51,000.
Riviere des Hurons-contribution towards dredging, the balance of the cost to be borne by the_ province (revote), $44,000.
Riviere du Loup, en bas-wharf (revote), $36,400.
Riviere du Pot au Beurre-contribution towards improvements, the provincial government to bear a like amount, $10,000.
Riviere Noire (St. Simeon)-wharf, $20,000.
Ruisseau a la Loutre-wharf extension, $25,000.
Ruisseau Chapados (Gascons)-fishing harbour (revote), $7,100.
Ruisseau Masse-dredging-the provincial government to contribute a like amount (revote $10,250), $11,300.
Ruisseau Pariseau - contribution towards dredging, the balance of cost to be borne by the province (revote), $10,000.
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-dredging (revote $3,300), $4,400.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
St.
St.
St.
Ste. Anne des Monts-wharf repairs. $50,000.
Ste. Emelie-wharf reconstruction (revote), $30,000.
St. Hyacinthe-protection work, $30,000. Ignace de Loyola-wharf, $33,000.
, Irenee-wharf reconstruction, $25,000. i5t. Jean, I.O.-wharf reconstruction, $10,000.
St. Jerome-protection wall, $11,000.	.
St. Johns to Lake Champlain-dredging (estimated cost $415,000), $100,000.
St. Joseph de Sorel-protection work, $10,000.
St. Joseph d'Alma-wharf, $4,300.
St. Lambert-protection work, $25,000.
St. Laurent, I.O.-wharf reconstruction, $3,000.	,	,	.	,
St. Maurice de L'Echourie-wharf repairs and improvements (revote), $13,000.
St. Omer-dredging, $9,000.
St Romuald-protection work, $25,000.
Sacre-Cceur (Anse de Roche)-wharf reconstruction, $10,000.
Sault au Mouton-channel, $3,000.
Sorel-harbour improvements (revote $8,000),
$250,000.	%	,	,
Tadoussae (Anse a l'Eau)-wharf reconstruction and improvements. $16,000.
Terrebonne-protection wall, $18,000. Valleyfield-protection work, $25,000. Vercheres - wharf reconstruction (revote $1,500), $25,000.
"Vercheres-protection work, $15,000. Varennes-protection work, $22,000. Woodman's Beach-wharf extension, $3,015.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: When the house rose last night we were considering harbours and rivers, proposed expenditures for the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) had raised a question with regard to the proposed expenditure for Richelieu river improvement. This matter was discussed last year and the year before. It relates to the regulating of the flow of the Richelieu river by the erection of a dam which would retain the flow of water in the spring after dredging has been done, from St. Johns to the boundary. As far back as 1907 the United States authorities objected to this dredging being done. They contended that there existed in the bed of the river a natural obstruction to the flow of the water, and that if the obstruction were removed by dredging, the flow of the river would increase and thus lower the level of lake Champlain. At that time the proposal of a dam was discussed between the Canadian and the United States authorities, and the principle of a regulating dam was adopted by both countries. This dam is built with a certain number of sluices which can be opened in the spring when the water is high; as soon as the river comes to its natural level, the doors will be closed and the water will be kept at th; ' level in lake Champlain and the Richelieu river in the vicinity of the boundary.
The votes of last year, two years ago and this year have contemplated the carrying on 71492-305J
of that project, which is designed particularly to reclaim a large area of low land between St. Johns and the boundary. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of dollars would be realized on these low lands if the water could be made to disappear more quickly in the spring. Under present conditions the water stays on these low lands so long that in most years it is impossible for the farmers to draw any benefit from their lands, owing as I have indicated, to the natural obstacles in the bed of the Richelieu river. If we disposed of those obstacles the water would flow away more rapidly, thus permitting cultivation of the low lands. But we cannot dredge that out without establishing a control of the flow of the river during the rest of the year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These obstacles to which the minister refers would be below the dam?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, above the dam. They prevent the water from flowing away quickly enough in the spring to allow cultivation of the low lands. But we cannot dispose of these natural obstacles, because if the channel were opened for the water to flow away more rapidly in the spring it would flow rapidly as well during the rest of the year, and the level of the water of lake Champlain would be lowered.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me that maintaining a dam to keep up the level of the water will defeat the object in view in removing the obstacles, unless the obstacles are below the dam.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Probably I am not making myself clear. At present there are obstacles in the river from St. Johns to the boundary. The river is not very deep. In the spring when the water is high in lake Champlain and in Canada adjoining the boundary the water cannot flow away rapidly enough on account of these natural obstacles. If we would dispose of these natural obstacles the problem would be solved; but we cannot dispose of them without providing a regulating system for the summer season. Therefore we are providing a dam in which the doors will be opened in the spring so that when the dredging is done the water will flow away as rapidly as possible. As soon as the high waters are disposed of the doors of the dam will be closed, keeping the water at the same level as it is at present, and thus avoiding any lowering of the level of lake Champlain.


Mr. MacNICOL:: I do not rise to oppose this vote, I simply want some information. I have made a thorough survey of the whole area and all around it on both sides of the river. The obstruction to which the minister
4850	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
refers is just north of the city of St. Johns. It is a natural rock barrier in the river. The river flows over the rock in a sort of rapid, not a fall. Is the dam already constructed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The last time I was there it was not under construction. I have not had. time to go down this spring. I planned many times to go and make a survey but have not had time. The dam, I believe, is about six miles north of St. Johns-I have forgotten the name of the island.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Fryer's island.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When this vote first came up a few years ago I understood that it was to be part of a navigation scheme. Is it still part of a navigation scheme?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is, because this dam is built practically half way, between St. Johns and Chambly. The present canal extends from St. Johns to Chambly. The length of it is twelve miles. The dam is being built six miles from Chambly. It reduces the length of the canalization by six miles.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That eliminates the small canal on the west side of the river. In other words the water level of lake Champlain will extend on down to the dam at Fryer's island. The low water level of lake Champlain, below which I do not see how the government can be permitted to lower it, is 93-3 feet above sea level. The high water level is 102-6 feet. The report given by the government, if I remember it correctly-I have not had time to familiarize myself with the facts-contained the statement that this dam would control the water level of lake Champlain and from lake Champlain to the dam, at 92-5 feet. I cannot find anywhere in the international agreement the consent of the United States to lowering the low water level from 93-3 to 92-5 feet. Have we that authority? It is not in the international report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the understanding that exists between the United States and Canada does not allow Canada to go below 92-5.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But you can go that low?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, we can go that low.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, the dam has some merits; it will maintain the level of lake Champlain to six miles north of St. Johns.
I do not oppose, but I commented on the scheme in the beginning because I thought at that time it might be a waste of public money. It was to cost, I believe, in the 
neighbourhood of $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 when completed. We shall then have a waterway there of about twelve feet draft?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Since the first locks, and the canal from Sorel south, are now of twelve feet draft, I do not feel that t'his money is going to be entirely wasted; there will be some benefit from it, though nothing at all comparable with the cost. That canal will be used but little anyway after it is completed; traffic is decreasing and never will increase in great magnitude. There are just a few oil boats going up and down there. Even on the United States end of the canal, from lake Champlain down to where the canal enters the Mohawk river, traffic is insignificant, notwithstanding the fact that there are substantial iron plants adjacent to lake Champlain. However, I no longer feel that the money will be totally wasted, and if the canal is to be completed I suppose year after year we shall have more votes until the work is finished from Fryer's island to Chambly basin.
The question of flooding has been emphasized, but if I were the minister I would not labour that point at all. The flooding does not amount to very much. I ascertained from Washington the height of lake Champlain as of the day I made my last survey, and they advised me that the water level was between 95 and 96 feet above sea level, or approximately four feet higher than the level at which this dam is to maintain lake Champlain. I did not find any flooding at 95 or 96 feet. The road immediately north of lake Champlain, which runs through a very pretty part of the country, was several feet above the water on that occasion. I discussed the question of flooding with the farmers and everyone else with whom I came in contact, and those to whom I spoke told me that at high water in the spring of the year, when I presume the water would be 102 feet above sea level, the road in front of the hotel might be a foot or two under water, but that condition did not prevail for very long. The land immediately north of the lake is largely swampy land, in any event, which could not be worked at all. There were only a few places where in the spring of the year the farmers were held off their land for perhaps a week or two. I was told while there that it was the United States that was asking for some regulation, that there was more flooding on their side of the line. That may not be so, but if they have flooding certainly I would have no objection to assisting our good neighbours to that extent. All I can say is that since the

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
project has been started by the government and a few millions have been spent on it, I suppose it has to be completed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not millions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not millions on those locks?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, yes; on the construction of the canal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My memory was that it amounted to several millions. From now on I am not going to oppose these votes. The project is on its way, and while it involves a large sum of money, that money will not all be lost. I still insist, however, that it was entirely unnecessary under modern conditions. If I might ask one further question, because not having seen the dam I do not know how it is constructed: Has the lock that is to be used in the future been installed in the dam that has been constructed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Why not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no lock in the dam, because boats will pass from the river to the present canal about half way to St. Johns. There is no lock in the dam itself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The information we were given previously was that a lock would be installed there, and that perhaps another dam would be erected across the river south of Chambly basin.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are you going to run
a twelve foot canal on the west side of the river from this new dam down to Chambly basin?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The twelve foot depth will be from the dam to the boundary. From the dam through the old canal the depth will remain the same as at present, about six and a half feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is between four and
a half and five feet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, at certain seasons.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That presents an entirely different picture. In according the scheme some support, as I did a moment ago, I had in mind the impression I received from the minister a year or two ago, namely that in the end there would be a twelve foot draft in the canal from Sorel right up to lake Champlain.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That will be so should the government or parliament decide to rebuild the Chambly canal; but if the Chambly canal
is not rebuilt, the draft in that canal will be what it is now, four and a half or five or six feet. The twelve foot depth will be maintained from this dam, about six miles north of St, Johns, right up to the boundary.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will be of little
value unless the whole project is completed. In other words, from the Erie canal at Albany to the dam at Fryer's island, when that dam is completed, there will be a twelve foot draft?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And from Fryer's island on to Chambly basin the draft is about four and a half or five feet. It is supposed to be six feet, but it is not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A little more than five
feet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: From Chambly basin to Sorel it is twelve feet. That route can still be used only by boats drawing up to about four and a half feet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As I said before, I do
not think it will be of much account for navigation, because in any event it will be little used. Surely, however, it would have been only common sense to instal in the dam just erected a lock with a twelve foot draft. That is what I would have done if I had been in charge. Now, if you desire to put one in, you will have to break through the dam, or at least the centre part of it. However, money may be cheaper when the remainder of the work is completed. Has the minister any idea as to when the rest of the work, from Fryer's island to Chambly basin, will be completed and the twelve foot draft provided?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a matter of policy on which I am not in a position to make a statement. We are not contemplating that work at the present time. It will be for parliament to decide at another session if we are to rebuild that section of the Chambly canal. We thought we were justified in doing the work we have done and are doing in providing a twelve foot draft from the dam to the boundary, and at the same time providing a means of reclaiming the low land between St. Johns and the boundary. The construction of a lock in the dam we are erecting would be a very costly proposition, probably almost as costly as rebuilding the Chambly canal itself. There are several locks in the Chambly canal, so that it would mean quite an expenditure.
4852	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers


John Ritchie MacNicol: I believe only one more dam would be required, south of Chambly.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; the Chambly canal could be rebuilt to provide a depth of twelve feet, without the necessity of building any other dam. It would mean the reconstruction of the canal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the government is not going to build another dam at Chambly, does it propose to have the canal on the west side of the river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is my opinion that by building a dam across the Richelieu south of Chambly the canal could be kept in the river, the same as is 'being done south of Fryer's island. That would be the more sensible way to do it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister give an estimate as to the cost of the reconstruction of the Chambly canal, or the improvement of navigation facilities, between the two points mentioned by the hon. member who has just spoken? Would it be more expensive to have the navigation in the river, or to rebuild the Chambly canal? What would be the estimated cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: WThen the question was raised about two years ago I was given a figure as to the cost of reconstruction of the Chambly canal, and the figure given to me at that time was in the vicinity of $7,000,000. Of course that expenditure, if I remember correctly, included the construction of the whole twelve miles of canal. It may be that with the construction of only five or six miles the cost would not be as great. No definite estimate has been made as to that. However, with the construction of the dam I believe we could dispense with half of that canal, and instead of having a canal twelve miles long it would be only about six miles. I imagine the cost of reconstructing a canal to provide for a depth of twelve feet would be about half the amount mentioned to me. Of course we can make only a rough guess, because no definite estimate has been made. I would imagine however that it would be in the vicinity of $5,000,000, and that construction would provide for a twelve foot depth between the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Between the St. Lawrence river and New York city.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not yet clear as to whether it is the intention of the department, when it proceeds with the building of a canal between Fryer's island and Chambly basin, to follow the west side of the river,


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be less expensive to use whatever works exist on the west side of the river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be a small canal.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, but my information is that it would be less expensive. The suggestion has been made that we should have the canal on the east side of the river instead of the west side. However, those points have not yet been cleared up or discussed in detail.


Mr. COCHRANE:: Are these drainage
schemes entirely federal matters, or are the operations carried on in conjunction with provincial governments?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Strictly speaking, this is work which comes more directly under provincial jurisdiction, but in many instances in the past the federal government has contributed small amounts of money to help the provinces defray drainage costs, and has paid money for those purposes out of the federal treasury. There is no doubt that most of the money will be spent on projects to which the provinces will contribute.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does that refer to the work in the Lacolle river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it is a different item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the purpose of the dredging in the Lacolle river?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a drainage proposal to which the province contributes a like amount.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I find an item for $100,000 for dredging from St. Johns to lake Champlain. Is that part of the same scheme we have been discussing?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; this amount is to provide for dredging from a point south of the town of St. Johns to the boundary. The water is very low at that point, and only vessels of five and a half foot draught can go through. In reality this is part of the whole project.


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sure the minister is anxious to give information as to the expenditure of $250,000 for harbour improvements at Sorel. No doubt this expenditure is for a very worthy purpose, but perhaps the minister will tell the committee exactly what is being done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The larger part of the amount is to pay the contractor who has undertaken to reinforce the wharf upon which the elevator has been built. The wharf was threatening to fall into the river, and the engineers decided that reinforcement was necessary. There was a vote last year for this purpose, and most of the amount we now ask will be applied on the balance due to the contractor. In addition there is an expenditure of about $25,000 or $30,000 for the reconstruction of what is commonly called the Morgan wharf, which is in a dilapidated state; in fact there is practically no wharf at all. It is an old wharf and the wood has decayed, and generally it is in a dangerous condition. We have provided in this vote $250,000 to rebuild the wharf. Most of the amount represents the balance due to the Foundation Company for the reinforcing of the wharf. I was glad to hear my hon. friend mention the importance of the port of Sorel. It is no burden ,on the country because, if my memory serves me, the net revenue from the operation of the harbour last year was about $85,000. The project is quite justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction repairs and improvement of harbours and rivers.
5Ji-i. Ontario.
Batchawana-wharf, $5,700.	.
Big Bay, North Keppel-addition to pier, $3,900.	.	,	.
Burlington Channel-reconstruction ot pier,
^ Callander-wharf extension (revote), $16,000.
Cobourg-maintenance dredging, $18,400.
Drainage schemes, $100,000.
Foleyet-wharf, $3,200.
Fort Frances-wharf, $7,000.
Fort William-dredging (revote $7,000), $49,500.	, ,	,	.	,
Fort William (Chippewa park)-breakwater and improvements to wharf, $27,300.
Goderich-harbour improvements (revote $11,000), $65,000.
Grand River-contribution to improvements (revote $262,500), $318,375.
Hamilton-harbour	improvements (revote
[Stage Direction]
Jackfish-wharf-to complete, $6,100. Kakawong-harbour improvements, $8,800. Kenora-(Laurenson's creek) retaining wall, $20,000.
Kincardine-harbour improvements (revote), $18,000.
Kingston-mooring wharf-(revote $24,500), $36,800.
Kingston, R.M.C.-reclamation from Navy Bay, $40,000.
Lake St. Francis-protection work, $10,000. Leamington-harbour improvements (revote $66,000), $135,000.
Lion's Head-improvements to harbour, $5,300.
Little River-harbour improvements, $10,000. Meaford-reconstruction of harbour works, $27,200.
Midland-harbour improvements, $22,600. Midland-monument channel dredging (revote), $3,900.
Nation River-dredging-the provincial government to contribute (revote), $43,000. Oshawa-harbour improvements, $88,000. Ottawa-Rideau river - reconstruction of walls, $13,900.
Overbrook-contribution towards improvements, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $5,000.
Parry Sound (Seven Mile Narrows)-dredging, $12,700.
Pefferlaiv River-channel protection and dredging, $21,000.
Pelee Island-north wharf extension, $6,000. Penetanguishene-wharf, $2,400.
Picnic Island-dredging west entrance to Little Current channel (estimated cost $105,000), $50,000.
Port Arthur-harbour improvements, $250,000.
Port Arthur-harbour improvements (to complete contract), $3,063.
Port Hope-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $28,000), $36,000.
Port Perry-improvements, $15,000.
Port Stanley-harbour repairs and improvements (revote $30,000), $61,200.
Presqu'ile Point-wharf and dredging (revote $24,000), $25,600.
Rondeau (Erieau)-warehouse, $8,600.
Sarnia-harbour improvements, $7,500. Saugeen river-wharf extension, $20,000. Sault Ste. Marie-dredging, $34,000.
Sombra-wharf, $17,300.
South Baymouth-dredging, $20,000.
Stoney Point-wharf and dredging, $10,000. Sydenham River (Chenal Ecarte)-dredging, $31,000.
Tecumseh-to complete dredging, $2,125. Thames River mouth-dredging (revote), $5,600.	,
Thornbury-wharf reconstruction (revote $5,200), $5,500.
Toronto-maintenance of eastern channel, $15,000.	.	A ,Toronto - harbour improvements (revote $255,000), $350,000.	,	„	,
Victoria Harbour-removal of cribs and piles, $4,200.
Whitby-harbour improvements, $17,400.
4854	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
Mr. McIVOR:: There are two items in this vote for which we in Fort William are grateful, the dredging item and the breakwater and improvements to the wharf at Chippewa park. These works are absolutely necessary, and if the department spend all their money as honestly as upon these works they can certainly hold their heads up. I rose particularly to say that because of the late fall and the thin ice the district engineer could not get his staff on the river early. Then came a very heavy snowfall and the soundings could not be taken in time to get an item included in this vote, but I saw the report and it is essential that more dredging be done. I have been around the harbour several times and I know the value of shipping to the life of the city of Fort William. If the minister can provide another item we shall thank him a second time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not propose to deal with the smaller items in this vote but I think we ought to have information on the larger ones, particularly one as large as $300,000 for harbour improvements at Hamilton.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount is to provide for the following improvements in the Hamilton harbour, which have been urged by the Hamilton harbour commission: To complete the contract with the Russell Construction Company for the construction of the west face of the James street slip and dredging, $3,300; reconstruction of the west face of the Wellington street slip, $116,000; towards completion of the terminal wharf of the Hamilton harbour commission, $180,000. These amounts, in round figures, make up the total of $300,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like some information on the item of $16,000 for a wharf extension at Callander on lake Nipissing; also what does the item of $100,000 for drainage schemes cover?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The item for the wharf extension at Callander is a revote. It is required for the contract with the Richardson Construction Company, awarded for the construction of an extension to this wharf. The existing wharf does not provide sufficient shelter or accommodation for the increasing boat traffic on lake Nipissing at Callander, which is largely due to the tremendous tourist traffic attracted by the Dionne quintuplets.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Boatloads of people will go to see them, and they are worth it.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The work has been requested by the member for the constituency, by the Armstrong Towing Company, Limited, John D. Smith and Sons, the Canadian

Timber Company, the municipality of Hims-worth North, and Mr. George K. Morrison. The work is under contract.
The item for drainage schemes is similar to the vote provided for Quebec province. It is to help drain, in conjunction with the provincial government, certain lands in Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: On their recommendation?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What about the wharf at Foleyet? I am glad to know there is a wharf at Foleyet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This small wharf is needed to handle lumber and other shipments and supplies for cottages, as well as to provide a landing base for aeroplanes which land in Ivanhoe lake. At present all freight has to be unloaded at the end of the road, carried across the breach, loaded in small boats, and then handled in large launches or planes. The Pine Land Timber Company own and operate a saw mill at Foleyet, which employs during the summer 160 men. There is in addition considerable activity in the locality. There are sixteen summer cottages on the lake, with no wharf of any kind.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suppose the hon. member for Parry Sound, to whom the minister referred a moment or two ago, has been one of those asking for the wharf at Callander. The minister could not possibly resist his plea and had to put that item in.
I should like some information as to the item for contribution to improvements to the Grand river. That contribution has not yet been made, but it may be required during the summer because there is considerable difficulty on the Grand river from a sanitary point of view. I am told that the sewage effluent from Kitchener, Galt and neighbouring villages is approximately fifteen cubic feet per second, and in the summer the flow of the river south of Galt is often as low as fifty cubic feet per second. When the sewage effluent enters the river, conditions are wholly unsatisfactory for almost any purpose south of Galt. I am glad the item has been included; this work is required.	.
Then there is an item of $21,000 for channel protection and dredging at Pefferlaw river. What is that for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for the dredging of the channel at the mouth of the Pefferlaw river and the construction of pile and timber protection work to maintain the channel when dredged. The river is four and a half miles long and navigable for three miles inland from its mouth to the town of

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
Pefferlaw. The work is requested by the citizens of Pefferlaw and Georgina township to enable fishing boats and other craft to reach Pefferlaw. In addition to accommoda-ing these boats the proposed work will make Pefferlaw a harbour of refuge for small craft during storms. The nearest harbours now available are Beaverton and Black River, seven and nine miles away respectively. The present summer population of about 2,500 is expected to be greatly increased when improved harbour facilities are provided. The dredging will amount to $12,425, and the revetment walls will cost $8,000.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know the district very well. It is perhaps just another case where the minister could not very well resist. The hon. member for York North must have something spent up in that part of his riding, although after this river is dredged out it will fill up again next spring. It is just a small muddy river, used by nothing but small pleasure boats. No doubt the dredging and deepening will benefit them.


Mr. HEAPS:: How many boats go there?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Outboard motor and other boats go in there. It runs into the south end of lake Simcoe. I know the district well. All I can do, I suppose, is to congratulate the hon. member for York North on having $21,000 spent-


Mr. SPENCE:: You mean, wasted.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will not even say
"wasted"; he has got that amount of money to be spent in his constituency. As I said yesterday, the minister deserves everybody's sympathy. His is a spending department. He would almost need a machine gun at his door to keep the 180 members behind him from demanding this and that and everything else.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one item in which, I am sure, the hon. member who has just taken his seat will be interested; I refer to $350,000 for harbour improvements in Toronto. What is the nature of that work? How does it come to be necessary?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I overlooked that one.


Mr. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: Did you recommend that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: No, I have never recommended public works for my riding.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is an amount to provide for the following expenditures:
To complete contract with Russell Construction Company for the construction of four cribs to fill spaces in the western breakwater, $5,300.
To complete the contract with the Canadian Dredge and Dock Company Limited, for the construction of 1,154 feet of harbour head wall for industrial purposes east of Parliament street, $156,000.
To provide for contract with Detroit River Construction Limited for the construction of a breakwater extending to the south side of the western channel, required in connection with the air port development, $155,000.
To provide for repairs to east and west piers of eastern channel, $10,380.
To provide for repairs to the concrete face of the south pier of the western channel on a length of approximately 2,000 feet, $22,000.
New fencing and repairs waling north end of government property, $700.
Renewal of life chains, $1,500.
The total is $350,880.


Mr. MASSEY:: How much was spent on the Toronto harbour last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To the 31st of March, 1939, the expenditure was $33,000.


Denton Massey: Last year there was a substantial vote, I forget just the exact amount, and $225,000 of this present $350,000 is a revote. Is it planned that the work will be proceeded with this year, or will the experience of last year be repeated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contracts I have just mentioned have been let and will be proceeded with without delay.


Mr. GRAYDON:: In 1935 a vote of $20,000 was passed for the development of one of the important harbours in Ontario, that of Port Credit. The work was never proceeded with after this government came into power. I took it for granted that it was stopped because of a large-scale campaign of economy on their part, and I was prepared to congratulate the administration upon any move of that kind, provided that it was applied everywhere. But, as I look over the supplementary estimates and some of the amounts which are being voted for other parts of the dominion, I must say, with every desire to be fair and not too critical of the hard-pressed Minister of Public Works, that my voice can no longer be stilled with regard to the claims of Port Credit harbour. I am hoping that the minister will say it was only through a typographical error that Port Credit harbour was left out on this occasion. In all kindness I ask the minister to consider carefully, as no doubt he has been doing for some years past, the claims of the harbour in that particular part of Ontario, and to give to the matter of its development as much consideration as possible. In the last two or three years, in addition to the fishing industry, there has developed a comprehensive yacht club, and the place is a port of call for many pleasure boats from Toronto
4856	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers
and elsewhere. That, of course, is not the major claim which the community has. It has seemed to members of the board of trade and others in business at that point that there is a good future on a commercial basis for the village and the harbour. I want to impress upon the minister, as I have done on previous occasions, the importance of the harbour, and urge upon him that he continue to give consideration to the claims made on its behalf and, if possible, proceed with the development which was stopped some time ago.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is so generous in the expression of his views that I shall not fail to take note of his observations.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think that all of us have been getting in the last couple of days a fairly good lesson in the geography of Canada, its numerous coves and inlets and fishing wharves and so on. Indeed I am wondering whether there is any inlet or wall or breakwater which has been missed out of the estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Oh, a lot of them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It seems to me that if one or two have been missed out, they should be included before the house prorogues. It is always possible that by some accident one or two have been omitted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: More than that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: More than one or two?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, hundreds.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In my constituency there is a river known as the Red river which has important historical associations. I see nothing in the estimates for my own constituency. I assure the minister that I shall not wear out the doorstep of his office in making applications or requests for public improvements in my riding.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I regret that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, if the minister extends that invitation to hon. members generally I am afraid the threshold of his office will be worn out before long. All I wanted to know was whether by any chance, mischance or accident, any wharf, cove or fishing dock had been left out of the estimates; if so, I think it ought to go in.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
5.17. Alberta.
Athabaska and Clearwater rivers-dredging,
[Stage Direction]
Lethbridge-contribution towards protection work, the province of Alberta to bear a like amount, $25,000.
Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: Will the minister give some details regarding this item of dredging on the Athabaska river? The steady increase in mining operations in the Athabaska lake area and territories has made the river a vital artery of transportation, and during recent years great difficulty has been experienced because of low water just before the closing of navigation. What progress has been made in this regard? With regard to the note that Alberta is to bear a like amount, what information has the minister to oiler?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract was awarded last year, but we have no report as to what work has been done up to the present time. It is expected the work will be completed this year.


Mr. PELLETIER:: How much money will this project cost finally? Some money was spent last year and there is another $100,000 this year. We are entirely in favour of the work but we should like to know what it will cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This vote of S100,000 will
cover the cost of the project now under construction.


René-Antoine Pelletier: With regard to this
Lethbridge item there is a contribution from the province of $25,000. What sort of work is it for which a provincial contribution is required? We find nowhere in all the estimates provincial governments being required to make similar contributions.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is a contribution towards the cost of constructing 2,700 feet of protection work on the west bank and 300 feet on the east bank of the Old Man river. The total estimated cost is approximately $50,000. The proposed work was requested by the provincial department of public works to prevent erosion of the banks and possible damage to the adjacent highway. In a letter the highway commissioner states that the provincial government are prepared to put up their share on the proposed basis. When the request was made the province offered to pay half the cost.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Then we can say that if the provincial government had not offered to contribute a part of the cost the project would not have been undertaken?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I would not say it would not have been undertaken. Possibly we would have provided for that work ourselves but the offer was made in that way and we accepted it.

Supply-Public Works-Harbours and Rivers


René-Antoine Pelletier: I do not blame the
minister for accepting the offer, but millions of dollars have been spent for protection work in other places and this is apparently the only item under which a provincial government is asked to contribute to such work. Perhaps the minister can find it possible to carry on the work without that provincial contribution, because the money is needed in other places. If the minister is doing the work elsewhere without provincial contributions, I do not see why he should depart from the general policy so far as Alberta is concerned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is rather different
from ordinary works. The work will be done by the province itself and we are contributing towards the cost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This vote relates to
works that are perhaps purely provincial. The question of preventing the erosion of banks by streams is one which has caused a good deal of trouble in the past. Many claims have been made for protection works all along the shore of lake Ontario in the vicinity of Toronto, where there has been extensive erosion. The department has taken the position, which in my opinion is a sound one, that there is no liability whatever on the part of the dominion for the natural erosion of banks of streams.


David Spence: What about lakes?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The same applies to
lakes. In some instances the parties claiming protection works of this kind take this view: "You have dredged and your vessels come in close to the shore, and by the action of the waves caused by the ships the natural erosion has been increased, and therefore you should pay." In the absence of such a claim, however, the position taken by the Department of Public AVorks over a period of years is that there is no liability for the natural erosion of banks of rivers or streams. If the dominion once admitted liability, the hon. gentleman can see where it would end.


René-Antoine Pelletier: The hon. member may be right from the legal standpoint, but we have gone through these estimates carefully and we find that money has been spent in other places for protection work. Similar expenditures were made under the administration of which the hon. gentleman was a member. Whether they admit the principle that natural erosion is something for which they are not responsible is beside the point. The fact is that such expenditures have been made in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
5J/8. British Columbia.
Bella Coola-wharf repairs and extension, $16,000.
Digby island-wharf replacement and improvements (revote $32,900), $50,500.
Dodge Cove-extension to float approach, $4,400.
Ecstall River-improvements, $5,000.
Esquimalt dry dock-improvements, $50,000.
Esquimalt dry dock-wharf and dredging,
[Stage Direction]
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Agassiz, the provincial government to contribute a like amount, $4,000.
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Matsqui. the provincial government and the municipality of Matsqui each to contribute a like amount, $2,400.
Fraser river-improvements (revote $3,400),
[Stage Direction]
Fraser river-Lulu island-contribution towards protection work, the municipality of Richmond to contribute a like amount, $27,500.
Fraser river (North Arm)-dredging,
[Stage Direction]
Harrison Lake-wharf and breakwater, $7,000.
Irvine's Landing-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Marchant Road-float, $4,500.
Marmot Bay-renewal of landing, $5,800.
Nanaimo-wharf improvements and dredging (revote $3,600), $20,000.
New AVestminster-fisheries station (revote $6,000), $9,500.
Port Alberni-repairs to assembly wharf, $12,400.
Port Renfrew-wharf repairs and extension, $7,000.
Quatsino-wharf repairs, $8,000.
Sayward-wharf extension (revote), $7,500.
Squamish-wharf improvements and repairs, $14,800.
Summerland-contribution towards extension of ferry slip, the provincial government of British Columbia and the Canadian Pacific Railway each to contribute a like amount, $2,145.99.
Union Bay-wharf repairs and breakwater, $11,500.
Vancouver harbour (First Narrows)-dredging, $30,000.
Vancouver-Stanley Park-foreshore protection, $8,500.
White Rock-wharf repairs and breakwater, $11,400.
Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister explain the two items for the Esquimalt dry dock?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Grote Stirling: With regard to the item of 82,145 for Summerland, will the minister explain the arrangement under which two others contribute to the expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This item is to provide for one-third of the cost of the extension of 195 feet to the Canadian Pacific Railway ferry slip at Summerland. The extension was built during the summer of 1938 at a cost of $6,437, two-thirds of which is to be borne equally by the provincial government and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It was requested by District Engineer Forde. I quote from a communication received from C. A. Cotterell, assistant general manager of the Canadian Pacific Railway at Vancouver:
Referring to conversation about the shallow water at Summerland_ it would seem that the best way to meet this situation would be by the extension of our barge slip and trestle about 200 feet, curving same slightly to the south in order to reach water deep enough for the tugs and barges to operate conveniently. Our engineers figure that such extension can be made for about $7,000 and inasmuch as this would relieve the government of their obligation of almost annual dredging we feel that the government should assume the whole or the greater portion of this expense.
I understand this is to avoid dredging which is done generally by the government.


Mr. REID:: After the expenditures are made at Esquimalt will the Esquimalt dock be in a position to accommodate such boats as the Empress liners? It will be remembered that representations have been made here by myself almost every year against the Canadian Pacific Railway Qompany which in respect of these services receives $600,000 in subsidies, having the major repairs to the Empress boats made in China, and the reply given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce has been that Esquimalt is not able to take care of the Empress liners. Now we have spent considerable money on Esquimalt, and, if it is not ready to take care of the Empress liners, sufficient money should be appropriated for this purpose, because, apart from the Empress boats, in the event of war they would have no place other than Esquimalt to take care of these vessels.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the Empress boats do dock at Esquimalt.


Thomas Reid: Yes, for minor repairs, but for the main repairs involving the larger expenditures are made every year at Hongkong. The argument of the Minister of Trade and

Commerce is that the major repairs cannot be made at Esquimalt owing to lack of the necessary equipment to lift out the engines, and so on. The money should be spent in Canada, not in Hongkong.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The dry dock at Esquimalt does not provide the necessary machinery and equipment to make the repairs. The dry dock facilities are there, but the repairs are made by private companies established there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
550. Generally. Improvements, maintenance of services, repairs and additions, $500,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is the ordinary item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
552. Generally. Protection works generally,
René-Antoine Pelletier: I refer to the remarks made a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). This item appears to bear out my contention; where there is natural erosion, and protection works are required, we are providing an item of $1,000,000 for such work.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much was spent on this item last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why $1,000,000 this year? Election?


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is suspicious.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because we believe there is greater need this year. In reality this item is a special item destined to provide employment within my estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For protection against accidents in elections.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges.
557. New Westminster bridge-maintenance and operation, $30,000.
Thomas Reid: This is a very important item, not only to the constituency of New Westminster but to the people of the lower Fraser valley. Has the provincial government transferred the old bridge to the ownership of the dominion government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the transfer has not been executed as yet, but

Supply-Public Works-Roads and Bridges
that the provincial government have passed the enabling legislation to authorize the transfer to the department.


Thomas Reid: This bridge has been a matter of contention for some years now, starting in 1934 or 1935. The provincial government acquired permission to construct a new bridge, the major condition being, amongst other things to be done, that the centre span of the old railway bridge should be taken out. When the dominion government assume complete ownership of the old bridge they will have to consider seriously either financially helping the provincial government with the new bridge by a contribution, or taking out the centre span of the old bridge. Three railways are using the old bridge, and the revenue over a period of ten years has averaged $73,000 per annum. The expenditure has been high, running to an average of $48,000 per annum, but it has been high owing to the fact that up until a year or so ago the railway bridge was being used also for motor traffic; since the new bridge has been opened and the deck of the old bridge has been removed such expenditure will be no longer required. It is estimated that not over $20,000 to $25,000 will be necessary, which will mean that revenues of something like $50,000 per annum will accrue to the dominion government. The dominion government have been put to no expense for this old bridge. They would not have become owners but for the fact that the provincial government were told that they would not have permission to construct the new bridge, which is only two hundred feet from the present old bridge, unless these conditions were complied with. Having asked the provincial government to take out the centre span or hand over the bridge, the dominion government are now faced with having to take out the centre span themselves. They cannot take the attitude that the provincial government should do it, and then, when they become the owners, fail to do it themselves. It is very necessary that this centre span be taken out, because it is only 155 feet wide whereas the centre span of the new bridge is some 450 feet. Ships are passing through there almost every day; as a matter of fact last year the bridge was opened some 2,500 times. The new bridge has made it more hazardous for the ships, and in view of all the circumstances I make a plea to this government and the minister that since they have assumed responsibility for that bridge, the centre span will have to be removed. If not, the dominion government have no right to collect $50,000 a year without contributing to the cost of the new bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Roads and bridges.
558. Interprovincial bridge, Campbellton, New Brunswick to Cross Point, Quebec; the provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec each to pay one-third of the cost and maintenance thereof (revote), $100,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Are any of these bridges to which we are contributing now, which may be interprovincial or entirely provincial, toll bridges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are no tolls payable on the bridge referred to in this item, either for pedestrian or for vehicular traffic?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: None.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This applies to the international bridge over the St. Croix river between St. Stephen, New Brunswick, and Calais, Maine?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, the same answer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph branch.
5 63. Saskatchewan.
Telephone line between Buffalo narrows and Peter Pond lake, '$10,000.
René-Antoine Pelletier: There is no item here for Alberta, so that perhaps what I wish to discuss may be dealt with under this item. There has been some trouble with the government telegraph line between the towns of Grouard and Peace River in my district. That line follows what is called the old Indian trail, and sometimes passes through marshy land adjacent to Lesser Slave lake. There has been some talk of the necessity of rerouting this line in order that continuous service may be provided. At the present time in case of a breakdown in this line it is sometimes most difficult for any lineman to reach the break, because, where it passes across marshy land, it cannot be reached on horse-back, on foot or in any other way. They may have to take a boat, which is not always available, and as a result there is a great deal of difficulty, so that the telegraph service sometimes is not as good as it should be. Undoubtedly the minister knows all about this, because I am sure his department has had a great deal of trouble with it in the past. I wonder if he would consider rerouting this line and having it follow the main highways, where it would be easily accessible in case of trouble. This should be done, because a break in that line which cannot be reached quickly interferes with the telegraph system of the whole north country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
4860	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Telegraph Branch
Telegraph branch.
56>i. British Columbia.
Extension of telephone line to Noralee, $1,900.
Telephone line from Montney to Murdale, $1,300.
Telephone line from Fellers Heights to Upper Cutbank, $1,900.
Telephone line from Prince George to Chief Lake, B.C., $3,800.
Telephone line from Shearerdale, B.C. to Cherry Hill, Alberta, $3,300.
Telephone line between Mountain House and Big Lake, $3,700.
Telephone line between 111 Mile House and Spring Lake, B.C., $1,600.
Telephone line between Williards Ranch and Bridge Lake, B.C., $5,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask in a general way whether these items deal merely with extensions of existing services, and whether the Department of Public Works operates these lines, or whether they are operated by the Department of Transport?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are operating these lines.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there any revenue, or are they merely operated in connection with government services?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. there is a revenue derived from the operation of these lines, but I must say that in the end there is always a deficit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not understand the situation at all. Why does the Department of Public Works operate these lines, while in other cases we have the Department of Transport doing similar work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Department of Transport operates lines which are necessary for navigation purposes. We build and operate telegraph and telephone lines in territories where it would not be advantageous for private companies to go in. To a certain extent we are doing pioneer works, as I said yesterday. We provide communication in localities where there would be no communication if it were left to private enterprise or even to the provinces. We operate the lines we build, while the telegraph and telephone services operated by the Department of Transport are related to navigation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But there is much in common between the work of the Department of Transport and that of the Department of Public Works. While this may be the logical department to erect the transmission lines, probably the Department of Transport would be the logical department to have jurisdiction over the service, so that it might be coordinated with whatever services they give.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That might be.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these lines connected with any main telephone services in these areas?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, they are.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why could the officials of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport not get together with a view to coordinating this work? Perhaps in the long run more efficient service could be given the public at large in that way than foy having two departments doing the same kind of work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is worth considering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally.
565. To authorize, subject to approval of governor in council, appointments of such extra temporary officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of any item in these supplementary estimates for this department, payment therefor to be made from the particular item with respect to which such extra assistance is required, or from this item, $100,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: How does this amount compare with the vote for last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is the same.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
636. Departmental administration - further amount required to provide for the clerk of estimates at $4,920, $780.
René-Antoine Pelletier: I have before me a copy of the main estimates; then I have supplementary estimates, further supplementary estimates and special supplementary estimates, in each of which there are estimates of the Department of Public Works. Yesterday one of the members from Toronto made an analysis of the expenditures province by province, and we find the lowest expenditure of all in Alberta. Certainly in point of population Alberta is not the smallest province in Canada, and undoubtedly its needs are as urgent as those of any other province. Why is Alberta receiving less assistance from the dominion government than any other province, with the possible exception of Prince Edward Island, which of course is very much smaller?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Alberta gets less than Prince Edward Island.


René-Antoine Pelletier: When the minister was asked this question last year he said the reason was that he had received no requests from Alberta. Well, I feel sure large numbers of requests have been received from that province this year. Possibly the minister

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
meant that such requests could not be favourably considered, which would be something entirely different. It seems to me that a great deal more consideration should be given that province, in view of the needs that exist. Perhaps the minister would make a statement as to why this has not been done.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The number of requests made to the department by persons interested in Alberta is not as great as my hon. friend seems to think. I think I am safe in saying that most of the requests that have come to us have been given favourable consideration. There is a very good reason why you do not find Alberta in the list of expenditures as frequently as you find Ontario and Quebec, for example, or Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Most of the expenditures -made in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario are due to the extensive coast lines of these provinces and their numerous harbours, a situation which does not apply in Alberta. That is one explanation, and in addition the population is a factor in appreciating the circumstances of the case. Where the population is larger, as in Ontario and Quebec, there are more requests for public buildings than from a province where the population is smaller. I must say that as far as I can judge no injustice has been done to Alberta, and every request will be considered with the very best of intentions.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am very glad the
minister has made this statement, and of course I recognize the force of his argument that the coast lines of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario necessitate a much greater expenditure in those provinces. But I am compelled to suggest that I am not aware of any new inland sea in Saskatchewan which would require any great expenditure in that province. However, I should like to assure the minister that it is not because of any lack of requests from Alberta that the expenditures in that province are down. Last year, for example, a certain amount of dredging was undertaken at Waterways on the Athabaska river, and, if my understanding is correct, the funds for that work were provided by the Department of Mines and Resources. The result was that there had to be taken away from Alberta about $50,000 which otherwise would have been contributed to assist that particular province. I do not believe any other province is receiving this kind of treatment, and that is why I bring the matter to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
639. Quebec.
Montreal postal terminal; additions (estimated cost, $688,900), $500,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the nature of
the expenditure?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide an extension to the Montreal postal terminal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Where will the extension be located?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: One along St. James street and the other along St. Antoine street. When the project was first initiated it provided for two extensions being built in the future. One of those is along St. James street, just in front of Bo-naventure station.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will it go to Windsor
street?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, in both cases.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are the extensions necessary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, and they have been
strongly recommended by the Post Office Department. Representations were made last year, and at this time they are pressing for the extensions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements oi public buildings.
6 !,0. Ontario.
London Westminster' Hospital-construction of "active treatment" unit and doctors' residence (estimated cost. $238,000), $100,000.
Toronto; additional postal accommodation (estimated cost, $1,500,000), $1,000,000; total, $1,100,000.
Denton Massey: When will the work in
Toronto be commenced?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The plans are ready, but
a question has been raised as to the possibility of reducing to some extent the cost of construction by doing away with certain ornamentation on the building. However in discussing the matter with the architects I am convinced we can save very little by changing the plans already prepared. As the hon. member knows, we were asking for tenders, and the tenderers were informed that we would not proceed with the work at this time. But the attitude now is to ask for tenders and start work as soon as possible-certainly within a month or a month and a half.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour-Administration
Chief architect's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of public buildings.
Bill. British Columbia.
Vancouver: hospital for Department of Pensions and National Health (estimated cost, $500,000), $200,000.
Thomas Reid: Is that an entirely new
building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Chief engineer's branch.
Construction, repairs and improvements of harbours and rivers.
GW. Quebec.
Quinze dam-reconstruction, $250,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Where is that work?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the Ottawa river.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In connection with the
control of waters?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. H. MOORE (Ontario) presented the seventh and eighth reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved:
That the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce respecting the printing in blue book form of certain extracts from the evidence and of tables supplied by governmental departments be concurred in.
Walter Edward Foster: By leave of the house.


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

[Stage Direction]
99. Departmental administration, $117,276.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I presume that on this item, Mr. Chairman, we may discuss matters of fundamental importance affecting the Department of Labour, with particular reference to the activities of the minister. With other hon. members I realize the vast amount of

hard work which the Minister of Labour has done since taking charge of the department, but we are now in the fourth and possibly the last session of this parliament, and after prorogation we may face dissolution. In the minds of a great many people, particularly those who have been looking to the Minister of Labour to do something to relieve unemployment, it may be disillusion rather than dissolution.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): If my hon. friend will permit me, there is an item in the special supplementaries dealing with unemployment and grants in aid to the provinces, and I hope he will not mind my suggesting to him that that would be a more appropriate time to discuss unemployment than on the departmental estimates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no objection to the course which the minister suggests, 'but I can assure him that if I make any comments now on the unemployment problem I shall not repeat them later. I have no desire to delay the proceedings, and intended to take only a few minutes to express my opinions with regard to the very serious unemployment situation. It was my purpose not to discuss the whole matter of unemployment on the departmental estimates, but rather to give a general summary of the unemployment situation.


Mr. ROGERS:: My only thought was to have the discussion in proper sequence. If we have an unemployment debate on the main departmental estimates it might very well interrupt consideration of the specific items which are really before the committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When may we expect to reach that other item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I intend to go progressively down the list of items in the main estimates and then take the special supplementaries.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not object to that procedure


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think it would be preferable, if my hon. friend would agree.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
101. Combines Investigation Act, $48,060.
Mr. DEACHMAN:: I suggest that the
house consider the possibility of giving to the commissioner who handles this work a more direct method of action, or that we put into effect a form of action which will bring more direct results. We had presented under date of March 14, 1939, a report on the investigation of a combine in paperboard shipping containers, and if ever there was a combine

Supply-Labour-Combines Act
which was a combine this is one, according to the report of the commissioner. The report 6ays:
This system of control has been rigidly enforced. Deposits varying in amount from $500 to $10,000 were placed by the members with the management of the association as guarantees that prices would be maintained and that its other regulations would be observed. These deposits, in the ease of quota members, have been added to through a levy of one per cent on sales, until in 1938 the total accumulation amounted to over a quarter of a million dollars.
This is an accumulated fund, the financial backing for a combine. Further on the report says:
When these facts are considered, and when it is realized that the industry has operated until recently under a tariff protection which worked out to between forty and fifty per cent, it is apparent that price competition as a public safeguard in this industry has been all but completely suppressed by the operations of this association. Indeed it would be difficult to devise a more complete elimination of price competition in any industry than has been achieved through the operations of Container Materials, Limited, in connection with the manufacture and sale of shipping containers. Certainly nothing more complete in this respect has been the subject of investigation _ under the Combines Investigation Act since it was passed in 1923.
Then on page 86 I find this statement:
In the past five years four new corrugated box plants have been established in Ontario. The experience of one of these, O. and S. Corrugated Products Company, of Toronto, is related in section vi of this report.
Within a month of the establishment of the
O.	and S. Company the members of the combination induced its owners to agree to maintain the fixed prices, and secured this agreement by offering the company a sales allotment and a guarantee that even if the company produced nothing it would be compensated to the extent of $30,000 for its first nine months with the group. The sales of the O. and S. Company dropped sharply within a month of joining. Its sales for the entire nine months totalled only $19,355. Its receipts from the members of the combination for the same period amounted to $26,128.
In other words, this company was paid for its abstention from competition.
Arrangements on a similar basis continued, with the result that in the twenty-five months period ending April 30, 1938, payments received by this company from the group amounted to 84-5 per cent of its sales. In other words, under this arrangement, for every dollar of sales made by this company it received an addition of 84-5 cents from the other members of the combination. In this twenty-five months the O. and S. Company was paid a subsidy of $69,690, largely, if not altogether, as a return for its undertaking to refrain from any competition in price with the members of the combination. This amount was paid to this Ontario company in several instalments by all the members of Container Materials, Limited, including those whose plants are located in the maritime provinces, Manitoba and British Columbia.
Further with reference to this company, we have an illustration, from the evidence of how thoroughly it took advantage of the protection which had been given to it to exact the highest possible price which could be charged. In the evidence we find a statement from the Consumers' Glass Company, dated March 23, 1936, part of which reads as follows:
Despite the fact that we have approached the carton manufacturers in a friendly way in an endeavour to work out a cheaper carton to compete with American competition, it is now quite obvious to us that the carton companies are just toying -with our problems and intend to continue to take full advantage of the 50 per cent duty their industry enjoys. The exorbitant prices paid for cartons in Canada at this time is a very serious handicap to this industry and if satisfactory price arrangements cannot be arrived at between the two industries in a friendly way, we will have no other alternative but to take more drastic measures in the future.
One might go on and quote indefinitely from this document, but it all tends in the same direction. This was an admirable investigation; certainly the matter was thoroughly investigated. The report is, I think, a very able one and is a tribute to the able and conscientious administration of the Combines Investigation Act. But the difficulty lies in the fact that although this report is dated March 14, 1939, it seems impossible to do anything with .it so far, because of course in these matters we must go before the attorneys general of the different provinces. I am going to suggest later that there be a different method of approach.
A few days ago, on May 27, Mr. Shipman, a manufacturer of paper boxes who was outside the combine, wrote a letter to the commissioner of customs and sent me a copy. I desire to quote from his letter:
On October 1, 1938, the price of liner board, for instance, was $1.56 per thousand square feet, to-day it is $1.30 per M square feet, a reduction of 16| per cent. During this same period, the combine members who, as you know', also manufacture and control the price of paper board have reduced their prices of boxes as follows: October 1, 1938, 20 per cent; January, 1939, 3 per cent; February, 1939, 5 per cent; March, 1939, 10 per cent; making a total of 38 per cent. In addition to cutting the price of boxes 38 per cent the O. & 8. Corrugated Products Company openly offer all our customers to beat the above prices by 5 per cent and in some cases more than that, bearing the cost of same, we believe, from monies received from the combine members.
I do not know whether this gentleman is right or not, but it is a suggestion that the combine continues to exist, but that, in changed circumstances, desiring now to get rid of the only competitor that remains-one of the original disturbers of their combine- they propose to put him out of business, right
Supply-Labour-Combines Act

under the shadow of their combine, by means of continuing reductions in prices far below a level which might normally be expected.
Surely under these circumstances, where a combine still continues in sharp defiance of the report of the commissioner, or the report is deliberately ignored, it might be well for the House of Commons to consider another remedy and, I suggest, a potent one. It lies in section 15 of the Customs Tariff, which provides:
1.	Whenever the governor in council deems it to be in the public interest to inquire into any conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement alleged to exist among manufacturers or dealers in any article of commerce to unduly promote the advantage of the manufacturers or dealers in such article at the expense of the consumers, the governor in council may commission or empower any judge of the supreme court, or of the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any superior court or county court in Canada, to hold an inquiry in a summary way and report to the governor in council whether such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists.
In regard to this section of the Customs Tariff I should like to ask the minister if now, with a report such as this, we have not the definite suggestion that a combine does exist. We then come to the remedy:
2.. The judge may compel the attendance of witnesses and examine them under oath and require the production of books and papers, and shall have such other necessary powers as are conferred upon him by the governor in council for the purpose of such inquiry.
The information referred to has been already submitted.
3. If the judge reports that such conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement exists in respect of such article, the governor in council may admit the article free of duty, or so reduce the duty thereon as to give to the public the benefit of reasonable competition in the article, if it appears to the governor in council that such disadvantage to the consumer is facilitated by the duties of customs imposed on a like article.
I submit that the case is now proven, that a remedy exists within the Customs Tariff, and that, in order to make effective the work of the combines investigation officer, where a case has been proven against the combine, action may be taken under the clause of the Customs Act which I have cited. It is a far more powerful and forceful remedy than any other that can be had under the Combines Investigation Act. Before the Combines Investigation Act can be made really effective there must be some coordination between the administration of the Customs Tariff and the operation of the combines act so that when it is shown that this state of affairs exists and that these companies, coldbloodedly and remorselessly, have been

exploiting the people months after the investigation has taken place, the government can step in. The hand which can stop them, which has power to take away the monopoly which the same hand gave, should be reached out so strongly and forcefully that the first time action is taken it will be a lesson to other corporations that there are limits to human greed. Let it be a lesson to all such corporations that within the Customs Tariff we have the power to impose a further restraint upon their activities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Combines Investigation Act itself provides three types of remedy. There is first of all the remedy of publicity, which in certain cases in the past has been effective, and has brought about a correction of the situation complained of within a given industry. In addition to that there are penalties, consisting of fines of $10,000 and $25,000 against individuals and corporations respectively, with a further provision for imprisonment. Finally the act provides for the alternative remedy to which the hon. member has referred, namely, the removal or reduction of the customs duty which apparently has permitted the combine to carry on its illegal operations. This provision is found not only in the Customs Tariff but in the combines act itself. It is actually incorporated in that statute. In the particular investigation under discussion, into the manufacture and sale of paperboard shipping containers and related products-


Mr. STEVENS:: The second remedy to which the minister refers can be applied only after further action in the courts-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct.


Henry Herbert Stevens: *-by the attorney general, and after conviction has been obtained.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I was going to explain that the report in this case was made by the commissioner on March 14 of this year. On March 31, after printing, it was transmitted to the attorneys general of the six provinces in which the combine was found to be carrying on its operations. This practice is laid down definitely in the terms of the Combines Investigation Act and it has been followed from the beginning, from the time the original legislation was adopted in 1923; and only once where the report and evidence have been transmitted to the attorney general of a province has prosecution failed to follow. The other remedy to which the hon. member refers is available to be exercised at discretion by the governor in council, but I submit that in order to carry out the purpose of the act it is certainly desirable in the first instance

Supply-Labour-Combines Act
to follow the normal procedure of transmitting the report and the evidence to the attorney general who has charge of the administration of justice in the province in which the combine has been found to exist.
During the past year another report was made, in connection with the distribution of tobacco products in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. The same procedure was followed there, namely, the transmission of the report and the evidence to the attorney general of the province of Alberta. In pursuance of that, the attorney general of Alberta has commenced proceedings against this alleged tobacco combine and those proceedings are now in progress. Any other action such as that suggested by my hon. friend would certainly be collateral to the normal procedure and it would be for the governor in council in each case to determine whether upon the merits it was desirable to apply this further remedy, the reduction or removal of the tariff on the commodity in question.


Robert John Deachman: Arising out of the minister's remarks are one or two questions which I should like him to answer. In the first place, does he regard publicity as an adequate punishment for a business record such as is revealed in the combine recently investigated, the paperboard shipping container matter? Secondly, how many times has the fine of $10,000 been imposed in Canada within recent years? And while the Combines Investigation Act contains a clause in regard to the reduction of duties, has that provision ever -been enforced? If so, who has enforced it? Have we ever had an application of the section of the Customs Tariff under which the duty was reduced in order to check the operations of a combine? I would suggest that the offence which these men have committed is not merely that of charging a higher price, because the tariff gives them permission, but it is the fact that they have brought about a combine which is effective in preventing competition and preventing others from lowering the price. Finally I submit that their offence, because it affects the national life of Canada, is a national matter and that action should properly be taken by the federal government. It is a crime against the consumers and the industry of the nation and therefore differs from other offences on which court action might be taken.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As to the fines which have been imposed and collected under the act since its inception, the total from 1923 to 1939 amounted to $316,400.


Robert John Deachman: How much within the last five years?


Norman McLeod Rogers: From 1932 the fines have been:
Electric Estimators Association of Toronto,

Canadian Fruit Basket Pool, $1,500.
Anthracite coal importers, $43,500.	[DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: What were the dates of the last three?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Canadian Basket Pool was January, 1933, and the anthracite coal December, 1933, and January, 1935.


Robert John Deachman: Is that the last?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Mr. HARRIS:: It is a pleasure for one to be in agreement with a part of the remarks of the hon. member for Huron North, and I rise to commend some of the things he has said. I will not take time to point out those statements that I commend. With reference to one industry which he mentioned, it is common knowledge in the trade that the box industry-fibre boxes, corrugated boxes and so on-has such a grip on the box requirements of Canada that those engaged in that industry are simply hurting themselves in the long run and opening up possibilities of imports of vast quantities of fibreboard and corrugated boxes and packages which will come largely from the southern states. Ultimately this will be a great detriment to Canada. So that any effort put forth by the department with a view to the carrying out of the provisions of this act will be for the benefit of Canada. Let me give one or two instances of what is actually happening. Suppose a manufacturer who is using a certain corrugated box, say 18 by 12 by 9 inches, thinks he can make a saving by reducing that 9 inches to 8J inches. If he sends out a request to half a dozen different sources for a quotation on fifty thousand cartons, he gets exactly the same price from all the organizations manufacturing that particular carton. If his business is in Windsor, and he asks for quotations from Windsor, London, Guelph, Kitchener and Toronto, with Kitchener as the point of delivery, all these branches of the industry-and they are all different firms- will quote the same delivered price. If the buyers are in Kitchener and have a trucking service running between Kitchener and Toronto and wish to buy the cartons in Toronto in order to get a return load for their trucks and absorb the trucking charges themselves, they still get no consideration. In other words the manufacturer of the cartons in Toronto will deliver or pay the freight into Kitchener but will make no deduction if
Supply-Labour-Combines Act

delivery is taken in Toronto. There is, in short, a tight combine with regard to that particular product.
What obtains in that industry obtains also in other industries. As I said in another connection .some little while ago-the minister rather ridiculed the idea-let us have a little strength and activity in the administration of this act. When I said to him a year or two ago that it was time we had some strong men determined on action in matters of this kind, I meant every word I said, and I reiterate it now. Instead of fussing around about provincial jurisdiction and that sort of thing with regard to prosecuting these cases, let him take action quickly, not only on behalf of those who find it necessary to purchase large supplies of this kind, but on behalf of Canada generally. As a result of this particular combine the purchasing is being done in a country where the workmanship on the product does not inure to the benefit of Canada. Any action taken by the minister along the line of the comments of the hon. member for Huron North will 'be welcome to the people of Canada.


Mr. LEADER:: I take it that the Combines Investigation Act is in good working order. What procedure must be followed in order to get the machinery in operation? Is it necessary that a request be made of the government or does the government undertake to proceed on its own initiative? I am thinking now of the combine which most of us agree exists in the manufacture of farm machinery. We had a federal investigation, and while we did not report that a combine actually exists, we did suggest that there was no competition in prices. For all practical purposes a combine really exists in regard to farm machinery. The Saskatchewan government carried on a similar investigation and they declared emphatically that a combine did exist. We all know that an investigation was held in the United States and it was definitely found that an international combine existed, and one of the companies named as being in that combine was our own Massey-Harris Company of Canada. Is it the intention of the government to institute an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act into the combine which I certainly believe exists in the manufacture of farm machinery?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I can answer the
hon. member who has just spoken and the hon. member for Danforth at the same time. Let me say at once that the act itself lays down the procedure under which investigations are made into alleged combines. It is not a matter of ministerial discretion. There has

not been any lack of action or any delay in dealing with any application that has been made under the Combines Investigation Act-


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What about radio
tubes?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can assure the hon. member for Danforth that there will be neither delay nor lack of action in respect to any such application.
Answering the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, I would say that section 11 of the original act provides as follows:
Any six persons, British subjects, resident in Canada, of the full age of twenty-one years, who are of the opinion that a combine exists, or is being formed, may apply in writing to the commissioner for an investigation of such alleged combine, and shall place before the commissioner the evidence upon which such opinion is based.
2.	The application shall be accompanied by a statement in the form of a solemn or statutory declaration showing
(a)	the names and addresses of the applicants, and at their election the name and address of any one of their number, or of any attorney, solicitor or counsel, whom they may, for the purpose of receiving any communication to be made pursuant to this act, have authorized to represent them;
(b)	the nature of the alleged combine and the names of the persons believed to be concerned therein and privy thereto.
That procedure does not place any serious burden upon those who desire to have an investigation made under the combines act. During the past year all applications received have been dealt with. Not all have proceeded to the point of a formal inquiry; in some cases preliminary inquiries are now pending. Not only was it the intention of the act, but I think clearly the letter of the act requires that these preliminary inquiries should be conducted by the commissioner or the assistant commissioner without publicity, in order that the very fact of the investigation, assuming there were not sufficient grounds for it, might not reflect unfavourably upon the industry concerned.
The hon. member for Calgary East referred to radio tubes. There was an investigation into radio tubes in 1931. Subsequently there have been further proposals for investigation of radio tubes. But that matter had already been submitted by the government to the tariff board for investigation, and it did not seem reasonable to have two investigations proceeding at the same time for the same purpose. I would not go so far as to say, however, that in every case the mere fact that a matter of that kind had been referred to the tariff board would be a complete estoppel to an investigation under the combines act.

Supply-Labour-Combines Act


John Charles Landeryou: I hope it does not stop it in this case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If application is made in proper form under the combines act, there must, I submit, be very strong grounds for our not proceeding with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have never been
enthusiastic about the Combines Investigation Act, not as regards its objects but rather as regards its structure and its methods. However it is the law, and has been for many years.
In the statement made by the minister a moment ago as to procedure, he stated the matter, I believe, accurately. But that only leads up to the preliminary stage, which is carried on by the commissioner in a semiprivate way. That is as it should be, until such time as the commissioner makes his report. But the weakness of the whole business is that when the commissioner makes his report, the question of taking action may be left to the wikh or whim of the attorney general of the province in which the combine or industry is located. The minister will correct me if I am in error, but I believe that in the Nash fruit combine case some years ago the federal government took action on its own initiative. I am not quite certain of that, but my recollection is that their books were seized by the mounted police, and that ultimately the concern was fined some 8125,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: 8200,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Probably there were two or more fines. In any event, if I am not mistaken that case was prosecuted on the initiative of and because of pressure supplied by the federal authorities. In the instance that has been referred to by the hon. member for Huron North, the initial report by the commissioner is very damaging. I have had some information in regard to the matter apart from the report which would indicate a definite combine; and for the moment leaving aside the question of price fixing, there is clearly disclosed the other feature of restraint of trade. The operation of the combine, or of the associated members of the combine, has resulted in driving an independent competitor out of business.
May I suggest to the minister that a number of ways are open to him. One, and I suppose the most orthodox, would be to leave it to the attorney general of the province to take action. Another way would be to proceed, as the minister and the hon.
* member for Huron North have indicated the government have power to proceed, under the Customs Tariff. There is a third way,
I suggest; that is, under the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. It is true that this commission is somewhat restricted because of the privy council decisions, but speaking subject to correction I believe certain parts of this act were declared intra vires, and I understand that the commission exists. As to personnel, of course, it is the same as the tariff board, but it exists as a commission under this act.
Let me assume that the attorney general is not disposed to take action. In that case there would seem to be no reason why the minister should not refer the report of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act to the trade and industry commission. That commission, while restricted as to mandatory power, at least could have a public hearing in the matter and thoroughly investigate it under section 23, which deals with unfair trade practices. Then, whatever may be the limitation of their power in issuing cease and desist orders, at least through the publicity given they could in all probability bring about some degree of remedy. My own feeling, however, is that where a case is made out, as I am confident a case has been made out in this instance, the federal authorities of their own initiative ought to insist on a prosecution. I do not see the Minister of Justice here, but any legal member of the house thoroughly acquainted with the law will correct me if I am wrong when I say that I do not think there is anything in the law which prevents the federal authorities from initiating such a prosecution. I know the law contemplates that this shall be done by the attorney general; there is no question about that, but I do not think the federal authorities are precluded from taking action when the provincial attorney general refrains from doing so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Three months after the
report has been transmitted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister again correct me if I am in error when I say the federal authorities also took action in the coal case?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quebec took action in that case, and Alberta is now taking action in the tobacco case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Coming back to the merits or otherwise of the case referred to by the hon. member for Huron North and the hon. member for Danforth, I believe there is a clear case of undue restriction, suppression and restraint of trade. Apparently these companies have determined to ruin anyone who enters into competition with them. Perhaps it should be made clear that in recent years- and by that I mean the last fifteen years or

Supply-Labour-Combines Act
so-there has been a growing tendency in certain lines of industry to increase the strength of the group by combination, not illegally but with a view to controlling the business of the trade. Sometimes that is advisable. There are times when it may be highly desirable that this should be done; but when it is carried to the point that they deliberately conspire to put a competitor out of business, obviously it is in direct violation not only of the Combines Investigation Act but of the criminal code itself. In my opinion no mercy should be shown a group of industries, or a group of men representing industries, who indulge in these belligerent methods of destroying competition. I would strongly urge upon the minister that in cases such as these, where apparently there is no question that a venal act has been perpetrated, he bring all the forces of the government into play to ensure that the situation be corrected, and I am sure he will not find his commissioner lacking in a desire to cooperate.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has asked two questions; first, as to whether or not in the past the dominion government has initiated prosecution. That did occur in two cases, the first of which was the Nash case to which the hon. member referred, in which case four provinces requested the dominion government to conduct the prosecution and it was so arranged. The other instance was the plumbers' case in Ontario in 1930. The government of Ontario had contested the validity of the Combines Investigation Act, and in those circumstances did not feel free to carry on prosecution. The dominion government went ahead with it. The question of the validity of the Combines Investigation Act was referred to the courts, and when the validity of that act was upheld in the privy council, the Ontario government took over the prosecution of that Case. So really the Nash case is the only one in which the dominion government carried on the prosecution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister just ' answer the specific question as to whether or not there is anything in the law-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am coming to that; I
think I know the point my hon. friend has in mind.	As a matter of fact the act
itself says:
If within three months after remission aforesaid, or -within such shorter period as the governor in council shall decide, no such action shall have been taken by or at the instance of the attorney general of the province as to the governor in council the case seems in the public interest to require, the attorney general of Canada may on the relation of any person who is resident in Canada and of the

full age of twenty-one years permit an information to be laid against such person or persons as in the opinion of the attorney general of Canada shall have been^ guilty of an offence against any of the provisions of this act.
I doubt the efficacy of what my hon. friend suggests in connection with a reference to the trade and industry commission. As a matter of fact, in 1937, when the Combines Investigation Act was amended, the functions with respect to combines which had hitherto been exercised by the trade and industry commission were transferred to the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act. In these circumstances I doubt whether there would be any advantage in a reference to that commission.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I hold in my hand a
report under the Combines Investigation Act resulting from an investigation into an alleged combine in connection with the distribution of tobacco products in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada. At page 39, in the paragraph in which the conclusions are set out, I find the following:
It is my conclusion that a combine within the meaning of the Combines Investigation Act exists in the distribution of tobacco products, and that the Imperial Tobacco Company of Canada, Limited, and the Imperial Tobacco Sales Company of Canada, Limited, and the Northern Alberta Tobacco and Confectionery Jobbers' Association have been parties and privy to and -have knowingly assisted in the formation and operation of this combine.
This is signed by F. A. McGregor, commissioner, and the report is dated August 31, 1938. I understand the minister immediately got in contact with the attorney general of Alberta and submitted the conclusions to him. Perhaps I have not correctly described the procedure.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The report and evidence
were transmitted to him.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It seems to me that
after that is done there should be some method by which the federal government could follow up a definite conclusion such as the one I have read. I do not know what steps have been taken by the attorney general of Alberta in respect of this matter, but-


Norman McLeod Rogers: A prosecution is proceeding.


Grote Stirling: The minister told us
that an hour ago.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Yes, but notwithstanding any action taken by an attorney general of a province, I suggest there should still be machinery by which the federal government could proceed.

Supply-Labour-Combines Act


Grote Stirling: The minister has just
described that, as provided by the act.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Action should be
within the prerogative of the minister. If no action is taken he should still have authority to proceed with a case of this kind.


Grote Stirling: I understand the investigation with regard to fruit jobbers in British Columbia has not yet been reported upon. There are many rumours in British Columbia as to when the report may come down. Can the minister give any information in that regard?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am informed it may be
several weeks yet before that report will be made to the minister.


Mr. MacINNIS:: How many investigations were made under the Combines Investigation Act in the years ended March 31, 1938 and March 31, 1939?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It has not been customary to make public the names of industries with respect to which investigations have been held, until at least those investigations have reached the stage of formal hearings. I explained that a moment ago, and I am quite sure the hon. member understands the point. Three major inquiries were conducted, into tobacco products, paperboard shipping containers, and fruits and vegetables in the western provinces. About thirty other cases were dealt with, some of which may develop into more extensive inquiries. Some were discontinued in the preliminary stages with findings of no combine, and in other cases steps were taken to prevent developments which would have been against the public interest.


Angus MacInnis: That was in 1939?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, during the past fiscal year.


Angus MacInnis: Has the minister similar figures for 1938?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the figures for the previous year, but I am informed the number would be approximately the same.


John Charles Landeryou: An application was made under the Combines Investigation Act by a radio service corporation in Alberta. The minister stated that because an inquiry into radio tubes was before the tariff board his department did not feel justified in proceeding with the application. Since the tariff board has submitted its report, and there is little likelihood of solving the problem through a tariff board inquiry, would the minister consider an application which may
be made now for an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into an alleged combine in the manufacture of radio tubes?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If an application is made in the form prescribed by the act, it will receive the consideration to which it is entitled.


Mr. McNIVEN:: I understood the minister to say that an investigation had been made in connection with the handling of fruits and vegetables in the western provinces. Has the report been filed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. The investigation is now in progress, and it is not expected the report will be made for several weeks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
102. Fair wages and conciliation, $49,535.
Denton Massey: I had planned to make a few remarks with respect to this item, but in view of the lateness of the session and the time at which the item is called I shall confine my observations to one particular case to which I earnestly invite the attention of the minister. I think all hon. members of the committee will fully agree that there are few actions of man more contemptible than that which takes advantage of a situation arising out of difficult times and the wages paid thereunder. There have been many instances throughout Canada, as the minister well knows, in which this has been done.
As an illustration let me refer to two communications which have been forwarded to me; the statements made therein I have reason to believe are accurate. I read:
The writer recently had occasion to visit a family on the relief rolls. I found the woman in the house engaged in making dolls. I asked her what remuneration she received and the reply was fifteen cents per dozen. I understand the retail price is sixty cents each. This family is one of a hundred engaged in this particular line and there is still other work more poorly paid than this.
The second communication reads:
With further reference to the matter I brought to your attention in my previous letter, I had a measured test made on twelve articles of dolls' clothing the same woman is engaged in making, and the time was exactly one hour and nine minutes. Her remuneration for this* is six cents for the dozen. This is paid by-
And the name of a company follows. The letter continues:
There is sufficient evidence for the Department of Labour to conduct a thorough investigation, and I trust it will lead to fixing scales of pay commensurate to the time engaged and use of machine.

Supply-Labour-Combines Act
I understand the company to which these communications refer is operating through the homes of one of the large cities of Canada. The workers remain in their homes and do the work at the rates of pay suggested in the letter. I have mentioned only one instance, but I imagine many others have come to the attention of hon. members, particularly in the last few months. My question is this. What machinery is available, whether within the Department of Labour or some other department, either federal or provincial, to investigate any such situation, and, in the event of the condition being found to exist, to take steps to eliminate at once from our society this malicious and inexcusable practice?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member has
referred to two cases where extremely low wages prevail. I take it that they are in Ontario.


Denton Massey: Correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I share completely his feelings with respect to the low level of wages paid in some industries. At the same time he will understand that federal control oyer fair wages is limited to public works carried on by the federal government, or industries carrying out contracts for the federal government. That is the limit of our effective control over wages, however much we would wish it to be otherwise. So that the only remedy is for the complaint to be brought to the attention of the appropriate provincial board, which might be a minimum wage board, but I think it might more effectively be brought to the attention of the department of labour within the province for whatever remedy might be found possible.


Denton Massey: The minister will appreciate the fact that in my remarks as to the machinery available I did not refer particularly to his department.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I quite understood that.


Denton Massey: I appreciate what the minister has said, but some companies operate in more than one province-a company, for instance, such as is described in this letter- and action might be taken in one province and not in another, so that the situation would be cleared up in the one province but not in the other. There is a further difficulty in investigating a matter of this sort: the workers are not concentrated in one particular place but may be spread over a large municipality, perhaps over the entire province. When a report has been made on an investigation into an alleged combine it is turned over by the federal government to

the province, but I presume from what the minister has just said that there is no federal machinery for investigating whether the wages paid are fair.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct, except where there has been a strike, in which case a board of conciliation might conceivably pass judgment on the wage structure.


Denton Massey: In this instance a strike is not possible, because only a few would know they were working for the same company.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The inquiry in that case should be provincial.


Denton Massey: Has this matter been considered in recent months or recent years from the point of view of the advisability of placing fair wages on the same basis as combines? After all, we invade-I use the phrase guardedly, and in its obvious sense- the provincial field in the investigation of combines.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


Denton Massey: I thought I phrased it so that the minister would understand my point.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The combines legislation has been upheld by the privy council.


Denton Massey: Quite so. Then why is it not possible to give consideration to the introduction of similar legislation in regard to fair wages? In the discussion we have just had on combines it was disclosed that we invade the provincial field and hand over to the attorney general of the province concerned the results of our investigation. Why is it not possible

perhaps the Minister of Justice might answer-for us to take the same point of view in regard to fair wages as we take in regard to combines when it is so poisonously obvious that conditions of this sort do exist? We as a federal government know they exist and yet we have taken no steps throughout the years to see that they shall no longer exist. To use the minister's own phrase, "the weapon of publicity" is in itself a strong weapon, though not nearly strong enough in matters of this kind; if we can investigate alleged combines and then proceed through the province, as we do, and apparently successfully, why could we not enact similar legislation in regard to fair wages?


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is dealing
with quite another matter from that which was discussed a little while ago. There is no question as to the validity of the combines act. It has been upheld by the privy council

Supply-Labour-Labour Gazette
as being under the subject of trade and commerce. My hon, friend asks whether there is any reason why the government could not make inquiry into fair wages. There is no legal impediment in the way of such inquiry. As a matter of fact the price spreads commission did inquire into wage conditions in a number of industries. But my hon. friend will understand, I am sure, that where a remedy can be applied effectively only by one government it is much more satisfactory for the inquiry into the conditions which are to be remedied to be conducted by the same government. Wages are at the present time, with the exceptions I have mentioned, a matter entirely for the province, and it would appear to me that investigations into wage conditions could be most effectively carried out within provincial jurisdiction. I am not now touching on the question whether it might not be desirable in this country that more effective national control should exist with respect both to wages and to hours of labour.


Denton Massey: Perhaps I have not made my point clear, but it seems to me that the situation in regard to combines and the situation in regard to fair wages are analogous from the point of view of the relationship of the province to the dominion. We do not hesitate to conduct an investigation into an alleged combine and to forward the information to the attorney general of the province concerned, and why the minister should think it more desirable for an investigation into fair wages to be conducted by the province concerned I cannot quite understand. What is the difference between the two from the point of view of the relationship of the province to the dominion? The minister suggested that it is incumbent upon an individual or a group of individuals to approach, as he said, the Department of Labour or whatever appropriate department might exist in the province and draw the matter to their attention. The method of procedure would vary from province to province.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, some have minimum wage boards and others have not.	,


Denton Massey: Quite so. But the minister says that fair wages is entirely a provincial matter as things stand at present?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, apart from federal
works and contracts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
105. Labour Gazette and other publications authorized by Labour Department Act, $55,590.
Robert John Deachman: How many copies of the Labour Gazette are printed, what is the 7U92-306
cost of printing, and is the cost of printing the Labour Gazette at the printing bureau higher than it would be if it were printed in the open market?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 
Robert John Deachman: How does that compare with the cost of having it printed in the open printing market in this city? Is it higher or lower?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We have had no alternative bids. It has been printed continuously at the printing bureau since January, 1924.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
106. International labour conference, $18,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: There is quite an increase over the expenditure last year. I presume the expenditure is entirely for the expenses of the delegates who attend the international labour organization at Geneva. Yesterday the Minister of Labour tabled sessional paper No. 65, which deals with the problems of the international labour conference over a period of years. I do not understand why there was so much delay in tabling these documents. It contains certain items of importance from a labour standpoint. I notice that the recommendations were approved by the governor in council on March 7, 1939, but the documents were not tabled until yesterday. Matters of considerable importance are referred to as affecting labour legislation in this country. In addition there is what I would term a very important statement by the Minister of Justice concerning jurisdiction as between the federal government and the provinces in respect of various matters dealt with at the international labour conference. In the brief time since this was tabled yesterday by the Minister of Labour-we are working from eleven in the morning until eleven at night- there has not been an opportunity even to glance at all the matters referred to in these documents and appreciate what they involve. I notice, however, that in the final summing up of the Minister of Justice upon various matters dealt with at the international labour conference as they are affected by the question of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government, he has this to say:
The undersigned therefore recommends that a copy hereof, if approved, together with authenticated copies of the said draft conventions and recommendations, be transmitted to the Lieutenant Governors of the respective

1872	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-International Conference
provinces for the consideration of their respective governments, with a view to the enactment of legislation, or such other action, upon the parts of the subject matter of the several draft conventions and recommendations within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction as each government may be advised to take.
In other words, these matters, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, are for the provincial governments to deal with, and are recommended to them for consideration and whatever action they deem wise under the circumstances. But there is not a word in this report in respect to the draft agreements prepared at Geneva upon matters which are within the jurisdiction of the federal government.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My own statement dealt
with those.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yesterday?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Further, I complain that
even though the minister did make a brief statement yesterday on these matters, the draft conventions were approved by the governor in council almost four months ago. The matter is submitted to parliament in the dying hours of the session, although the papers could easily have been brought down many months earlier, thus giving hon. members who are interested an opportunity to study the recommendations.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The approval was a little
more than two months ago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes. Even so, had the
papers been brought down earlier, hon. members would have had some opportunity to study the recommendations of the Department of Justice and see what the government might do in that regard. Why has it taken so long to table the documents? Why do they come down only in the dying hours of the session?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am very glad that my
hon. friend has raised this point. As a matter of fact it was raised in the first instance yesterday by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) when I was not in the house, and I believe the Minister of Justice gave an undertaking that I would deal with it when this item was before the committee.
First of all I should explain that the statement made yesterday with respect to the documents tabled arose from the necessity of our carrying out as a government the obligation we assumed as a member of the international labour organization. In effect that obligation is to bring to the attention of the competent

legislative authority such conventions as have been adopted by the international labour organization. Up to 1935 the practice followed was for the Minister of Labour to table these conventions as they were received, and they were made available in so far as they were within the competence of this parliament. With respect to matters which fell within provincial jurisdiction, the practice was to transmit the conventions without delay to the lieutenant governors of the various provinces. In 1935 the previous administration took the position that by ratification of an international labour convention the dominion parliament could of itself acquire complete authority to enact the legislation necessary to carry the convention into effect. That was the whole basis of the legislation passed by this parliament which dealt with hours and with wages-the minimum wage bill, the weekly day of rest, and the eight hour day. A question arose as to the validity of that legislation, and, in particular, as to the sufficiency of the contention that the dominion parliament, merely by ratifying the convention, could acquire a jurisdiction which by the constitution was definitely assigned to the provincial legislatures. The matter -was taken to the privy council. The privy council rejected the contention that ratification of the international labour convention gave legislative authority to this parliament to carry the convention into effect. That being the case, it was necessary for this government to revert to the former practice in carrying out its obligations as a member of the international labour organization. In other words, we must table here the conventions which are competent for this parliament, and transmit to the provinces the conventions the subject matter of which falls within provincial jurisdiction.
On March 6, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, the various conventions which had been adopted between 1935 and 1938 were examined as to their subject matter in order to determine which should be sent to the provinces and which should be laid on the table of the house in accordance with our obligations. It then became necessary to determine upon the exact form in which those documents should be laid upon the table of this house and transmitted to the provinces. Correspondence upon the matter took place between this government and the international labour office and our resident officer in Geneva, Mr. Hume Wrong. It was also necessary to have conferences between several departments of our own government-the Department of External Affairs,

Supply-Labour-International Conference
the Department of Labour, and the Department of Transport. I am satisfied that under all the circumstances there was no undue delay in the tabling of these reports. While I had not intended to mention it, two of the officers most directly concerned in the matter, the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs, and the assistant deputy minister of labour, were ill during part of that time. This in itself involved some delay, apart from the correspondence to which I have referred. Certainly there was no desire on the part of anyone to withhold information from the house. As a matter of fact all these conventions were public documents. They have been public documents during that entire period from 1935 to 1938. The whole purpose of the statement was to revise the form in which we should carry out our obligations as a member of the international labour office with the purpose of bringing to the attention of the proper legislative authority the conventions which were adopted.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the attitude of the government toward the questions which come strictly within its jurisdiction?-for instance, the question of conditions on ships leaving this country under Canadian registry. Has any policy in that regard been evolved by the department?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The conventions adopted at the special maritime meeting of the international labour conference were in some cases under provincial jurisdiction and in other cases under federal jurisdiction with respect to their subject matter. Those which were under federal jurisdiction were submitted to the Department of Transport. Some have already been ratified and the provisions of them effectively are found within the Canada Shipping Act. Others are still before the marine branch of the Department of Transport for consideration. As a matter of fact they would appear to require further amendments of the shipping act, and up to this time the Department of Transport has not felt it desirable to make those amendments.


Mr. BARBER:: Who were the delegates last year and this year, and what were their expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The delegates last year were: Mr. H. H. Wrong, Geneva, Switzerland, permanent delegate to the League of Nations, who resides in Geneva, and Mr. G. H. Brown of Ottawa, Ontario, assistant deputy minister of labour. The delegate representing the employers of Canada was Mr. A. R. Goldie, of Galt, Ontario, selected by the Canadian 71492-306$
Manufacturers' Association according to the established practice, and the delegate representing the workpeople was Mr. Percy R. Bengough, of Vancouver, selected by the members of the trades and labour congress according to the practice followed in previous years.


Harry James Barber: What were the expenses?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The expenses of Mr. Brown were SI,639.52, Mr. Goldie, SI,324.70, and Mr. Bengough, $1,486.95. Mr. Wrong had no special account.


Harry James Barber: Who were the delegates
this year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: This year the delegates representing the government of Canada are Mr. H. H. Wrong and Mr. M. S. Campbell of Ottawa, Ontario, chief conciliation officer of the Department of Labour. The delegate representing the employers of Canada is Mr. A. R. Goldie, and the delegate representing the workpeople is Mr. R. J. Tallon, Ottawa, Ontario, secretary-treasurer of the trades and labour congress.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are these going at the government's expense?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have simply given the names of delegates.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the minister give all the names?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In addition to the delegates whose names I have already given there were last year the following officers:
Technical Advisers to the Government Delegates:
H. B. Chase, Montreal, Quebec.
Chas. Beattie, Toronto, Ontario.
Emile Tellier, Three Rivers, Quebec.
W. T. Burford, Ottawa, Ontario.
Technical Adviser to the Employers' Delegate:
J. M. McIntosh, Toronto, Ontario.
Technical Adviser to Workpeoples' Delegate:
Raoul Trepanier, Montreal, Quebec.
This year, in addition to the names already mentioned, there are the following officers:
Technical Advisers to the Government Delegates:
Thomas James O'Neill, M.P., Kamloops, British Columbia.
George D. Taylor, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
Michel Alphonse Bourdon, Montreal, Quebec.
Alfred Rive, Geneva, Switzerland.
Technical Adviser to the Employers' Delegate:
G. V. V. Nicholls, Toronto, Ontario.
Technical adviser to the Workpeoples' Delegate:
William H. Phillips, Ottawa, Ontario.


Denton Massey: Was any decision reached or pending at any time that we would not be represented as fully this year as last?
4874	COMMONS
Supply-Labour[DOT]-Federal Contributions
Word reached me through various channels that it was thought possible that we would not be as fully represented this year.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No decision of that kind was made at any time. There were suggestions that it would not be necessary to send as large a delegation of advisers this year as in previous years, and as a matter of fact it is not so large this year. We are taking advantage of the services of Mr. Rive, who is on the permanent secretariat at Geneva, as one of the advisers.


Denton Massey: But it was not contemplated at any time that we should not be represented?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
107. Technical Education Act.
Administration, $2,300.
Payments to the provinces for the encouragement of technical education, $50,000.
Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister explain this item?


Norman McLeod Rogers: An act was put through early in the session to enable Manitoba to take up its original allotment, and this is to make provision therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
BIS. To provide for federal contributions to material aid or contributions to improvement projects (for previous years' commitments $650,000) (revote $475,000), $27,000,000.
Major James William Coldwell: I have appreciated this session the unfailing attention and courtesy given by the minister, and by Mr. Hereford and other members of the staff, in connection with the farm placement plan, whenever any question has been brought to their notice, and I wish to thank them for the adjustments made. I have to-day, as a matter of fact, a letter from the leader of the opposition in the legislature of Saskatchewan in which he emphasizes a condition which I think should be rectified another year if it is deemed necessary to put the scheme into effect, as I think it will be. The intention of the government and of this house is to assist young persons who are without homes to obtain work on farms in return for a small remuneration for that work. It seems to me the regulations are too stringent, and I am making a plea that when this matter comes before the minister another year the regulations be made more generous if that is at all possible. I have before me, for example, a letter from a Saskatchewan point, explaining a condition that calls for some attention:
I am living alone on the farm with my mother who is an invalid, she is not able to do any work and cannot be left

alone at all (the doctor will certify to this). I have to have help in the house or I cannot go outside to work myself. I have no money to pay for help but I have been trying to get assistance from the government through the "Farm Employment Plan" but the government has refused payment because the "worker" has a home in this district. This worker has been working out away from home for two years, she comes from a large family-ten children- who are poor and she needs the money for clothes, times are so hard that she cannot stay at home, she has worked for my mother all this last winter and I want to get the payments for her if possible for this last winter's work which she has done. My mother's sickness is partly a nervous disorder with high blood pressure and she has to have someone looking after her whom she knows, that is why she has to have someone from this neighbourhood. In my own family my father died about eighteen months ago and before that two of my brothers died, making unavoidable expenses. In this worker's family there has been also a terrible amount of sickness for the last ten months. She is eighteen years of age and she needs this money very badly and I am unable to pay it myself. I could give you the names of many neighbours who would tell you that these facts are correct. I might say that last winter 1937-38 her sister worked for my mother under similar conditions and the government gave her the payments without any trouble.
He goes on to tell of several similar cases. Cases of this sort ought in some way be allowed to come in under the plan. I understand the provincial authorities say they can do nothing with such cases because of the federal regulations. I have here the file of correspondence that passed between the department at Regina and the leader of the opposition in the Saskatchewan legislature. I notice that in the last letter the reason is given as follows:
I am directed by the Hon. R. J. M. Parker to acknowledge your letter to him under date of April 26 regarding the above application.
We notified (the lady) on December 20 the reason for the rejection of 'her application, namely, that a worker must have been maintaining herself independent of her home during the period of at least one year immediately preceding the application. We notified her again on January 19 that we could not change our decision contained in our previous communication. We explained the reason for the rejection again on February 24 and then again on March 30.
For your information I am sending you a copy of her application made on November 29, from which you will notice that the only work that she did during the past twelve months was during May and June. For this reason the auditors will not pass it, and I am unable to accept same.
I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister as typical in the hope that there may be an adjustment. As I said at the outset, I have found the department ready to give sympathetic consideration at all times. This letter came to my hand this afternoon, and I thought I would place it before the

Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
minister for his consideration now and in the future, because it states the case better than I could.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend, I am sure, understands that some 30,000 cases were dealt with in Saskatchewan, and that in the nature of things there would be some rejections which might be open to question. We have dealt with a large number of individual complaints with respect to rejections, and some corrections have been made; in other cases the rejections have been upheld. But I can assure the hon. member that every case will be dealt with on its merits.


Major James William Coldwell: I said at the outset that I appreciate the courtesy and consideration of the minister. I am bringing this to his attention, as a typical case, not because I am criticizing his department. I believe if the minister had reviewed this case himself the decision might have been different. I shall pass it on to him at the close of the sitting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I presume this is the item on which the minister suggested we might discuss the general question of unemployment. It is not my intention to deal with it at any length. We are now in the fourth session of this parliament. Probably in the course of a few days parliament will prorogue; prorogation may be followed by dissolution, and it is quite possible that we may not be able to see the minister until at least after another election, assuming everything goes as the minister expects.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You may not see him then.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not going to discuss the election, but for a few moments I wish to deal with the occasion when the minister first came to this house, almost four years ago. As I said at three o'clock this afternoon, the minister has been one of the most hardworking ministers in the government. I think every hon. member recognizes the great amount of hard, conscientious work that he has done. Of all the ministers perhaps the Minister of Labour has the most thankless task at the present time. I should be inclined to put as the next most difficult department that of the Minister of Finance, who is trying to make two plus two equal six. But I believe the Department of Labour has an even more difficult task than the Department of Finance, because it is trying to remedy a condition within certain prescribed limits which I think make success almost impossible.
I remember the time when the minister made his first speech in this house, which to me was somewhat of a disappointment, in
view of the splendid reputation he had when he first came here as Minister of Labour. I am not going to say that his reputation has been dimmed in the meantime, but with the high hopes we had of him then as a man of fine sympathies and ideals, one might have expected that he would find some effective means of dealing with the very difficult problem of unemployment which to-day faces us in almost exactly the same proportions as at the time the minister took office. Looking back to the last election, to the hopes held out by the Liberal party, to their promises as to what they would do if returned to power, one can readily realize how disappointed a great many people must be to-day when they find the unemployment problem just as serious as it was in 1935.
When the minister first spoke in this house on unemployment a few years ago-the minister will correct me if I am wrong, I am speaking entirely from memory-he said the government were taking a long-range view of the whole situation. This long-range view has now had a few years in which to operate, and so far the results of its operation have not been very successful. He laid down certain specific rules so far as he himself was concerned and certain ideas on which he would work. All those ideas have: been of little avail in controlling unemployment in Canada.
I think the minister said at the time that private employers had some responsibility in this matter. To-day most of us recognize that private capital has made very little contribution towards the solution of this problem. And where private capital has so completely failed in its responsibility, that of the government is all the greater; yet the policies of the government during the past few years have been more or less a failure. The minister may tell the committee that the government have adopted certain measures, have done certain things along certain lines. I am looking at this problem however, not in a piecemeal way but as a whole. So far as the general situation in Canada is concerned, there has really been no general policy adopted by the government to end unemployment, and the unemployed have very little to look forward to in the immediate future in the way of remedial action.
The policies of the government over the past few years have been a failure. The idea of finding markets abroad for our surplus products has proven of no avail in the unusual times in which we are living. I believe the minister realizes that you cannot remedy the conditions which have developed in the last few years by old fashioned methods. If we are to deal effectively with the problems
4876	COMMONS
Sup/ily-Labour-Federal Contributions
which confront us to-day, we shall have to use some modem technique. Other countries are attempting to do something, yet we have done nothing very different from what the former government did from 1930 to 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit one question? He has said that other countries have attempted certain policies. He acknowledged a while ago that this government has followed certain policies. Has he found any country which, having attempted by various measures to cure unemployment, has succeeded in a way which satisfies him?


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is difficult for one who lives in Canada to speak of nations far away, where he cannot give definite examples from his personal observation. But in New Zealand, where I know they have difficulties to contend with greater than ours, they have made a definite effort to deal with the problem of unemployment, and I was informed no later than this afternoon that there is practically no unemployment in New Zealand.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But there are grave doubts whether that position can be maintained.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, I admit that. I say their difficulties are greater than ours because they have not the same rich natural resources in that small country that we have in Canada. The physical condition of the country is such that they are compelled to depend very largely in many respects upon imports for the basis of their existence. On the other hand in Canada we have to face difficulties which in New Zealand they probably have not to contend with. Our difficulties may be of a constitutional nature, but I suggest that it should be much easier to overcome constitutional difficulties than to overcome the physical handicaps that exist in other countries, and I feel sure that if we devoted only half the effort that has been expended in New Zealand, for example, to overcoming these difficulties, we should be in a much better position than we are to-day.
Some of the continental countries, such as Sweden and others, have made at least some effort to deal with the problem. My hon. friends may say, "Well, see what has happened in the United States, where they have spent vast sums in trying to deal with the problem, and yet they find themselves in a position similar to that of a few years ago." Well, I would far rather see our government make an effort to deal with the problem and fail than to make no effort at all. We have made no real effort. Since the government came to power in 1935 they have merely gone along the same old road; relief-doles if you

want to call it that-and public works. That is no solution, nor can it ever be a solution of our unemployment problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does my hon. friend suggest in addition, other than to stimulate trade, which he forgot to mention?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That has been a failure too.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What does my hon. friend
suggest?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would suggest that you go along new lines.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What new lines?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would suggest that we so control the natural resources of this country as to give the people a much higher standard of living than they enjoy at the present time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not an answer.


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend wants definite legislation? Then I would say first there is the control of finance, and in addition, in the platform of our own party there are many suggestions for dealing with this situation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Such as what?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The government could have undertaken a housing scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are doing that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But it is picayune as compared to what the government could have done; it is very small. They could have undertaken a series of public works much greater than has been undertaken up to the present time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend says that is no solution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is no solution, but it is a palliative.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But my hon. friend wants something more than a palliative.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would be a palliative until such time as the government could bring about remedial conditions which would give the people of this country a greater share "of the wealth produced in Canada. I might in this regard even refer the minister to some of the promises made by the Liberal party, through the Prime Minister, during the last campaign. There is no use in saying we cannot do these things; there is no reason for saying there may be constitutional difficulties in the way. I believe that with the control of finance, which is under federal jurisdiction; with control of the tariffs and with the vast amount of money that is being spent by this government, we could have done something far more effective than anything that has been

Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
done up to the present. As far as I can gather from the minister, the government have nothing further to suggest to the country beyond what they have done or attempted to do in the last few years, namely relief, public works and an attempt to expand the trade of the country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What else is there?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not come prepared to offer any definite suggestions; I did not even intend to go into that aspect of the question.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I want to be fair to my hon. friend but I want him to be fair to me also. He is accusing us of not having followed sound methods in dealing with unemployment, but he has not been able to suggest any alternatives to the methods that have been followed, namely, stimulating private employment through trade policies, stimulating public employment through public works, and providing through relief measures for those who are unemployed and unable to take care of themselves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The government might have attempted a good many things. They could have reduced the age limit in connection with old age pensions, which would have removed a good many people from industry and given an opportunity to younger people.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That would be just transferring them, putting more on relief.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, no.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is a matter of opinion. We believe in reducing the hours of labour, though I suppose we shall be met with the reply that this is entirely a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We would reduce the hours of labour; we would try to maintain a greater volume of purchasing power among the great masses of the people, which would mean that they could consume far more of the wealth of the country than is now being *consumed.' Within the last few weeks the government have done that, not from choice but from necessity. I refer to the item appearing in the estimates which provides 81,000,000 for the free distribution of butter. That million dollars' worth of butter is being distributed to-day to those who need it. If we establish that principle as far as butter is concerned, why can we not do it in regard to other commodities? I do not say we should give away these goods. I am opposed to the dole system; I want to see every person capable of working perform some useful function in society. So I say to the government and to the minister that if the policy they
have followed during the last few years has failed, it is time they looked around and found some other means of coping with this very difficult and important problem, which has been with us not only since this government came into power but since 1930. When we are told that this is a temporary problem, I do not agree; any situation that has existed for nine years can almost be called a permanent aspect of the economic life of the country. The question, as we have always suggested, is whether any government can, within the confines of the capitalistic structure, eradicate unemployment from our midst. Personally I am doubtful. I do not know the minister's point of view; he may hold other opinions, but if the old remedies have failed it is the duty of the government and of parliament to find new remedies to deal with the problem, but as far as I know the government have nothing to offer.
Within the next few days members of this house will be returning to their constituencies and will be meeting their constituents; and, as I said a moment or so ago, we may be faced with an election. No doubt we shall have to meet thousands of people. I represent a fairly large industrial constituency; and looking back over the four years this government have been in power, with one of the largest majorities ever given to a party in the history of this dominion, I am just wondering what I can tell my constituents as to anything definite the government have accomplished in dealing with one of the most pressing problems of the day. What can I say to them? When the government came to office in 1935 there were approximately 460,000 people out of work. Now, in 1939, we have fully as many people, and probably more, out of work. The situation is not improving by any means. The government came into power in 1935 on an upswing in the industrial life of this country, which reached its highest point in 1937 or thereabouts. Since 1937 employment has tended to decrease; in other words the cycle is against the government at the present time so what can we tell the unemployed? After all, I do not agree with some of the statements which have been made concerning the unemployed, but which I shall not repeat this afternoon. What can I tell the unemployed in my constituency, of whom there are thousands? Can I tell them we have tried the dole and that we have tried relief, but that we have not accomplished anything?
There is nothing more demoralizing to any community than to keep large numbers on a perpetual dole, as has happened in my con-
4878	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
stituency. I wish it could be avoided, and that we might find some effective means of providing employment. Demoralization is creeping into the minds of our young people, and of our older generation, and it is that to which I am so much opposed, and which I should like to see eradicated from our midst. I want to see all our people becoming useful and productive citizens, but if we continue to keep them on the dole, in time they will become practically unemployable.
We have tried the dole; we have tried relief and we have tried public works-all to no avail. We have tried to extend our markets. We can find no markets for our goods, and for reasons which must be obvious to any hon. member. If we cannot find markets, are we going to continue in our present fashion, with enormous wealth in the form of wheat, foodstuffs, clothing and other materials which our people cannot utilize because something stands in their way? Why can we not find ways and means whereby the great masses of our people would gain access to the means of life which should be the birthright of every Canadian?
I am prompted to make these extemporaneous observations this afternoon because I believe, in common with other hon. members, that this parliament as at present constituted may not meet again. If I have to face the electors in the near future, all I can say is that I am more than disappointed, not so much with the Minister of Labour, because he is merely a reflection of the attitude of the government, but because the government have not taken more drastic steps to deal with one of the most important problems with which the country is faced.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, for some time past certain members of the opposition, both Conservative and Social Credit, have been making the city of Hull the butt of their criticism, among others the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) who on May 12th, when the house was discussing the contribution of 810,000 to the international commission for the assistance of Spanish child refugees, asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) whether the total amount of this grant was used up, I shall quote what he said on that occasion:
It is too bad, because there are all kinds of Canadian child refugees in the city of Hull who are in need of relief. Will the minister consider using any portion that has not been used, for Canadian refugee children in the city of Hull?
I interjected:
May I interrupt the hon. member? There is nobody suffering in Hull.
tMr. Heaps.]
The reporter did not complete my sentence; he did not reproduce my words accurately. What I said was this: "There is nobody suffering in Hull because of the grant of $10,000 for the Spanish child refugees." Yesterday during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Fisheries the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) repeated the words of the hon. member for Calgary East:
It is too bad, because there are all kinds of Canadian child refugees in the city of Hull who are in need of relief. Will the minister consider using any portion that has not been used, for Canadian refugee children in the city of Hull?
I cannot contradict the statements of these hon. members as regards the presence of refugees in the city of Hull, but I have to admit at once that I am unaware of there being any refugees there. The inquiries I have made show that the increase of population in Hull in recent years has been normal. Not only did I make inquiries in that connection, but I also looked up, for the benefit of the hon. member for Peace River the definition of the word refugee. The Larousse dictionary defines it as follows:
A person who has fled his country to avoid persecution or condemnation.
I am unaware of the presence in my city of children who have left their native country because they were persecuted or convicted of an offence. An English dictionary defines "refugees" as follows:
Persons escaped to foreign countries from religious or political persecution.
I have quoted the words of these two hon. gentlemen literally because I have found that every word I ever uttered in this house-and I have not uttered many, thank God!-have been misinterpreted. I therefore assert unhesitatingly that there are no refugees in the city of Hull.
As to unemployment, it exists not only here but also in Alberta. Although the members of the Social Credit Group spend part of their time in my home city and other parts of my constituency boasting of what is being done in Alberta. The discussions which take place in this house indicate there is unemployment in Alberta as everywhere else.
This morning, while discussing the estimates of the Department of Public Works, the same hon. member for Peace River complained to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) that the province of Alberta was not receiving its due share of grants. One good reason for that, if it is true, is that Alberta's representatives seem more inclined to interfere with the affairs of others than to attend to their own. I would like to point out to the hon. member for Calgary East, that he knows nothing what-

Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
ever of conditions in the city of Hull. He may have received reports from discontented persons especially from the unemployed who cannot obtain everything they wish. The hon. member for Peace River, who should keep the peace himself at times, is equally uninformed about conditions in my city. If the hon. members were to come there and make a thorough study of the matter; if they were to take into account the recent history of the city, they would realize that Hull is in a position which, if not flourishing, can at least be favourably compared with that of other cities, and even of those where the hon. members reside. While these gentlemen deliver lectures on social credit in Hull, and end their meetings by passing the hat around, thus extracting from the unemployed a portion of the money they need to live, while they distribute in the meeting-hall, for cash, certain publications entitled "Instructor and Protector," the member for Hull is going about his parliamentary duties, though perhaps not always in the House. I can assure the hon. member for Peace River that I have rendered greater services to the less fortunate voters in my city than he ever will through sermons such as he delivered lately in Buckingham and other parishes in my riding.
The member for Peace River is a young man; I have heard him discuss in this house constitutional and legal matters, and, to my mind, the subject matter of these discussions appeared to be far beyond his power to grasp. I believe that if he were to listen more often to other speakers in the house rather than participate in debates whereof he knows nothing, he would eventually be in a position to render great services, not only to his riding or to his province, but to the country as a whole. I have this much to say to him: I have never attacked, nor spoken against social credit members or their activities within their province. That is their own business. But when they invade our province, I would ask them, at least, not to deceive those who are of good faith, and especially the class of people who are most in need of relief. When they travel through different parishes in our province, proclaiming, that as soon as they come into power they will organize a free distribution of wealth, and that poverty will disappear from the land, I do not think they are carrying on a work that can be useful to the province, or to the country at large. At all events, I wish to advise them that, during the many battles I have had to wage in the past, although I am not very old, I have always noticed that those who stuck to the truth whenever they opposed a Liberal candidate in the Hull riding, were the ones who had the greatest success, and that those who
resorted to low methods, inevitably lost their deposit, and there are many in the past who did lose their deposit. I challenge anyone of the Social Credit representatives who have delivered speeches in my riding-and I know everyone of them-to stand there at the forthcoming general election, and I guarantee that he shall have the same fate as the rest.
Let us now examine what has been accomplished in Hull as regards unemployment. During the last fifteen years, three large industries have left that city: first, the Eddy match factory which was sold to the World Match Company, and which formerly employed about 600 persons. This industry moved to Berthier and Pembroke, but the former employees of the Eddy Match Company did not leave the city as the result of its sale to the World Match Company.
Another company, owned by P. H. Dupuis, which traded in building materials and employed at least 300 workmen, not perhaps during the whole year, but throughout the summer. The owner died and his employees were unable to find work elsewhere.
I could easily speak at length on conditions in Hull, conditions with which you are not at all familiar, if I thought that, after giving you a great deal of information which you do not possess on the subject, you might be less inclined to meddle in the affairs of that city. The Gilmour mill, which employed about 300 persons throughout the summer, was sold to the International Paper Company.
During the last fifteen years, these plants which employed 1,200 persons have disappeared from Hull and there have been no others to take their place. Our people are so attached to the city and county of Hull that they have been unwilling to move to other parts of the country-a thing on the other hand, which I would not advise them to do. Having lost their jobs, these people remained in our city, endeavouring to find manual labour elsewhere. And that is the reason for the present unemployment situation in Hull.
From 1931 to 1935, direct relief was granted, toward the cost of which, I believe, the federal and provincial governments and the city of Hull each contributed one third. In 1936, a short while after their coming into power, the Duplessis government abolished the direct relief system and replaced it by unemployment works projects. The provincial authorities have spent large amounts in our city and they now claim, it would seem, that it is due to the expenditure of provincial funds alone that between 1,200 and 1,500 persons received employment for a certain period of time. The moment they realized these unemployment projects were proving very costly, the pro-

4880	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
vincial government discharged, about a month ago, nearly 500 of these employees. For the past fortnight these people have been receiving relief through the municipality. I understand that an agreement is to be made between the Quebec government and the dominion government under the act passed at the present session and that the dominion will contribute 40 per cent of the amount, the province 40 per cent and the city 20 per cent, unless the province prefer absorbing the whole 60 per cent. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) tells me that if the province of Quebec has public works projects which could come under the present act the dominion government would give favourable consideration to them. They could be submitted by the city to the province and then by the latter to the federal authorities. In any event, I undertake to put forth my best efforts to have the authorities carry out these works. Such is the present situation in the city of Hull.
Let us now rapidly consider what has been accomplished so far and what I have managed to obtain, with the help of the municipal council of Hull, the mayor and other friends of mine. The federal government has spent in my constituency in the last couple of years more money than in many other counties I know of. A protection wall has been constructed along the Ottawa river. Though not completed it has cost the Department of Public works close to $67,000. Only the genuine unemployed were given work on this job *-not the kind of unemployed men who spend their time on the street with the pamphlets which you sell to them for 25 cents each seeking to indoctrinate other young people against our present democratic system, but the real unemployed-and their names can be obtained from the Department of Public Works.
There has also been erected in my town a drill hall which has cost, including land and improvements, about S200.000. The works I have mentioned have been executed during the past two years.
Recently, this spring, when there was distress to relieve, the Department of Labour transferred to the Federal District Commission a sum of $35,000 to spend in the section of the county of Wright adjoining the city of Hull and also in my county, on Kettle island. The names of the men employed at this work were supplied to me by the municipal councils of the neighbouring parishes, one of which is Gatineau Mills, where you held a euchre party at which you spoke before only 26 persons. In that place the government gave work to 46 persons during six weeks.

During the past year the federal government granted $400,000 a month to the province of Quebec. The provincial government was free to spend this money where they pleased. Whether they spent it in Hull or elsewhere, the dominion government is not to be blamed. Neverthless, I think more could be done in my county. I shall not ask the hon. member who will probably speak after me to support the requests I present to the federal government every day. The ministers whom I visit most often are those whose departments have the most money to spend. I try to have the money distributed in such a manner as to provide employment where it is most needed, and if I am reproached with speaking infrequently in the house, I can answer you that while the hon. member was speaking I was attending to the interests of my constituents. And should other statements of that kind be made and my words not be accurately quoted, I shall have to make another speech in order to set matters right.


René-Antoine Pelletier: You will admit, Mr. Chairman, that we finally have succeeded in getting the member for Hull to say something, which was previously impossible.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: You made him lose his time.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I want to remind the hon. member that we have said nothing against him personally. We had no intention of criticizing but we wanted to find a solution to our economic problems. I know that the hon. member for Hull is daily engaged in trying to get public works, unemployment relief and so on, but I must say that all his efforts are within the present economic system which, according to our theory, cannot provide a permanent solution to the unemployment problem. We acknowledge that the government and the hon. members are doing their best, we even admit they are persevering in their endeavour. It was my privilege to congratulate the hon. minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and to tell him that he is the best qualified man in the Liberal party to perform the heavy duties of the administration of the Department of Labour. I told him that notwithstanding all his remarkable qualifications and all his university degrees, notwithstanding the help of the hon. the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the advice of the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), he has been unable to find a permanent solution to the unemployment problem, the effects of which are felt all over the country.

Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
I disagree with the hon. member for Hull when he says that I am not concerned with the distress which exists in Hull. I am a federal member, and it is not only my right but also my duty to look after the economic conditions of the people. If the situation that exists in Hull is brought up it is because some poor people of that city, forced by dire necessity to do things which they would never have done otherwise, have supplied us with the necessary information so that we might bring their case before the authorities.
The situation of the refugees has been mentioned. I do not think it is necessary to read the affidavits showing that children have to be taken care of by friends because their own father is out of work. I know just as well as the government and as the hon. members that distressing conditions exist in Hull. The object we are aiming at is to bring a change in our economic system so as to solve permanently the present conditions, instead of going on spending money for public works or unemployment relief.


Maurice Lalonde: Are you opposed to public works?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I only say that public works are but a temporary remedy and do not solve the economic problem. That is why I invite the members of the Liberal party

who are always very nice to me, I admit-to come to our meetings so as to study the question and to help us find a permanent solution to the unemployment problem.


Maurice Lalonde: You will not attain your object through demagogy.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Of course, Mr. Speaker, a solution of the unemployment problem has not yet been found by the government. I notice that the Minister of Labour insisted that the hon. member for Winnipeg North who was speaking a few moments ago, should give his solution. Thereby the minister candidly admitted that he could not find any solution. Of course we have often urged in this house that the solution did not lie along the present lines, and that fact is amply proved by the results which have been achieved. What we should like to see done is a study made of the causes of unemployment. From time to time the minister has said that such a thing cannot be done, that it covers too wide a field, that we can never ascertain the causes of unemployment. My answer is that until we go to work and set up the necessary authority to find out what is causing unemployment and why our economic system is not functioning in the way it should do, we shall not reach any solution. I realize as well as he 71492-3074
does that there are external causes, but that is not an answer to the demand that of our own accord we should set up a body to study the conditions which affect the internal economy of this country. From time to time we have suggested ways and means of bringing about a satisfactory solution, but the theories we have advanced have been ridiculed and more or less condemned without proper examination. It is not in that fashion that our economic problems of to-day will be solved. We contend that in the course of our contributions to the debates in this house we have suggested various measures which the government could have examined with profit and attempted to adopt in order to bring about an amelioration of the conditions which we face in these times. I say advisedly " attempted to," because the minister will not concede that there is any one solution of the problem, but contends that it must be found in many parts of our economic system. I am inclined to agree with him. but I repeat that until he goes to work to try to ascertain the cause of unemployment the problem will never be solved.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Just before the item carries, I gave an undertaking some time ago to the leader of the opposition that when one of my items was before the committee I would place on Hansard a record of what has been done so far in the construction of the trans-Canada highway. I have no desire to read this to the committee; it does not bear particularly on this item; but if there is no objection I will put it on Hansard in order that the committee may have this information.


The CHAIRMAN:: With unanimous consent. Mr. ROGERS: The statement is as follows: Dominion Unemployment Relief
Ottawa, April 21, 1939.
Trans-Canada Highway The trans-Canada highway is designated, in dominion-provincial agreements, under relief legislation, as follows:
"such provincial highway or highways affording a continuous route connecting the province *with any other or others of the provinces as has been designated by the province and approved by the dominion."
The trans-Canada highway, when completed from Halifax to Vancouver, will be approximately 4,317 miles, including 52 miles of highway in the province of Prince Edward Island.
There is, at the present time, a vehicular highway across Canada with the exception of two gaps. One in Ontario on the north shore of lake Superior where there is approximately 250 miles yet to be completed. It is not expected that construction of this link will be advanced far enough to allow through automobile traffic during 1939. It is possible, however, to motor northwest from Sault Ste. Marie to Mamainse, a distance of approximately 90 miles, and east from Fort William or Port Arthur via Nipigon
4882	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
to Schreiber, a distance of 115 miles. There is also a gap of approximately 21 miles still to be completed of the 193 miles section of the trans-Canada highway from Golden to Revel-stoke, which follows the great northern bend of the Columbia river. The east section from Golden is completed, while the west leg is constructed for a distance of approximately 79 miles. Both highways are open to automobile traffic.
The dominion government has contributed to the cost of construction or improvement of the trans-Canada highway under the various relief acts since 1930, the total payments to provinces from 1930 to date amounting to $19,263,300; the approximate mileage constructed or improved, to which the dominion has contributed, being 2,200 miles.
The attached statement indicates the amounts paid by the dominion to the provinces in each year since 1930, also the total amount paid to each province during the same period.
In respect to the trans-Canada highway in new Ontario, the dominion has paid to the province from 1935 to date, $7,809,175.16 in regard to that section of the highway from North Bay to the Manitoba boundary. Included in this amount, however, is an expenditure of $2,066,472.95 which was designated on the claims submitted as trans-Canada highway "Pembroke to Manitoba boundary." The records of the department do not indicate how much of the $2,066,472.95 was expended west of North Bay.

Dominion Unemployment Relief Department of Labour
Trans-Canada Highway-Payments to Provinces
-	1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	TotalPrince Edward Island..	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 14,971 35 43,301 10 142,035 54	$ cts. 248,050 00 695,367 51 657,203 21	$ cts. 10,380 74 450,000 00 75,000 00 380,636 30 1,139,583 17 255,821 33 233,166 71 30,558 93 212,.685 20	$ cts. 750 00 196,506 52 253,375 00	$ cts.	$ cts. 274,152 09 2,189,166 97 1,301,398 56 384,675 05 12,447,368 02 1,226,717 26 251,937 74 444,996 2i 742,888 25Nova Scotia	123,299 28 23,632 77 282 47 142,500 00 81,585 85	382,385 11 78,225 86	50,327 29	247,980 16 71,926 18 3,756 28 163,922 50	New Brunswick	Quebec	3,112,850 51 258,295 11	76,542 79	892,556 58 56,003 62	6,746,397 66 467,948 05 18,771 03 165,865 00	55,003 72 107,063 30	118,011 09	Manitoba	
170,552 21 364,197 67		6,576 20	71,443 87					
	62,227 70							103,777 68		
										
	433,528 07	4,366,506 47	126,870 08	494,161 32	1,220,312 06	8,999,602 46	2,787,832 38	716,476 22	118,011 09	19,263,300 15
In explanation of the relatively small amount paid to the province of Quebec, it is pointed out that the Dominion has not under relief legislation contributed to the costs of land and it is understood that any extensive reconstruction to bring existing highways to trans-Canada highway standard in the province of Quebec would necessitate heavy expenditures for expropriations. Possibly for this reason the provincial government has not seen fit to accept further dominion assistance in con nection with the trans-Canada highway within the province.
Date April 21, 1939.	Chief Audit Accountant.	Dominion Commissioner.

Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions
4884	COMMONS
Supply-Labour-Federal Contributions


Denton Massey: Yesterday there was tabled P.C. 1260 with regard to authorizing the reappointment of certain local advisers to the Minister of Labour with regard to activities under the Youth Training Act, 1939. I ha-ve in my hand a copy of this sessional paper No. 66. I notice that six persons have been appointed. One of them is Mr. J. McCully, of Newmarket, for whom I have only the deepest respect and highest regard, and whose ability, especially in the line he has chosen as adviser, is beyond question. However, in regard to Mr. McCully's wisdom I may observe that Solomon in all his glory was never so surrounded, because all the other five members of the committee are ladies.


Norman McLeod Rogers: No. There is Mr. Montpetit.


Denton Massey: There is Mrs. L. G. Ferguson of Westville, Nova Scotia. I beg pardon; there are two gentlemen and five ladies. I wondered why the proportion of ladies was so large.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, those names for the most part are of those who are more readily available of the earlier committees, which advised the national employment commission with regard to women's employment and youth employment. It is not intended that those names shall complete the list of advisers to the supervisor of training. I can assure my hon. friend that the list will be added to some time later, and that the two male members may have more of the company he suggests than they have at the present time.


Denton Massey: I believe that this is the last item this session in connection with the Department of Labour. If I may be permitted I should like to say a word personally to the Minister of Labour. It has been part of my responsibility this session as a member of the opposition to take particular interest in his department; and I am very happy indeed at this stage, in the dying hours of the session, to pay tribute to the minister's good nature, his patience and his sportsmanship. I only wish that I could speak in equal terms of his administration, which has been to many a bitter disappointment. However, at the conclusion of his estimates and the legislation which he is piloting through at this time, I willingly salute a gallant opponent and a courteous gentleman.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wish to thank my hon. friend for what he has just said, and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, Winnipeg North. The minister might be insulting my leader.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -for his earlier remarks with reference to the question of unemployment and the difficulties surrounding the administration of a department which has to deal with that problem at this time. I can only say that in connection with this, entire matter I have benefited greatly from the discussions in the committee. Despite what the hon. member for Greenwood has just said1 with regard to the faults of the administration, I am bound to say that some good suggestions have come from his side of the house, and some, as he knows, have been carried into effect. The whole problem is one which indeed, if it is to be dealt with constructively at all, has to be dealt with upon the basis of cooperation, and upon the whole we have had that cooperation in this chamber. Despite the invitation he has given, perhaps, in his closing remarks I do not intend to impose a valedictory upon the committee at this time. I am far from being tired of this problem, and I took forward to the opportunity of continuing with what has been done, but upon a larger scale and with even greater success than we have achieved up to the present time. I submit that we have obtained a very large degree of success with respect to some of our policies, but the problem is so large that one has to keep on trying continuously, and in the nature of things we cannot look for a complete solution under existing conditions.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister be good enough to give us the latest figures on unemployment and relief? Perhaps he can do so as of such a date, say April 30, in order that the figures may be compared with those of April 30 in other years. I must leave the headings to him-for example heads of families, transients, single homeless unemployed, dependents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would it suit the convenience of my hon. friend if I laid on the table the latest registration report? It gives the most comprehensive figures that are available with respect to the unemployed on relief.


Grote Stirling: Of what date would that be?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That would cover the
month of March.


Grote Stirling: March 31?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Up to and including
March 31.


Grote Stirling: And would comparative figures be available for 1938, 1937 and earlier?

Supply-Finance


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure that the report would compare the four previous years.
I believe that it would give comparisons with the year preceding. I could place upon Hansard now the latest summary of that registration report, which does make comparisons with a year ago. With the consent of the committee I will place this summary upon Hansard.


Frederick George Sanderson: With unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The summary is as follows:
Ottawa, May 13, 1939-
Preliminary figures from the national registration show that the grand total of all classes of persons on urban and agricultural aid in March was 1,025,000, an increase of 0-7 per cent over the February figure as revised to date, but almost 2 per cent less than in March, 1938.
Hon. Norman McL. Rogers, Minister of Labour, to-day gave out the figures.
The dominion total of unemployed but fully employable persons on aid in March this year was 192,000, an increase of 0-8 per cent from the February total of 190,500. The figure for March this year represented an increase of 10 per cent over March a year ago.
A total of 703,000 persons were receiving non-agricultural aid in March this year, less than one per cent more than in the previous month. This category includes all totally unemployable, partially employable and fully employable persons, together with all dependents of family heads. This aggregate showed a net increase of 7-7 per cent over the figure for March, 1938.
The number of farmers and members of their families in receipt of agricultural aid continues to show a decline from the year before. A total of 71,000 farmers who, together with their dependents, account for a farm population of
322,000,	were reported as receiving agricultural aid for subsistence in March. Of these, 270,000 were located in the province of Saskatchewan alone.
The dominion total on agricultural aid, while up by 0-6 per cent in March over the February revised figure was 18 per cent less than in March, 1938. The March total of farmers and their families on aid in Saskatchewan, continued to hold the improvement over a year ago, showing a decrease of 20-2 per cent in this comparison, but was virtually unchanged from February, 1939.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
SO. Royal Canadian Mint, including the Dominion of Canada assay office, $488,091.
René-Antoine Pelletier: How is the gold purchased?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The gold is purchased. What feature of the transaction bothers the hon. gentleman?


René-Antoine Pelletier: How is it paid for?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is paid for by the government.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In what way? Is it borrowed money, or does the government print bills, or what happens?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is paid for out of the consolidated revenue fund. I do not know the exact mechanics of the transaction, but I do not think it makes very much difference.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What explains the difference this year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The increases are as follows:
Salaries, permanent, $3,082.67.
Salaries, temporary, $31,585.
Power, light and gas, $1,180.
Freight, express and cartage, $185.
Supplies, $35,122.87.
Contingent reserve, $143,114.46.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the meaning of "supplies-coining" on page 76 of the estimates?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Those particular items are made up as follows:
Ordinary increase, $200.	_ _
Special work re medals, etc., coining materials, $3,000.
Packing boxes, etc., $16,000.
Wooden boxes for shipment to large centres, $900.
Cardboard boxes for shipment by post, $4,800.
Medal cases, leather, $1,869.75.
Envelopes and boxes, $8,353.12.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there a big demand for the silver dollars?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How many have been made and issued?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The estimate was for one million, and more than that have been demanded and issued. The number to date is
1,329,000.


Grote Stirling: And you are going right on.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The demand is pretty well satisfied now.


Grote Stirling: How are these silver and bronze medals distributed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Through the post offices. The medals distributed for sale to the public are: silver medals, at 50 cents each, 181,589; and bronze medals, at 10 cents each, 414,906.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Finance
[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous grants and contributions.
To provide for grant towards expenses of the British empire games, $5,000.
Harry James Barber: Is this an annual grant,
or special?


James Lorimer Ilsley: A special grant is made for this purpose every four years. The year 1940 is the one in which we have to make a special grant.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where are the games
to be held next year?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The winter sports at St.
Moritz, Switzerland, in February, and the summer games at Helsingfors, Finland, in July.


Denton Massey: I have here a letter which informs me that Royal Henley are celebrating their hundredth anniversary this year, and have especially invited the Argonaut rowing club to send a crew over, because a crew is also going from Sydney, Australia, and will be there some time this week. I think we all realize the importance of Royal Henley in the field of sport, and in view of the fact that their majesties are at present in Canada and that Royal Henley has been postponed for a week in order that their majesties may be there as they always are, has any consideration been given to the matter of the expenses of the Argonaut rowing club, who will represent Canada at this event?


James Lorimer Ilsley: So far as I know, the only expenses for attendance at games that have Deen considered, at least the only ones that have been approved by the government, were for the Olympic games and the British empire games.


Denton Massey: The minister realizes that I bring this matter up only because this is essentially British empire games, and Royal Henley is very important. Has consideration been given or will it be given to that, now that the matter has been brought to the minister's attention?


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is impossible to give consideration to the inclusion of any more sums in the estimates. The estimates are all before parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General.
609. Expenses of the royal commission to investigate financial powers and responsibilities of the dominion and the provinces, $168,000.
Grote Stirling: Is this the Rowell commission, and if so, is this the total expense, or only a portion?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes. This is only a portion.


Grote Stirling: Is more yet to be voted, or has some been voted?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This may be the end. There have been amounts before.


Grote Stirling: Does the minister know
the total cost to date?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The total cost to May 23, 1939, is $367,159.53.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Have all the sittings,
, all the hearings been held? Are they now working on the preparation of the report?


James Lorimer Ilsley: All the sittings have been
held.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous grants and contributions.
502. National battlefields commission - continuation of park development, $100,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Do the commission have to give a detailed account of how they spend their money? Can they spend it as they like?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The expenditures are subject to audit by the auditor general.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But they can spend the money as they like? Can they spend it on parks and the like?


James Lorimer Ilsley: So long as they confine
themselves to the authority of the item they can spend the money as they choose, the expenditure being approved by the governor in council. It is like other expenditures under items in the estimates; they are not independent of governmental control; the governor in council exercises control.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this national battlefields commission the commission that looks after the plains of Abraham?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, that is it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do they spend money on parks?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And they have had this vote every year for how many years?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This vote is for construction as distinguished from maintenance. There has been a similar vote for four or five years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is this an annual vote?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not necessarily. The maintenance necessarily is annual; this is not necessarily so, but there has been a vote of this amount for purposes of construction there for each of the last four or five years.

Supply-External Affairs


John Horne Blackmore: What parks are now being developed?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The plains of Abraham, the park there; that is all.


Ernest Lapointe: The
battlefield.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public Printing and Stationery.
635. Plant-repairs and renewals-further amount required, $25,000.
['I should not like to say that, but I will give the hon. member the information to-morrow.']
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: This is for buying new machinery
for the printing bureau.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	,
Chief electoral officer.
32. Salaries and expenses of office, $18,700.
['This is for buying new machinery\nfor the printing bureau.']
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The usual amount.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil service commission.
S3. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $384,995.
['The usual amount.']
Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a substantial
increase of $21,800 under this item. What is the explanation?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: This is the civil service commission item, and naturally the minister submits the figures that are given him by the commission. This increase is on account of the large number of candidates at every examination. There has been a decided increase in the number of candidates applying for positions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Penitentiaries branch.
96. Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies, equipment and live stock; maintenance, discharges and transfers of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries, $2,911,860.
['This is the civil service commission item, and naturally the minister submits the figures that are given him by the commission. This increase is on account of the large number of candidates at every examination. There has been a decided increase in the number of candidates applying for positions.']
John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask if the minister has appointed the new penitentiary commissioners?


Ernest Lapointe: No. There are quite a
number of-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Applicants?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec Eact):: -worthy persons who have been recommended to me, but as yet no one has been appointed or
selected. I am waiting until I am through with the worries of the session in order that I may fix my mind on the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps the minister will explain this increase of $232,299.


Ernest Lapointe: This increase is on account of construction in our penitentiaries which was delayed because of lack of money and which is absolutely essential. We are really short of space.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
605. To provide for expenses arising out of the Trail smelter arbitration (revote), $6,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I am afraid I must hold up the committee for a little while in connection with this vote; I am sorry, but it has to be done. Some time ago I brought up a very grave matter, and I am surprised that no action has been taken by the government in connection with it. I have reference to the approaching opening of the sluice gates in the canal south of Long lake. The government is aware of what is going on; there are men there at the present time, and I am told that very shortly whoever is in charge of the canal is going to open the gates inside the international height of land. The Minister of Justice knows that as soon as these gates are opened it will constitute a violation of the boundary waters treaty. Before I say anything further I should like to know if the government is going to permit these gates to be opened. They cannot do it according to international law; and if not, what action is the government going to take?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I am unable to answer my hon. friend in connection with this matter. I did not expect the question to be raised. If my hon. friend desires an answer I shall be glad to give it to-morrow.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would be satisfactory.


Ernest Lapointe: It really does not come under this item.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It comes under external affairs, and this is the only item under which I can bring it up.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall read in Hansard what my hon. friend has said and try to give him the information.


Mr. POULIOT:: I regret to have to rise on this question of external affairs, but I have a matter to bring to the attention of the government. In Estcourt, in the state of Maine, just south of Temiscouata county, there is a
Supply-External Affairs

man named Ouellette, a barber, who has a beer licence. There are only six United States families in the neighbourhood, but of course he secured that licence in order to sell beer to Canadians who cross the border to go to his barber shop to drink beer. I have had strong protests from reliable sources in that district saying it is very bad for youth to go there to drink beer in this place.
Of, course there have been a great many abuses in that district, on the part of the United States authorities as much as on the part of some of the United States residents. I wonder what is the use of maintaining a Department of External Affairs, with legations throughout the world, when that department and the Canadian legation at Washington do not care to look into these matters and try to arrange adjustments satisfactory to the people concerned. The farmers there have been the victims of abuse on the part of United States customs officials, and now one of these Americans, who probably pulls the strings for an increase in tariff, has been successful in obtaining this licence. I want the minister, who knows the district, to be kind enough to tell me that he will see to it that some means are taken whereby the licence may be cancelled. I do not know of any provincial government in Canada that would award a beer licence-


Ernest Lapointe: Who issues the licence?


Jean-François Pouliot: The United States government. No provincial government in Canada would dare to give a beer licence to a settlement of six Canadians near a United States community. That would not be done. It would be unfair and ridiculous. In this instance the profit is made not from selling beer to United States citizens, but from selling it to Canadians who cross the border. Of course they cannot bring the beer back with them, but they can drink as much of it as they like over there and, if they wish, they may get drunk.
Of course the granting of beer licences is left to the discretion of the governments concerned. In this instance it is just some bold action on the part of the authorities of Maine who have taken this action, just to laugh at the Canadian population. I hope the minister will see to this matter, and also that the case of Richard will be settled.
This case of Richard has been mentioned. It may be considered only a small matter, because it affects only a few animals-a herd of cattle and some horses-but there is a principle at stake. I do not see why United States customs officials may come boldly to

Canada, without reporting to the Canadian authorities, seize cattle and horses on the Canadian side, tie them to a fence on the United States side and then tell the farmer, "We will slaughter your animals within an hour if you do not pay the fine." That is very bold action.
I was shocked to receive a letter from Doctor Skelton informing me that he was instructed by the United States legation to tell me to get in direct touch with the United States authorities. The first time I spoke of the matter in the house I was very mild, but this time I am most indignant, when I see that no progress has been made. The other day the Department of External Affairs supplied me with a statement to the effect that I was fully informed of the facts. Surely I am. I am informed of this fact, that all that has been done by the Department of External Affairs is nothing; there has been some useless correspondence. We voted a tremendous amount of money, over a million dollars, for the Department of External Affairs, covering the Canadian legations throughout the world; and yet it is impossible to have a settlement in a small matter like this. If the department cannot settle such a small matter, what can they do among the nations of the world? It is by small actions that we judge great men. I am not mentioning any individual in particular, but I am sick of one of them who is considered a great man, and who is good for nothing. I take it as an insult, as a Canadian, to be told to get in touch, direct, with the United States authorities, when we have an enormous organization in the Department of External Affairs, one which becomes bigger and bigger all the time, and which has to do with the Canadian legations throughout the world.
We must have the pride of our nationality. We have lost a great deal of territory in Maine. On account of the rapacity of the people of the United States and the neglectfulness of English officials we have sacrificed our territory. We must have pride in our nation, and we must not be timid, even when dealing with a big nation like the United States. The rights of our nationals should be respected. In this instance I do not blame the government, but I do blame severely the officials of the Department of External Affairs because they have not taken proper action in this matter. I blame also the Canadian legation at Washington, where the minister is a non-entity-and I regret I have to say that. But it is my duty to defend the rights of my constituents. The Minister of Justice knows the affection I have for him. I have

Supply Bill
spoken to other members of the government without results. I am now asking him to be kind enough to help those good people, and the help given by him will never be forgotten.


Ernest Lapointe: If anything can be done by me to help solve these two questions I shall be very happy to give it, because I am a son of Temiscouata. I know the place, the situation and the people in whom my hon. friend is so deeply interested. The case of Ouellette had never occurred to me before. I find it strange, remembering conditions when I lived in that part of the country, to think that the state of Maine would give licences so that people from Canada could go there to drink. The situation was quite different in former days. However, I shall see that the matter is investigated, and if I can help in any way to prevent these abuses I shall be only too pleased to do so.
With respect to the second matter mentioned by the hon. member, concerning Mr. Richard, whom I know, I believe a hardship does arise. Mr. Richard's farm is situated partly in Canada and partly in the state of Maine. There is no division of any kind, and when his cattle go from Canada to Maine there is a violation of the laws of the United States- and vice versa. Some settlement has been effected, but of course it is not permanent. If I can be of any help to secure what the hon. member has in view I promise him I shall be happy to give it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
GOG. To provide for payment to the government of the United States of the balance due under the provisions of articles 8 and 10 of the Lake of the Woods convention as signed at Washington, February 24,	1925 and as
approved by parliament in May, 1925, $214,025.57.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This vote calls for the
expenditure of 8214,025.57, and has to do with the Lake of the Woods convention of 1925. Is this the final payment? I understand the treaty called for the payment of
8275,000,	and one-half of whatever was to be spent within the following five years.


Ernest Lapointe: I should not like to say that, but I will give the hon. member the information to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the third time and concurred in.

Ernest Lapointe: That the reports of the committee of supply made to the house on February 14, 16, 21, 28, March 17, 21, 24, April 4, 11, 12, 19, 21, 24, May 2, 13, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 and June 1, less amounts voted in interim supply be now received, read a second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice-for the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to his majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, the sums of $179,602,391.32 and $81,559,131.99 and $9,559,604.89 respectively be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 146, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1940.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, it seems
to me that we are moving rather rapidly in this matter. It is, perhaps, at this stage formal, but the proceedings of this parliament for the last few days have resembled a three-ring circus. We have had two committees sitting: one, banking and commerce; another, public accounts, a very large committee, taking up the attention of a very large number of members of this house; and we have been putting through estimates very rapidly indeed, more rapidly perhaps than we realize. I do not want to obstruct, but it seems to me that we might well wait until to-morrow to put through this bill. I believe the minister will agree that we have been moving very rapidly-I suggest, altogether
Supply Bill

too rapidly-but, particularly ia view of the small attendance in this chamber owing to the conditions I have mentioned, I do not think that we should be unseemly in our haste with these matters.


Ernest Lapointe: I have
not the slightest objection to waiting for this last stage, although my hon. friend knows, as I do, that this is merely a question of form, a formality, which is always done in this way, when all the estimates have been considered. On the other hand, I have no objection at all. If the least objection had been raised I would not have proceeded with the last stage.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggested that the
second reading should stand until to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: I did
not so understand, but it will be the same thing; we will adjourn on this committee.
With regard to what my hon. friend has said, I do not altogether agree that there has been undue haste. I believe-and it is said rather in praise of all members of the house-that the amount of work which has been done with the assistance of all hon. members within the past two weeks has been considerable, but nothing has been pressed unduly. The estimates of all the important departments have been carefully scrutinized. I admit that to-day some of the estimates were adopted rather speedily, but they are those of departments which are not usually contentious- the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Finance. The estimates of all the big departments have been passed after full consideration, and so far as I am concerned and so far as the government is concerned we were quite ready to grant more time for the purpose. However, I thank my hon. friend for his cooperation, and I am pleased to move that the committee rise, and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the minister when we meet again? Is the house sitting to-night?


Ernest Lapointe: I do
not see the necessity of sitting to-night. The work is almost finished. The bill which has been reported from the banking and commerce committee is being printed before being submitted to the house, and cannot be ready before to-morrow morning. To sit to-night just for the purpose of having the third reading of the budget bill does not seem to be warranted, and when the committee has reported I will move the adjournment of the house.
[Mr. Stewart.l


Mr. KIRK:: Why not have the third reading now?


Ernest Lapointe: It does
not matter.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 6.10 pan.
Friday, June 2, 1939