1911-02-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. REID (Grenville).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question with reference to the proposed Long Sault dam, and before doing so it is necessary that I should read a letter that I have received from Washington. The letter is as follows:


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Washington, February 13, 1911,


Dr.  J. D.@: Reid, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Dr. Reid,-I am taking the liberty of writing you at length, advising you of the position I hhve taken in opposing the ' Long Sault Development Companies Bill,* now pending in both Houses here.
An investigation of the Bills pending in the interest of the Long Sault Development Company discloses the fact that the company is endeavouring to get legislation that will enable them to develop power south of the International boundary line entirely independent of and without the consent of the Canadian government. The original Malby Bill, introduced December 14, 1909, contained a provision that the authority thereby vested in the company would not be operative until the consent of the construction of the dams, canals and locks and other works of the proper authorities of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada was obtained. This Bill was submitted to General 0. H. Ernst, the chairman of the American section of the International Waterways Commission, who has devoted about six years to the consideration of this great International waterways, for his opinion. He, with the other members of the American section, joined in the opinion that the co-operation of the two governments was essential and necessary and recommended a section to be attached to the Malby Bill, for the purpose of accomplishing that result, reading as follows:
* This Act shall not become operative until the government of the Dominion of Canada shall signify to the Secretary of State of the United States its consent to the construction of such dam and other structures; provided, that if said consent be not given within two years from the date of this Act, then this Act shall be null and void.'
Notwithstanding this proposition of the original Malby Bill and this .specific recommendation of the American section of the International Waterways Commission, the Bill finally reported by the Rivers and Harbours Committee and the Bill now pending in the Senate, both being identical-entirely omits any provision requiring the consent of the Dominion of Canada, It does contain a section which provides that the Long Sault Development Company shall be subiect to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to boundary waters, proclaimed May 13. 1910.
An examination of the treaty discloses the interesting fact that article IV which relates to dams, is subject to approval in accordance with the provisions of article VIII. Article VIII provides that a majority of the commissioners shall have power to render a decision and further provides that in case the commission is equally divided separate reports are to be made on each side by the commission to their own agreement and in that case, the governments are to endeavour to agree. But it is obvious that if they do not agree no result is reached, the result of which is that, if dams proposed to be built by the Long Sault Development Company are not approved by a majority of the commission equally decides, that as far as the Interna-

tional Waterways Commission is concerned the situation of the company is not in the slightest degree changed, because the provisions of the treaty with reference to the approval of the commissioners will have been exhausted without any definite result.
The pending Bill evidently anticipated this situation, because it not only omits all provisions requiring the approval of the Dominion of Canada to the construction of the dams, but expressly provides that the company is 'authorized to construct, maintain and operate for navigation, water-power and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years, a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the International boundary line between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada near Long Sault, Barnhart and Sheik Islands either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to he erected in so much of said river as lies north of said International boundary line.'
It discloses the specific and deliberate purpose of authorizing the Long Sault Development Company to build its dams south of the International boundary line without the consent or approval of the Dominion of Canada.
I strongly urge upon you to lay before parliament the above facts, and oblige,
Yours very truly,



J. WESLEY ALLISON.

[Stage Direction]
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has any further information in connection with this matter. If the facts as contained in this letter are as he understands them to be with reference to the situation at Washington, and if he has instructed Ambassador Bryce to protest against the Bill now before the United States Senate.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I have heard only a part of the statement of Mr. Allison. For my part, I do not agree at all with some of his conclusions. We have made representations to the government at Washington and the correspondence will be brought down as soon as completed.



PELAGIC SEALING.

Mr. SPROULE.: I wish to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether the treaty now being negotiated with the United States regarding Pelagic Sealing will require to be ratified by this House before it goes into operation or whether it will take effect without the concurrence or assent of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: This treaty will take effect without the concurrence or assent of this House, but it is our intention to bring down the treaty as soon as received and if parliament desires to express any opinion upon it it may do so.
SUPPLY-CORRECTION OF * HANSARD.'
YIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.	[DOT]
iVIr. LENNOX. Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would like to call the attention of the House to an error that occurred in some of the figures I presented yesterday. In doing so I think it is right that I should say that I expect it is my own fault, because I turned my back literally, not figuratively, upon the * Hansard ' reporters when speaking. I was addressing my particular friends on this side of the House, and so I did not give the members of the ' Hansard ' staff a fair opportunity of hearing what I was saying. The first is in reference to the product of Ontario farms in which I am made to say that it increased in two years $250,000,000. What I did say was that the annual product of Ontario farms now amounts to some $250,000,000. Then again there is an error in reference to the amount of American capital invested in Canada. I mentioned distinctly that there was $250,000,000 invested in Canadian industries by American manufacturers. In that connection, in the course of two or three sentences there are several errors. I will read what I said and as I have revised it now. Otherwise, as far as I have gone through the report it is satisfactory, but I have not got through it all yet. This is what I said:
Since 1868 we have doubled in population, we have enormous American industries planted in Canada representing $250,000,000. we have more than that number pf millions of dollars capital wanting to come to Canada, and halted by reason of the attitude of the government at the present time. The area of Canada under cultivation is ten times what is was in 1868; banking capital is ten times what it was; deposits in the banks are nearly thirty times what they were; our railway mileage is about twelve times what it was: and the freightage is about twelve times what it was in 1868.
I hope it will not be said at any future time, if it should turn out. that in the figures later on in the course of the report of my remarks yesterday there should he an error, that I adopt them because I do not refer to them now. As I have said, I have not had time to go over the whole of my speech yesterday and there may be errors later on, but these are important, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the correction.



DUTY ON FRUIT.

Mr. BURRELL.: I have to-day received from Vernon, B. C., the following telegram which with permission of the House I shall read :
Vernon, B.C., Feb. 16. Mr. Martin Burrell, M.P.,
Ottawa.
The bumble petition of the ratepayers and residents of the district, municipality of Coldstream, Vernon, British Columbia. Whereas the Dominion government is about

to introduce a Bill providing for reciprocity *with the United States of America on certain commodities under which are included fruit. And whereas the inhabitants of the said district municipality of Coldstream are dependent entirely on the fruit industry for their subsistence and the future prosperity of the district, we your petitioners desire to lay before the House of the Dominion parliament the views of the fruit growers of this district as hereunder set forward. Opinions may and do differ as to the relative merits of protection and free trade, but there can be no difference of opinion in the point that if protection is given at all it should be given equally to all interests according to the requirements. It seems . to be accepted that manufacturers are entitled to protection especially during the early years of any industry. So far as need of protection to the building up of an industry is concerned fruit growing stands in much greater need of protection than any manufactory as must be plain on the face of it to any one conversant with the conditions of this particular industry.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the hon. gentleman reading a telegram or a petition?


Martin Burrell: I am reading a telegram bearing on a matter of importance.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The matter has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.


Martin Burrell: I was going to read this as a petition, but there are not a sufficient number of names on it for a petition.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Petitions cannot be read in the House.


Martin Burrell: This is not a petition inasmuch as the technical conditions have not been complied with, there being only two signatures to it. I thought it was in order to bring it up on a motion to go into supply.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The matter has been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means and cannot be discussed.


Martin Burrell: I am in the hands of the House, and I would like to have an opinion on it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have no objection to allow the telegram being read, but the matter cannot be commented on now.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I do not think it is the intention of the hon. gentleman to discuss the matter.


Martin Burrell: I have no intention of discussing it ; I simply wish to read the telegram :
A manufactory can start production as soon as the plant is completed, an orchard after being laid out has to be tended for quite a number of years at a considerable outlay of capital before any return can be hoped for. The newer orchards of British Columbia planted in recent years and com-Mr. BURRELL.
prising an immense acreage are just now coming into bearing and the owners look to current conditions for marketing their fruit to advantage. No worse time as regards the fruit industry in this province could have been chosen to remove the duty on imported fruit. In ten years the fruit industry of British Columbia which is now in its infancy should be in a position to carry the battle of competition across the border having used che interval to build up its connections 'll the home market with the hope of the very moderate protection hitherto afforded. At the present time the home markets are mostly in the hands of the American producers who have the advantage of many years start, have organized thoroughly for the fight and have admittedly a distinct advantage over us in the cost of production. Even with the present protection it will be a long and uphill fight to get the home markets out of the hands of the Americans without it, the fight will be so long and uphill that many British Columbian producers will go under! Handicapped in this way in the home markets, our efforts to develop suffici-entlv to invade foreign territory are certain to fail for many years if not altogether. An enormous amount of capital has been invested in orchards in British Columbia during the past six years, the period during which the fruit industry has been strenuously promoted and the fruit growers looked to a continuance of the current conditions to enable them to realize interests in their invested capital out of which up to the present time it has been practically impossible to obtain any returns. We unanimously consider that the Dominion Houses of parliament should refuse to sanction the removal of the duty on fruit at the present time. There is no justifce in sacrificing the interests cf an infant industry for the benefit of a full grown industry which is in a very prosperous state under present conditions, and your petitioners are in duty bound will forever pray, &c.
JOHN KIDSON, Acting Reeve.
E. HENDERSON, Clerk.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. FOSTER.

Mr. FOSTER.: Yesterday a question was raised which could not be disposed of with reference to my hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and a statement he made in the debate on the address. His statement referred to the Public Accounts, and as it was brought up yesterday and questioned, I thought that perhaps it was worth while to take the time of the House sufficiently long to rise to a solemn question of privilege, and just simply note the statement and make a remark with reference to it. The member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his address on November 22, said in reference to me :
He would not let the militia go out to drill; he saved several hundreds of thousands of dollars in that. He would not grant any money for the necessary repairs to public works, which from year to year go down, so that a dollar spent this year in repairs

may save ten dollars next year; he saved hundreds of thousands of dollars there.
Now, this is the part I particularly refer to :
Contrary to the statute, as I maintain, he did not that year provide a sinking fund to meet the national debt, saving 'hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars there. That is the way he squared his accounts for the election year.
Some days afterwards the member for South Wellington on November 24, had his attention called to his error in figures in reference to the trade of the country, and he corrected that error. I then rose and said :


George Eulas Foster: While the hon. gentleman is in a correcting mood, I will call his attention to page 96 where he is reported as having said:
Contrary to the statutes, as I maintain.
That is. myself.
-did not that year provide a sinking fund to meet the national debt, saving hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of dollars there.
If my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) will look that up he will find that he is quite mistaken.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I have no correction to there.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Willing to let the statement go uncorrected.


Hugh Guthrie: So far as my knowledge goes, the statement is correct.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) does not follow the other side in refusing to correct even wrong statements.
I thought it was better to settle this question between the member for South Wellington and myself toy getting a statement from the Finance Department, and I, therefore, put upon the Order Paper the following question :
What was the amount legally required to be invested in the sinking fund for the fiscal years 1895 and 1896 respectively, and what was the amount actually invested in each of these years?
The answer given by Mr. Paterson for the Finance Minister was:
In. 1895, amount required and actually invested in sinking funds, $2,002,311.36; in 1896, amount required and actually invested in sinking funds, $2,005,287.52.
The answer of the Finance Department being of course that the amount required by the statute was so much, and that the amount invested was so much. I do not want to debate the question, but it is rather a grave charge against a Finance Minister to say that he tried to square his accounts by juggling with the sinking funds, a thing which under the statute he could not do; it would be an impossibility for him to do it.


Hugh Guthrie: I noticed the question that was placed on the Order Paper some time in November in regard to this matter, and the reply that was given by the Finance Department. I thought that the matter would probably have been brought up then, and I had a memorandum in regard to it which I cannot place my hand upon at this moment. I am satisfied that the words which I used in my remarks, ' contrary to the statute ', were not the appropriate words to describe what I meant. I find that the statute applies only to sinking funds on what are called guaranteed imperial loans. The sinking fund prescribed by statute is one per cent to be laid aside annually. There are other loans besides these, but I cannot give the amount of them now, nor the years, not having the memorandum. I can recollect one of them, of which the particulars were furnished in a return to this House-the loan of 1884 for $24,000,000. There was no statute, so far as I know, providing for a sinking fund on that loan; but it was the custom of the government to raise such a sinking fund. There were a great many other loans, negotiated by the late Conservative government. They finally decided for some reason best known to themselves to stop the sinking funds altogether on the new loans. They discontinued-through what I should have said instead of ' contrary to the statute ', was unbusinesslike methods or some such words, which would probably have better described the situation, as the statute applied only to the loans guaranteed by the imperial government. Now, my statement, in that aspect, is not so far wrong, because I think the saving by not having a sinking fund on all the later loans made by the Conservative government was from $500,000 to $700,000 a vear. This government also did not provide a sinking fund for a long period, but latterly I believe they have provided a sinking fund with all their loans. If the matter has caused my hon. friend from North Toronto any anxiety, or if he thinks I intended to cast any reflection upon him personally, I take this opportunity of entirely disavowing any such idea or intention. I now find that there was no statute applicable to the later loans. It was a mere_ custom to provide sinking funds, which I think should not have been discontinued, as it certainly resulted in a great saving of money.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps I may be allowed a single word. There is a great difference between criticising a man for issuing a loan without providing for a sinking fund along with it, and criticising a Finance Minister for failing, contrary to the statutes, to invest a sinking fund, in order to cover up a deficit. There is not a single word more to be said on my part in that respect. My hon. friend would have oc-

cupied a more frank position if he had at once said that he was wrong in that, and had done me an injustice. I have not been bothering about it, but such things are just as well not said. Now he is wrong again. He acknowledges that the Finance Minister whom he supports issued loans without putting on sinking funds. Has he been, ' contrary to the statutes ', juggling with funds and thereby covering up his deficits? My hon. friend then made the statement that the Finance Minister had since taken wiser advice and that with his later loans had sinking funds. He is mistaken there also.


Hugh Guthrie: I have been so informed by the Finance Department.


George Eulas Foster: Then I may advise my hon. friend to get good information before he makes charges of that kind. They are not nice.


Mr. FIELDING.: Does that rule work the other way too?


George Eulas Foster: I think my right hon. friend would be well advised if he would not try to buoy up and boost his supporters in bad practices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
["I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned the matter, and I will furnish him with the reason for that change. I may say that in British Columbia, the western provinces, and the maritime provinces the overseers are all appointed by the federal government; I do not think there are any other overseers in those provinces except those appointed by the federal government, though there may be a few appointed by the provincial authorities. It was found advisable that we should have in Ontario our own officers to carry out our own laws and regulations. Formerly, all the officers were appointed by the federal authorities. But by a judgment which was rendered in 1898, it was decided that the beds of the rivers above the tide were the property of the provinces, and that the provinces had some rights in the fisheries, one of which was to issue licenses for catching fish. As a result of that judgment, most of the officers were kept on by the provincial authorities; we had, however, to maintain a limited number of our own officers. It was found, however, that the provincial officers were looking chiefly after the execution of the provincial regulations concerning the issuing of licenses, they were not supposed to carry out the federal regulations. It seemed proper, therefore, that the regulations passed by the federal authorities should be carried out by federal officers. I am not making any reflection upon the way the fisheries had been protected by the provincial officers, but they were not of course appointed to carry out our regulations. There were numerous complaints that our regulations were not properly enforced, and facts were reported to the department which rendered it advisable for us to appoint our own officers to look after the protection of the fisheries in pursuance of our own regulations.\nAt six o'clock, House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
William Stevens Fielding: Several days ago we laid on the table a small sheet of supplementary estimates for the current year, containing several items of urgency to which I now call the attention of the committee. The items are four in number-one for Agriculture and Statistics, one for Immigration, one for the Naval Service, and one for the Department of Labour.
Exhibitions-further amount required, $100,-
000.


Mr. FISHER.: I am asking for this vote because of our participation in a Festival of Empire which is to be held at the Crystal Palace in London during the coming summer in connection with the coronation ceremonies and the colonial conference. This festival originated last year, and it was expected to have been held last year, but not nearly on so large a scale, as is now proposed. In consequence, however, of the death of His Majesty King Edward it was stopped and was postponed until this year. In view of the coronation and the colonial conference, the gentlemen in charge of this exhibition and festival have greatly enlarged their plans, and are proposing a most imposing and splendid celebration at the historic grounds of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. We were invited to take part in it, and I went over the matter in London last spring, and formed a plan for a worthy representation of Canada at such an import-Mr. FOSTER
ant event. When I returned home I submitted it to my colleagues, and they approved of the suggestion that Canada could hardly be absent from such a festival, and that if we took part in it we should do so in a manner worthy of the country and worthy of the occasion. My exhibition commissioner has been proceeding with the plans. We had a little money to spend from the vote for this year, but we are now being dunned for obligations which we have incurred, and I am therefore obliged to ask for a prompt passage of this item to meet the obligations which we have already incurred or which will be incurred before the first of April next, when next year's appropriation will be available.


George Eulas Foster: How does the minister propose to expend part of this money for which obligations have not already been incurred? The minister is now asking $100,000 and some money has already been expended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, not voted specifically for this exhibition, but out of the general vote for exhibitions for the year.


George Eulas Foster: The minister is using money voted for exhibitions for this Festival of Empire?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, it comes under the head of exhibitions. The vote of $120,000 is for exhibitions generally. Some of the money left over after we had done most of the work connected with the Brussels exhibition has been utilized for the preliminary work in connection with this exhibition. There are still some outstanding accounts in connection with the Brussels exhibition which have not been paid, as those rendering the accounts did not furnish sufficient information about them. Usually the accounts for different exhibitions overlap to a certain extent. As a matter of fact, during the current fiscal year we still have some accounts te pay for the Seattle exhibition of 1909-10.


George Eulas Foster: What has the Brussels exhibition cost so far?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: About $125,000.


Mr. BLAIN.: Apparently the minister has used money for another purpose than that for which it was voted, and has given the explanation that the government decided to take some of this money for another purpose other than that for which it was voted. If this policy were pursued there would be no limitation to the minister's power to spend money.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This vote for exhibitions is like a vote for running the Intercolonial railway or anything of that kind. We mention exhibitions generally, and if there is a new exhibition after the vote is given we hold ourselves free, if in the

judgment of the government it is thought best to take part in it, to utilize to a certain extent that money.


Richard Blain: Was this exhibition in contemplation when the vote was taken last year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Festival of Empire of last year was under consideration and was provided for by this parliament. It was not proceeded with on account of the death of the King but was postponed until this coming summer. It is now being gone on with on a much larger scale. We in tended taking part in the Festival of Empire last year and as a matter of fact spent $4,000 or $5,000 in preliminary work on it.


George Taylor: If I understand it correctly, this $100,000 for which the minister is asking has all been spent, or will be spent, between now and March 31? How does it come that, though we voted $120,000 last session, he has exceeded that, and has spent $100,000 more?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The money has not been spent. We have not had it to spend. We have incurred obligations, I confess. The festival of last year was a small affair as compared with what is now proposed. We have been invited to take part in an affair planned on a much more magnificent scale at the time of the coronation of His Majesty the King, and the holding of the Colonial Conference. We feel it necessary that Canada should be worthily represented, and so have arranged to spend this $100,000 before the end of this fiscal year. This was not contemplated when the vote of $120,000 was asked last session.


George Taylor: How does the minister intend to spend $100,000 between now and the 31st March?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have here full details. As I explained to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), these accounts of exhibitions lap over one year upon another. because we are not able to close up the accounts within the year. The following items are included in this proposed expenditure of $100,000:
On account of freight charges from
Seattle to Brussels	 $12,166.67
On account of London Exhibition,
1911	 5,420.22
On account of Edinburgh & Seattle. 60.00
Balance due T. Meadows on account of additional	freight charges ..	12,167.67
Humphreys & Co., building at
Brussels	 6,746.17
Due on account sale of building at
Shepherds Bush	 661.50
New specimens for ensuing exhibition, London	 9,000.00
Account due on London building for
ensuing exhibition		 24,333.33
Amount due to be paid on account
of building, due 1st	April	 14.600.00
Various exhibits of agricultural
products	 3,500.00
Contributions to the general expenses of the Festival of Empire in view of rental of land which we usually pay at exhibitions .. ..	9,733.33
Total	 $98,394.89


George Taylor: Practically every dollar of this $100,000 has been spent?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As a matter of fact, none of it has been spent, for we have not the money.


George Taylor: But debts have been contracted, so that practically the money has been spent before parliament has voted it. Might as well have no parliament and let the ministers spend what money they like, for they spend it and then call on their supporters to vote it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I explained all that. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that, if we had waited until this session opened to decide whether we should take part in this exhibition, it would be a physical impossibility to get ready for it. We had to assume the responsibility, and we ask parliament to support us in that action. I venture to think that hon. gentlemen opposite who have seen the work done on the part of Canada at these various exhibitions will upheld us in deciding to take part in this festival at the heart of the empire on the coming auspicious occasion.


George Eulas Foster: It would help us more if you would tell us what you are going to do.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is what I am trying to do. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) interrupting, I shall be glad to go on. But my explanations are too satisfactory, ap-,ny explanations are too satisfactory, apparently-hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to hear them. I want to go on with the explanation-


George Eulas Foster: Get at it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not going to let hon. gentlemen opposite have the pleasure of asking for explanations without giving them the answer. Does my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wish me to read again these figures that I have given ?


George Eulas Foster: I understood that these were mere details of boxing and housing. But what is it going to be? Tell us so that we may know where we are.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Festival of Empire is an organization started on a comparatively small scale last year under the auspices of

a committee authorized by the King and under the patronage of the British government, and with Lord Plymouth as chairman. That organization planned a festival of empire for last year, in which the overseas dominions were invited to participate. They planned a great pageant of the whole empire under the management of Mr. Las-celles, well known in Canada as the successful director of the pageants in the Tercentenary at Quebec. While the arrangements otherwise were on a comparatively moderate scale, the pageant was a large one. This year they invited us to undertake exhibition work on a much larger scale, to do what we have done at many international exhibitions-put up a special Canadian building and display in it a thoroughly representative exhibit of Canada's resources, industries and institutions. That we propose to do. We intend to have a building on the grounds at the Crystal Palace, to take the form of a facsimile of these parliament buildings, to show to the world the parliament buildings of Canada as a part of our exhibit.


Mr.   POSTER@: And have the members there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Those who will visit the place will be made very welcome, and I think it wdll be well that many of them should he there. I am glad to know that many members on the other side of the House who have seen Canada's exhibits at different foreign exhibitions have, in unstinted measure, praised the work done by the exhibition commissioner of Canada and his staff, and have recognized the value to the country of these exhibits of our progress and industry.


George Eulas Foster: Ycu are getting away off. Confine yourself to the Crystal Palace.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) need not be so captious. We know how jocular and facetious he can be, but I think that he might give serious attention to this important part of the country's business.


George Eulas Foster: That's what we want-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If the hon. gentleman wants it, then let him allow iit. He is the first man in the House to resent any interruption himself when he is on his feet, and he should have a little more regard for the rights of others. Hon. members are aware that the exhibit at the Crystal Palace will be visited by hundreds and thousands, probably millions, of people, and that if Canada is going to be worthily represented, we must have a complete assortment of her products, hex industries, and something to show her progress. This cannot* be done without a considerable expenditure of money. I am willing to take the Mr. FISHER.
full responsibility of asking parliament to grant this money, because I have seen year after year the beneficial effects of these exhibits abroad, and am sure that the money will be expended to the advantage of Canada. I understand from my hon. friend that the other self-governing dominions are taking part, and are contributing; I hope so, because I am confident that Canada will be able to shine in comparison with any other part of the empire. That is one reason why after a good deal of hesitation and consultation with my exhibition commissioner, I authorized him to proceed to build, as nearly as possible, a facsimile of this central parliamentary block. We are all proud of our parliament buildings, as an example of Canadian architecture and construction. I think that everybody who comes to Ottawa is charmed with the appearance, with the magnificence and with the site of our parliament buildings here; and consequently, strangers who visit that festival in the Crystal Palace, will admire the Canadian building. The building will be so arranged as to contain the exhibits inside, these exhibits will be a modification and augmentation of what we have had at Brussels and other places, and will be renewed so as to be entirely up to date. We will transfer a considerable part of the exhibits from Brussels to the Crystal Palace, and others will be added.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the minister to say that the proposed building will be a facsimile of the parliament buildings. In that case, does he propose to have a restaurant installed in it, with all the other conveniences ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, we never have a restaurant in our exhibition buildings; we leave that to other contractors, and people who get privileges to establish restaurants on the ground.


George Taylor: Will there he a bar ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No bar there. I may inform hon. gentlemen opposite, that if they go there to find a bar, they will have to go elsewhere. The grounds are laid out so as to form practically a circle occupied by the buildings. The grounds are very extensive, covering, I think, some seventy or eighty acres of land. They are to be laid out so that the buildings of the different parts of the empire will form a circle; and the proposition is to have a railroad track going around these grounds, and touching at the buildings of the different parts of the empire.


George Eulas Foster: Will that be a mono rail ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister is going to make the illusion perfect with a facsimile

of this building, I would suggest that he make a mound of something like our parliament hill, and have some streams of water on each side to represent the rivers. It would not cost much, and it would make the illusion perfect.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have not the control of the grounds of the Crystal Palace; we have a certain space given us on which to erect o-ur building, but the general commission will manage the laying out of the grounds in general; we have no control, outside of what is given to us. But I can assure the House that the building will be so placed as to give a good impression of its grandeur, and its architectural beauty. In connection with the festival, there will be a great pageant of the history of the empire, for which there is provision on the grounds of the Crystal Palace, and which is to be managed by Mr. Frank Lascelles, who managed the Tercentenary celebration of Quebec, and who has just returned from South Africa, where he managed the celebration in connection with the opening of the South African parliament. The whole exhibition, as I have said, is under the control of this commission of which Lord Plymouth is chairman, and is under the immediate patronage of the King and of the imperial government. I believe the occasion is one in which Canada ought to be well represented, and I think that from the skill and well known capacity of the exhibition commissioner for Canada, who has now had twelve years experience in this work, he will be able to make a good representation of Canada and one which will be a splendid advertisement for this country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Usually when we vote money, the object is stated and the money is specifically voted for that purpose. In this case, before there is comparatively any money voted, the money has been expended, or contractd for, although it could not be regarded as a case of emergency requiring a Governor General's warrant. Yet the minister goes on and expends money or contracts to expend the money and commits the country to obligations, and then comes and asks parliament to vote the money. I could not understand at first the meaning of the term ' Festival of Empire,' or what was the nature of this great pageant about which the minister has spoken, whether it was a kind of mardi gras procession, or a great feast. We do not know whether the greater part of this money will be consumed in pageantry, and very'little in the exhibition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is $10,000 for the grounds. How, there is another feature of this case, it is something which must have been foreseen, therefore it should have been provided for, by a vote, instead of by Governor Generals warrants. The minister admits in his own explanation that it was not a thing that could not be foreseen. Therefore, it ought to have been provided for, and if it was not provided for I respectfully submit that there was no justification for spending the money and therefore radically wrong. The minister says that we have from year to year voted money for exhibitions. This, according to his own showing, is not an exhibition ; it is a festival, a pageant, a show, but I presume that a few exhibition attachments have been tacked on to give it the semblance of an exhibition, so as to provide some justification for what would otherwise have been an improper and illegal expenditure of public money without that money having been voted. I am afraid that somebody is going to have a hippodrome as we have had them at Quebec, in South Africa, and in London. I am afraid this is a kind of a hippodrome business that the minister is trying to get up, and that he is going to carry on under the name of an exhibition. We are asked to vote $100,000, but whether it is worth the money I am not prepared to say. I would be better prepared to say if I saw it but I presume I will not have an opportunity of seeing it. It seems to me that we will get very little return from this expenditure of this money ; we keep a number of people who would otherwise be unemployed by the government, and who would, therefore, be obliged to resort to some other device for making a living. I do not think we are justified in going so far. We give these things high sounding names to make it appear that they are different from what they are. Is this a festival or is it not? If it is a festival it is not an exhibition. It is a mere pageant, it is not an exhibition, where there is likely to be a large number of people gathered together, but it is going to be given the semblance of an exhibition in order that we shall have some justification for the expenditure of this money. I think it is rather that than the usual expenditure of public money upon an exhibition where people will be benefited by what they see, and where their attention will be likely to be attracted to Canada and her industries. If I am correct we have an exhibition going in London all the time at which there are exhibits from all portions of the empire. Do we require a half a dozen of them, or is

this an addition to that, or is it something different from it? It must toe something different or otherwise we would hear something about it. But it seems to be another device to keep .an army of the unemployed spending the country's money, making displays, or exhibitions or festivals, or gatherings, or pageants, or something of that kind for which we must pay a lot of money, and from which expenditure it is very questionable whether we are getting anything like an adequate return. It seems to me that we are not very likely to get a proper return for this $100,-
000.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman at all. I am sorry that he has not attended any of these foreign exhibitions. He tells me that he has not, and I can, therefore, forgive to a certain extent what he says. I have heard most appreciative words with reference to these exhibitions uttered by many people, but not by Liberals alone, but by many foreigners and by several hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. I remember that the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) spoke in most glowing terms of the use to Canada of these foreign exhibitions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like the minister to make a distinction. This is not a foreign exhibition, but a festival of empire. How many have been held, and what beneficial result has come from them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The work we propose doing there is exactly the same as that in connection with the Franco-British exhibition three years ago in London, the exhibition in Brussels last year, Milan a few years ago, and Dublin a few years before that. The work will be exactly the same. The festival of empire includes an exhibition from all the different parts of the empire, the wonderful resources, progress and industries of the empire. It is true that in addition to that there is this pageant that I spoke of. My hon. friend seems to think that is something in the nature of a circus. I do not know whether he saw the pageant at the Quebec Tercentenary, or if he is familiar with the work of Mr. Frank Lascelles the originator of these pageants whose reputation is world-wide. A pageant of this character is as far removed from the ordinary wandering show as the work of a great artist from that of an ordinary person, who knows nothing about such things. This will foe an exhibition of the marvellous history of this empire and an incitement to the people of to-day to remember and to honour the achievements of their forefathers as represented in a most magnificent way, not by a lot of hirelings but by volunteers, many of them from the best families in the Mr. SPROTJLE.
empire. I have had letters from people in Canada asking the privilege of taking part in the pageant at the Crystal Palace. Last year there were many applications when the question was first brought forward for the privilege of taking part in it, and I am informed that, as a matter of fact, there are some volunteers taking part in that pageant who are going to the expense of supplying their own dresses and everything connected with their appearance as well as spending their time in going there without our hiring or engaging a single individual. That was the case at the Tercentenary celebration at Quebec. I think I am within the mark when I say that there was not a hireling who appeared in that celebration at all ; so that my hon. friend in that respect is entirely wrong in his estimate of what is going to occur. He asks if this pageant is a festival or an exhibition. It is both combined in one, and it is to be upon the grounds of. the Crystal Palace which is one of the best resorts in the neighbourhood of London ; celebrated the world over as a place of resort for people who wish to enjoy and instruct themselves and where we will have an opportunity of making a representation of the great historical events of our empire and will at the same time be able to present the fruits of the labours, industry, progress and enterprise of the to-day people of the empire. This is an opportunity that I do not think the people of Canada would like Canada to omit being present at, and I think we would be derelict in our duty if we did not see that Canada took advantage of it. Above all my hon. friend who has a high opinion of the value of our position in the empire, and of our connection without it-


Richard Blain: Who will represent Canada? Will my hon. friend tell me if he is going over next summer himself?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think I shall, as a matter of fact. But it is a matter of no consequence because I will not appear in the pageant. I would not appear particularly in any capacity if I did go over. The people who will represent Canada in the pageant will foe the people who volunteer to do so. My hon. friend may if he chooses, and I have no doubt that they will be very happy to put him in. Those who will represent Canada in the exhibition will be the exhibition staff and they will be so busy with their work that they will not have time to take part in the pageant. As for this not being an unforseen expense ; the pageant of empire was intended to have taken place last year and a vote was taken, but in consequence of the death of the King it was postponed, and the idea being renewed when parliament prorogued we had to decide whether we would take part in it or not without consulting parliament, be-

cause had we waited for parliament it would toe too late to make the necessary preparations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was the money voted ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Last session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would not lapse before the end of this year.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The proposed pageant last year was to be a comparatively very small affair and although the King expressed his approval it was not under his patronage. On this occasion, in view of the coronation and the colonial conference the scope of the coming pageant has been enormously increased and the vote of last year would nowhere nearly meet the necessary expenditure. We took $5,000 or $6,000 last year and spent $3,000, while now I am asking for $100,000 and I expect that the total cost will be between $250,000 and $300,000. Last year- the intention was to have Canada have a little court in the Crystal Palace building, hut this year we intend to erect a great building on the grounds and to show our products as we have been in the habit of doing at great international exhibitions. I venture to say that never before has there been a better opportunity for advertising to the people of the world, and es-peciallv to our fellow subjects of the 'empire, the glories and the greatness and the progress of Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: The minister stated he would be glad if my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) would volunteer for the festival of empire. What class would he 'put him in? I hope not amongst the mules, because he is a chronic kicker from the minister's standpoint.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not believe there will be any western bronchos in it.


Glenlyon Campbell: If the minister does not send my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) there, he will be missing the best Canada produces. I notice amongst the expenditures for this festival of empire last year a charge of $40 for a map made by Joseph Aube, Ottawa, and $1.50 for a book, The Cradle of New France, written by A. G. Doughty. What is the explanation?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think the map was a map of Canada, and the book is a well known book by Dr. A. G. Doughty the Dominion archivist.


Richard Blain: How will you select the products of Canada for exhibition purposes?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The staff buys them as best they can.


Richard Blain: What do they consist of?
',fr. FISHER. Everything we can find in Canada. We have a permanent exhibit of
minerals which we are adding to all the time, and which was one of the most magnificent exhibits at Brussels last summer. We have a timber exhibit, agricultural exhibits, fruit exhibits, fish and animal exhibits.


Mr. LALOR.: Does the minister think that an expenditure for an exhibition of the agricultural products of Canada will be necessary in England, if we are to secure the American market for all our Canadian produce?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have no doubt there will be an immense number of Americans at that exhibition, and they will be able to come and buy.


Glenlyon Campbell: Will our old friend William Hutchison be the commissioner?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am somewhat surprised to see how Mr. Hutchison figures in the Auditor General's Report, and it will be of great interest to the farmers of Canada to see how their money is being wasted :n that direction. William Hutchison was commissioner at the Brussels exhibition at a salary of $250 per month for one part of the term and $375 per month for the other part. In addition he got a living allowance for 144 days at $12 a day, and in addition his fare and transportation and sundry expenses and cab hire and everything else was paid by the people of Canada. Mr. Hutchison was also at the Alaskan Yukon Pacific exhibition, and there he got a salary of $250 a month and a living allowance of $20 a day for 214 days in addition to his travelling expenses, cost of sleepers, transfers, and everything else. That is a most ridiculous allowance to give to an official who is paid a salary of $250 a month. I notice that for his services at the Pacific Yukon exhibition he was paid up to the 31st of -Qetober, 1909, and on the 1st of November his salary commenced at the Brussels exhibition at $250 a month and just a week later, certainly before he had time to get to Brussels from Seattle his salary was raised to $375 per month. I would like the minister to explain how he juggled in order to get our friend William Hutchison from Seattle to Brussels inside of a week.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The exhibition branch and its work go on all the year around. It is true, when one exhibition closes another may not be officially opened for a few months; but the work of the commissioner and of his staff is just as arduous outside of exhibition times as in exhibition times -in fact, more so, for at such times they have to take down, pack and unpack all their exhibits, and see to their shipment. As a matter of fact, I know that Mr. COMMONS
Hutchison hurried from Seattle, spent only-two or three days here to talk over matters, and had only a few days in Brussels to get ready for the opening of the exhibition there. I am glad to know that he was so successful that the Canadian pavilion was the only one ready on the day of the official opening. My hon. friend speaks of Mr. Hutchison's pay. I can only say that he is inadequately paid for the service he has done for the Dominion of Canada. Mr. Hutchison seems to have a perfect genius for exhibition work. He has been permanent exhibition commissioner for Canada for over eleven years, and has attended eleven international exhibitions, and he has been honoured for the work he has done by the authorities of most of these exhibitions. He has been praised, and his work has been copied by commissioners from other countries. I had an evidence of that last spring in Brussels, where I spent a few days just after the opening of the exhibition. I met a number of the foreign commissioners. I met; also, the members of the English commission, one and all of them praised without stint the work of the Canadian commissioner and the results of his work in exhibiting Canadian products, telling me that they had derived the greatest assistance possible in Tegard to showing their own products from the advice which Mr. Hutchison had been able to give them. With regard to Mr. Hutchison's pay, I would say that for a number of years we paid him at the rate of $3,000 a year, and during the exhibition time we made him an allowance of $20 a day. This sounds a little high, but any one who knows exhibition w.orik knows that there is hardly a dav during the exhibition when he does not have visitors whom he has to entertain more or less.


George Taylor: That is to cover his wine account?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It is to cover all his expenses.


Glenlyon Campbell: Surely my hon. friend does not approve of a wine account?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It includes whatever Mr. Hutchison has to get to entertain his guests. Mr. Hutchison, however, felt a little hurt at some criticisms which were made in the House last year, or the year before, and he asked me to reduce his allowance. I increased his salary, but decreased his allowance, with the result that he got several hundred dollars a yeaT less than he had been getting before. I did that at his own request, not to save the country any money, and not to make any change from my own point of view, as I did not think that Mr. Hutchison was getting too much for the services he was rendering, or the expenses to which he was put.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I desire to express my appreciation of Mr. Hutchison's services to Canada. I "have had the pleasure of attending some of the exhibitions under his management, and I have found him most courteous, obliging and painstaking towards Canadian visitors. I have had more than one experience of that kind. I believe Mr. Hutchison is a most efficient officer, and I do not believe he is overpaid. I think Canada may well be proud of Mr. Hutchison as her head official at these exhibitions. Any Canadian who visits them, whoever he may be, will receive from him most gentlemanly and courteous treatment.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not by any means finding fault with the amount paid to Mr. Hutchison. I am finding fault with the method of bookkeeping. I do not think it is right that the onus of spending $20 a day of the people's money should be laid upon a public servant. If he is not paid properly, I think it is up to the department to give him an adeauate recompense' for the work he is doing. To the average farmer $20 a day for spending money appears to be a very large amount. Twenty cents a day, in my country, is considered a fair amount.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What amuses me is the hen. minister's description of his employees. Whether a man is a horticulturist, a botanist, an exhibition commissioner, or anything else, he is the one man par excellence for that particular job. You would imagine they were all heaven-born and government appointed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, Canadian-born.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister describes every selection he has made in the superlative degree. Every one of his officials seems to have combined within him all the excellencies that it is possible to combine within the same amount of human hide. Each one seems to have been born for his particular position, whether to manage a festival of empire, an exhibition, a piggery, or a chicken hatchery. I am glad to know that they are all such excellent men, but the results, I am afraid, do not always prove it. When you pay four men $5,000 a year foT looking after a few poultry, and get a return of only a few hundred dollars, there is something wrong either with the man or with the hens. I notice that all these things are very much like the widow's cruse of oil, or the expenditure on the Transcontinental railway: they look small at first, but they seem to grow as time goes on. We are never given, at the beginning, any approximate idea of what the whole expenditure is going to be. I think it would be well, when these matters

are submitted to parliament, that we should be given some approximate idea of what they are going to cost, and what we are likely to receive in return, before we commit ourselves to an expenditure, the end of which we do not know. I am not saying anything about Mr. Hutchison; I have not attended any of the exhibitions at which he was Canadian commissioner. He may be the best man in the world fox that position, or he may be a commonplace man. Eleven years ago Mr. Hutchison was employed for one exhibition, but the department have been able to keep him engaged at other exhibitions each succeeding year up to the present. We are always told that the expense of these exhibiting at these exhibitions will be slight, and the results will be something wonderful, but as time goes on they do not pan out exactly as they were represented to us.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have to take exception to my hon. friend's statement. I said a year and a half ago when the Brussels exhibition was started that it would cost between $125,000 and $150,000. It is costing between $125,000 and $130,000, I said this afternoon that the Festival of Empire would cost at least $250,000. I venture to say it will not cost more than $275,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the minister got the first appropriation he represented that it was a comparatively small affair and would not be very expensive.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have explained repeatedly the reason for the change, which is not only justifiable but necessary. I think it will be money well expended and my hon. friends and gentlemen with him would be amongst the first to criticise the government if they did not take part in the Festival.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh, no, I will exonerate the minister.


Glenlyon Campbell: Will the agricultural exhibits be similar to those at the Alaska-Yukon exhibition.	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: To a great extent.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is it intended to send many back-benchers supporting the government over to these exhibitions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We never send members of parliament to exhibitions.


Glenlyon Campbell: I see in the accounts of last year eight cases of dummies at $8.64. I was wondering if these would be supporters of the government.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We do not have any dummies on this side. Silence is sometimes golden.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I had the pleasure of attending the Brussels exhibition and I was
surprised when I heard the statement of the salary paid to Col. Hutchison, $300 a month. I do not believe he is sufficiently paid for the work he is doing. The $20 a day, I understand, is for entertaining.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: At Brussels he was getting only $12 a day. .


George Henry Bradbury: It was not enough. I want to be fair. I believe that Mr. Hutchison is doing good work and the Canadian exhibit was a credit to him. I think there should be a fair allowance made to any man occupying such a position, and the country would be well advised in paying him a reasonable salary. I do not consider $300 or $400 a month is a fair salary for the work he is accomplishing; I would be willing to see him get $500 a month. Something should be done so that we would know exactly what was being spent in connection with the work. The minister might fix a salary which would include all other expenditures. I spent two days at the exhibition and received from Col. Hutchison all the courtesy that any one could expect. He was very kind in showing me around the exhibition and he extended to me the courtesy which he would extend to any man who went to that exhibition.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. Col. Hutchison, in addition to his salary, gets $20 a day, so he is drawing about $10,000 a year for salary and expenses. He is getting more than the minister presiding over his department. He must be worth more than the minister himself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Possibly he is.


Mr REID (Grenville).: Then he should take your position and you should take his, because the best man should be Minister of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A man may be a first-class commissioner and not be able to do something else. Col. Hutchison is commissioner for exhibitions, and he is unexcelled.


John Dowsley Reid: When he went to the old country he had never been in charge of an exhibition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He had been in charge of the Central Canada Exhibition for years.


John Dowsley Reid: Running a small fair is nothing compared with running these exhibitions. There is no doubt the position was given to Mr. Hutchison because he was a defeated member of this House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is every doubt and that is not the fact. I had the appointing of Mr. Hutchison, and he was appointed to go to Buffalo because he has had experience in exhibition work and had been

the manager of the Central Canada exhibition for years and had brought it up from being a very small and unimportant exhibition to be a very good one; it was that which attracted my attention to him. He was not a defeated candidate because he did not run and was not defeated; but his having been in the House before had nothing whatever to do with his appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: The running of a small exhibition in Ottawa does not seem to me to. be any great qualification for the position of manager of these large exhibitions.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: His success shows that it was.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister could have got men who had had experience'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not so good as Col. Hutchison.
Mr. REID (Grenville) He could have got them for $10,000 a year to pay their expenses and entertain more than Col. Hutchison does. As to Col. Hutchison being a defeated candidate, I may have been wrong in that statement, but at the same time he was willing and did try to get the convention in Ottawa and could not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Again my hon. friend was wrong because he refused to go before the convention.


John Dowsley Reid: Because he knew he could not win. The minister knows that his being in Ottawa and a former member of the House supporting the government was the reason for his appointment.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is not the reason he got the appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister can have his opinion; I have mine.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know, but my hon. friend does not know.


John Dowsley Reid: No doubt, these exhibitions have done good. But what has the minister done for the farmer ? Take, for instance, the farmers of eastern Ontario, in which district I live, the minister has an experimental farm here at Ottawa, but no person sees "it, except a few who go out on excursions; no information is sent throughout the country, as to what is going on there. I have tried, and I cannot find any way in which the minister is helping the farmers of eastern Ontario. He tells us: See the way dairying in eastern Ontario has improved. Why, that is the work of the local government, which sends its instructors and inspectors to the cheese factories and creameries. The minister does not spend as much in a year in promoting the interests of the farmers as does the Depart-Mr. FISHER.
meat of Agriculture of the single province of Ontario. It is true, about a million is spent every year through the minister's department, but it goes for quarantine, for exhibitions and other things .that do not help the farmer. It seems to me the minister has lost his influence in the cabinet. When this government took office, the expenditure of the Militia Department and the Agriculture Department were about equal; now, the Minister of Militia gets appropriations of about $15 for every $1 that the Minister of Agriculture gets for agriculture. Which of these, then, has influence in the government P The Minister of Militia, of course.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of course, he has.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, it is time that the farmers should demand that a man should be put iat the head of this department, who will have influence and use it in the interest of agriculture. The first thing the minister (Mr. Fisher), knows, the Minister of Labour will be getting larger appropriations for the Labour Department than he gets for the Agriculture Department. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur), smiles because since he came in, he has been able to grab more for his department, than the Minister of Agriculture, by ten to one. There is no. department that has stood still so long as that of the Minister of Agriculture, and I want the farmers from the Atlantic to .the Pacific to realize that. The minister gets a little more money for exhibitions and to pay men like Colonel Hutchison and other supporters of the government, money spent where the Public Accounts Committee cannot show up the graft that goes on because the people are on the other side of the Atlantic. So far as eastern Ontario is concerned, the minister has not done anything for the farmers for ten years. There are many ways in which he could help them, instead of lying idle.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid, Grenville), wants the . farmers to know about these things. I am afraid he will have to bring further proof than his assertions about them.


George Taylor: If the minister will refer to page D-12 of the Auditor General's Report, for 1909-10, under the heading Alaska-Yukon exhibition, he will find this item:
Fournier, Fournier Limited, St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.; Red Line Cocktails, 7 cases at $8, $56.
I desire an explanation of this item. Were these for the minister's own use, or were they for Mr. Hutchison to distribute among his friends ? Why these should be bought at St. Hyacinthe and exported to the Pacific coast, I do not understand, unless

it was, that the minister wanted to have really choice stuff for his own use.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, I did not use the cocktails, and did not know they were there. Why cocktails should have been bought at St. Hyacinthe, I do not know; I was not aware that it was a particularly favoured locality in that respect. I am afraid I am not a judge of cocktails myself.


George Taylor: But the minister bought 7 cases at $8 a case.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am informed that this was an exhibit, bought and sent to the Alaska-Yukon exhibition, to show what the province of Quebec could produce in these things.


Mr. BEAUPARLANT.: I understand that these were goods bought in St. Hyacinthe for exhibition somewhere. They were bought for that purpose, because they were good goods; that is all. It is a compliment for the establishment for which I thank the hon. gentleman.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: These supplementary estimates, I believe, are what they are called. The item before us is for something that has been overlooked in the original estimates. There has been an oversight in connection with a certain other exhibition. I refer to the Selkirk Centennial. The minister (Mr. Fisher), will, no doubt, thank me for calling his attention to it. Over a year ago, a delegation of important business men from Winnipeg, came here during the sitting of the House, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture received that delegation, and there were with him the Prime Minister and some other members of the government. The delegates explained their resources and put their case before the government. And I believe that the Prime Minister told them that they had not resources enough, that they must dig up some more money, and when they had done so, he would see them again. They went back. They say that they complied with his requisition, and carried out his suggestion to the letter. Since that, they have had, I believe, two or three interviews with the government, and I think the minister (Mr. Fisher), himself knows the situation. We have had some statements from the press and from some of the delegations; whether they were authorized to make those statements or not, I do not know. But the people would hear with interest the position in which the matter now stands, and they would be very much pleased, I know, to see in subsequent estimates a substantial sum to carry out that exhibition.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend (Mr. Hag-gart, Winnipeg), understands that these j supplementary estimates are for the cur- ' 120
rent year, but the exhibition of which he speaks, is for the future. I think my hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has stated to the House that the matter was one which was still under advisement and the government were not prepared yet to give a definite answer. I cannot say more at this time.


Alexander Haggart: As to these being estimates of the current year, I might remind the minister that, this being a world's exhibition, those concerned cannot wait until that year; they must have at least three years for preparation.


Mr. STAPLES.: Do I understand from the minister^ (Mr. Fisher) that he is going to use his influence, whatever little help it may be, towards getting the necessary money to carry on that exhibition, or bring it about? I believe that if the Minister of Agriculture would get at his fellow members in the cabinet and work a little more diligently, he would be able to accomplish something. But since I came here I have observed that the Minister of Agriculture does not ring in and try to get the money that is due to the agriculturists of this country, in order that they may show to the world at large what Canada can do in that line. There is no doubt that our agriculturists have the greatest claim for government assistance of any class or profession in Canada, but judging from the figures in the estimates year after year, they are not getting their just portion of the expenditure. I am not criticising what- other departments may spend, but I am criticising that minister for not expending on agriculture what we are entitled to. The farmers pay the greatest portion of the taxation, as is well known, and that is a consideration that should have more weight with the government than it appears to have. It is all right to put the blame on the Prime Minister. But this world's fair at Winnipeg is practically an agricultural undertaking. There is no doubt that it would do more for that western country in showing the world what it is capable of, and what all Canada is capable of, than anything else the minister could think of. But unless he rings in his fellow-members and tells them that he is going to give the agriculturists what they are entitled to, I do not see much hope of his succeeding. Now, I want the minister to make a promise that he will do his utmost towards getting such an appropriation for the Winnipeg centennial, as the delegates from that city have asked for, in order that they may proceed with the great _ undertaking. If the minister will promise to use his efforts with his colleagues, perhaps he will be able to accomplish something.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman does not encourage me to do that, because he



379&
says I have no influence, and that I do not succeed with my colleagues.


William D. Staples: I want you to rehabilitate yourself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I can only say that I have no doubt whatever that an expenditure of this kind on a world's exhibition in Winnipeg, or at some other central place in Canada, in the near future, would do this country a great deal of good.


William D. Staples: Does not the minister think that Winnipeg is the best place?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not sure, but I am inclined to think that Winnipeg would be the best place for such an exhibition, and I have no doubt that Canada could make such a display there as would attract a great deal of attention throughout the world.


Mr. BEST.: It is not my intention to find any fault with this amount, but I want to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the fact that the agriculturists of Canada are getting this year less than one million dollars from the government, and even one-tenth of that is going to this festival in England. I am not saying that is wrong, but I do say that it is a disgrace to Canada that less than one million dollars is expended for the benefit of this, the greatest industry in Canada. I do not think the farmers have a right to more than their share, nor do I think that they have been asking too much, but no man can honestly stand up in this House and say that the farmers are asking too much, when the fact is that less than one million dollars are expended on the agricultural industry, on the other hand. Now, I believe that if the minister tried to do his duty he could get more for this industry than he has been getting. It was a common saying among the farmers' delegation which came to Ottawa from the west, that this Central Experimental Farm at Ottawa was a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I heard many people say just the reverse.


John Best: I want to tell the minister, from a farmer's, standpoint, that if the people in the county I represent could not produce better stock than he has on that farm, I would be ashamed of them. That is a fact, and I am not trying to make little of the farm, either. But I can honestly tell the minister that farmer after farmer that goes to that agricultural college says that it is a disgrace to this Dominion. I have seen for myself, as hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House have seen, and know well, that there are pigs kept there, I suppose for breeding purposes, who were born blind, and they are kept there as a disgrace to this Do-Mr. FISHER.
minion. Now, the minister says that some people tell him that the dairy was well kept there. Now, the minister's, own report of 1910 shows that the milk products of his dairy herd only amounted to 6,115-pounds. Now, there are herds in this Dominion that produce over 10,000 pounds. _ I say that this experimental farm, which-should be the greatest and the best kept in the Dominion, makes a very poor showing, after it has been in existence for a quarter of a century, and still has a dairy herd the production of which is only a little more than half that of other herds in this Dominion. Now, I say that these are facts that cannot be got over. I find them in the minister's own report. I do not think it becomes a country such as Canada to occupy that position. I have been at that experimental farm myself twice during the last session, and once this session, and I say that the beef cattle there-I presume they are beef cattle, we know that there are only two purposes for which cattle are kept, one for dairy and the other for beef-and the beef cattle at the experimental farm, with the exception of a few that were imported, are a disgrace to any farm, let alone the experimental farm.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Does my hon. friend refer to the shorthorn herds there?


John Best: All, except a few herds of shorthorns that were imported.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There are no beef cattle kept there as beef cattle for breeding purposes at all; it is entirely a dairy herd.


John Best: Then the dairy herd is not paying very well.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think I shall have to interfere with this discussion, as the item before the committee is for an entirely different subject, that for an exhibition. If other branches of the Agricultural Department are to be opened up for discussion, it would take the committee too far away from the item before the chair.


John Best: I am quite willing to submit to your ruling. I simply wanted to say that when so large an amount of money is being taken out of the country, the farmers ought to receive more consideration, and I am of the opinion that part of that money should be spent at home for the benefit of the farmers. I really think that the farmers of this country are not getting their share.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Probably before the end of the session, I shall bring down some more agricultural estimates, and I hope that hon. gentlemen will show their good faith in what the^ are saying now and support them.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: I certainly shall.


Alexander Haggart: With reference to the Winnipeg exhibition, I would call the minister's attention to the fact that it is very important, not that they should get this money at once, but that they should know the decision of the government at the earliest date possible because there would be an excellent opportunity at this London pageant of advertising the date.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I sympathize with what my hon. friend says, and 1 shall press upon the Prime Minister the decision of the question.


Glenlyon Campbell: In reply to what was said by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) the minister made the statement that he would have to show that the farmers of Canada were not getting what they should get from his department. I would like to quote from the Auditor General's Report, to show what is being expended by my hon. friend's department for the farmers of Canada.
ment touching cognate matters is applied in any way to this item of exhibitions. The hon. gentleman to whom I spoke a moment ago desired to discuss a particular question without any reference to exhibitions, and if the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) desires to speak in the same way I shall have to rule against him. But if his argument can be applied to exhibitions, then an argument arising out of the Department of Agriculture would be applicable. It was his announcement of what he proposed to do that suggested to me that I should warn him that the argument shoiild be applied to exhibitions.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have always recognized the merits of the Chairman, but did not know until now that he was a mind reader. I was going to bring forward these facts to show that it would be more desirable if the Department of Agriculture should make expenditures, that were more pertinent to agriculture and to suggest that the money would bring better returns to the farmers than by expending it in the way suggested by this vote.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I take it from the announcement the hon. gentleman makes that he proposes to enter generally upon a discussion of the expenditure of the Department. This item is particularly for exhibitions. I do not wish to draw the line too stringently, yet, from the announcement he makes himself, I think it my duty to point out that unless the argument can be applied to exhibitions somewhat rapidly I will have to rule against him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I most respectfully submit that when we are dealing with an item- of expenditure for exhibitions which is under control of the Department of Agriculture we are within our rights in showing whether there is too much or too little spent in that department, and whether the department is well or properly conducted. I take it that the exhibits which the minister is going to make will be of grain and fruit which will be supplied largely from the farm. That brings us back to the farm, and we might very well discuss the question as to whether the produce that he is likely to supply from there will be likely to constitute a creditable exhibit or not. It seems that the connection is very close between them, and I think it is very hard to draw a line and say you shall not refer to the general question of agriculture in dealing with this item or any other item in connection with the expenditure of the Department of Agriculture.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman is correct in saying that the line of relevancy is not easily drawn and that cognate subjects may be referred to. It depends very largely upon wnether the argu-120*


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think that such an argument would be applicable.


Glenlyon Campbell: Marking Act $2,000; how does that affect the farmers? Then we have Canadian exhibits and the Swine Industry Commission $8,242. While I approve of money being spent in that way for the farmers as an educative process, I think it would be better, judging by this very identical Auditor General's Report, to have an inquiry into that matter of the proper breeding of swine by certain men who are really competent because I see that after the Swine Commissioners were appointed a certain gentleman had to be appointed to further educate them in their duties, a man named
C.	C. Meyer of Ottawa, who is paid $100 for his services in instructing the commissioners.
Then, there is an expenditure of thousands of dollars for reindeer in the Canadian Labrador, which I cannot see are of much importance to the farmers of Canada. As a matter of fact out of the $1,492,000, considerably less than $500,000 has been expended for the benefit of the farmers. While I appreciate the value of the work in connection with exhibitions I think the money would be far better spent at home if applied to the improvement of agriculture in the northwest. The entire expenditure on agriculture in the west amounts to only a few thousand dollars on the experimental farms there. These experimental farms ought to ibe located in different parts of the four provinces of the west, because there we have a very big territory and an experiment that will prove useful in one locality is not applicable three or four hundred miles away under different climatic conditions, and different quality of soil. Anything the minister can do in the direction of improving agriculture in the west will have my ardent support, but when it comes to wasting money in this way I must object to it.


John Dowsley Reid: As has been pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) not more than $383,000 of this large vote is actually expended in the interests of the farmers of Canada. That alone proves that the Minister of Agriculture is not devoting himself as he ought to the improvement and advancement of agriculture in this country. This government has now $130,000,000 a year to spend, and yet the Minister of Agriculture has not, since they came to .power, been able to get the Minister of Finance to spend one dollar more in the interests of the farmers than was expended by the 'Conservative government when the annual revenue was only one-third of what it is to-day. It seems strange that the Minister of Militia can influence the Minister of Finance to give him ten dollars for every one dollar he gives to the Minister of Agriculture.


Glenlyon Campbell: 


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) has referred to the establishment of experimental farms, and when the item for that purpose comes before the House I think he will see that I am meeting his views in that respect to a large extent. I ask for this vote because I think it is necessary, and justifiable in the interests of the farmers as well as the general interests of the country. I can assure the committee that if the $100,000 is granted it will not influence me to spend less in connection with agriculture in other directions.


Richard Blain: I regard this as a very important expenditure, and I am sure that it will receive fair consideration from this side of the House. I recall a statement made in this House by the Minister of Agriculture not long ago, that he had never been refused any expenditure for the benefit of agriculture in Canada, which he had asked from parliament. My hon. friend acquiesces in that statement. Then, if there has not been enough expended in the interest of the farmers of Canada, it is because my hon. friend does not ask for more. That is the only conclusion we can come to, as he has never been refused.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am willing to acknowledge that.


Richard Blain: Then the responsibility which my hon. friend from Dauphin has pointed out must rest with the minister.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I accept all the responsibility for that.


Richard Blain: Does he think that the expenditure for agriculture is sufficient or fair, compared with the expenditure on the militia of Canada ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not going to criticise the expenditures of other departments. I have been able to obtain for agriculture all the money I have asked for. Just as soon as I can see that I can expend more in the interests of agriculture, I will not hesitate to ask for it, and I believe the House will vote it, as it has done in the past.


William D. Staples: Can the minister tell the committee how much the committee that undertook the work of making _ arrangements for the exhibition at Winnipeg has expended so far ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would not like to say off-hand from memory.


William D. Staples: I know that they have expended thousands of dollars and have gathered many valuable statistics. Has the minister looked them over or given .any attention to the information these gentlemen have placed in his hands ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William D. Staples: Does he consider them oi any material value ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William D. Staples: Does he purpose, in case that exhibition does not go on, to remunerate those men for the expenses they have made ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not even thought of any such suggestion.


William D. Staples: Will the minister tell me whether or not he thinks they are entitled to it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall have to consider it very carefully.
Technical Education Commission-further amount required, $10,000.


Mr. KING.: This amount is required to enable the Commission on Technical Education to continue during the balance of tire present fiscal year the work which it is now carrying on. At the last session of parliament $25,000 was voted towards the expenses of this commission. The commission has now been engaged for about seven months, and the appropriation made by parliament last year has been exhausted.


Richard Blain: Will the minister explain bow the money already voted has been expended ?


George Gerald King: The commission entered upon its duties about the 18th of July last, and it has held sittings in the different cities and towns of the Dominion, has visited industrial establishments and taken evidence under oath, from manufacturers, workingmen and educationalists as to the needs of -the Dominion in the matter of industrial training and technical education. Up to the present time, the commission has visited 99 -different localities, and has heard 1,466 witnesses. It commenced its work at the Atlantic coast and has followed a course which ha-s taken it through the different provinces to -the Pacific. The work oi taking evidence in Canada will be completed with the session to be held in _ Ottawa next week, and then the commission will prepare an interim report summing up the findings so far as the needs of the Dominion are concerned. It will then go abroad and study the methods adopted in other countries to meet similiar, needs. The members of the commission have travelled about 10,000 miles.


Richard Blain: What is expected to be the total cost of this commission ?


George Gerald King: $25,000 has already been voted, $25,000 will be asked in the estimates for next year, and $10,000 is asked
in this vote. I should think this would be enough to enable the commission to complete its inquiries. Something further may be necessary for the publication of the report.


Richard Blain: When is it expected to be completed ?


George Gerald King: It is expected that the commission will return from abroad in the latter part of August, and I hope to have the report ready for presentation to parliament in -the session to be held next fall.


Glenlyon Campbell: Do the commissioners travel together ?


George Gerald King: In the larger centres, like Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, they have sat together, but in some cases they have divided, and two or three have visited one locality and two or three another.


Glenlyon Campbell: Was there any special reason for having such a large commission ?


George Gerald King: The reasons that governed the number of the commission were that the subject was a large one, and the Dominion a large dominion, and a great many interests had to be considered. The manufacturers had made strong representations as to the need of this commission, and it was thought well to have -a representative of them. Similarly the labour men had made strong representations, and it was thought advisable to have them represented. The commission does not seem to be too large, considering the nature of its work.


Glenlyon Campbell: Will agriculture be taken up at all?


Mr KING.: Yes; agriculture is one of the subjects, and my hon. friend will recognize in the name of Dr. Robertson, who is chairman of the commission, one of the leading agricultural authorities in the Dominion. With Dr. Robertson on the commission as chairman, I think the hon. member may feel quite sure that the agricultural interests will be very fully inquired into.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation was the manufacturers' representative selected?


George Gerald King: The manufacturers presented their veiws to the government on the subject through Mr. Murray, secretary of the Manufacturers' Association, who had made a very complete study, up to a certain point of the subject from the manufacturers' point of view. The government felt that they could not give greater satisfaction to the manufacturers than if they chose for the commission the man whom the manu-

facturers had themselves chosen to present to the government the needs of such a commission. That is why Mr. Murray was chosen.


Richard Blain: I understand that some of the provincial legislatures are also inquiring into this question. Is there any cooperation between this government, and, say, the government of Ontario?


George Gerald King: Yes; I am happy to say there has been the most cordial co-operation. In each instance the members of the commission, in visiting ia province,. have called first of all upon the Prime Minister and members of the government of the province being visited and explained that the federal government, before appointing the commission, had conferred with the premiers of the several provinces, and had secured from them their express wish that the federal government should take this step and co-operate with the provinces. In each case the provincial government, Dr. Robertson informs me, has done everything in its power to assist the federal commission in getting information. In Toronto, for instance, Sir James Whitney's government had appointed Mr. Seath a commissioner to inquire into certain phases of the work. Mr. Seath intimated to the chairman of the commission that he had been instructed by his government to give to the federal government's commission the benefit of his views in advance of submitting his report to his own government, should [DOT]this be desired, he of course intimated that he would prefer giving his report to his own government. I mention that to show the hearty manner in which the provincial authorities have co-operated. Prof. Robertson assures me that in every province the provincial authorities have expedited the work of the commission and have used their good offices to see that the commission got the fullest information possible.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salaries do the commissioners receive?


George Gerald King: Each commissioner receives $16 a day and his necessary travelling expenses. Out of the $16 the members of the commission pay their own hotel and incidental expenses, and they do not receive any remuneration for Sundays.


Richard Blain: How was the labour representative elected


George Gerald King: In a manner similar to the selection of the representative of the manufacturing interests. The Trades and Labour Congress, for a number of years past, have been asking the government to appoint this commission and on each occasion they have designated Mr. Simpson, the vicepresident of the Trades and Labour Council, to present their case to the government, and, in fact, the Dominion Trades and Mr. KING.
Labour Congress at one conference suggested that Mr. Simpson should be the person appointed to represent labour in the event of the request being granted, so the government simply took the nominee of the Trades and Labour Congress.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What is Mr. Simpson's occupation?


George Gerald King: A reporter, I think, on the Toronto * Star.' He seems to be especially well qualified for this position. He was a former vice-president of the Trades and Labour Congress, and was, as I have mentioned, nominated by that body as their representative. He was, at the time of his appointment, chairman of the Toronto Board of Education. He had been a member of a special committee on technical education of the Toronto board in 1906. He was a member of the Technical Education Commission which visited seven United States cities and recommended a curriculum for the new Toronto Technical School in 1909. He had presented the subject of technical education before the provincial government at different times.


Richard Blain: Was he a candidate for parliamentary honours?


George Gerald King: No; I do not think so. I might say that so far as I know he is not a Liberal.


Richard Blain: Are the members all the same?


George Gerald King: I cannot say what the politics of some of them are. The government sought to choose the best men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume it would be one of the duties of the commission to outline a scheme by which technical schools may be established and maintained jointly with the provinces or independently of the provinces, and to suggest the curriculum of study.
Mr. IylNG. Yes; the commission is for the purpose of gathering information generally which will be compiled in the form of a report, and this report will then be available for distribution, and the provinces may take on this report such action as they think best. The scope of the commission would be best indicated by this communication, which the chairman of the commission lias sent out in each locality visited. In each case it has been similar to the following.
Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education.
Ottawa, Ont., December 27, 1910.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to intimate to you that the Royal Commission on Industrial Training and Technical Education proposes to visit places according to the itinerary outlined in the sheet which is inclosed herewith.
The commission will give particular at-

tention to the manufacturing industries, to agriculture, to domestic occupations, to mining, to the fisheries, to the lumber interests, to the building trades, to the transportation services, as well as to the technical training required for commercial operations.
The commission will also make inquiry into, (a) the needs of existing industries in respect of labour, (b) the quality of labour which is available, and (c) the needs of such labour for industrial training and technical education.
The plan for the work of the commission at each place has ordinarily been as follows::- A local committee representing the mayor, the board of trade, the manufacturers" association, the educational institutions, the trades and labour interests, and any organization identified with training for women, makes provision for a place in which to hold the sessions of the commission. That is usually the council chamber or court house. The local committee also notifies persons who represent the various local interests and industries that they will be expected to appear before the commission to testify in regard to the present equipment and needs of the place and locality in respect to industrial training and technical education. The commission devotes part of each day to visiting the industrial establishments and educational institutions, and holds one or two sessions to receive testimony from those who desire to appear before it. The inquiry is ordinarily conducted by questions and answers, although those who appear before the commission may present information either by oral or written statement, bearing on the matters of the inquiry.
The commission will appreciate your cooperation in any manner which you may consider appropriate regarding any or all of these matters.
A reply to this might be addressed, care of Deputy Minister of Labour, Ottawa.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your most obedient servant.



[Stage Direction]
Chairman.
I think that communication covers largely what my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), asks.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Partly and partly not. What I had in mind was this: there are many people in the country who desire to acquire knowledge of the principles of certain arts ox trades, nut with a view to making them a permanent lifework. but with a view to equipping themselves better for that which they have chosen as their lifework. For instance, many a young man would like to gain knowledge with Tegard to mechanics, another with regard to agriculture. Will there be in these technical schools, branches where agriculture, mechanics, artisan's work, and other lines will be taught ?


George Gerald King: It is impossible for me to anticipate what the recommendations of the commission will he, but the scope of the commission, as I understand it, covers just the kind of thing my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), has suggested. I asked Dr.
Robertson if he would give me a brief statement of what, up to the present, had come under the notice of the commission along the lines they were likely to report upon. Perhaps, if I read his statement, .that will indicate to what extent the commission has in mind, making recommendation along the line my hon. friend has spoken of. This is Dr. Robertson's statement:
In general the testimony has been that provision for industrial training and technical education, in institutions and industrial establishments, exists in very few places and in them not to an extent adequate to the needs of the industrial population. The testimony indicates that some further opportunities are necessary to enable young men and women, from the ages of 14 to 18, to enter upon the various industrial and productive occupations with such educational qualifications that they may become industrially efficient.
I.	In almost every place representative men
have stated that urgent need exists for night classes for boys, after the age of 14, who have left the day schools.	_
II.	The workmen have been practically unanimous in the expression of a desire for opportunities for such a measure of technical education as will enable them to acquire a knowledge of the principles which underlie the processes of their occupations, and also to give the more energetic and ambitious of them a fair working chance to prepare themselves for advancement and promotion.
III.	There has been a unanimous expression of opinion that the several towns need some provision for industrial training and technical education which, in its general character, shall have an educational value equivalent to the high school or academy courses of study, but which shall be adapted specifically and directly to the needs of those who are to enter upon industrial occupations: and also to meet the case of those who wonld like to matriculate into, or enter upon the more advanced work of, technical colleges or agricultural colleges.
IV.	Statements in respect of these four matters have come alike from the representatives of industries, from those who are responsible for educational work, and from the workingmen and women themselves. Not only are they all agreed as to the need for industrial training and technical education, but they have evinced enthusiastic keenness in offering co-operation, towards meeting the need in some adequate manner.
In other words, the .commission has been endeavouring to ascertain from as many sources as possible, wbat are the needs in Canada, with respect to the different industries and industrial callings which employers and artisans are experiencing in the matter of a proper equipment for industrial efficiency. I think they have already got a good idea of the needs of Canada. The idea now, is that they should visit Europe and see how similar needs are being met in the different countries there. They will then return and <prepare a report which will be of service in enabling the provinces of

this country to shape their educational work, so far as it relates to industrial training and technical education, along lines which will be of the greatest benefit to the classes in whose interest the work is undertaken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will this cover the field for female as well as male labour ?


George Gerald King: Yes, _ That is a phase to which the commission is devoting some special attention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are there any females on the commission ?


George Gerald King: No, but a number of female witnesses have testified before the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does seem to me, thinking it over, that it might have been the part of wisdom fx* have one member of the commission, at least, .an intelligent lady, who had shown an aptitude for such educational work and had acquired a general knowledge of industrial life among the female population.


George Gerald King: I think there is much to be said in favour of that view.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I followed the figures correctly, we have voted $25,000, and are voting $10,000 now, and I understand that $25,000 more is likely to be asked for in the


George Gerald King: Main estimates of next year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be $60,000 all told. Is that expected to be sufficient to do the work including the report?


George Gerald King: I answered a moment ago, that possibly the printing of the report will require some further appropriation. I am inclined to think it will take $25,000 to cover the expenses of the commission in Europe.
Fisheries Protection Service, $20,000.


Mr. BRODEUR.: It has been urged upon the department that better protection should be given to the fisheries on the British Columbia coast, and it has been considered advisable that we should charter a couple of vessels for that purpose. With this vote of $20,000 devoted to that special service it is expected that, with a couple of ships, we will be able to protect our fisheries adequately.


David Henderson: I would like some information with reference to the appointment of new fishery overseers throughout the province of Ontario, and perhaps on this item the minister would be able to give me some information. I notice some 37 new appointments have been made in the other provinces. I would like to know whether Mr. KING.
these men are intended to supplant the provincial overseers, or to implement their v^ork.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned the matter, and I will furnish him with the reason for that change. I may say that in British Columbia, the western provinces, and the maritime provinces the overseers are all appointed by the federal government; I do not think there are any other overseers in those provinces except those appointed by the federal government, though there may be a few appointed by the provincial authorities. It was found advisable that we should have in Ontario our own officers to carry out our own laws and regulations. Formerly, all the officers were appointed by the federal authorities. But by a judgment which was rendered in 1898, it was decided that the beds of the rivers above the tide were the property of the provinces, and that the provinces had some rights in the fisheries, one of which was to issue licenses for catching fish. As a result of that judgment, most of the officers were kept on by the provincial authorities; we had, however, to maintain a limited number of our own officers. It was found, however, that the provincial officers were looking chiefly after the execution of the provincial regulations concerning the issuing of licenses, they were not supposed to carry out the federal regulations. It seemed proper, therefore, that the regulations passed by the federal authorities should be carried out by federal officers. I am not making any reflection upon the way the fisheries had been protected by the provincial officers, but they were not of course appointed to carry out our regulations. There were numerous complaints that our regulations were not properly enforced, and facts were reported to the department which rendered it advisable for us to appoint our own officers to look after the protection of the fisheries in pursuance of our own regulations.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 74) respecting International Railway Company and International Traction Railways.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.
Bill (No. 84) respecting the Southern Central Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Conmee.

Bill (No. 92) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Niagara, Welland and Lake Erie Railway Company. -Mr. German.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['Of course, the severity of the winter and the conditions have been such that we cannot guarantee that there have been no cases of suffering. But, so far as it has been possible and reasonable, we have done what could be done to prevent any serious cases of suffering. We believe we have done very good work and have not unduly burdened the resources of the country.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.', '\n\nMonday, February 20, 1911.']
David Henderson: I would like to ask the minister regarding the appointment of some 37 fishery overseers in the province of Ontario-as to what their duties will be, why they are now appointed, seeing that no such officers were required before, and whether they are to take the place of the provincial overseers now discharging duties of a like character, or whether they are to implement their work by doing some other kind of work in connection with the protection of the fisheries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As I have already explained, since the judgment rendered by the Privy Council on the fisheries case, both the provincial and the Dominion authorities now exercise jurisdiction over the fisheries. It was decided by the Privy Council that the provinces, by virtue of their proprietary rights in the fisheries, are entitled to issue licenses and to make regulations as to the manner in which those licenses shall be issued. By the same judgment it was recognized that the regulation of the fisheries, generaly speaking, devolved upon the Dominion authorities. So that there is to-day a double jurisdiction in respect to the fisheries. The Dominion authorities are required to adopt the necessary laws and regulations for the protection and preservation of the fisheries, and we have been trying to exercise our powers according to our best judgment. We found that the regulations affecting the fisheries were not properly carried out. In Ontario there were only three officers to exercise supervision over the fisheries. The provincial officers are necessarily called upon to look after the observance of the laws and regulations passed by the provincial authorities concerning licenses. They have to see whether there are many people fishing without licenses, and, if so, to call upon them to cease fishing. But there are many regulations over which the provincial authorities have no jurisdiction, such as those relating to the size of the mesh, the gears with which fishing operations are carried on the close seasons, &c.
We had only three officers in Ontario who had general supervision. We could not expect the provincial authorities to enforce the observance of the Dominion laws and regulations. As there were complaints that our own regulations weTe not properly observed we thought of appointing a certain number of officers, whose duties *would be to look after the carrying out of
those laws and regulations. I have divided the province into districts and have appointed about 40 officers, who axe going to supervise the fisheries in Ontario, as the officers axe doing in the provinces I have mentioned. We have adopted a new principle of having a less number of officers who will be called upon to devote all their time to this work, and we expect that the salary they will receive from the government will enable them to discharge their duties in such a way that the complaints which existed before, as to the carrying out of our regulations, will not be heard in future. These officers will enforce the Dominion laws and regulations and will Teport violations of them to the Dominion authorities, and on the advice of the department, take the necessary action.


David Henderson: The Dominion authorities do not propose to issue licenses to fishermen to fish, that will be left in the hands of the Ontario government ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The authority of the provincial government of Ontario in that respect, is absolute, we have no right to prevent them from issuing licenses. We have, however, the right ourselves, which was not denied to us by the judgment of the Privy Council, to issue licenses. We do not intend for a moment to exercise any such right.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot understand why it is necessary to appoint a lot of these officers in Ontario. I assume that the minister wants to run his department as economically as possible and not to appoint unnecessary officers. Between Kingston and Brockville the Ontario government have three efficient fishery overseers. They have gasoline launches running up and down all the time to see that the laws are not violated, that nets are not used. The overseer in my county has a wagon load of nets that have been seized. Through the good work of these overseers there is now practically no illegal fishing there. It looks as if the minister is simply appointing these men to give them positions and that men will be paid as fishery overseers to do electioneering work. I defy the minister to show where these officials are going to bs of any use. At Brockville there are now two officials appointed by the Ontario government, who are doing the work properly. There were complaints a few years ago that the Ontario government officials did not do good work and the reason was, that they paid men $50 a year and of course, the men could not be expected to do work of that kind for that salary.


Mr. PARDEE.: What do they get now ?


John Dowsley Reid: They now get $300 for the season and a launch. The present Ontario government, when they

came in, saw fit to pay a reasonable salary. I suppose the minister will pay about $600, but the men he -appoints, cannot do anything more than is done by the men -now on the ground. How much territory will the man at Brockville cover ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He is to supervise the Thousand Island district from Lake Ontario down.


John Dowsley Reid: That would be from east of Kingston to perhaps Brockville and there are now three men in that district. In appointing these men did the minister consider that there is now an efficient staff of provincial government officials, and did he consult the Ontario government to see whether they ihad men doing the same work ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We made our organization to cover Ontario with our own officers. My hon. friend says the service has been well performed by the Ontario officers. The department has no means of ascertaining such a point, for we never get any information from these men. If there have been violations, seizures and impositions of penalties, they have not been reported to us.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it that the minister receives the official records the Ontario government -are supposed to reports, these official records, come to him?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We get their annual report, that is all. The men appointed by the Ontario government are supposed to look after the enforcement of the laws of Ontario, and not to enforce the Dominion regulations. In fact, I do not think they have authority to' do it.


John Dowsley Reid: In the official record of the Ontario government there is a report of every fishery overseer, and I cannot believe but that the minister or his officials see that record showdng the number of seizures and the fines imposed. If there are any laws of the Dominion which will assist in protecting the fisheries there is no doubt that the Ontario fishery overseer would use those laws in addition to the Ontario law. In making these appointments along the River St. Lawrence, the minister should have taken that into consideration. I think it does not show the best administration of the department that he has never even consulted the Ontario government on this subject. And now he has to admit to the House that he never even knew they issued an official report of the work done by the Ontario fisheries service. The appointment by the minister of a lot of officials under these conditions is simply squandering the people's money.1


John Dowsley Reid: 


Mr. BARKER.: As I spend, whenever I can, a month or more in Muskoka-where there used to be plenty of fishing, and still is some-I know a little on this subject. The Ontario government, for some years past, has been making very strenuous efforts to do something practical in the way of protecting the fisheries. They have, at the head of the department there, an old sportsman, Mr. Tinsley, a very strong and very good Liberal, appointed by the Conservative government of Ontario, to supervise this work. He is a most excellent man and was appointed simply because of his lifelong experience. On these lakes the Ontario government has officers who supervise everything connected with the fisheries from the point of view of the provincial law. What I fear from what I have seen of the minister's proposal is that we shall come to a realization of the old proverb, that too many cooks spoil the broth. With two governments, Dominion and provincial, acting independently and without communication, neither knowing what the other is doing, you will find the Dominion officers and Ontario officers getting into what is called a ' scrap ' occasionally. Besides, you will find that when alleged violators of the law are summoned before the magistrate by the officers of one government, they will plead that they were acting in accordance with what was told them by the officer of the other government. So, between the two, we shall have no law, or worse than no law. In the interests of us all, not only those who live by fishing, but those who take pleasure in fishing, the fishery laws should be enforced. Both governments are striving for the same end. But the present method is very much as though you had two officers in the same custom house, each entitled to exercise his own judgment as to the duties to be charged upon goods. You cannot have effective work under such a method. I would beg the minister (M-r. Brodeur) to consider whether he should not send the chief officer of his department to meet the chief fishery officers of Ontario and Quebec, or ask the provincial officers to come here and discuss the possibility of agreeing upon a common system. If you act independently my judgment is you will ruin every-, thing.


David Henderson: In justice to the overseer in my county, because there is a very important fishing station adjacent to the county of Halton, I -want to say that I have no recollection of hearing any complaints such as the minister speaks of in respect to the non-enforcement of the regulations. I am quite sure that the Ontario overseer there insists stringently upon the regulations being observed, the chief one of which has reference to the size -of the

mesh, the other I suppose would be the close season. But I have not heard any complaints with regard to neglect of duty or of the non-observance of the regulations. The fishery overseer there considers it his duty to see that the regulations of this government are enforced as regards the size of the mesh, and the close season.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has raised this important question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provincial authorities with regard to the fisheries. I may remark that before 1898 the fisheries were entirely administered by the federal authorities. Since then, as a result of a legal decision, the jurisdiction has been divided ; that is to say, everything pertaining to the issuing of licenses was taken over by the provincial authorities. Although the Dominion authorities had power to issue certain licenses, we have not- exercised that power, but have left it entirely in the hands of the provincial authorities. However, I -agree with my hon. friend that this dual jurisdiction is not at all satisfactory. I hope that some day the two authorities will be able to reach a settlement of this question of jurisdiction. I may say to my hon. friend that I have discussed the matter -with a minister of the provincial government, and I think we are not very far apart. I think in view of the good relations which exist to-day between the two authorities as to the administration of the fisheries of Ontario, we may be able before long to reach a compromise, or a settlement, -which will put an end to this dual jurisdiction. But it would be premature to discuss that question now in the House. It may be a question whether the fisheries should not be administered entirely by the Dominion authorities, and that we should pay a certain amount of money to the provincial authorities in lieu of the licenses. Now there are two important features of the case to keep in mind. In .a short time we are going to have in force regulations on the Great Lakes, -and the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, that is to say, upon the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence where that river forms the international boundary, the Niagara river, the Detroit river, the St. Clair river, and the St. Mary's river. The treaty between the two countries which has been laid before the House provides that regulations shall be made 'by two commissioners, one appointed by this government and one appointed by the United States government. Those regulations have been framed and have been laid before the House, and in .a very short time, perhaps, the proclamation will be issued 'by the two governments declaring that these regulations shall govern the fisheries on the Great Lakes and
the boundary rivers. In such a case, as my hon. friend from Hamilton knows, the treaty will have to be enforced by the Dominion authorities, because there is a special provision in the British North America Act to the effect that laws which have to be passed in execution of treaties must ibe enforced by the Dominion authorities. It -will, therefore, become our duty when these regulations are passed to see that they are enforced on the lakes and rivers I have just mentioned. Perhaps we could reach a settlement on thi3 basis : That we should assume the protection of the fisheries on the Great Lakes, while the provincial authorities took over the protection of the inland fisheries and their regulations ; that of course, would require an /amendment to the British North America Act. But I think that every effort should be made to reach a settlement of some kind, because this divided jurisdiction, even with the best intentions in the world on both sides, leads to some conflict. Take the question of the fish hatcheries for example. The /hatcheries which 'exist in the province of Ontario have -all been built by this government, the Ontario government has no hatcheries.


David Henderson: There are private
hatcheries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I mean the provincial government has none.


Samuel Barker: I am not so sure that the hon. gentleman is correct. They send up large quantities of fry.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There may be a few hatcheries controlled by the provincial government, but the federal government has built practically the whole of them, and maintains them. When the eggs become ripe, and /are hatched, the fry -might be considered to a certain extent as the property of the provincial authorities. Therefore, we are spending money for the artificial -propagation of fish which becomes the -property of the province, -and for which they issue licenses. Well, many people say : Why should you go on -and build more hatcheries? Why do you not make an /agreement with the provincial authorities by which at least you may [DOT] get a share of the money which comes from the licenses? Remember that all the revenue which comes out of the fisheries goes into the provincial treasury and the Dominion treasury gets nothing. This is evidently an unjust situation, -and the sooner we reach an agreement in that respect the better it will be for all parties concerned. My hon. friend spoke about the absence of relations between the officers and the department. I may say that so /far -as I am concerned, I have had several opportunities to meet one of the prin-

cipal officials of the provincial government, we have been often in communication discussing questions of general interest, both by correspondence and otherwise. Besides, the officers of the department are in constant communication with the officer whose name has been given by my hon. friend. Coming to the question of the observance of our regulations, it has been alleged that there has ibeen a violation of them. If so it cannot be wondered at. Regulations are, in the ordinary nature of things very often violated. I do not know if that is the case, but no report was made to us by the provincial authorities or their officers that there had been violations or that penalties had been imposed. The hon. member for Grenville has referred to the fact that in the report issued by the provincial government it is stated that a num-be of penalties have been imposed. We have their report, and we have noted its contents but there is nothing in the report which says that these penalties have been recovered for violations of our own regulations. They must have been violations of the provincial regulations concerning the issuing of licenses. If they had been violations of our regulations concerning gears, size of mesh, or close season they would have been reported to us.


John Dowsley Reid: But they do not issue any licenses at all on the St. Lawrence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, but generally speaking.


John Dowsley Reid: But you spoke of complaints in so far as the St. Lawrence is concerned. I say that they do not issue any licenses at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I speak generally of Ontario, I do not speak particularly of the St. Lawrence, because I know that they do not issue any licenses there. If there have been some violations of the close season they should have been reported to us. If penalties have been imposed and money has been collected as a result of these violations not only should the violation have been reported to us but the money itself should have been returned to us.


John Dowsley Reid: It has reference to the close season established by the Ontario government in the St. Lawrence.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the provincial authorities have no right to make any regulations as to close seasons. If they make regulations they are entirely ultra vires. They would be against the law because the right to regulate the fisheries belongs exclusively to this parliament. But, they have the right to issue licenses and they may make regulations in connection with the issuing of licenses. But, they would have no right to determine any close Mr. BRODEUR.
season different from the one which had been determined by this government. A similar case was brought up in one of the provinces and it was decided by the Superior Court that the province had no right to make any close season. I do not know but that the case is now before the Privy Council.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to understand the situation in the St. Lawrence. The minister states that the Ontario government have no right to make any close season unless it is in connection with the issuing of licenses. I suppose that their law is the same in so far as the close season is concerned as that of the Dominion. If they established a regulation in so far as close seasons are concerned, I suppose it would apply to licenses only. Is that how I am to understand it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Dominion parliament and the Governor in Council have the right to make regulations as to close seasons. The provincial government cannot do it.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand there are regulations now of the Ontario government under which there are close seasons.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that on the St. Lawrence


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If my hon. friend will permit me, let us take the season for bass for instance; the close season or the open season is determined by a regulation passed by the Dominion authorities here, whether by Act of parliament or by order in council. The right to issue permits for the catching of bass may be exercised by the provincial authorities and licenses may be issued for the open season which is provided by our own regulations.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that the fishery overseers appointed by the provincial government have printed instructions about the close seasons when bass and other fish cannot be caught. If the minister states that close seasons cannot be established by the Ontario government then they must be acting under the laws of the Dominion government and the Ontario government may have conveyed the instructions of the Dominion government to these overseers, by making their licenses conform with the regulations of the Dominion government. As these three overseers on the St. Lawrence are carrying out the regulations as to close seasons, as they are doing the work faithfully, constantly running up and down the river, and as no licenses are issued at all at the present time, I would like to know what there is for another man to do.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The provincial authorities may have their own officers to carry out the regulations which they have the right to make with regard to the licenses themselves. They have a right to see whether a person is fishing with or without a license or, it may be, to make some further regulation in connection with the issuing of licenses, but as to general regulations with regard to gears, close seasons, open seasons, &c., there is only one authority and it is the Dominion authority. The law says that these regulations have to be enforced by the fishery officers appointed under this Act. If these officers appointed by the Ontario government have undertaken to carry out these laws they may find that they have not the right to do it; in fact, they do not undertake to do it because they do not report to us any violations of their own regulations. Will not my hon. friend admit that in that case it is very much better that We should have our men to report to us all the information with regard to the fisheries? Should we require to change the regulations concerning the fishing season these three officers do not travel the country enough to be able to inform us as to local conditions which it is absolutely necessary we should be aware of. For instance, the size of the mesh is a very important matter and we must have men on the spot to report to us as to that and other such matters of detail.


Samuel Barker: I admit that the Minister of Marine like the provincial minister, is desirous of carrying out the law for the general good, but where we have the admitted difficulty of a dual authority surely it is the duty of the governments to see whether or not, in the public interest, they can agree upon a common ground. If the minister is going to appoint a lot of officers to see that Dominion rights are vindicated and the provinces are actuated by a similar spirit the result is that you have thrust upon the Dominion, as upon the provinces, a host of officials. In two years you find, perhaps that the people condemn the whole thing and force the Dominion and the provinces to agree upon a uniform system, and then you have to pension your officials and you are thus mortgaging the country to a considerable extent. Why should not the federal Department of Fisheries agree with the representative officers of the province upon a common mode of work. No province in this Dominion is more anxious for the preservation of the fish than the province of Ontario. They have spent large sums from year to year and they are prepared to expend still more towards that end. But if the province should know that there is a big sum of money per annum paid out by the Dominion to overlap their work, instead of good, mischief will be done. I cannot
see why in a matter of common interest the federal officials cannot sit down with the provincial officials like business men and agree upon what is right for all. You are standing apart holding each other at arms length, each insisting on its right, and that means that somebody suffers between the two. There are millions of dollars brought into Ontario every year by families who come from the United States to the Muskoka lakes, the Thousand islands and Georgian bay, and who fancy they will have some fishing. The cultivation of that business is of enormous value. On the Muskoka lakes I simoose $1,000,000 have been expended by Americans in erecting dwellings; they sit on the wharfs and if they catch one fish a day they are content, but they want to do the fishing. There is no use telling these people that they have to inquire whether it is the Hon. Mr. Bro-deur at Ottawa, or some gentleman at Toronto, who lays down the law; their only desire is to know what the law is. Surely the rights of the people are paramount to the dignity of any official whether provincial or federal. Before we sanction the payment of a host of officers and give them the powers of the czar, we should ask the minister whether any effort has been made with the provincial minister to agree upon a common system. However zealous* the federal officers may be they cannot be more zealous than the Ontario officer, a good old Liberal, a man who gives his life to the business, a sportsman who has his heart in it; and who was appointed by the Ontario Conservative government because of his qualifications. He is just as anxious to do what you want as any man could be, and why not sit down with him and agree upon common regulations. What is the sense of having one set of regulations here and another in Toronto, and two officials going to the person and fighting over the body of the prisoner to see who will get him. I submit that is not business like.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am absolutely converted to the idea of putting an end to this dual jurisdiction, and for years past I have made many efforts to bring about the result the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) desires. As far as the maritime provinces are concerned, the matter is in very good shape. In fact, we have reached an agreement with the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. So far as Quebec is concerned, the gulf part of the province is under the exclusive control of the federal authorities, who not only make regulations concerning the way in which fishing shall be carried on, but issue licenses and maintain vessels for the protection of the fishermen and the fishing industry. In the inland part of the province, the provincial authorities issue licenses, and the regulations, so far as I have seen, are generally well enforced. In the province

of British Columbia there is the question of jurisdiction, which has been submitted for the judgment of the Supreme Court, and I expect that the matter will be reviewed during this month. Hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested that we should agree with the provincial authorities as to the question of making regulations. Less than four months ago the provincial authorities of British Columbia and ourselves agreed that we should have a regulation as to boat rating in the northern part of the province, and a commission was appointed composed of their chief officer and one of our inspectors for British Columbia. They went on the ground of the interested parties, and made a report, which I adopted, and my colleagues accepted my recommendation that this boat rating should be observed. I fully agree with my hon. friend that this overlapping of jurisdiction is not for the benefit of the fisheries themselves, but rather is very detrimental to them, and the sooner the question is settled the better. It is not a question that can be settled by the officers; it will have to be settled by the representatives of the respective governments. In regard to improving the regulations, I thought I should have the provincial minister of Ontario come and confer with me as to the regulations which should be adopted for the Great Lakes, and we passed a few days together and discussed the regulations. I mention this just to show my hon. friends that good relations exist between us. But the fact remains that there is overlapping. In some parts of Ontario we are face to face with the depletion of the fisheries, and some day, when the fisheries have disappeared, it may be charged against us that we did not protect them, if we do not now look after the regulations for that purpose. Some reference has been made to politics. There is no politics in the administration of my department in respect to the fisheries. We do not claim not to make any mistakes, but we try our best to meet the exigencies of the situation by adopting the best regulations possible to preserve the fisheries. In some provinces we are issuing licenses, and they are issued to bona fide fishermen, and I have never heard of any complaint that we are granting licenses or refusing licenses for the purpose of obtaining any party advantage.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I quite agree with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that it is very unfortunate that the jurisdiction with respect to the fisheries has, by the decision of the Privy Council, been made concurrent as between the provinces and the Dominion. But I cannot agree with him, at least so far as my section of the country is concerned, that the fishery regulations are not being enforced. Indeed, in my county the complaint made is that when the Ontario government took charge Mr. BRODEUR.
of the regulations they were made too stringent, and I know of four cases where seizures have been made for infringements of the fishery laws. In one case at least the seizure was unjustly made, and the man was returned his nets and is going to be compensated for the injury done him. I think it is unfortunate, from what has been said to-night, that the minister did not delay the appointment of these 40 overseers in Ontario, because their duties will overlap those of the provincial officers. There will be two sets of officers to punish people for the offences committed. If a man fishes within the close season, the minister contends that the provincial officers have no right to prosecute him. On the other hand, if he fishes without a license, the Dominion officer would have no right to interfere with him. How is a Dominion official to know whether a man is fishing without a license or not? He would have to get that information from a provincial officer. On the other hand, when a man is fishing in the spring of the year, he cannot be prosecuted by the provincial authorities. It is the practice in Ontario not to give a man a new license if he has infringed the law in the previous year, so that the provincial authorities will have to inquire of the Dominion authorities whether or not he has been convicted under the Dominion regulations. I would like to know how many overseers are going to be appointed by the Dominion government on the Georgian bay.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: One at Parry Sound, one at Leith, one at Wiarton, one at Pene-tanguishene.


William Sora Middlebro: I said there would be three, apparently there are four. Then these seven fishery overseers are in the southeastern portion of the Georgian bay. That is altogether too many officials, three or four competent men would be quite sufficient. Thus it looks to me as if politics had something to do with these appointments. One of the main strengths of the fishery overseer is that the fishermen look to him to exert his influence to lengthen the open season or shorten the close season, or hope to have him act as leniently as he can with reference to the enforcement of the fishery regulations. When this government had no fishery overseers the petitions of these men had to be transmitted to the government through the provincial overseer and it was to him that the fishermen looked for a reply. It looks as if these officers were being appointed by the Dominion government so that the information may be sent back not to a provincial official, but to a Dominion official. From whom has the minister had complaints that the provincial regulations have not been properly enforced?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether the provincial regulations were enforced, but we know that ours have not been properly enforced in some cases.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister cite a single case?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, yes, I can cite many.


Mr. GORDON (Kent).: I can cite one. A short time ago I visited a fishing country and found leads of 550 feet being used, contrary to law, in Mitchell's bay.


William Sora Middlebro: Did the hon. gentleman advise the provincial authority?


George Gordon: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Did he take action?


George Gordon: Shortly after, but it had been going on for a year without being noticed.


William Sora Middlebro: That is a case where something was brought to the attention of the officer and he rectified it. That is all that could have been done by a Dominion official. There can be no argument for the appointment of these men and it would be in the interests of the fisheries not to have them appointed. Did the minister consult the Ontario government as to the necessity of appointing them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The law says that the fishery officers appointed under the Act are the ones to have authority to enforce the Act. There must have been violation of the law, but there has never been any return to us of money collected as fines, while the law provides that all money so collected must be turned in to the Receiver General for Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: Have you applied to the province for it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, yes, we have.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister admits that he has not communicated with the provincial authorities to find out whether they have been enforcing the Dominion regulations, although he is willing to forego his right to fishery licenses. Has he intimated to the provincial authorities that he was going to appoint 40 Dominion officers, and asked them if they thought it was necessary or whether the provincial officers would perform the duties which the 40 Dominion officers are about to perform.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I must admit that I have not asked the provincial authorities whether they would advise me if these officers should be appointed or not, because I thought it was our duty to do it ourselves. So long as we were satisfied that there were violations of the law and that these violations were detrimental to the fisheries, we
thought it was our duty to prevent such violations. The provincial authorities have their own officers to look after their own regulations concerning licenses, but it is our duty to see to the observance of our own regulations. As to violations of the-law I might mention the Killarney case, a very flagrant case, referred to in the report of the Georgian Bay Commission. In view of these facts we are not going to beg of the Ontario government to carry out our regulations. It is our duty to see that they are properly observed, for fear that we may afterwards be charged with not having performed our duty. I feel I would have been derelict in my duty if I had not adopted this course.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister not think that the provincial officials going over the same ground, could, without any additional labour, perform the duties which will be performed by these 40 officers to be appointed by this government^


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But once more, my hon friend-


William Sora Middlebro: I quite understand that what the minister wants is the enforcement of the regulations of his department by his own officials. But he tells us that he is in perfect harmony with the provincial authorities, yet he has given the provincial government no chance to come to an agreement with him on this point, he has not consulted with them as to the appointment of these officials. And I do not see why something should not have been done along that line.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: One point, perhaps, I did not make very clear. The officers appointed toy the Ontario government, of course, receive instructions from the provincial authority, and these instructions must refer to the provincial laws and regulations. For the enforcement of our regulations, we must give those who are to enforce them specific instructions, but how can we give instructions to these provincial officers? We have no authority over them, and they would profoaibly tell us so. I expect that the men whom we appoint will see to it that our regulations are observed, while the provincial officers will especially look after the regulations in relation to issuing of licenses and matters under the authority of the provincial government.


William Sora Middlebro: But could not the minister appoint these provincial officials to carry out the regulations of the Dominion? _ If that suggestion were made to the provincial authorities, I have no doubt they would agree to it. There would be no confusion and one corps of officers would carry out the two sets of regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would rather have our system than one under which a large number of officers are appointed. We have suffered in some (provinces by this system of appointing guardians and overseers at such small salaries that they could not be expected to devote their time to the work. But we appoint fewer men, pay them salaries that will cover all their time, and look to them for results.


Samuel Barker: What will the 40 men with all their paraphernalia cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Five hundred dollars for each man.


Samuel Barker: Twenty thousand dollars per annum on a little question of dignity.


William Sora Middlebro: The point the minister raises is one of those that could have been amicably arranged between the two governments. If the number of officials is too large, and the salaries too small, an agreement could have been made to follow rather the plan that he thinks best.


John Dowsley Reid: How does the minister expect that these men are going to devote their whole time to the work for the money he speaks of-$500 per annum each? These men, if they are going to perform their duties, must Ibe away from home a good deal, travelling u,p and down the river. I suppose each will have to pay his own living expenses.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: His living expenses, when he is out, will be paid by the department.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the minister did not give us the facts correctly. He said these men would cost $500 each per annum which-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You asked what the salary was.	.


John Dowsley Reid: No, the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) asked what these men would cost, and the minister said $500 per iannum each. But now the minister says their expenses must be paid while they are out, and it is clear they must be out every day, for the men along the river have small nets which they will use in an effort to evade the law. The Ontario government men are running up and down the river in their little gasoline launches all the time. I have seen them come along where men were trying to spear fish at night. How much will the minister allows these officers of his for living expenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We pay the actual disbursements. That is the custom that has always been followed in the department.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose you will furnish each man wish a gasoline boat?


William Sora Middlebro: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where necessary, but not in all cases.


John Dowsley Reid: How is a man going to watch the fisheries unless he is out on the river? Such a man must have a gasoline launch, and it must be a fast one too, because the men who are fishing illegally generally have pretty fast little launches themselves. The running of the launch and the living expenses of the men will iadd at least $2 a day while they are travelling around-the expenses will probably be more than the salary. Instead of $500 each, these men will cost $1,000 each. That is, $40,000 is to be paid by this government quite unnecessarily. The only point that the minister makes, it seems to me, i3 that the Ontario officials have not authority to carry out his regulations. But, if the minister would have an order in council passed that the fishery officers appointed by the local government should have power to enforce the Dominion regulations, he could save this $40,000 per annum. Am I not right in understanding it that way?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, will the minister explain.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These men would not be under our control or subject to our instructions. It would foe a system absolutely detrimental to the fisheries. The hon. gentlemen (Mr. Reid, Grenville) seems to be surprised at an expenditure of $40,000 in connection with these fisheries. These fisheries in Ontario are very important.


John Dowsley Reid: No doubt.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: And I say that spending a sum of even $40,000 for the .preservation of those fisheries would not be an extravagant expenditure. I think it worth while to expend that amount of money to make sure that the fisheries shall be well preserved.


John Dowsley Reid: The issue I take with the minister is that it is not necessary.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a difference of opinion.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister states that these fishery overseers have no jurisdiction, and could not carry out his instructions. As I understand'it, the only instructions he could give them, would be the official regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not only the official regulations, but there are a great number of specific instructions, which we have to give, and how could we do that to officers over whom we have no control ?


Samuel Barker: Has the hon. gentleman never heard of a station master at a union

station, who obeys the orders of several railway companies, and he only draws one salary ?


William D. Staples: Is the minister going to make any appointments in the province of Manitoba ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have one inspector and several overseers in Manitoba. It is not intended to increase the number.


William D. Staples: Where are they located ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The inspector is at Selkirk; there is one overseer on Lake Manitoba and some on Lake Winnipegosis.


William D. Staples: Are any of those additional officers you are providing for, going to be located in Manitoba ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Is it the intention of the minister to collect any license fees from the fishermen in Ontario ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The matter has been considered by the department, but no decision has been reached whether we should issue licenses in Ontario or not. We hope some day there will be an agreement, and we do not want to complicate the Question.


James Davis Taylor: Will the minister state why the fishermen in British Columbia have to pay licenses to both governments, while in Ontario, they get off with a license to one government ? Notwithstanding what the minister said about the importance of the Ontario fisheries, the revenue collected by his department in that province was only $1,520 last year, while in the smaller province of British Columbia, the amount collected from the fishermen -was $41,000. It seems to me there is a discrimination which should not be continued, and that the money of the fishermen of British Columbia should not be taken to pay the salaries of those supernumerary overseers in Ontario, because that is what it will look like to them, when they find a difference of $40,000 between the revenues of the two provinces, and 40 new men are to be put on in Ontario to absorb this whole $40,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This sum of $1,520 which the hon. gentleman speaks, must represent penalties which we have collected. We do not collect anything in the way of licenses for the Teasons I have just explained. But we are expending a large amount of money in British Columbia, much more than we are spending in On-121
tario. This amount under discussion is for the purpose of providing for the fishery protection service in British Columbia. Outside of that, we maintain several ships for the protection of the fisheries; we have also a large number of gasoline launches, and small boats for the same purpose. So the money expended for fishery protection in British Columbia does not compare with the amount spent in Ontario.


James Davis Taylor: The point the minister has not touched is this: I have a large number of fishermen in my constituency, and when I go to them they demand an accounting from me as to why they are taxed $5 a year, and their brother fishermen in Ontario are not taxed at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken; the fishermen in both provinces are taxed. But in Ontario the money is collected by the provincial authorities, while in British Columbia it is collected by the Dominion authorities. Lately the provincial government saw fit also to put a tax upon the fishermen by imposing a new. license. Formerly, there was only one license, that imposed by the Dominion.


James Davis Taylor: The minister still has not met my point. In British Columbia there are two licenses exacted from the fishermen, one by the provincial government and one by the Dominion government. In Ontario there is a license by the provincial government, but none collected by the Dominion government. So we have two licenses to pay, while in Ontario, there is only one license to pay.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is in virtue of an especial agreement we made with the two provinces. After the judgment of the Privy Council we made an agreement with the British Columbia government by which we were to continue to protect the fisheries, to maintain the hatcheries, at the same time to administer the whole business, and also to collect the licenses, with the understanding however, that a certain portion of the amount which we collected was to be paid back to the provincial authorities. If I remember right, the amount voted last year by this parliament that we paid to the provincial authorities was $56,000 in virtue of that agreement. In Ontario an agreement was made that the province should collect the fees, _ pending a settlement of the fishery question. In the maritime provinces we continue to collect the licenses; in Quebec we collect the licenses in a portion of the province, and the provincial authorities collect them in another portion. But since we have made this agreement with the British Columbia government, the provincial authorities have seen fit to issue licenses themselves. They may



have had a right to do so, I do not say, it was a violation of the agreement which was made, but I think it would have been just as well to leave the situation untouched, and not to impose another license upon the fishermen. They could have left the matter in the hands of the Dominion authorities, until it had been definitely settled. But my hon. friend cannot find fault with the Dominion government for having continued to carry out the agreement which existed before. We claim that there is a part of British Columbia over which the provincial authorities have no jurisdiction. I mean the three-mile limit, and we claim that the right to issue licenses within the three-mile limit belongs exclusively to the Dominion authorities. That is a matter which is before the courts and of course, we will have the point settled by the decision which will be rendered.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister has not yet met my position, which is why his department collects licenses in British Columbia, while it collects no license in Ontario.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is in virtue of the agreement which was made with the provincial government after the judgment of the Privy Council was rendered. An agreement was made in Ontario that they should collect the licenses, and with British Columbia and the maritime provinces that we should collect the licenses. Now, to our great surprise, the provincial government of British Columbia goes to work and passes laws taking power to issue licenses itself. In British Columbia we are under very large expense for the preservation of the fisheries. I suppose my hon. friend vrould think it only fair and right that as we are spending so much money for the preservation of the fisheries in British Columbia we should have some revenue out of them. The provincial government maintains one hatchery, but the most important hatcheries are maintained by us. The fishery protection service is maintained by the Dominion authorities. We have several ships that we are maintaining there for the protection of the fisheries, and I think it is only fair and just that we should issue these licenses for the purpose of meeting at least a portion of the expenses of protecting the fisheries. The situation is not the same in Ontario. There we do not maintain a fleet as we do in British Columbia. If the provincial government has seen fit to impose another tax upon the fisherman, I have no fault to find with it, as it simply exercises the power that it has to issu.e licenses and collect a fee. That is a question that the provincial authorities will have to discuss with the fishermen.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


James Davis Taylor: Perhaps my English is defective, but the minister has altogether avoided the point I tried to make. I have no fault to find with the expenditure in British Columbia. I think it his duty to make that expenditure, and that he is trying very hard to make the expenditure effective, but I am speaking just for the moment from the standpoint of the licensed fishermen in my riding, who are taxed five dollars a year, while their contemporaries in Ontario are taxed nothing at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they are taxed in Ontario, too.


James Davis Taylor: Well, they are taxed by the provincial government, but I am speaking of the federal taxation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is the provincial government spending for the purpose of the fisheries the money which it collects from these fishermen? is it not true that almost all the money that is spent there is spent by the federal authorities?


James Davis Taylor: The minister "has discussed the fishery policy of the British Columbia government with the ministers of that government, and I think they are quite able to take care of themselves, so it is not necessary for me to appear here as their champion. I will leave their case to themselves. But I would like to put on the records the contributions from the several provinces, as the subject has been mentioned. I have it here in the Auditor General's Report, at page 0-204, and it is as follows:
Ontario	 $ 1.520 75
Quebec	
4,948	46Nova Scotia	
3,865	81New Brunswick	
13,029	88Prince Edward Island	
2,359	93Manitoba	
3,952	88Saskatchewan	
1,211	44Alberta	
703	00Hudson Bay District, &c	
309	83British Columbia	
41,864	80Yukon Territory	
457	00

One province contributes just about sixty per cent. It seems to me that an injustice is being done to the fishermen of that province, inasmuch as they are so heavily taxed as to pay sixty per cent of the whole fisheries revenue of Canada, while all the other eight provinces and a couple of unorganized districts contribute only the other forty per cent. I do not think the minister has met that situation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, take the case of Nova Scotia. The fisheries in which the Nova Scotia fishermen engage are mostly

those on the Grand Banks. The results of those fisheries are included in the reports which my hon. friend will see as to the yield of the fisheries in Nova Scotia. We could not very -well issue licenses to go and fish on the Grand Banks. Sir Charles Tup-per introduced a law soipe years ago under which fishermen going on the Grand Banks should receive a 'bounty. In British Columbia most of the fisheries are on the Fraser, and the other rivers in which they catch salmon. Fishing there is carried on in a different way from the method pursued ir. Nova Scotia, and that is the reason why there is a difference.


James Davis Taylor: I see I cannot budge the minister on that point, but I would like to call his attention to another matter of some importance in connection with the fisheries protection service in British Columbia. About three years ago, when the government had its dispute with the British Columbia government, and when the two sets of officers were first put on. the minister issued licenses to a number of fishermen along the Fraser river, giving them certain rights, as they supposed. While they were exercising those rights they were interfered with by other fishery protection officers acting the same as the minister's own officers, in the name of the King. These men should not be subjected to any penalties from any quarter for doing anything which they were licensed to do in His Majesty's name, but they were brought before the courts by the provincial inspectors, subjected to heavy losses, fined and their occupation interfered with to a considerable extent in the height of the fishing season. These men naturally looked to the government, whom they had paid so handsomely for their licenses, to protect them from any of the consequences of the exercise of the power granted by those licenses. They have received no satisfaction whatever from this government, not even a sympathetic response, but merely a heartless declaration that this injury was not inflicted upon them by the federal authority, but that it was inflicted upon them by the provincial authority, and that, therefore, they must look to the province for compensation. I submit that is not the proper attitude for a federal department to take. It is not for me to say whether the federal government or the provincial government were in the right. To my mind that question should not be raised as regards the individual fisherman. The only correct course to take would be for the federal government to protect the holders of its licenses, to compensate them for any loss they met with through relying upon those licenses, and then in turn the federal government should look to the provincial government for compensation if compensation is due. Does 121 i
the minister not think that as a matter of right this government should protect the holders of its licenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We undoubtedly have the right to issue licenses in British Columbia as in other provinces, and to make laws and regulations concerning the fisheries. The provincial government was authorized by the legislature to issue licenses and they requested the fishermen to take provincial licenses. The provincial government undertook at the same time to pass regulations in connection with the fisheries and the fishermen of British Columbia thought the provincial government had no right to do that. The provincial government did not dispute the right of the federal government to issue licenses.


James Davis Taylor: That is the very point; the authority given by the federal license was put in question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think so.


James Davis Taylor: The point was this:	The Dominion regulations
permitted the fishermen to carry on their calling during certain hours, and the provincial regulations provided certain different hours, and it wras because the fishermen were found fishing in the hours permitted by the Dominion but forbidden by the province that they w'ere brought to court. These men vrere fined for fishing at a time when the Dominion license told them they could fish.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They were prosecuted because they were violating the provincial regulations, in that some of them did not take licenses as the provincial law prescribed. The fishermen fought the question in the courts, and though the question before the court was whether the provincial government had the right to make these regulations or not, I thought we should be generous enough to extend some help to these poor fishermen contending against a wealthy province. It was not because the province questioned our right to issue licenses, about which there is no doubt, but because the men were violating a provincial regulation, that they were prosecuted. In the first instance we got a lawyer to follow the case which was won by the fishermen, and on appeal to the high court that judgment was sustained. I should think it was ,a case in which the provincial government should pay the costs of the fishermen, but as they refused I thought it was only justice that we snould reimburse them their costs.


James Davis Taylor: Was the payment of the costs made recently?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We paid the court charges.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister is in error; they never were paid their costs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Claims were made by some of the fishermen for loss of time, but of course, we could not pay such. As a friend of the fishermen, my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) should commend us for having reimbursed them their costs. Not only that, but we are now before the Supreme Court to argue the stated case in which is involved the question of the three-mile limit.


James Davis Taylor: I am delighted to hear that from the minister, but I am afraid he does not mean all he says. If he is really going to pay the fishermen all their costs, that is all I have been asking him to do, but that has not been done yet.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We paid all the court charges and the hon. gentleman should not press us to do more. If the fishermen have any claim for loss of time it should be paid by the provincial government which instituted the proceedings, and I am sure that my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) with hisMn-fluence and prestige can get the provincial government to do that.


James Davis Taylor: Unfortunately for the fishermen my commission is not to the provincial but to the federal government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I know my hon. friend has great influence with the provincial government.


James Davis Taylor: My point is, that the federal government should look to the provincial government for reimbursement as it is the federal government that ought to protect the holders of its licenses. The minister was a little in error about what is done with the fisheries revenue collected from British Columbia, when he said that part of it is by arrangement paid over to the provincial government. True, there was an arrangement several years ago when the decision of the Privy Council was first given, and under a modus vivendi the federal government was to continue to collect the license fees and remit one-half to the provincial government. What went wrong with that arrangement I do not know. But I do know that this government for some reason did not carry it out, and did not pay to the provincial government the part they agreed to pay; and it was in consequence of their failure to pay that amount during five or six years that the provincial government eventually took control of the situation by issuing regulations and imposing a license fee which from that time on they have collected. If this government had stuck to the modus vivendi, there would Mr. BRODEUR.
never have been any difficulty between them and the province of British Columbia, but one authority or the other would have imposed the license fee and divided it with the other government. The minister seems to be under the impression that that is going on now, but such is not the case, as I understand. I understand that this government is under no obligation to pay any part of the revenue which it collects to_the provincial government, and 1 would not like it to go on record that British Columbia was getting something which is not coming to us.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: After the judgment of the Privy Council there was an agreement that we should reimburse the government of British Columbia for some of the license fees collected if it transpired that we had not the right to issue such licenses. For many years no claim was made by the provincial authorities. But finally they made a claim, and we tried to determine what the amount of the claim was. There was a great divergence of opinion as to the basis of settlement, as to what should constitute the cost of administration. There was one contention on our part and another on the part of the provincial government. After a couple of years of discussion, we reached a settlement, and in the meantime the provincial government notified us that they wanted to put an end to the modus vivendi; and last year, after we had reached a settlement as to the amount that should be paid, the money was voted by parliament, and it has since been paid to the provincial authorities.


James Davis Taylor: _ I would like to ask if the minister's attention was called to a report in the daily press the other day, of wholesale poaching on the west bank of Vancouver island, and of complaints that the protection service given there is altogether inadequate. Is any part of this money which we are now asked to vote for the purpose of strengthening that service, and, if so, in what respects is it to be strengthened?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not only part, but all of this money is for the purpose of affording better protection to the fisheries on the western coast of the Island of Vancouver. The poaching my hon. friend refers to has been reported to the department in different ways, and it has been brought specially to my attention by my colleague, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Temple-man) who urged very strongly upon me the advisability of providr'ng more boats for the protection of our fisheries, and this vote is for that purpose.


James Davis Taylor: What nature of boats is this to provide?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend privately all the informa-

tion as to what we are going to do; but I think it would perhaps be better that the poachers should not know.


James Davis Taylor: That is a very smooth answer of the minister, and I am very much obliged to him for the offer; but I am afraid that he cannot keep his boats so private that the poachers will not learn what he is doing almost as soon as his officials do; because I can tell him that the men engaged in poaching in opr ^waters have the very fastest boats that money can supply them with, and he must be very alert, indeed, to keep up with them. Up to the present our so-called fishery protection boats have been a laughing stock to the poachers. They know in advance the proposed movements of these boats, and every time a vessel of our protective fleet is due to approach, they are able to move in the opposite direction. I do not think that an apprehension or conviction of a poacher occurs once in a year, although scores of boats are poaching there all the time. No doubt these facts are known to the minister, but I mention them so that thev may be placed on record, and perhaps act as a stimulus to the department to do a little more than it has been doing to bring to an end a state of affairs which is almost ruining our fisheries. I would also like to ask whether any part of this vote is for t|ie protection of the fisheries on Puget Sound in connection with the regulations under the International Fisheries Treaty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. I may say that the treaty is not yet in force. It has not yet been passed by the United States authorities. When I was in Washington some days ago, I took up the question with the United States government, and the Secretary of State intended to advise the President to request the passage of the necessary legislation as soon as possible. I do not know whether that has been done yet or not. This vote is entirely for the protection of the fisheries on the west coast of the Island of Vancouver. If the necessity arises for the protection of the fisheries on Puget Sound, that will be attended to.


James Davis Taylor: Of course, the protection of the fisheries on Puget Sound is a matter of joint arrangement between the two countries; and if the fishery regulations, which are now overdue, are proclaimed simultaneously in both countries, it will be necessary for us to have our arrangements for protection ready, otherwise the season will pass with our fisheries there at the mercy of fishermen from the American side.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Provision is made for that in our main estimates. This vote is only to make provision from now to the ifirst of April.


James Davis Taylor: Does the minister rely altogether on the Americans for the inspection of their traps, or will there be Canadian boats also for police duty?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course, we have to rely on the American authorities, because under the treaty the carrying out of the regulations on each side of the line must be carried out by the authorities of each country.


James Davis Taylor: The minister has a regulation in regard to the export of fish. Will that be carried out under his inspection, or are the Americans under any arrangement to assist in keeping our fish out of their markets?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The fishery regulations for preventing the exportation of fish in order to preserve the fisheries are certainly going to be attended to by this government.


James Davis Taylor: The minister has no intention of making any other regulations this year with regard to the exportation of fish than the regulations in force last year, and for some years previous?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not considered any change in the regulations in connection with that.


James Davis Taylor: I ask that because I observe in the arrangement recently under discussion here that there is to be a free interchange of fish between the two countries, and that there is also an engagement on the part of Canada that no regulations of any kind will conflict with this offer of the free interchange of fish. Of course we have induced the American government to take off the duty on fish in the expectation that they will get oiflr salmon to use in their canning factories, and they would regard it as a violation of our promise not to have any conflicting regulation, if the minister maintained his prohibition of export. This matter ought to be clearly understood, because it is important to our fishermen to know well in advance if they are to be permitted to export their catch during the present season. They are advised by the arrangement we have recently been discussing that they will be permitted to export while the minister's regulations provide that they will not be permitted. We have here the two ministers concerned in what seems to be a conflicting arrangement, and I think it would be well to have an authoritative statement, so that men on the Fraser who are so vitally interested should be advised as early as possible.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing in the arrangement which interferes with the right of the Canadian Fisheries Department to

make any regulation which may be deemed necessary for the protection of the Canadian fisheries, and in like manner the American government will be free to make any regulation that seems reasonably necessary for the protection of their fisheries. That is the general state of the situation. What would be the effect of any particular regulation that might arise would have to be considered. I can only state the general principle governing the arrangement.


James Davis Taylor: I am sorry to hear that, because that was one feature of the arrangement at Washington that pleased me, that we were to have free interchange of fish. It was a matter I had urged on the House during the three sessions I have been here. I have always thought that the exportation of fish should not be prohibited, as it is by order in council, and I read in the agreement from Washington that no regulation shall be made or maintained which unreasonably hampers the more liberal exchange of commodities now proposed. It seems to me quite clear that the prohibition of the export of fish does unreasonably hamper the interchange of this commodity, and that it would be so held. It seems to me the ministers would do well to take council together on that point.


William Stevens Fielding: I am content to state the general principle. As to how it shall apply in this particular case I must leave the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to study that out for himself.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend knows that this regulation has been put on the statute-book for the purpose of protecting our fisheries, and if I remember rightly such a provision was unanimously recommended by the British Columbia Commission which sat some years ago, and on which all interests were represented. It was unanimously recommended that this was a measure necessary to protect our fisheries. It is a regulation of local concern for the special purpose of protecting our fisheries, and we may exercise in respect to it the same right as we do with regard to licenses.


James Davis Taylor: If that interpretation is carried out it puts us in this position, that an arrangement has been made for the free exchange of fish, and that under that we are bound to admit all the American fish offered to us in competition with the catch of our own fishermen, while under the regulations made bv the Fishery Department those same fishermen are prohibited from passing their fish across to the canners on the American si'de, which I think is a condition most unfair to the fishermen.
Mr. FIELDING


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a matter entirely under our control, of course.
Immigration, amount required for seed grain and relief advances, $50,000.


Mr. OLIVER.: This amount is asked for to meet requirements which have arisen hy reason of the unfavourable nature of last season in the southwestern part of the western provinces. The season was very dry, and the crops short, and so far as our information goes there are about 4,000 homesteaders who are short of seed grain. Seed grain has been supplied in the past under similar circumstances, and it is understood to be the policy of the country that where people are in occupation of land in the west, of which they have not acquired the ownership, so that they can raise money on it as security to buy grain, the government will make advances, taking a lien upon the land as security for those advances. The government does not make a gift of the grain; it makes an advance of the grain to the farmer, and, being the only authority that is able to take a lien upon his land, takes that lien as security for the advance. We are afraid we will have to ask for more than $50,000, but $50,000 is sufficient for the purchases that will have to be made now, so that the grain will be ready for distribution at the beginning of the season. We may have to ask for a further sum in the supplementary estimates for the coming year.


Mr. ROCHE.: How does the minister estimate the quantity? Has he reports from his officers or does he judge by the applications from farmers?


Frank Oliver: It was known, of course, last summer, that the crop was short in that part of the country. The immigration branch has had officials, from time to time, go through the country and size up the situation. Also, of course, we have received a large number of applications. But we depend rather on the investigations of our officers. Of course, there are many people who are apt to leave off making an application until the time they need the grain, and so, between now and the spring, we may expect applications to come in of which we have not heard. But we have, as far as possible, covered the area affected by the drought and believe we have made a fair estimate of the requirements.


William Roche: For the three provinces?


Frank Oliver: No, we are not taking any action with regard to Manitoba so far as I am aware. In Manitoba, as my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) knows, in the part where the shortage occurred, the land has practically all been patented, and so there does not exist the position of which I have spoken in which the Dominion government

is the only authority that can take security .against the land. We are not touching cases in any of the provinces in which the land has passed out of the hands of the Dominion government. In such cases, we feel, the settler is in a position to make provision for himself, or the provincial government is the authority that should undertake the responsibility.


Mr. LAKE.: Would the minister mind specifying the district to be covered. He speaks of four thousand homesteaders to be supplied. I do not think that $50,000 will cover, or anything like cover, what is necessary to supply so many. How much seed does he propose to allow?


Frank Oliver: At the moment, I can only outline the district in a general way. It is particularly, south of the Canadian Pacific railway main line and west of the Sault line, that is, it is in southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. It is quite true, and I have already said, that the amount we are asking for now is not all that will be required, but we think it is sufficient to carry us through the present fiscal year. As I have said, we shall have to ask for a further sum in the supplementary estimates for the coming fiscal year.


Richard Stuart Lake: I notice that this is for relief advances also. Is there necessity for relieving farmers in distress?


Frank Oliver: There has been, I am sorry to say, some necessity, and some advances have been made-not on a large scale, but there have been cases in which we felt it was needed in the general interest and that something .might be done so that suffering might be avoided.


William Roche: Does the department look to the individual farmer for repayment or to the provincial government?


Frank Oliver: We collect direct from the individual. On the occasion of the seed grain advances of two or three years ago, the .advances were made to the provincial government, though we handled the actual distribution. The provincial government dealt with the farmers wlho held their patents, and collected from the farmers, and we collected .from the provincial government. But in all cases where the farmer has not received his patent, he is not in a position to give security to any other authority than the Dominion government. In such cases, the Dominion government deals direct with the homesteader.


William Roche: What has been the experience in the past as to repayment of these
advances? Have repayments been made promptly?


Frank Oliver: I may give a few figures on that subject. Advances were made in the years 1886, 1887, 1888, 1890, 1894, 1895, 1896, total amount advanced was $4,660.08, and in 1908 the total amount advanced was $401,621.76. The aggregate of these advances for all the years named was $745,303.05. Of that total $549,858.56 has been repaid. The remainder, $195,444.49, is still outstanding. Six per cent interest \vas charged on advances before 1900, and since then 5 per cent has been charged. I think, under all the circumstances, the repayments have been made fairly promptly. We do not press the settler for payment. We hold a lien against his land, and when he applies for his patent the patent is issued to him, but the lien is inscribed on the face of the patent. Whenever he wishes to dispose of his land, or raise money on it, this lien must be paid off before he can complete the transaction. We find that effective in securing repayment, and, inasmuch as we are receiving 5 per cent on the advances, we have never pressed settlers for repayment. The result, I think, is a fairly satisfactory statement.


William Roche: Does that cover patented as well as unpatented lands?


Frank Oliver: Only the unpatented. We have made no advances on patented lands except through and on the responsibility of the provincial government.


Richard Stuart Lake: I presume that, in the case of relief advances, a lien is made?


Frank Oliver: Yes; it is the same.


Richard Stuart Lake: This whole question, I suppose, is being watched by the officials of the Immigration Department?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: And I presume they receive information from the mounted police and from other settlers, the people watching to see that there is no suffering?


Frank Oliver: Of course, the severity of the winter and the conditions have been such that we cannot guarantee that there have been no cases of suffering. But, so far as it has been possible and reasonable, we have done what could be done to prevent any serious cases of suffering. We believe we have done very good work and have not unduly burdened the resources of the country.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.



Monday, February 20, 1911.