1. What is the total number of farm owners in the dominion?

2. How many farm owners are there in each province ?

3. What is the total value of these farms in each province?

4. What category of farming has been found most remunerative for the past five years?

5. What category of farming has been found least remunerative?

Mr. RINFRET:

Return tabled herewith.

Mr. PELLETIER:

How much was paid to Mr. Peter White, K.C., and Mr. Norman Sommerville, K.C., since 1930 for legal fees and travelling expenses?

Mr. RINFRET:

Return tabled herewith.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

I move the following amendment:

That section 2 of the bill be amended as follows:

_ (a) By striking out the word "transport" in the seventh line on page one of the bill and inserting in lieu thereof the words "the crown named by the governor in council to administer this act;"

(b) By striking out the words "under the various acts" in the thirteenth line on page one of the bill and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "to administer the harbours of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi, Quebec, Three Rivers, Montreal and Vancouver by the acts."

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I wish to refer to something which is rather of a personal nature. While I was away, on April 23, 1936, my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, referring to the fact that he

National Harbours Board

had not proceeded to introduce a bill implementing the Gibb report, said at page 2085 of Hansard:

But there never was submitted to council a draft bill in the sense of having finality, though there were discussions. I found, however, opposition among our own people as well as opposition from this side, led at that time by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), so that it would be absolutely impossible for us to get the bill through. When I say "impossible" I mean impossible in that sense.

I do not know where my right hon. friend gathered the idea that I was opposed to the bill or to the Gibb report. On the contrary I was in favour of it; I was hoping that this measure would be introduced by my right hon. friend in order that we would not have the responsibility of introducing it ourselves, and I expressed myself accordingly to my colleague from Quebec South. I am sure my right hon. friend could not find anywhere in Hansard or in private conversation anything that would justify this statement.

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, when I made the statement it was -based on information I received following a question which the hon. gentleman asked in this house as to whether or not it was the intention of the government to proceed to implement the Gibb report. My memory is that the hon. gentleman asked that question on more than one occasion. As there was a distinct cleavage of opinion -to the right of the Speaker I naturally inquired as to what was the attitude of the opposition, and I was informed that my hon. friend the present Minister of Justice was opposed to it, and if we introduced it he could join with those who did not believe in it and the -government would not be able to put it through. That was one of my reasons for making the statement I did. Apparently I was inaccurately informed, and I am very glad that the hon. gentleman was a supporter of the Gibb report and would have supported any bill that -might have been introduced by the government to implement that report. It would have been a striking contrast to any evidence that we had of the willingness of hon. gentlemen opposite to support anything that emanated from the government during the five years we were in power.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

My right hon. friend is not fair to me, because if he will recall I was the first in the house to rise and support his bill on radio broadcasting.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, and ever since hon. gentlemen opposite have been trying to undo what was then done.

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Because

my right hon. friend should have done better in carrying it out.

Section as amended agreed to.

On section 3-Board constituted.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

I move

the following amendment:

That subsection 1 of section 3 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word "under" in the nineteenth line on page one of the hill the words "the direction of."

Mr. ISNOR:

Before we take up section 6

I should like to direct the attention of the minister to section 4. It will be remembered that on April 22 I brought to the attention of the minister an amendment asking that a subsection be inserted directing that freight, wherever possible, should pass through Canadian ports. The exact wording was:

The board shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea which is consigned within Canada for carriage to National Railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian ports.

In suggesting that amendment to the minister I do so not with any particular port in mind, but rather in order that our Canadian goods destined for export shall go through Canadian ports, and our workmen in those ports shall profit from the handling of those goods. My suggested amendment is not prompted by sectional pride, but is for the direct benefit of each and every one of the seven ports mentioned in this bill. Therefore I hope the minister is not going to pass over section 4 without giving this suggested amendment serious consideration. May I refer to the national ports survey report made in 1931-32, and deal with a few of the figures therein contained in regard to the shipments of grain alone. The report shows the exports of Canadian grain which went through Canadian and United States ports respectively, and gives the following figures:

Canadian Grain Exports Through Through United

Canadian States

ports ports

Crop year: bushels bushels1926- 27

159.400,000 137,458,0001927- 28

213,008,000 116,082,0001928- 29

263,177,000 139,870,000

National Harbours Board

The average for five years is 120,000.000 bushels shipped through the Canadian ports and 59,000,000 bushels shipped through American ports.

With figures like these facing us, the minister, in bringing into effect a new organization to administer our ports should consider every possible means of encouraging more freight traffic to go through our own Canadian ports. As I said, this is not a sectional cry at all but relates to every one of our ports.

I stated when I first introduced this amendment that the minister is no doubt familiar with all these figures. I could give a great many more, and I could read extracts from the press in various sections of Canada to support this contention. I could present resolutions from boards of trade in different parts of Canada, all having the same purpose of producing more work for the men in our Canadian ports. This seems to be an opportune time to bring sueh an amendment before this committee. The same provision is word for word in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, and I think it was put there for a purpose. It might be contended that the national harbours board has been created to look after just such matters as this. But by having this provision in the act it will have the tendency to draw their attention to it in a much stronger manner than if it were not there.

If it were not for prolonging the discussion I could go back, as other lion, members have done, to the British North America Act, 1S67, and show why railways connecting the different parts of Canada were considered so important. I merely say that if they were important at the time of confederation they are just as important now in carrying our goods from end to end of Canada and transporting them for export through our own Canadian ports. I therefore trust that the minister will give my suggested amendment favourable consideration and that it will be accepted.

The CHAIRMAN:

There is an amendment to section 6, moved by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) :

That paragraph (a) of subsection 1 of section 6 be amended by striking out the words "ale now" in the forty-fourth fine on page 3 of the bill, and inserting in lieu thereof the words "at the date of the coming into force of this act were."