Mr. DUNNING:

The Holy Alliance.

Quite different.

Mr. GARDINER:

The then leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in the province of Saskatchewan, and who is now the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) also came in. They brought an ex-C.C.F.'er from Alberta to run; they had in the constituency all the forces that they could amass from three different provinces contesting the election on this issue, and they tried to make it the only issue in the constituency. You know what happened? Right down through the one provincial seat included in the constituency which is preeminently Conservative I got three votes for every one that was polled by my opponent. In the whole constituency I increased what had been, when you total the votes of all the groups, a majority previously of 2,400 votes against us to a majority of over 3,000 in favour of policies which we were told the other night the people of western Canada do not want.

That was a year and a half ago.

Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):

Try it again.

Mr. GARDINER:

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say-

Time.

Mr. GARDINER:

Give me about two minutes of the time that my hon. friend has taken, and I shall be through.

During the period that wheat was being delivered to the wheat board, the farmers deolared whether they wanted! it delivered or not under certain circumstances. During the crop year 1935-36 the farmers delivered1 a considerable quantity of wheat to the wheat board. Do you know that during the period when the price was above 87$ cents a bushel they delivered to the wheat board1 only 47

per cent of what they brought to the elevators? But when the price went down below 87$ cents, 140 per cent of all the wheat that came to the elevators during that period went to the wheat board. When wheat went above 87i cents in the month of July, when that 63,000,000 bushels of which the hon. member spoke was being sold, 4,000,000 bushels of wheat of the previous year's crop was being delivered by the farmers to the elevators, but of that amount only 1,500,000 bushels wes delivered to the wheat board, and practically all of that was delivered at a time when wheat was still below 87^ cents a bushel; the other 2,500,000 bushels went to the trade. Is not that only human nature?

When men come into this house and suggest that the Dominion of Canada should maintain in existence a policy for handling our wheat which of necessity puts the farmer in the position where he delivers wheat to that organization while wheat is below the set price, but does not deliver when it is above the set price, only one result can follow, and that is that the government of Canada will have to pay for the losses of those who deliver when the wheat is below 874 cents, and will have none of the profits of those who deliver above in order to bring about an equalization of price. That is not fair to the Dominion of Canada, and the government has suggested that when the commission which is now investigating the question makes its report, this whole matter will be reconsidered and some policy suitable to the whole dominion and to the farmers in particular will be inaugurated to handle the wheat of this country in a systematic way.

Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):

First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) upon the very fine delivery of their speeches, though I fear I cannot be quite so complimentary about some of the statements which those speeches contain. I intend to deal very briefly with certain conditions that are prevalent to-day.

One of the most encouraging signs of the times is the fact that it is becoming generally realized that the prosperity of a nation does not so much depend upon stock exchange quotations, statistics of production or trade returns, but rather on the general level of the social well-being of the people. As we go through Canada from east to west we find so much poverty, squalor and actual want, that we must immediately realize that this vaunted prosperity is only for a very limited section of society. So much poverty might be excusable in a country which was producing

The Budget-Mr. Quelch

boards is very heavy in the various provinces, I would urge that additional boards be appointed in order to expedite the work of readjusting these cases.

Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):

Mr. MICHATJD:

And good business.

Mr. BROOKS:

Good business at times, but not as good, as it should be. I have enjoyed listening to the budget debate so far, and I must say that I enjoyed listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he presented the budget the other day. He has a very pleasant voice, which I am sure we all delight to hear. The budget speech is the most important presentation made to parliament and, through parliament, to the people of the country. This is properly so, since its contents may favourably or adversely affect the lives of our people, and in any event it is almost certain to affect to a lesser or greater degree the economic and domestic arrangements of our industries and our homes.

Two great problems which confront the people of Canada to-day, and which have been confronting them for the past few years, are taxation and' unemployment. The taxpayer had expected some lightening of the tax burden, and I am sure he has been greatly disappointed. We all recall that in 1935, when the Liberal party were seeking the support of the people of Canada, one of their great promises was that if they were returned to power they would reduce taxation. We may well ask what has been done in this regard. Instead of burdens being made lighter the opposite has taken place, particularly in regard to the sales tax, which has risen to eight per cent, a record figure in Canadian history. With the huge increase in revenue from this source, together with the record figures of income tax payments, the Minister of Finance could only show a reduction from an estimated deficit of $100,000,000 to an actual deficit of $87,000,000. We admit that this shows some slight improvement, but nothing like the improvement that should be shown when we consider the colossal sum collected during the past year.

When we analyse the revenue from the sales tax alone, we find that it means that each man, woman and child in the Dominion of Canada paid $10.50 during the year. On an average this represents $52.85 per family, or a dollar a week. When you add to that all the other taxes collected by the dominion government, by the various provincial governments and by the municipalities, you realize the great burden that is being borne by the taxpayer.

Previous to the election of 1935 we heard a great deal about the forgotten man, the taxpayer of this country. This afternoon one of the speakers mentioned the forgotten farmer, but in October of 1935 the forgotten taxpayer was the important man. He was represented as 'bearing a great burden on his back, and was promised relief, but this forgotten man is still forgotten. Last year he was remembered long enough to have an additional burden placed on his back, but this year he has been absolutely ignored by the government.

It is not my intention to dwell at any length on the subject of unemployment, which has been debated very extensively during the past week. I think most of the pros and cons have been well presented, but I should like to make a few observations with regard to unemployment in my own province.

Last year, not many months ago, the premier of New Brunswick took great credit for being the first premier in the dominion to take his province off direct relief. With regard to direct relief paid by the province that was a fact; but actually the burden was simply shifted from the dominion and the province to the taxpayers of the municipalities, and such a cry went up from the municipalities that further assistance had to be given by the province. I venture to say that instead of the province having fewer unemployed in 1936, when it went off direct relief there were more unemployed at that time than there had been during most of the depression.

In this connection I should like to read a report which appeared in the press about that time:

Relief Crisis Approaches in Cities of N.B.

Municipalities Feel Pinch of Carrying Relief Burden

Statements made at Montreal by Premier Dysart, that New Brunswick is the first province to "go off relief," are termed "ridiculous" by Councillor George E. Barbour of Saint John. Councillor Barbour told the city council he did not understand how the Premier could make such a claim in the face of figures showing the amount which relief is still costing New Brunswick municipalities, even though the province has not been contributing for the last few months.

The Budget-Mr. Brooks

He goes on to say:

Government contributions towards relief in New Brunswick terminated in the early fall. Provincial road development projects were intensified at that time with the view of absorbing the unemployed. This program did take care of quite a number of jobless-550 in the Saint John area, for instance-but hundreds were still left to be cared for. The men on the roads received $2 a day and were unable to put anything aside for the winter. Now the road jobs have ended.

Councillor James A. Whitebone, of Saint John, in making a statement at that time said:

"Something has to be done and done quickly." He predicts that further delay in facing the issue squarely will lead to "a very serious situation."

That is the situation, Mr. Speaker, as regards unemployment in the city of Saint John. The same was true of the cities of Moncton and Fredericton, and other municipalities of New Brunswick. It is very interesting to note, in a report for the year 1936 issued by the dominion commission for unemployment relief, that in October, 1935, when the late government left office there were 14,438 on relief in New Brunswick. In February, 1936, the latest month for which I can get records, the number has more than doubled. There were 35,300 on relief in that province. I am sure the situation as regards unemployment in the dominion must be recognized by all.

In his speech delivered a few days ago the Minister of Finance spoke about the disheartening effect of the obvious failure of employment to keep pace with the striking gains in business. We might then ask ourselves what the record of the government has been during the year and a half it has been in power. First, we can point to an increase in taxation, where the people of Canada were promised 'a decrease. Next we can point to unemployment, because the government has failed to carry out its promise to reduce unemployment.

There is another matter in connection with which the government is claiming great credit-the extension of the British Empire trade agreements. In other words, matters which required hlose attention or a cure, such as taxation and unemployment, have not been successfully handled, but for the empire trade agreements, which even before this government took office were of great benefit, the government claims great credit. The circumstances remind me of the story of the young doctor who had been called out to attend one of his first patients. It happened to be one of those cases in which a new member of the family is expected. When

the doctor came home his wife asked him just what the situation was and he said, "Well, I have lost the mother and child, but the father is still living." That is the case so far as the government is concerned. Unemployment and taxation have not been cured, but the empire tirade agreements are still living. It is not necessary for me to dwell at length on the great benefits of the United Kingdom agreement. Unquestionably the British market has been of great value in which to offer our wheat, live stock, lumber, minerals and meats, but it must be observed that the new agreement now under discussion is less favourable to Canada than the one negotiated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). We are paying a higher price for a preference in the United Kingdom than the Bennett government paid. In a word, the new bargain is not as favourable to Canada as the one made in 1932.

Moreover, may I call the attention of the house to the striking inconsistency and insincerity and complete volte face which the Liberal government has shown in the matter. The Bennett trade agreement was denounced as worthless by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his followers when they sat in opposition. They described it as an agreement affording no substantial benefit to the Canadian farmer or producer. Yet within the short space of four years we have the spectacle of the Liberal party, headed by the same right hon. gentleman presenting to the house an agreement similar to the one denounced in 1932, and lauding it as capable of accomplishing the greatest benefits for Canada. A British statesman once termed his opponents a party of organized hyprocrisy. That oap would fit the Liberal party in its attitude towards trade agreements with the United Kingdom.

Any hon. member who has read Hansard for 1932, when the agreements were under discussion in the house, must realize that from the statements made by the then leader of the opposition and his followers might have been described in the language of the British statesman to whom I have just referred. The then leader of the opposition said it was nothing but a Tory conspiracy. At page 603 of Hansard for 1932, the hon. member for Perth South (Mr. Sanderson) said:

Mr. Speaker, after carefully studying the articles and the agreements I am free to admit that of all the great blunders that this government have made since they came into power in 1930 this is perhaps the greatest blunder of all. . . . There is nothing in it to give any consolation to the people of Canada.

The Budget-Mr. Brooks

Again, at page 392 of Hansard for the same session, Mr. Ralston said:

My hon. friends have inserted an article which they say will be of benefit to the lumber industry. Let me make this statement, that this article will not be of the slightest benefit to the lumbermen of the maritime provinces.

I intend to take a little time to show how the agreement has been of the greatest benefit to the people of the maritime provinces. Had it not been for the agreements of 1932, I am satisfied the lumber industry in my province would have gone out of business. It has given employment to large numbers of men, and has been the very lifeblood of the industry in the part of the dominion from which I come. Just to show what effects the agreement has had, I shall place on Hansard a statement showing the lumber exported through ports in New Brunswick during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1932 to 1936. I shall give the figures for planks and boards of birch:

United United

, Kingdom StatesFiscal year Mfeet M feet1932

10,250 4,2111933

12,720 1,6441934

16,211 3,3061935

23,586 1,6661936

32,187 5,292

May I now give the figures concerning shipments of planks and boards of spruce, the chief lumber commodity of New Brunswick, and I believe of the maritime provinces:

Fiscal year United Kingdom United States

M feet M feet

1932 . .. 5,389 45,6881933 . . . 21,539 29,2141934 . . . 94,778 29,6501935 . . . 105,230 17,4751936 . . . 45,799 30,040

From 1932 to 1935 shipments of lumber from New Brunswick ports to the United Kingdom increased from 5,389 M feet to 105,230 M feet. In spite of this, when Mr. Ralston was speaking on the possible benefits of this treaty to the maritime provinces he said it would be of absolutely no benefit to the lumbermen of that part of Canada.

There are other commodities to which I might refer. Take apples, for instance. This is a very important product to the people in the Annapolis valley of Nova Scotia, and it is becoming more important to the people in the valley of the Saint John in New Brunswick. I will give the figures for the three years before the agreements came into effect, and for the three years after they were in effect. I could not get the figures for particular parts of Canada, so I shall have to give figures for all of Canada.

In 1927 we shipped to England 980,715 barrels of apples. In 1928 we shipped 838,891 barrels, and in 1929, 912,488 barrels. In 1933, the first year after the British empire trade agreements came into effect, we shipped 3,092,274 barrels. In 1934 we shipped 1,844,026 barrels, and in 1935, 2,232,772 barrels. It will be seen that the percentage of increase was easily one or two hundred per cent.

Then, take bacon. The records show that in 1931 Canada sold to the old country 49,495 hundredweight of bacon. In 1936 our sales had increased to 1,092,401 hundredweight. I think these figures show the great benefits which the people of Canada in general, and the people of the maritime provinces in particular, obtained from these agreements. It is rather hard to give definite figures as to the increased employment which has occurred. We must consider the number of men employed in the lumber woods, the number employed in driving the logs to the mills, the number employed in the mills, in the lumber yards and in loading and shipping the lumber sent to the United Kingdom. This will give us some idea of what these agreements have meant in increasing employment.

Shipping from the maritime ports of Saint John and Halifax has increased greatly in the last few years, and it is particularly good this year. This improvement in business is due to a great extent to the additional shipments brought about by the British Empire trade agreements. There is no great increase of exports to the United States. Speaking for the port of Saint John and the province of New Brunswick I am very pleased indeed to note from the press that the New Zealand and Australia boats are again going to call at Saint John. I notice that a lot of credit is being given in certain places for the return of these ships, but it seems to me that the parties who were responsible for having these ships taken from Saint John to Halifax deserve more censure than praise.

Mr. ISNOR:

On what authority does the hon. member make the statement that the Montreal-New Zealand boats are to call at Saint John?

Mr. BROOKS:

I make it on the authority of the press. Speaking for the port of Saint John, and for the port of Halifax if I may, it gives me much concern-and I think the same is true of all maritime people-when I pick up Montreal papers and read that the ice breakers are working feverishly on the St. Lawrence river in order to open up the port of Montreal. It seems to me that this is unfair to the winter ports in the maritime

The Budget-Mr. Brooks

provinces. An effort is being made to open up the port of Montreal and take away from the other ports that which is their right in the matter of freight. The maritime provinces are helping to pay for these ice breakers which are working to rob us of what we consider to be our just dues.

I have no intention of dealing at great length with the United States trade agreement, but I should like to point out that last year some hon. members attempted to show the great benefits which would accrue to the maritime provinces from this agreement. There has been no great improvement in the movement of lumber to American ports up to the present time. What may happen in the future I do not know. The statement is made, I believe by the Charlottetown Guardian, that the quota on potatoes was reduced by 50,000 bushels; that is, the market available to the potato growers had been reduced to that extent.

One of the members who spoke last year said that there would be great advantage to the farmers of the maritime provinces in the shipping of turnips. I have in my hand a statement of the exports of turnips from the maritime provinces to the United States during the fiscal years 1927 to 1936. I shall not take time to repeat all these figures, but I should like to give a few. In 1934, before the United States agreement came into effect, Nova Scotia shipped 243,890 bushels of turnips to the United States. In 1936, with the agreement in force, that province shipped only 142,335 bushels. These figures prove that there was no great benefit to the turnip producers of Nova Scotia.

In 1934 Prince Edward Island shipped 179,269 bushels and in 1936, 245,950 bushels. There was an increase there, but the shipments were less than in 1935, when a total of 263,874 bushels were shipped. The shipments from New Brunswick were practically the same. More were shipped in 1936 than in 1934, but the increase was not very great.

I made inquiries of the bureau of statistics as to the amount of cream shipped from the maritime provinces to the United States. I remember one member last year stating that this treaty was going to ibe of great benefit to the dairy farmers of Canada. I found that not one gallon of cream had been shipped from the maritime provinces to the United States during the year 1936 under the Canada-United States agreement.

I do not intend to speak of the fishing industry to-night, but at some later date it is my intention to say a few words with reference to the deplorable condition of the maritime fishermen-the fishermen who expected

so much from this government and have received absolutely nothing. Reading Hansard I noticed that the Hon. J. L. Ralston, discussing a few years ago the St. Lawrence waterway, told the then Bennett government that if it made any concessions to the United States it should be on condition that better opportunities would be provided for the fishermen of the maritime provinces. Our present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is discussing various matters at Washington with President Roosevelt. I hope he will remember at this time the fishermen of the maritime provinces, who were so inexcusably forgotten when the Canada-United States agreement was in preparation last year.

A few words regarding the county of Kings. Although we are modest and dislike to praise ourselves, I have every reason to be proud of Kings county and also of my native county of Queens, which comprise the constituency of Royal. Some hon. members may have read a short time ago in the editorial column of the Financial Post an article on a certain municipality which had not only been able to pay all its bills during the years of the depression but had a surplus each year. That municipality was in the county of Kings. We have in the town of Sussex one of the finest dairy centres not only in the maritime provinces, but I believe in the whole dominion. I was much concerned when I learned the other day of the great shipments of vegetable oils which are coming into this country. One of the speakers to-day-I think it was the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rickard)-said that his county was also a dairy county but that unquestionably the housewives of Durham would continue to make their shortening from the good butter produced by the cows in that constituency. I have no doubt that the housewives in my section of the dominion will do the same, but what worries us most is whether the housewives in the cities, the bakers, and others are going to use our dairy butter or will utilize the vegetable oils which are coming in in greatly increasing quantities.

During the depression my constituency has borne up better, I think, than any other part of my native province; I believe it stands high in the whole dominion. But there is one section which is hard hit at the present time, and that is the coal mining district in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, partly in the constituency of Royal and partly in the constituency of York-Sunbury. This area was one of the most prosperous during the years of the depression; at least the inhabitants were able to pay their own way. I should like to give the house a general idea of the coal

The Budget-Mr. Brooks

industry in our province. The annual output of coal is from 300,000 to 350,000 tons; the number of men employed, approximately 1.200; annual wages, approximately $1,000,000; royalties paid annually to the province, $30,000 to $40,000; capital invested, according to the government report for 1934, the last available, $1,856,392. Besides giving employment to a large number of men thus directly engaged, this industry provides good markets for large quantities of our farm produce and our lumber, and thus is of great benefit to the farmers and lumbermen of the surrounding districts. From 1931 on the situation has been as follows:

Selling

Year price Cost Profit Loss1931.. .. .. $4 32 $4 18 [DOT]14 1932.. .. .. 4 06 3 94 [DOT]12 1933.. .. .. 3 50 3 36 [DOT]14 1934.. .. .. 3 47 3 44 [DOT]03 1935.. .. .. 3 43 3 54 [DOT]11

In 1935 the total loss to the producers was $38,000, and if they had expected 6 per cent on their invested capital their loss would have been $150,000. One of the principal causes of the decline of the industry in this area has been the competition with Nova Scotia mines. Those mines have been more highly subsidized than those of our province. From 1931 to 1936 Nova Scotia received in subsidies $7,023,976; New Brunswick, $36,506. If New Brunswick had been given freight rate assistance at the same rate as Nova Scotia in proportion to output, it would have received during the past six years $350,000 instead of the practically insignificant sum of $36,506. By freight rate assistance Nova Scotia has moved during the past four years 25 to 32 per cent of its total coal output while New Brunswick has moved a maximum of only 6 per cent.

Increased output naturally means a lower cost on every ton of coal produced. Thus Nova Scotia through government assistance is in a better position to undersell New Brunswick coal right in our own province. Nova Scotia sells more than twice as much coal in New Brunswick as do the New Brunswick mines themselves-that is to consumers other than railroads.

I make these comparisons not with the idea of showing that Nova Scotia receives better treatment than it should receive but to demonstrate that New Brunswick is not being as well treated as it has a right to expect. We are all pleased that so much encouragement has been given to the coal mines of Nova Scotia. Like my honoured leader, I believe that in that section of Cape Breton it would have been impossible for the coal mines to carry on during the past few years

but for the help they received. But we ask for New Brunswick the same assistance that is given to Nova Scotia.

Another cause of the decrease in returns is the rate paid by the railroads. In 1929 the Canadian National paid $4.08 per ton to the producers; in 1932, $430; from 1933 to 1936 it has been paying only $4. This price is too low; the quality of the coal has been improved and the cost of production has increased. I contend that the fuel board instead of dealing with individual operators and so occasioning overmuch competition among the operators, should deal with the producers as a body, and that a fair rate should be paid for all the coal required by the Canadian National Railways. We know that the railway employees are getting an increase, and the civil servants likewise, and we feel that the government could very well increase the price paid for coal for its railways in order to give work to the 1,200 men who are located in this area of Minto, which is partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Clark).

It is almost eleven o'clock and my time is up, but I would make one observation in closing. I do not believe that we in Canada can live, as some of the western members would have us believe, by the production of wheat alone, nor can we live only by mixed farming, nor by our mines and forests alone. We must have some protection for our industries; we must have industries in order to have large centres of population, and the larger the towns we have the better it will be for the primary producers, the farmers of Canada.

Mr. VINCENT J. POTTIER (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to-night in another language than my mother tongue, and that is because what I have to say concerns a *community whose majority is English speaking.

(Text) I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his budget and his presentation of it.

I propose to discuss the question of fisheries, a matter which vitally affects a basic production that is of paramount importance to the maritime provinces. I submit that the time has come when this industry must be looked at specifically, with a view to a definite decision being given. I am going to ask that the house apply its mind to the question of fisheries in the light of the interests of the maritime provinces, having regard also to the position of other provinces concerned with the same products and to dominion interests generally.

The Budget-Mr. Pottier

The fishing grounds of the North Atlantic are the most extensive in the world, and when one looks at a map of the maritime provinces and finds them located as they are, adjoining the fishing grounds, one would naturally arrive at the conclusion that these provinces must have a prosperous industry and a happy fisher-folk. It seems strange, however, that when one investigates, he finds in some sections probably the most destitute fishermen and a picture that would better fit other than present day standards.

We have the following fishing banks, so-called, in the North Atlantic available to our fishermen.

Square miles

Grand Bank 36,000

Green Bank 1,450

St. Pierre Bank 4,800

Western Bank 6,320

Georges Bank 8,498

There are other banks, and the total area amounts to 69,553 square miles. These banks vary in depth from 10 fathoms to 100 fathoms, or in other words from 60 to 600 feet.

In addition to these fishing banks, there are other well known fishing grounds near the Atlantic coast, and in the gulf of the St. Lawrence. These banks, embracing an area of nearly 70,000 square miles, have in the past yielded annually on the average more than eleven hundred million pounds of cod alone and here undoubtedly is to be found the greatest cod and haddock fishery in the world.

The men who fish on these banks are ready for call twenty-four hours a day. They know nothing of regular hours-no danger of sit-down strikes there. They work in the majority of cases on what we call a lay-that is, they get a share of the return from the catch and every member of the crew gives his utmost in cooperation and energy. No other primary producer has to go through the personal hazards and hardships that the fisherman is obliged to suffer.

Inclusive of some of the fishing banks already mentioned, where cod and haddock are the principal products, there is around and adjacent to the maritime provinces a total ocean fishing area of approximately two hundred thousand square miles, or over four-fifths of the entire ocean fishing area of the North Atlantic. Fifteen thousand square miles of inshore fishing waters are controlled entirely .by the government of Canada.

The commercial products of these extensive areas consist for the most part of cod, haddock, hake, herring, halibut, pollock, mackerel, sardines, salmon, smelts, alewives, swordfish, tuna and shellfish, principally lobsters, scallops, oysters and clams.

I want to compare the number of square miles of these fishing grounds with the number

of square miles of land under cultivation in the dominion of Canada; in other words, the fishing area with the farming area of Canada. In 1935 we had in Canada 56,923,960 acres or 87,381 square miles under cultivation. This means that all land under cultivation in Canada is only between one-half and one-third the area covered by the fishing grounds that are available to the fishermen of the maritime provinces.

I sometimes think that the lack of interest in the fisheries is due to the lack of appreciation of the size, extent and possibilities of our fishery resources. We think of Canada as a great farming country, because it has huge areas under cultivation, and yet these areas are small in proportion to the areas awaiting harvest from the Canadian fishermen.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we must in the future deal more definitely and specifieially with the development of our fisheries in the interests of Canada. I am convinced that the people of Canada and of other countries are going to continue in more or less greater degree to eat fish products, and it is only fair and reasonable to say that this particular industry is worthy of consideration and must be taken care of.

On motion of Mr. Pottier the debate was adjourned.

Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):

Mr. Speaker, in order that we may proceed with the debate on Thursday it is necessary to suspend standing order 28. By leave of the house, I therefore move:

That standing order 28 respecting committee of ways and means be suspended for the sittings of Thursday, 11th March, 1937.