1. How many men have been kept, by months, in the Shilo Camp project since November 1, 1935?

2. How many labourers have been employed monthly other than the $5 a month men during the same period?

3. How many carpenters and other skilled workers have been employed monthly since November 1, 1935?

4. How many of these carpenters and other skilled workers were employed from the constituency of Neepawa; who were they and what was their work?

5. How many came from Brandon?

6. What officials hired the men employed, and what were bis duties?

1. November, 491; December, 509; January, 519; February, 664; March, 641.

2. Four (4) men-Two (2) days in November and eight (8) days in December.

3. The following skilled workers have been employed on a rotational basis of approximately 2 weeks' duration since November 1, 1935:

Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Carpenters.. . 47 29 34 28 29Bricklayers. . . 26 15 12 13 14Plumbers. . . 2 6 673 44 48 47 494. Carpenters, 5: From Carberry-J. Gilmore, W. Armstrong, P. Hannah, George Elliott; from Douglas-P. J. Donohue. Bricklayers, 1: From Carberry, J. Naylor.5. From Brandon City: Carpenters, 63; bricklayers, 12; plumbers, 5.

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman

6. All skilled workers were supplied by employment services of Canada, through Brandon and Winnipeg offices.

1. On what date was James Beacock, postmaster at Myrtle, county of Ontario, dismissed?

2. What were the reasons for his dismissal?

3. How long had he held the office?

4. Had his resignation been received, and, if so, to take effect on what date?

5. Would any extra pension have been payable to him if he had held office until the date of his resignation?

6. Was the conduct of this office investigated by the postal inspector?

7. If so, what was his report?

1. April 16, 1936.

2. Change of site. Postal inspector reported accommodation for office and service both unsatisfactory.

3. Appointed 1st September, 1906.

4. Yes, to take effect from 1st September, 1936.

5. Not entitled to any pension.

6. Yes.

7. See No. 2.

Mr. CHURCH:

*

1. Will any legislation be brought down this session regarding the complete revision of the criminal code of Canada to bring it up-to-date, as a measure of law reform?

2. Will the government consider the appointment of a committee of both houses of parliament to study and make a survey of the whole problem of law reform in this country during the recess of parliament?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

This question is partly argumentative and partly relates to a matter of government policy. In so far as it is argumentative, it is out of order, and in so far as it relates to government policy, that will be made known in due course.

Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

On Thursday last the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) directed certain questions to me with regard to an article that appeared in the Regina Leader Post on May 4, headed:

Who pays $200,000 losses in oats deal? Ottawa inclined to deny all responsibility.

Apparently the matter has reference to the purchasing of seed oats and feed oats by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited for the Saskatchewan government. It is alleged that a loss of $200,000 was suffered

through the operation, and there is now some doubt whether the Saskatchewan government or the federal government is responsible for that loss. A similar question in the matter was addressed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on April 2, and a reply was made on April 6. As no negotiations whatever have taken place between the two governments since that time, I can add nothing to what was then stated toy the Minister of Finance.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Has the minister seen a reference in the Regina Leader Post of the next day, May 5?

Mr. EULER:

I have not seen it.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

It states that the committee which was inquiring into the wheat business might make an order of reference; that a royal commission would be set up and to this commission there would be referred the matter of this oats deal.

Mr. EULER:

The report to the house of

the committee investigating the wheat situation, as my hon. friend knows, since he is a member of that committee, has not yet been prepared. It is quite within the purview of that committee, if it thinks fit so to do, to refer this question also to the royal commission. I cannot say anything further.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I think I shall be within

my rights in saying to the hon. gentleman that the circumstances in connection with this matter are well known to me. At the instance of the Saskatchewan government, Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited was used as an agent- to enable the province of Saskatchewan to acquire oats; the -buying and selling of them were directed entirely by the Saskatchewan government and neither the federal government nor the cooperative enterprise had anything to do with it in any way, shape or form.