Mr. J. S. WOODSWOKTH (Centre Winnipeg) :

It is stated in a press despatch from Winnipeg this morning that the Canada Colonization Company is being re-organized with representation from both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. The despatch goes on to say that there is an arrangement by which the Canadian National will pay $100,000 for the period of five years. I should like to ask if the government has any information to give us in regard to this arrangement.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING- (Prime Minister): This is a matter, I think, the Minister of the Interior would like to answer, and I would be obliged if my hon. friend would permit it to stand until another day when the hon. minister is in the House.

INQUIRY FOR RETURNS On the Orders of the Day:

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

A large number of

orders for returns have been made by the House that have not yet been complied with by the government. I desire to call attention to some selected from the others because moved by hon. gentlemen of the party behind me. On the 12th February, an order passed for the production of correspondence, and a statement of regulations, conditions, and so forth, entered into between Canada and Great Britain in connection with imports of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom. That was moved for by myself, and why it is not down I cannot imagine. On the 19th of the same month, on the motion of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. McKillop) an order was made for a return showing the number of appointments to the Civil Service during 1922 and the number of returned men so appointed. This return is not yet down, at least it was not on the 26th of this month. On the 21st February, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) obtained the order of the House for correspondence relating to the overcharging of immigrants at Quebec. The same remark will apply to that. On the 5th March, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) obtained an order regarding

the dismissal of officers and employees of the government from the 1st January, 1922, to date, and the names of the persons now occupying their positions. To this order the like remarks apply. On the 11th April, the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) secured the approval of parliament to an order for the production of orders in council ratifying purchases or sales of property by the Canadian National Railways and the Grand Trunk Railway. This order has not been complied with. On the 16th of the same month, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) had an order passed calling for correspondence regarding the transportation of liquor over the Canadian National Railways. So far as I can ascertain there is default with regard to this order also -there was, at any rate, on the 26th of May. The same hon. member on the same day obtained an order showing the earnings and expenditures of various individual vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which order is not yet down. On the 25th, of the same month the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) obtained an order for the production of documents regarding the sale of the Toronto Suburban railway to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario or the city of Toronto. That is not complied with. On the 7th, of this month, now more than three weeks ago, on my motion, a very important order passed for a return showing the sales and purchases of real estate properties by the Canadian National Railways and the Grand Trunk Railway since October 4, 1922. No production has been made of these returns. There were three more orders passed on the 7th of this month, the same date-two by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), and one at the instance of the hon. member for York-Sunbury; and none of them are down yet. Quite a number of orders have since been passed, but I pass them by. Some of the orders of which I have spoken are three and a half months, and more, old, but no attention seems to have been paid to them by the government.

Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):

I may explain to my right hon. friend that these returns come from my office and I am continuously urging the officials to get them down as promptly as possible. There have been a very large number of returns called for this session, some of them very voluminous. I thank my right hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of

Dairy Act Amendment

the government, and I will notify the officials concerned to hurry the preparation of the returns as quickly as possible.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I do not think the number of returns ordered this session is unusually large, I think it is unusually small.

Mr. COPP:

I did not say the number was unusually large. I said there was a very large number.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The staff in other years have brought down many more.

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):

Owing to certain changes having been made by parliamentary counsel in the drafting of this bill which, while not changing the meaning of the measure, make it different and more difficult to explain, I move that the bill be discharged from the order paper with a view to possible redrafting and resubmission to the House.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Will the minister explain how the bill is more difficult to explain if the meaning is not changed?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

As drafted by parliamentary counsel portions of the former bill were inserted that were not in the bill submitted to me. That makes the bill appear quite different from what was contemplated, and the intention of the draftsman and counsel would be more difficult to explain.

Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):

Perhaps the minister would not object to informing the House in what respect the bill has been changed? I understand it has been arranged for a motion to be moved this afternoon which will prevent this bill from going into effect this session. It depends on the result of the debate which takes place and the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll); and the minister ought to explain to the House whether he is a consenting party to having this part of the bill obliterated, and be dependent upon the result of the motion which is to be debated this afternoon.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

In compliance with the hon. member's request, I have in my hand the bill as redrafted, and an initialled

copy got out by parliamentary counsel. The original draft reads as follows:

2. Section five of the said act is amended by adding at the end of paragraph Ob) thereof the words "or less than eighty per centum of milk fat"; and by striking out, in paragraph (c) thereof, in the second line the words "what is generally known as", and in the third line thereof the words "nor add any milk or cream or butter".

The draft incorporated by parliamentary counsel and not to be found in the original act as submitted to my department and by myself to this House reads:

5. No person shall-

(a) manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream;

(b) mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking, or otherwise, any cream, milk, skim milk, butter milk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen per centum of water, or less than eighty per centum of milk fat;

(c) melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or "renovated" butter.

The parliamentary counsel takes the position that that makes the section more intelligible. I take the ground Mr. Speaker,

that it makes the section less intelligible. However, parliamentary counsel is right in this respect; inasmuch as the Oleomargarine Act of 1919 and subsequent amendments suspend all these provisions of the Dairy Industry Act or amendments thereto, and I think counsel is strictly right. This particular section in the Oleomargarine Act says:

Section 3, Notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy Industry Act, 1914, chapter 7 of the

statutes of 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into Canada-

Which, Mr. Speaker, would cover this law, if we had it as it appears now on the order paper. The section continues:

-shall be permitted until the thirty first day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty one; and

the offering for sale, the sale, and the having in

possession for sale of eleomargarine shall be permitted until the first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.

So that if the bill had gone through as it appears now on the order paper it would have been suspended by the provision of the Oleomargarine Act which I have just read. That was the position taken by parliamentary counsel. Notwithstanding that, however, on the face of it the bill as now drafted appears as if we were prohibiting the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I think that under section 436 a motion to discharge must be

Oleomargarine

unanimous. I could not agree to-day, as far as I am concerned. I am prepared to read over what the Minister of Agriculture has said and try my best to understand it, and if it constitutes a reason for the course he wishes to take, I will agree at a future date.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I would not expect my hon. friend to understand it, because it is pretty difficult to understand.

Mr. SUTHERLAND:

With regard to the

explanation made by the minister I would like to point out that section 2 of the bill is really the suspended section of the Act of 1914, and consequently, if this bill is withdrawn and the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South should carry-

Mr. SPEAKER I must remind the House that the motion is not debatable because it can only be made by unanimous consent. As there is no unanimous consent, no debate can take place. Let me call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to page 541 of Bourinot, where he says:

XX. Bills once introduced, not altered except by authority of the House.

While a bill is in progress in the Commons no alteration whatever can be made in its provisions, except by the authority of the House. If it should be found that the bill has been materially altered since its introduction it would have to be withdrawn. A clerical alteration, however, is admissible. If it be necessary to make any changes in the bill before the second reading, the member in charge of it will ask *!eave to withdraw the bill and present another instead thereof.

The leave must therefore be unanimous, and as it is not, the motion cannot be made to-day.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I beg to move that the

House do now proceed to notice of motion No. 9, in the name of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), respecting oleomargarine.