Mr. BENNETT:

A number of telegrams

have been received from various communities apprehending difficulties, but we have told them that when complaints have been made against these trespassers, at the request of the provincial authorities we are ready to render such assistance as may be within our power and as they may require.

Unemployment Relief

One telegram did come from the premier of Alberta, one, I think, from the mayor of Calgary and one from Edmonton. I speak subject to correction as to Edmonton, but I am sure as to Calgary. Obviously it is hardly necessary to say that we are not in a position to render any assistance until some complaint is made, and that matter, as I repeat, is one that rests, in its inception and in its carrying forward, with the provincial authorities.

Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):

Last Wednesday, on

the orders of the day, the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) asked how much hay, straw, feed and seed grain was exported to the United States from each of the western provinces during the past season. I find that the statistical returns of exports do not distinguish between seed and feed grain, all of each class of grain being grouped together in one item for statistical purposes.

I have had a statement prepared, however, of the exports of hay, straw, barley, rye, wheat and oats from each of the western provinces during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1935, and during the month of April, 1935, and with the permission of the house, I shall place this on the record. The statement is as follows:

Statement of exports of barley, rye, wheat, oats, hay and straw: to the United States through ports in the western provinces of Canada during the fiscal year ended March, 1935, and the month of April, 1935

Province: Barley

Fiscal year, 1935: Bush.

Manitoba 254,436

Saskatchewan ' 1,333

Alberta 2,930

British Columbia

Month of April, 1935:

Manitoba 5,278

Saskatchewan 1,580

Alberta 130

British Columbia

Rye Wheat Oats Hay StrawBush. Bush. Bush. Tons Tons386 569,094 17,806 22,639 25,266172 136,181 23,168 13,108 20,800558 702 429 326 20308,000 192 13 3420 22,150 490 3,281 10025,377 8,807 1,686 100 56

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):

I informed the house

yesterday that the report of the Macdonald commission which had been inquiring into the relief camps in British Columbia had just reached me. I wish to state that it is now receiving the consideration of the government, and I anticipate being in a position to table it early next week, probably Tuesday, and to make a short statement at that time.

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):

Might I ask the Minister of

National Defence whether copies of the report of the Macdonald commission will be printed for the use of members?

Mr. STIRLING:

That matter will be considered by the government and I will make a statement thereon when I speak to the tabling of the report.

92582-216}

HYNDMAN COMMISSION On the orders of the day:

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :

Might I be permitted to suggest to the

Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) that I will ask him next Monday with respect to the government's intention as regards referring the Hyndman report on unemployment among ex-service men to a special committee?

CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT On the orders of the day:

Mr. E. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):

I

would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question in regard to the Farm Loan Act. When a man has a loan made prior to the act which was passed this year whereby a person can borrow at five per cent, will the old loan be released?

Hon. B. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):

A decision upon that point has not been arrived at as yet.

Meal and Canned Foods Act

Mr. NEILL:

Might I ask the minister

why he is making this amendment to section 17 which deals with fish and shellfish canneries and1 their inspection? It seems to me that it should have been made to section 18 which deals with fish and shellfish packed in cans. The minister is aware that inspection of canneries lies no longer with the dominion but with the provincial authorities and this section is reaLly obsolete. The amendment would seem to be more appropriate if it were made as an addition to section 18 of the act.

Mr. STIRLING:

The object of the amending bill is to clear up any doubt which may have existed as to whether under this section the government have power to collect fees. The insertion of the clause as suggested, appears to me to meet the difficulty. It states:

The governor in council may from time to time prescribe a tariff of fees that shall be charged for the inspection of canned fish and shellfish.

And attached to section 17, it appears to me to be quite appropriate.

Mr. NEILL:

Surely the minister did not catch my meaning. I am not finding fault with the wording of the clause in the bill. I am merely saying that it is being put into the wrong place. It is being attached' to a section which has no standing in law to-day. Section. 17 reads:

All fish and shellfish canneries shall be inspected as provided by the regulations.

But that is ultra -vires of the jurisdiction of the dominion at the present time and has been since the decision of the privy council somewhere around 1927 or 1928. It would seem appropriate to put it in the proper place instead of the wrong place. I admit it would have sufficient significance wherever it is put, but it would be much more appropriate to put it in the section that is within our jurisdiction, section 18, dealing with canned fish, rather than in the one dealing with canneries over which we have no jurisdiction.

Mr. STIRLING:

The output of canneries

can certainly be inspected under the act. It (Mr. Rhodes.]

does not seem to me to make any difference whether it is under section 17 or section 18.