1923-05-31

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McMURRAY:: 1.	What amount of money was paid by the Dominion government for printing, to firms in the city of
Winnipeg, during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922?
2.	What amount was paid by ..the Dominion gov-[DOT]enunent to the Winnipeg Saturday Post, Limited, for printing, during the above mentioned years?
3.	Who are the directors and shareholders of Winnipeg Saturday Post, Limited?
4.	What amount of money has been paid to firms in the city of Winnipeg by the Canadian National Railways, for printing, during the years 1920, 1921 and 1022?
5.	What amount of money was paid by the Canadian National Railways for printing, to the Winnipeg Saturday Post, Limited, during the years 1920, 1921 and 1922?	.
6.	Are all contracts for the said printing submitted *to tender?
7.	If not, what amount is open for tender?
8.	Is all printing for use in Manitoba printed by
..firms in Manitoba?
9.	If not, why?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: Dropped.


SCHOONER CARRIE L. HIRTLE
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Was the schooner Carrie L. Hirtle seized by the [DOT]Customs authorities during the present year? If so,
what were the grounds of the seizure?
2.	Was the said schooner ordered to be sold by public tender?
3.	If so, were tenders received both at Lunenburg and Ottawa, when did the tenders close, where, and by whom were they opened?
4.	How many tenders were received, (a) at Lunenburg; (b) at Ottawa?
5.	What are the names of the various tenderers, the amounts of their respective tenders and what tender, if any, was accepted?
6.	What steps, if any, were taken to advertise the said tender?
7.	Were tenders advertised in the public press? If so, in what newspapers and for what length of time?
8.	If not, why were public tenders not called for in the press?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: I have spoken to the hon. member about this question, and I think we can arrange it without the question being . answered.
Question dropped.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS-FIXED CHARGES
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Have the fixed charges against the Canadian Government Railways been added to the public debt?
2.	What is the total capitalization of the Canadian Government Railways to the present date?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Capital expenditures on account of what are known as Canadian Government Railways-Intercolonial, Prince Edward Island, Transcontinental and Eastern Branch lines- are dealt with in the books of the government of Canada in the same way as other public works of the Dominion, consequently, fixed charges are not allocated nor interest charges debited against these railways.
2.	Capital investment at December 31, 1922, $414,905,912.47.


THE KING'S BIRTHDAY-ADJOURNMENT
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this House adjourns on Friday, the first of June next, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, the fifth of June next.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: May I ask the Prime Minister if the birthday of His Majesty has yet been fixed as a public holiday in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, for Monday.


William Findlay Maclean: How is it fixed, by proclamation or by statute? I could not ascertain by consulting the calendar whether it was a public holiday or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The date has to be fixed by proclamation. I may quote from the Interpretation Act-the King's birthday is in the list of holidays. The act reads:
The birthday or the day fixed by proclamation for the celebration of the birthday of the reigning sovereign.
The birthday of His Majesty coming on Sunday, the government by proclamation made Monday the day to be observed. Motion agreed to.



PUBLIC SERVICE RETIREMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House to-morrow go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to extend for one year the operation of the Public Service Retirement Act, chapter 67 of the statutes of 1920, as amended by chapter 49 of the statutes of 1921, and by chap ter 39 of the statutes of 1922.
Inquiry for Returns
[Stage Direction]
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWOKTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: It is stated in a press despatch from Winnipeg this morning that the Canada Colonization Company is being re-organized with representation from both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. The despatch goes on to say that there is an arrangement by which the Canadian National will pay $100,000 for the period of five years. I should like to ask if the government has any information to give us in regard to this arrangement.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING- (Prime Minister): This is a matter, I think, the Minister of the Interior would like to answer, and I would be obliged if my hon. friend would permit it to stand until another day when the hon. minister is in the House.
INQUIRY FOR RETURNS On the Orders of the Day:


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: A large number of
orders for returns have been made by the House that have not yet been complied with by the government. I desire to call attention to some selected from the others because moved by hon. gentlemen of the party behind me. On the 12th February, an order passed for the production of correspondence, and a statement of regulations, conditions, and so forth, entered into between Canada and Great Britain in connection with imports of Canadian cattle into the United Kingdom. That was moved for by myself, and why it is not down I cannot imagine. On the 19th of the same month, on the motion of the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. McKillop) an order was made for a return showing the number of appointments to the Civil Service during 1922 and the number of returned men so appointed. This return is not yet down, at least it was not on the 26th of this month. On the 21st February, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Charters) obtained the order of the House for correspondence relating to the overcharging of immigrants at Quebec. The same remark will apply to that. On the 5th March, the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) obtained an order regarding 
the dismissal of officers and employees of the government from the 1st January, 1922, to date, and the names of the persons now occupying their positions. To this order the like remarks apply. On the 11th April, the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) secured the approval of parliament to an order for the production of orders in council ratifying purchases or sales of property by the Canadian National Railways and the Grand Trunk Railway. This order has not been complied with. On the 16th of the same month, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) had an order passed calling for correspondence regarding the transportation of liquor over the Canadian National Railways. So far as I can ascertain there is default with regard to this order also -there was, at any rate, on the 26th of May. The same hon. member on the same day obtained an order showing the earnings and expenditures of various individual vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, which order is not yet down. On the 25th, of the same month the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church) obtained an order for the production of documents regarding the sale of the Toronto Suburban railway to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario or the city of Toronto. That is not complied with. On the 7th, of this month, now more than three weeks ago, on my motion, a very important order passed for a return showing the sales and purchases of real estate properties by the Canadian National Railways and the Grand Trunk Railway since October 4, 1922. No production has been made of these returns. There were three more orders passed on the 7th of this month, the same date-two by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), and one at the instance of the hon. member for York-Sunbury; and none of them are down yet. Quite a number of orders have since been passed, but I pass them by. Some of the orders of which I have spoken are three and a half months, and more, old, but no attention seems to have been paid to them by the government.


Hon. A. B. COPP (Secretary of State):: I may explain to my right hon. friend that these returns come from my office and I am continuously urging the officials to get them down as promptly as possible. There have been a very large number of returns called for this session, some of them very voluminous. I thank my right hon. friend for bringing this matter to the attention of

Dairy Act Amendment
the government, and I will notify the officials concerned to hurry the preparation of the returns as quickly as possible.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the number of returns ordered this session is unusually large, I think it is unusually small.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I did not say the number was unusually large. I said there was a very large number.


Arthur Meighen: The staff in other years have brought down many more.



DAIRY ACT, 1914, AMENDMENT BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Second reading of Bill No. 186, to amend the Dairy Industry Act, 1914 - Mr. Motherwell.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Owing to certain changes having been made by parliamentary counsel in the drafting of this bill which, while not changing the meaning of the measure, make it different and more difficult to explain, I move that the bill be discharged from the order paper with a view to possible redrafting and resubmission to the House.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain how the bill is more difficult to explain if the meaning is not changed?


William Richard Motherwell: As drafted by parliamentary counsel portions of the former bill were inserted that were not in the bill submitted to me. That makes the bill appear quite different from what was contemplated, and the intention of the draftsman and counsel would be more difficult to explain.


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: Perhaps the minister would not object to informing the House in what respect the bill has been changed? I understand it has been arranged for a motion to be moved this afternoon which will prevent this bill from going into effect this session. It depends on the result of the debate which takes place and the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll); and the minister ought to explain to the House whether he is a consenting party to having this part of the bill obliterated, and be dependent upon the result of the motion which is to be debated this afternoon.


William Richard Motherwell: In compliance with the hon. member's request, I have in my hand the bill as redrafted, and an initialled
copy got out by parliamentary counsel. The original draft reads as follows:
2. Section five of the said act is amended by adding at the end of paragraph Ob) thereof the words "or less than eighty per centum of milk fat"; and by striking out, in paragraph (c) thereof, in the second line the words "what is generally known as", and in the third line thereof the words "nor add any milk or cream or butter".
The draft incorporated by parliamentary counsel and not to be found in the original act as submitted to my department and by myself to this House reads:
5. No person shall-
(a)	manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream;
(b)	mix with or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, rechurning, reworking, or otherwise, any cream, milk, skim milk, butter milk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen per centum of water, or less than eighty per centum of milk fat;
(c)	melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce "process" or "renovated" butter.
The parliamentary counsel takes the position that that makes the section more intelligible.	I take	the	ground Mr.	Speaker,
that it makes the section less intelligible. However, parliamentary counsel is right in this respect; inasmuch as the Oleomargarine Act of 1919 and subsequent amendments suspend all these provisions of the Dairy Industry Act or amendments thereto, and I think counsel is strictly right. This particular section in the Oleomargarine Act says:
Section 3, Notwithstanding anything contained in The Dairy	Industry	Act,	1914, chapter	7 of the
statutes of 1914, or in any other statute or law, the manufacture in and importation of oleomargarine into Canada-
Which, Mr. Speaker, would cover this law, if we had it as it appears now on the order paper. The section continues:
-shall be permitted until the thirty first day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty	one; and
the offering	for sale,	the	sale, and the	having in
possession for sale of eleomargarine shall be permitted until the first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
So that if the bill had gone through as it appears now on the order paper it would have been suspended by the provision of the Oleomargarine Act which I have just read. That was the position taken by parliamentary counsel. Notwithstanding that, however, on the face of it the bill as now drafted appears as if we were prohibiting the manufacture or sale of oleomargarine.


Arthur Meighen: I think that under section 436 a motion to discharge must be
Oleomargarine

unanimous. I could not agree to-day, as far as I am concerned. I am prepared to read over what the Minister of Agriculture has said and try my best to understand it, and if it constitutes a reason for the course he wishes to take, I will agree at a future date.


William Richard Motherwell: I would not expect my hon. friend to understand it, because it is pretty difficult to understand.


Donald Sutherland: With regard to the
explanation made by the minister I would like to point out that section 2 of the bill is really the suspended section of the Act of 1914, and consequently, if this bill is withdrawn and the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton South should carry-
Mr. SPEAKER I must remind the House that the motion is not debatable because it can only be made by unanimous consent. As there is no unanimous consent, no debate can take place. Let me call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to page 541 of Bourinot, where he says:
XX. Bills once introduced, not altered except by authority of the House.
While a bill is in progress in the Commons no alteration whatever can be made in its provisions, except by the authority of the House. If it should be found that the bill has been materially altered since its introduction it would have to be withdrawn. A clerical alteration, however, is admissible. If it be necessary to make any changes in the bill before the second reading, the member in charge of it will ask *!eave to withdraw the bill and present another instead thereof.
The leave must therefore be unanimous, and as it is not, the motion cannot be made to-day.



' OLEOMARGARINE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to move that the
House do now proceed to notice of motion No. 9, in the name of the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), respecting oleomargarine.


Donald Sutherland: I rise to a point of order and would calle the attention of the House to Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules, section 423, which says:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, such as the subject matter of a bill on the order paper.
The motion now before the House is one dealing with the subject matter of a bill which stands in the name of the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Consequently, I contend, it would be out of order to proceed with this resolution.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I should like to hear the opinion of some of the older members on the point of order, but I feel inclined to declare the point well taken. If the bill introduced by the hon. Minister of Agriculture had been withdrawn, then under rule No. 36, the motion of the member for Cape Breton South could have been debated, but as the bill is still before the House and deals directly with the subject matter of the resolution in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I think that the point is well taken. Beauchesne's Section 423 under Rule No. 42 says:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, such as the subject matter of a bill on the order paper.
The bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture-


Donald Sutherland: On what date was
the bill introduced?


Hewitt Bostock: The bill was introduced
on the 28th May and is still before the House No action has yet been taken and I conceive the objection arising in the mind of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). This motion was put on the order paper before this bill, but no action was taken on it. It is still there. It could have been withdrawn any day by the hon. member. On the other hand the bill which deals with the same question, in one of its sections, was duly introduced in the House on the 28th May. Action was therefore taken on this bill, first by its being introduced, then by its first reading, and finally the second reading was fixed for to-day. Therefore it stands for consideration before the House. I find in that bill clause 2, which reads:
Section 5 of the said act is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
"5. No person shall-(a) manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream."
That is exactly the subject matter of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll), and as that bill is not yet withdrawn and is, according to the rules, before the House, the motion cannot be debated to-day because it would be, according to the authority above quoted, "anticipating a matter already appointed for consideration by this House."
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to say a word before you give

Oleomargarine
your ruling? I imagine the rules of the House are intended to be practical. If the rule was violated by any person, it was not by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll), but by the minister. If the ruling be correct that the introduction of a bill, after notice of a resolution, will prevent the discussion of that resolution, then any resolution introduced in this House can be stopped by some person introducing a bill. It seems to me that the priority in this case should apply to the resolution. I can understand the rule to mean that the bill could not be proceeded with so long as the resolution stood in the way, but I cannot understand the practicability of a rule which would permit any member of parliament to stop a resolution being discussed by merely introducing a bill.


Mr. CARROLL:: And then withdrawing
it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Yes, he could withdraw it.


Arthur Meighen: I am pleased indeed to express my opinion, not meaning at all that it is thorough or mature. So far as I understand the resolution, I quite support the inclination of the Chair. The rule has been read, and it provides specifically that no motion may be made that affects the subject matter of a bill appointed for consideration. This bill has been dealt with by the House. Not only has leave to introduce been moved and passed; but a first reading has been moved and passed, and the bill has been appointed by the House for second reading. Consequently no motion, certainly no motion not heretofore dealt with, can be taken up that deals with the subject matter of the bill. The hon. member says that if anyone has broken the rule, it is the minister. Nobody has broken the rule.


George Perry Graham: I mean the spirit of it.


Arthur Meighen: Nor the spirit of it. The minister has introduced the bill; he has had it dealt with; he has had it dealt with at a first reading. There is nothing in the rule which prevents that being done. Supposing what my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) says is right, any hon. member by the mere fact of putting a motion on the order paper can stop legislation; he can stop effective legislation. A motion gets us nowhere save to the conclusion of agreement or disagreement ; it does not bring about legislation. An hon. member by placing a motion on the order paper and by holding it there until the end of the session, could prevent the House
from moving by way of legislation. The rule takes care that that cannot be done, and consequently I think the point is well taken and should be upheld.


Mr. FIELDING:: I do not rise to discuss the ruling at all. I concur in it. I submit this, that the question of oleomargarine must be discussed. Therefore, why cannot we waive the rule so as to let us discuss it and thus settle the matter?


Arthur Meighen: We can discuss it on the bill.


William Stevens Fielding: The bill is wrong. The bill is withdrawn.


Arthur Meighen: Correct the bill.


William Richard Motherwell: Owing to the fact that there is certain correspondence between parliamentary counsel and my deputy in connection with this bill, I think the House should be made aware of the contents of this correspondence. It is very short.


Mr. McMASTER:: I rise to a point of order, as points of order seem to be raised all the time. It would be nice if we, down in this part of the House, could hear what is going on-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Do not sit there.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Come back to your old place on this side, and then you will be able to hear.


Andrew Ross McMaster: -and perhaps this
might be of some use in the public interest.


William Richard Motherwell: I was asking for permission to read certain correspondence between the parliamentary counsel and my deputy with respect to this bill. After the bill had been sent to the parliamentary counsel in the form in which I have it in my hand-


Hewitt Bostock: I thought the minister was speaking on the point of order, but I see that he is refering to another phase of the subject. He should have read that correspondence when he moved for the withdrawal of the bill.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the
House could get in line with the discussion, by the minister asking us to endorse what he has already moved, namely, the withdrawal of the bill. Then the discussion could go on.


William F. Carroll: I do not pretend for a moment to know the rules of the House as re-
Oleomargarine

gards procedure; but it strikes me as a sort of commonsense man, that the objection of the hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) is not just what I would expect from a man of my own calibre, that is, a man of common sense. May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a measure that must be preceded by a resolution? I do not pretend to be in the same class as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), who will one day introduce a bill and then ask leave of the House to withdraw it-I am not saying that in any carping or criticizing way. But supposing that method were carried on in this House, does the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) think it would get us anywhere?


Arthur Meighen: We did not let him withdraw it.


William F. Carroll: No, that is the trouble. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has been criticizing more or less the action of the government in refusing to bring in the question of oleomargarine, and I would say, correctly so, if I were allowed to say that. He has the opportunity to-day, by consenting, by making the consent of the House unanimous, to allowing the Minister of Agriculture to withdraw his bill, of allowing us to go on if Mr. Speaker's ruling is right, and discussing the question of oleomargarine.
Coming back again to the question of the resolution, I think on two or three occasions questions of this kind have come before the House. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), I think it was, on April 14, 1920, made a motion in this House regarding the Water Carriage of Goods Act, and he was told by the Speaker at that time that that motion would have to be preceded by a resolution. At that time there was on the order paper a bill dealing with that very motion much more advanced than is the bill of the Minister of Agriculture.
Then again, a gentleman who is now in the Senate, Mr. McCoig, on May 6, 1920, was balked in proceeding with a bill regarding the standardization of agricultural machinery. There was on the order paper at that time legislation in the form of a tariff resolution.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, what would be the result if your ruling in this particular instance were right?-I hasten to assure you, Sir, that I am not criticizing your ruling; but you desire the opinions of hon. members and I am simply giving my own humble view of the situation. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has asked, I presume, with perfect sincerity, that he be allowed to with-
draw his bill, and the House has refused to give its unanimous consent to that withdrawal. Now, Sir, I contend, notwithstanding the quotation you have submitted1, that any hon. member may withdraw any bill standing in his name, and is not bound to proceed with it. The Minister of Agriculture says: I desire to withdraw my bill; I am going to bring in another one at some future time and therefore I shall not proceed with the one at present on the order paper. Who is the arbiter on that question? Is it the House, or is it the hon. gentleman who, having introduced the bill, finds that circumstances are such as to suggest the advisability of his withdrawing it? If he does not wish to proceed with his bill, and the House is not willing to give its unanimous consent to its withdrawal, is it contended that any hon. member is precluded from taking up a resolution which was on the order paper in his name long before the date at which the minister's bill appeared thereon? I ask, is it fair or just that an hon. member should be deprived of the opportunity of discussing a resolution, under such circumstances as I have just stated, simply because the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to introduce at a later date, a bill touching largely the same subject?


Donald Sutherland: I would ask the hon. member this: How many times has this resolution been called since it was first placed on the order paper?


William F. Carroll: It has never been called
except on a single occasion, and at that, it was called at five minutes to six on a Wednesday afternoon, when I naturally refused to proceed with the consideration of it. As a matter of fact, I think that certain hon. members in this House so calculated their time as to have my resolution called at that particular moment. As I say, I naturally refused to go on with a subject of the importance which I attach to this question; certainly I could not have done justice to it in five minutes, and no one could have expected to attempt to take it up on that occasion. I daresay that had it been discussed at all, the good judgment of the House would have favoured the manufacture of oleomargarine. The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said that the minister's bill was appointed for second reading. Well, the minister's judgment was that the second reading should not be gone on with. He said, in so many words: I do not wish to go ahead with my bill; I propose to withdraw it. Under all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and with all due deference to what I consider the tenour of your ruling, I submit that it is absolutely unjust that an hon. member should be pro-

Oleomargarine
hibited-even though prohibition may be advisable in some respects-from exercising what I believe to be his right in this particular instance.


Hon. S. C. MEWBURN (East Hamilton):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have had too much quibbling over technicalities in this House, involving too great a waste of time. While I bow to your ruling, I feel with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the House should give its unanimous consent and concede to the hon. member the right to proceed.


Hon. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou, Acting Minister of National Defence):: It seems to
me, Mr. Speaker, that under the rules the hon. member for Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) would be quite in order in going on with his motion. Your Honour has cited the following rule:
A motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, such as the subject matter of a bill on the order paper.
What is the situation here? My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) placed on the order paper at a certain stage in the session a certain resolution which, at that time, conflicted with no other motion before the House. The resolution when the hon. member placed it on the order paper did not anticipate any bill that had already been appointed for consideration by the House, and the hon. member therefore had the undoubted right at any time when opportunity offered to move the resolution. There is no authority that I can find either in Bourinot or in Beauchesne by which it can be contended that the later introduction of a bill can deprive an hon. member of the right to proceed with a motion which has precedence of it.


William Findlay Maclean: Priority obtains.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The whole
thing turns upon the point as to when the minister's bill was appointed for the consideration of the House. It was not appointed for such consideration prior to the time that my hon. friend's motion appeared on the order paper; therefore, that hon. gentleman had the prior right to proceed with his resolution. I submit, therefore, that hon. gentlemen, viewing the matter in the light of these circumstances, should give their unanimous consent that the hon. gentleman be allowed to discuss his motion.


Arthur Meighen: I wish to add a word,
Mr. Speaker, on another point, I would observe, in answer to the hon. member (Mr. Macdonald), that the motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) is now in reality only a notice of motion, no motion has been made at all; and the rule applies to a motion. The bill has been appointed for consideration by the words of the Speaker: "When shall the bill be read a second time?"-and the answer thereto: "At the next sitting of the House." That is the appointment for the consideration of the bill by this House, and consequently a motion cannot be made to deal with the subject matter of it. I only wish to say, so far as the question of technicalities goes, that there is no need for any interference with the rules of the House. All that- has to be done is for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), representing the government on the subject, to move the second reading of the bill, get into committee ,and move all the amendments he desires. But his present action is merely an effort on his part to shift responsibility from the shoulders of the government. If the minister would move the second reading of the bill, the motion could be discussed, the House could go into committee on the bill, the minister could move whatever amendments he liked, and two discussions might thus be avoided.


William Richard Motherwell: I have the right
also to refuse to do what my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) suggests. Here in my hand is a copy of the bill I introduced, and which I can send across to my right hon. friend if he desires; in it there will not be found a single reference to oleomargarine. I gave an assurance to the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) and also the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) that the bill would not contain anything on that subject, and yet I find another bill on the order paper apparently prohibiting the manufacture of oleomargarine. Why should I not exercise my right to discharge this order and re-draft the bill?


Hewitt Bostock: That must be by unanimous consent. The Speaker is the servant of the House and at the same time he must be guided by the rules established by custom, by precedent and by law. The House can at any time take upon itself to suspend the rules, but the Speaker being the servant of the House, and being bound by the rules, can only cite them in support of his rulings.


Mr. GOOD:: May I ask the minister a
question? I understood him to say that the bill he introduced had no reference to oleomargarine. I have here Bill No. 186 which does refer to oleomargarine. Are there two bills under consideration?
Oleomargarine


William Richard Motherwell: The custom is to
issue a proof sheet of every bill for submission to the various members interested, and accompanying that draft in this case was a suggestion of parliamentary counsel that it would be re-drafted along certain lines. That re-draft is now on the order paper. I was not aware of that until twelve o'clock last night.


William Charles Good: Who inserted this clause that the minister did not want in?


William Richard Motherwell: The parliamentary counsel, Mr. Foran, changed the draft of the bill.


Donald Sutherland: Having raised the
point of order, I should like to call the attention of the House to the fact that when the Committee on Agriculture met yesterday the subject of this bill and the resolution were before the committee, and I took exception-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The hon. member cannot refer to a matter engaging the attention of a special committee until the report of that committee is before the House.


Donald Sutherland: I took exception to the irregularity and consequently-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Donald Sutherland: I simply wish to
refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) who claimed that in the event of his motion carrying it would have to be followed by a bill. There is a bill before the House at the present time dealing with the same matter, which the Minister of Agriculture asks to have withdrawn, and which is an exact copy of the suspended clause of the Act of 1914. Consequently, we would gain considerable time by proceeding with the bill rather than with the resolution. I would point out that the resolution lacks only two days of having been on the order paper for three months. Can a private member hold up legislation by a motion remaining on the order paper in this way?


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, with your
permission, I may say I had one opportunity, and one opportunity only, of moving this resolution, as I explained to the House a few minutes ago.


Donald Sutherland: Therefore-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I think this discussion has lasted long enough. A few moments ago, when the point of order was taken, I intimated that I inclined to the view

that the hon. member could not proceed with his motion whilst the same subject matter was regularly on the order paper before the House. I have listened to the remarks made on both sides, and I still hold the same opinion, that if the motion was proceeded with it would "anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the House," such as the subject matter of the bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. The case is exactly in point and I am deciding according to parliamentary practice.
Let me remind hon. members that, technical as the objection may at first sight seem to be, and arbitrary as the rules may sometimes appear-and I do not wish to lecture hon. members-these rules are the result of centuries of deliberation. When one studies them every day, as I do, one finds that there is a profound philosophy in, and a raison d'etre for, each and every rule governing our parliamentary procedure. They were enacted for the protection of the people and of parliament as well.
Coming back to the point of order, I affirm my ruling that this debate cannot be proceeded with this afternoon because there is on the order paper a matter already appointed for consideration by the House, similar to that contained in the motion made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.



MARINE AND FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and river service-investigation into wracks, $12,300.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I could not be present the other evening to hear the last part of the speech of my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). He has imposed upon himself a great deal of work in connection with
4 p.m. the investigation into the wreck of the Alaskan on the Pacific coast, and he is to be commended for the great interest he has taken in this matter. I shall carefully examine and consider the evidence which was brought before the Commissioner of Wrecks and the assessors, and their report thereon together with the remarks of my hon. friend.
As far as the Commissioner of Wrecks is concerned, I desire to say that his main function is to find out whether the master or other officers are at fault in the loss of their

Supply-M arine and Fisheries
ship. During the course of the investigation there was nothing to show that the unfortunate men who lost their lives in that wreck were in any way responsible for the disaster. However, I promise my hon. friend that if the evidence adduced points to the fact that the owners neglected to comply with any of the laws and regulations governing shipping-for instance, if they failed to report the condition of the machinery of the Alaskau -instructions will be given for the necessary steps to be taken to bring them before the proper tribunal.
With regard to changing the mode of holding these investigations, and the suggestion of my hon. friend that an Admiralty judge could discharge the duties much more satisfactorily, I may say that masters, mates and pilots would be the first to protest against such a change. They claim that these investigations can be much better conducted by men of the craft, men who have had practical experience in seamanship and who know the difficulties which have to be overcome on the high seas. There is much to be said in support of their contention; and the fact that the investigator is a certificated master and has to be assisted by two assessors, also certificated masters, would seem to me to ensure a thorough investigation in all cases. Of course, mistakes may be made. However, the argument of my hon. friend will be fully considered. I think he has made a strong case for reducing the tonnage of vessels subject to inspection so far as the hull is concerned. This matter has been brought to my attention by my hon. friend personally many times, and I am free to admit that I have been rather impressed by the arguments he has put forward to obtain that change. The law we have now has been in force since 18S2. Inspection is required for vessels over 150 tons, and of course, all passenger vessels whatever their tonnage must be inspected. There are objections, coming especially from the owners of the smaller boats, which are very numerous, as my hon. friend knows. There may be objections so far as the expense which the change would involve is concerned, but that is of secondary importance. It is my intention that there shall be a full revision of the Shipping Act next year, and this question will be one of those which will engage the attention of the government, and I can assure my hon. friend that his arguments will be given all the consideration they deserve.
As regards the question of clearing up the trail on the west coast and replacing the bridges, I shall be pleased to confer with
my colleague the Minister of Public Works and try and get what my hon. friend has asked for in the matter.
So far as the life-saving improvements are concerned, I have already announced what was the intention of ,the department, and I am pleased to see that my hon. friend has declared himself satisfied with the programme we have in view.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Navigation schools, $8,000.
Mr. MARTELL:: I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. minister the matter I spoke of last year, the remuneration which is paid to men like Captain Marshall O'Hara who are conducting schools for master mariners. I think I brought to the attention of the minister last year what an excellent officer Captain O'Hara was, and I prayed the minister to be good enough to consider the advisability of giving him an increase in salary. I should like to ask if that has been done.


Ernest Lapointe: Captain O'Hara is now receiving 81,860 a year, or S155 monthly. Of course, I should be pleased if there was an opportunity to increase his salary. I may say that there are many officers and employees of the department for whom increases are asked, but I find difficulty in increasing the amount of my estimates both in council and in parliament.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not criticizing the hon, minister in regard to that. I know there are many demands for increases of salary, but my impression is this, coming from a race of sea-faring men; "They that go down to the sea in ships, they that do business in great waters", as the Bible says, are not, in my opinion, getting adequate remuneration for services. It is all very well to ask for increases in a department where a great number of those concerned are landlubbers looking after the rights of master mariners and sailors. All I have to ask is that the sailor of this country get adequate return for the work that he gives. I represent a constituency which in days gone by built the largest sailing vessels in the world and produced some of the greatest mariners in the world, and I would like to see more men of that type in the minister's department.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may be sure that his representations will be fully considered.


Mr. McBRIDE:: What salary does Captain Eddy receive, at Vancouver?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: Captain Eddy is Supervising Examiner of Masters and Mates and gives lectures as well in the navigation school. His salary, which comes under another item, is $2,580.


Arthur Meighen: Where are these schools?


Ernest Lapointe: At Halifax, Yarmouth, North Sydney, St. John, Quebec, Kingston, Collingwood, and Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: Is $1,000 given to each?


Ernest Lapointe: No. Some of them run the year round, and others only for some months each year. The salaries paid vary according to the length of time these men are engaged. In Halifax and Yarmouth the instructors give their whole time; in North Sydney four months; in St. John their whole time; in Quebec four months; and I think it is whole time in Collingwood and Vancouver.


Arthur Meighen: I suppose a study of the principles of navigation and of the chart and compass is carried on at these schools?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to provide instruction for seafaring men who want to qualify as masters and mates. Afterwards they have to pass their examinations for certificates as officers.


Arthur Meighen: Is this all that they cost Canada-just $8,000?


Ernest Lapointe: For these schools, yes.


Arthur Meighen: I mean the training for masters and mates. This is all the Dominion pays for education of this kind?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the temporary relief of distressed seamen, pay legal expenses and the cost of shipping books and forms, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: The minister has some resolution on the order paper about this, too. What is the relationship between the resolution and this vote?


Ernest Lapointe: This appropriation is to provide for the relief of destitute or otherwise distressed seamen in foreign countries and bring them home. The resolution on the order paper is applicable only to sailors working on Canadian ships.


Arthur Meighen: Then I would think the minister could reduce this estimate if previously it has taken care of all of them.


Ernest Lapointe: It has not always, because I see that in 1921-2 the expenditure was $15,991. We cannot fix a definite amount because it depends on the wrecks that occur and the number of people who may have to be helped out of this appropriation.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Was it formerly the case that the master of a wrecked vessel when taken to a foreign port could not be sent home at the expense of the Canadian people? The sailors were looked after, but I understand the master mariner could not be sent home at the expense of the Dominion. As I understand it, under the present resolution masters may be treated in the same way as sailors.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know that any distinction was ever made in this respect between masters and seamen.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I might say, with all deference to the minister, the old rule was that the master of a ship was not in any way helped home. In the old days the sailors were taken charge of and sent home, but a master could not be returned to this country at the expense of Canada. I know that was the case, from facts within my own personal knowledge.


Ernest Lapointe: It may have been the practice, but there was nothing in the law to warrant differentiation in treatment as between masters and men.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is that practice followed now? It is a bad practice.


Ernest Lapointe: It has not been followed of late.


Thomas George McBride: The master of a ship can claim from the owner of the ship the right to be brought home and to be helped in case of sickness, or any other difficulty he gets into. The sailors cannot do that, as I understand it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $5,000.
Mr. KYTE:: Does this apply to the wrecks of sunken vessels?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it is especially for that purpose.


George William Kyte: Does the department undertake to remove the wrecks of sunken vessels in navigable waters in all cases, or is the unfortunate owner required to pay the cost of the removal?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: We always try to recover from the owners the amount which the department has spent.


George William Kyte: I may point out that very often great hardship is worked in such cases. Very frequently men are engaged in the coasting trade when that employment is not very remunerative and when the vessels are without any insurance. In such cases if the master loses his vessel it seems to be an additional hardship to call upon him to pay for the cost of removing the wreck. I have one or two cases in mind, and I am glad to have the assurance of the minister that the department is prepared to pay the cost where the owner cannot afford to do so himself.


Ernest Lapointe: As a matter of fact, the usual custom is for the department to do the work and recover from the owners. The department has to see that the obstructions are removed as quickly as possible. In such cases we must pay the men we employ and we try to recover from the owners afterwards.


George William Kyte: I have in mind now a case where a vessel was lost in the mouth of a river in Prince Edward Island. That wreck is at the bottom, but the department has informed the unfortunate owner that he has to maintain a buoy there as a protection to [DOT]other vessels that might encounter the obstruction. That is a continuing cost upon [DOT]the owner that he can very ill afford to pay. I should like very much if the minister would take that case into consideration, and I will bring it to his attention later on. '


Ernest Lapointe: I certainly will.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Under this heading I should like to ask the minister if adequate measures are taken for the protection of navigation. This vote provides for the removal of obstructions. But we had lately the case of the wreck of the Marvale. What provisions are made in the shape of wireless equipment and other means to prevent that kind of thing? As I understand it is easily possible now for any vessel to ascertain exactly where it is in a fog. Devices were perfected during the war which enabled ships in the North Sea in a dense fog to tell their exact position. So that the wreck of the Marvale off the coast off Cape Race might easily have been prevented if the proper precautions had been taken. Is there an efficient wireless service there so that a vessel can ascertain its location? If not, I should like to know from the
minister if some improvements could not be made in this direction for the protection of shipping in those foggy areas around Cape Race and the shores of Newfoundland.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to answer my hon. friend now, though the matter will come up later under another item. In the specific case to which my hon. friend has referred if its position had been asked for by the Marvale it could have been given. All the necessary facilities exist for that purpose. There is a direction-finding station at Cape Race quite in the vicinity where this accident occurred. The station was in full operation and we are fully convinced that its direction could have been given to the Marvale.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Then, do I understand the minister to indicate that the wreck of the Marvale was a case of neglect on the part of the master?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not say that. What I say is that the facilities for giving the directions to the vessel were there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I see, and he did not take sufficient precautions to ascertain through those facilities where he was.


Ernest Lapointe: He never asked the
officers in charge of the station.


Mr. NEILL:: I should like to call the attention of the minister to an obstruction in Seymour Narrows on the east coast of Vancouver Island. There is a rock there which is something like ten feet below the surface at low water, and there is a strong tide which runs at the rate of nine or ten miles an hour through the strait. The result is that the passage is made very dangerous for vessels passing through. While there is a good width of water on the east side the danger is very much increased because there is a channel on one side, also with a very swift current, which tends to drive the boats over to this rock. It was only a year or two ago-possibly two or three years now-when one of the big American boats-because this is in the direct line of travel from Seattle to Skagway-was coming down and the current carried the stem in and she struck this rock knocking a hole in her bottom. Fortunately, they were able to beach the steamer about a mile and a half or a couple of miles further down, and by that time she had practically sunk, otherwise there would have been a total loss of life. It is calculated it would only cost four or five thousand dollars to blow this rock up. It consists of two pin-



Supply-Marine and Fisheries
nacles and it would not cost a great deal to blow them up. This would mean safety of navigation to the vessels taking that route. If this is not done there is going to be a big disaster there some day, because the boats that follow that route may be carried away by this current and driven over on to this rock. I think some of the officials of the department will remember the disaster referred to. I do not recall the name of the boat. Had she not been beached in the way I have described the whole of her passengers would have been lost.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion of my hon. friend would not come under this item, not even under this department. This item deals only with obstructions caused by wrecks or sunken vessels. The removal of this rock would come under the Department of Public Works, but I shall be pleased to submit the remarks of my hon. friend to my colleague.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries might prove more generous than the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Inspection of * live stock shipments, $3,000.
Arthur Meighen: I presume this is the work carried on, according to the Minister of Agriculture, by Mr. Duncan Marshall, and we can discuss that subject. What is meant by inspection of live stock by the Marine department?


Ernest Lapointe: This item was in the estimates prior to Mr. Duncan Marshall being discussed in the Canadian parliament. This appropriation is for the purpose of defraying costs incurred in the inspection of live stock for shipment in vessels, as provided by chapter 130, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906. , Under that act ships carrying live stock cannot clear from port without a government inspection certificate. The additional $500 required for 1923-4 as compared with 1922-23 is to provide for the salary and expenses of an inspector at the port of St. John, N.B.-part time-and for salary increases for two inspectors at the port of Montreal.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It has been suggested to the minister that he should consider combining the work of inspection with the Department of Agriculture. We are told that we are going to have all our live stock shipments inspected by that department. Therefore, we should get rid of overlapping which seems to be unnecessary. Most of the information covered by the certificate is

purely formal, and does not amount to anything at all, such as the seaworthiness of the boat and that sort of thing, because all that is looked after particularly in connection with passenger boats; so that the inspection of live stock should be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture.


Ernest Lapointe: WTith the expansion
which agriculture will take under the new regulations, I think the suggestion of my hon. friend might be accepted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants-Quebec and British Columbia, $35,000.
Mr. LEWIS:: Are these under the supervision of the Department of Marine?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How much was spent last year?


Ernest Lapointe: We spent the entire amount: $25,000 to the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company Limited, and the other $10,000 to the Pacific Salvage Company Limited, on the western coast.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that by contract or services rendered?


Ernest Lapointe: Contract.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What work was done by the Quebec company last year?


Ernest Lapointe: The company salvaged $47,766 last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
wrecks did they look after?


Ernest Lapointe: Ten wrecks in the Quebec district.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the wrecking contract given as the result of a tender, or how?


Ernest Lapointe: It was renewed. They are the only people who possess the necessary plant for that purpose. The contract was renewed twice, I understand, for five years, and it was renewed again last year for a similar period.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.
Arthur Meighen: How much was the amount spent last year?


Ernest Lapointe: It was $4,202.


Arthur Meighen: What were the unforeseen items?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: This is for expenses
which could not be anticipated-legal expenses, criminal investigations!, advice, assistance of experts, and so forth.


Arthur Meighen: Has this item been in for
many years?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: The same amount?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, $5,000. Last year the expenditure was $4,202 and the previous year it was only $2,186, but the amount asked for was the same.


Arthur Meighen: How much the year before?


Ernest Lapointe: I have only the two
years.
Sir HENRY DRAYl'ON: A fair ratio of increased cost with the change of government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life-saving service, including rewards for saving life, $90,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Is this under the minister's department?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur John Lewis: And it is maintained by the department?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Mr. WALLACE:: It was brought to my attention that the life-saving station near the end of Long Point, Lake Erie, is not in a position to function properly. I have never been there myself, but I am informed that this station is greatly in need of a power boat equipment. It is located on the inside of the point, on the bay side, where no wrecks ever occur, or could possibly occur, because there is no navigation there. It is at least five miles away from the point where any wreck could occur. They are only equipped with a rowboat, and a power boat is needed. I think it would be an advantage to put the life-saving station on the outside of the point where wrecks are likely to occur. As it is at present, a power boat or tug could leave Port Dover and reach any possible wreck just as quickly as the life-saving crew could reach it by rowing there. I think it would be well if the department would look into this, and see if some improvement could not be made regarding this station.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be glad to have
the officers of the department investigate what
213	J
my hon. friend has just said, more so because the station to which he refers is one where we are spending most money in Ontario. The maintenance is at a cost of $7,500 a year, and the others are at much smaller amounts. The amount spent last year to the end of March-that does not include the month of April-is $60,635.96. I mean that some accounts had not reached the department in April.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister himself decide who is to obtain money for saving life? That is, are awards made, or are these amounts merely for maintenance of the stations?


Ernest Lapointe: This is for maintenance of stations on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the Great Lakes.


Arthur Meighen: Are any rewards paid?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. The appropriation covers rewards for saving life on the high seas where exceptional bravery is shown and risks taken in rescues. These rewards are made to the crews of Canadian vessels making rescues or the crews of other lines who rescue lives from danger. Of course claims for such rewards are investigated by a branch of the department.


Arthur Meighen: How much was paid for claims in that channel alone?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid I cannot give my right hon. friend that information now.


Arthur Meighen: Is an order in council required for approval of a recommendation for the payment of a reward for life-saving, or does the minister dole out the money himself?


Ernest Lapointe: If the amount is small,, the minister deals with the matter himself-That has always been the practice. But if the amount is a little large, the matter goes through the formality of an order in council.


Arthur Meighen: No order in council is then legally necessary. I should like to know about how much is paid in this case, because this is really an extraordinary power.


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that it is possible that no money at all was paid last year for any reward of that kind, but I could not say that positively. I will try to get the information for my right hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Hydrographic Survey and to provide for the maintenance and repairs of hydrographic steamers, $364,080.
Arthur John Lewis: I was wondering whether this is a work that needs to be repeated every year, whether it is maintenance work. Will the work ever be done and this amount decreased?


Ernest Lapointe: This is to provide for the continuation of surveys by ship parties on the Atlantic coast, in the lower St. Lawrence and on the Pacific coast, and by small land parties in harbours and sheltered localities ; the maintenance of automatic gauges on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes and the compilation of charts and other similar work in the nature of aids to safe navigation in Canadian waters. It is new work that is going on. There are a few vessels which are especially engaged in this work under a branch of the department under Mr. Stewart.


Arthur John Lewis: Is the increase due to statutory increases?


Ernest Lapointe: The increase of $14,080 is to provide for certain necessary repairs and renewals of plant and equipment. It is also proposed to keep the steamer Acadia in commission for the work of ice-breaking operation on the south-eastern coast of Nova Scotia. That will involve some additional expenditure.


Arthur Meighen: On every boat that one sails on, they have to-day apparently the most perfect charts showing, not only every indentation and every rock, but a photograph of the surface of the water. These all seem to be very old, indicating that the variations, shiftings since, have not been very great. I ireally would think it was not necessary to maintain so expensive a service as this costing ^between a quarter and half a million dollars -a year.


Ernest Lapointe: Still, we cannot grant all the demands which are made upon the department for new surveys.


Arthur Meighen: You could never do that.


Ernest Lapointe: There are some especially for British Columbia at the present time. A large part of our coast has not been properly surveyed for the safety of navigation so far.


Arthur Meighen: It seems very strange
to me. I do not know anything they do not know; I have never heard any complaint that there was any uncertainty as to the character of the coast line or of the floor of the ocean. Is it not just possible that the primary incitement to more expenditure

comes from those who get the money, and they utilize others to serve their own ends? That is the case in many parts of the service.	,


Ernest Lapointe: I may give my hon.
friend a resume of the work which it is intended to do this year.
As regards the Pacific coast survey, the main work in hand on the Pacific coast is a survey of the waters off the southwest of Aristazabel and Banks islands in the southeast entrance to Hecate strait, as well as the completion of the surveys of Seaforth channel and Lama passage. The fine weather of the season from about the middle of June to the beginning of September will be used for this work. During the earlier part of the season and the autumn months operations will consist of sounding in the entrances to Victoria and Esquimalt, a re-sweeping of First narrows, Victoria harbour, and surveys of Genoa bay, Perceval narrows, Port Black-ney, Laredo channel, Surf and Cumshewa inlets. For this work the steamer Lillooet and the small tug Restless will be available.
As regards the Atlantic coast survey, as soon as the Acadia has finished fitting out she will be stationed off the west coast of Nova Scotia at the approach to the Bay of Fundy and will continue the off-shore sounding started last season, when the work showed considerable necessity for new soundings. Next winter it is proposed that she continue breaking ice for the harbours of the southeast coast of Nova Scotia.
As regards the Lower St. Lawrence surveys, the party on the Cartier will, during the coming season, work in the southwest approach to the channel north of Anticosti island where traffic has greatly increased during the last few years and through which more information, both as regards hydrography and magnetic declination, is urgently required.
As regards the Magdalen island survey, the steamer Bayfield has been thoroughly overhauled during the past winter and will take up again the work of charting the waters in the vicinity of Magdalen islands, which had to be discontinued during 1922 on account of the condition of the steamer.
As regards the St. Lawrence river, it is proposed to undertake an examination of the river from end to end for the purpose of locating recent improvements, buoys, lights and conspicuous marks to furnish necessary information for a revision of the present charts. This is a work that has to continue almost permanently.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Lewis Herbert Martell: Exactly at what time
did the Canadian authorities take over this work from the Imperial authorities? For a great number of years the British authorities kept the cruisers on the Atlantic doing this work and making charts. I do not see them there now? I presume that the Canadian authorities have taken that work over?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot give the exact date when it was done but the Canadian authorities did take it over.


Lewis Herbert Martell: They have taken over a lot of work in that connection.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I heard, during the minister's explanation, soft, sweet accents from that vessel the Restless. Is there not a history to that vessel?


Ernest Lapointe: This is not the same Restless that my hon. friend has in mind.


Arthur Meighen: I thought I had struck one of the holes out of which this money went. Apparently there is another Restless?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid I must confess my ignorance of the history of the former Restless.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: Oh. However when we get to the right Restless-the	government
seems to be restless on both oceans-I shall have a few words to say about it. Whereabouts in the Estimates will this Restless on the Atlantic coast come in?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Under the Customs estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: It is not in my department at all; I was getting restless myself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radiotelegraph service and to provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations and the general administration of radiotelegraphy throughout the Dominion, $454,900.
Ernest Lapointe: There is a mistake in the printed Estimates. An amount of $22,410 ought to be deducted from the total. Certain items that had originally been included in the vote were struck out in council before the estimates were submitted to the House; hence the mistake. The amount therefore ought to be $432,490, which should give a decrease of $7,910 instead of an increase as shown in the estimates as they appear to the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What was the revenue from licenses last year?


Ernest Lapointe: On the east coast the revenue for the fiscal year 1921-22 was $16,931.28; for ten months during the fiscal year 1922-23 it was $2,141.34. The Barrington passage station was closed on August 15, 1922. This station had been opened during the war and was no longer necessary. On the west coast the revenue for the fiscal year 1921-22 was $37,065.93, and for ten months during the following year $28,263.51. On the Great Lakes the revenue in 1921-22 was $164.55; for the following year the figures are not yet available.


Arthur John Lewis: I notice there is provision for a building and maintenance for wireless stations. Would not this more properly come under the Public Works department?


Ernest Lapointe: Part of the government wireless operations, as a matter of fact, is under the Public Works department still, while there is a branch of it in the National Defence department. But the radiotelegraphic service generally is under the Marine department. The idea is rather to concentrate instead of separating, and I think that all branches of the service will be under the Marine department as soon as this can be conveniently accomplished.


Arthur John Lewis: I was referring to the building itself. Why should not this be under the Public Works department, so that we might know how much money was being expended for all buildings? If it were included under the Public Works estimates we could ascertain just how much was being spent for all public buildings, and it would be so much easier to find it all under the estimates of one department.


Ernest Lapointe: The building of wireless stations is rather a technical work, and I think my hon. friend will agree that it is better that the technical officers of the Department of Marine, who are specially qualified for this undertaking, should do the work under that department.


Arthur John Lewis: I know that the technical equipment must be installed by the special officers of the Marine department, but I was referring to the building itself. However, would the minister inform the committee where the new buildings will be erected?


Ernest Lapointe: The amount includes revotes in the sum of $19,500 for additions and alterations to the government system provided Tor last year but which it was considered desirable to hold over for a year. These include the installation of continuous wave-transmitters at Dead Tree point and Digby island. British Columbia, and the erection of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
a dwelling house at the Canso direction finding station. In addition to this provision is also made for the erection of a direction finding station at a point to be selected on the west coast; for the erection of a direction finding station at St. Paul's island; for the erection of beacon stations at Belle Isle, and Heath Point, Anticosti; for the conversion of the station at Cape Sable into a direction finding station; for the transfer of Cape Bear station to Charlottetown; of the Cape Lazo station at Powell river, and of the Dead Tree Point station to Queen Charlotte city; and for the installation of continuous wave transmitters at Estevan station and Gonzales hill station. There is a net decrease of $7,910 as compared with 1922-23.


Arthur John Lewis: This includes salaries?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, everything.


John Alexander Wallace: What stations are along the north shore of lake Erie? Is there a station at Port Burwell?


Ernest Lapointe: There are stations at Port Arthur, Sault Ste. Marie, Midland, Port Burwell, Toronto, Kingston, and Tobermory. These are the stations in Ontario.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the
minister can tell us how much of the vote goes for salaries? That should really be under civil government.


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the information here, I am sorry to say. This includes operators' salaries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Of course it does. I should have thought that my hon. friend would at least have the information of the major part of his estimates.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought I was well supplied with information, but obviously this is one respect in which I cannot answer my hon. friend's question.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can his deputy not turn up the salaries? While my hon. friend's deputy is looking that up-I think he must have the information in that big volume-I should like to know what became of the radiotelegraph bill. I suppose it went through?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: When the bill was before us the minister told me I could get particulars of the receipts from licenses when this item was under discussion. Can my friend give me this information now?


Ernest Lapointe: I think I gave all that information when the bill was before the House on its second reading.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I was not
present, because I was told I could get the information when these estimates were up.


Ernest Lapointe: I will have a statement prepared and present it after eight o'clock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon friend can tell me what has been done under that bill.


Ernest Lapointe: The only arrangement made has been with the province of Manitoba. In fact I said at the time the bill was before the House that it was the case of Manitoba which we wanted to meet. The fee for a receiving station was one dollar. We have increased it to two dollars, half of which will go to the province of Manitoba.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that basis is followed we will have no loss in fees.


Ernest Lapointe: No. As a matter of fact the number of receiving stations is increasing daily.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes. Then there is another matter I intended to bring up when the bill was called, but apparently I was out of the House. Has the minister taken this matter up with the military authorities? We spend a good deal of money on the instruction of signal men, and many people connected with the service are of the view that if these distributing stations were placed in the hands of the men who are being trained in our military camps and the like it would be the most practical way of teaching them. They could do the broadcasting just as well as private individuals and at the same time receive very good instruction. Has that been considered by my hon. friend?


Ernest Lapointe: Negotiations are taking place at the present time between .the two departments to that end. But even now a large number of military men are employed in this work.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the item had better stand until we get the information.	.
Item 227 stands.
Tidal and current survey, $35,000.


Arthur John Lewis: What is the difference between this item and No. 226?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: Provision is made for the enlargement of necessary operations, involving an increase of $5,000 as compared with last year. The work of the tidal 5 p.m. and current survey is for the scientific investigation of tides and currents on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Hudson bay, and the Arctic ocean, and the prediction of tides and the determination of tide levels. This is an appropriation for the operation and maintenance of permanent tidai stations, the equipment of tidal stations during the summer months, the salaries of tidal and current observers and the preparation and publication of tide tables for the two coasts, comprising two complete series and three abridged editions-all for the safety and convenience of navigation. This information is also furnished for harbour construction work.


Arthur John Lewis: This is permanent work?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public works, chargeable to capital, Marine Department, River St. Lawrence ship channel-maintenance and operating dredging fleet, $613,000.
Ernest Lapointe: This is for the maintenance and operation of the ship channel dredging fleet and for the necessary machinery and plant. The fleet is employed on the improvement of the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec and then farther east to Father Point.


Arthur Meighen: How is the Marine and Fisheries department in charge of this? I see it comes under Public Works?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but this has been under the Marine department for about twenty years. I remember when it was transferred to the Marine and Fisheries. I think it was under the late Mr. Prefontaine.


Arthur Meighen: How long has the vote run at this figure? This is a very, very large amount. It appears we are dredging and changing the floor of the St. Lawrence all the time, and then spending more money to find out how we have changed it.


Ernest Lapointe: No. The amount is less than it was in former years. The item is to carry out the programme for a thirty-five foot channel. There are still many miles of dredging to be done. Dredging operations have been going on for the last twenty years and will continue until the work is completed.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister give us the expenditure-not the vote-for a few years back?


Ernest Lapointe: I have here only the expenditure for 1921-$614,619. That is about $1,000 more than the current vote. I think it is about the average.


Arthur Meighen: The minister cannot give us what was spent the year before?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: A minimum of information is being furnished.


Mr. JELLIFF:: How much dredging was done last year? I should like to have a record of what this money went for.


Ernest Lapointe: Do you mean the quantity of dredging or the expenditure?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I mean the amount of work done.


Ernest Lapointe: I have the total amount of dredging which has been done so far towards the execution of the programme, the number of cubic yards done and remaining to be done, but I could not give my hon. friend the amount for last year.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: How much has it cost per cubic yard? Is this all done at the government's expense?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: There is no contract?


Ernest Lapointe: Not so far as this work
is concerned. It is all done by the government's boats.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Has the minister any way
of comparing the cost under the present system with the cost under contract by outside parties?


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that the
officers of the department have figured that out, and that it is much cheaper to do the work ourselves.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Could my hon. friend tell me what he pays for wages under this item, and how many men he has employed?


Ernest Lapointe: I have here the names
of the masters, junior officers and seamen on every boat and dredge used in connection with that work, and the salary paid to each, but I am sorry I have not got the total amount paid. It will take a long time to read the list if my hon. friend wants it.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my hon. friend can give me some idea of the total cost on the one hand, and the number of new appointees in the last year on the other.


Ernest Lapointe: The trouble is these men are constantly changing. They are not permanent but are engaged every spring, and those who are employed now are not in many cases the ones who were employed last year. They go to better vessels if they can find them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is it a fact that there has been a clean sweep?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How clean a
sweep?


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, everything
that was done was clean.


Arthur John Lewis: Can the minister tell us
what is the difference between item 229, $613,000 for dredging, and item 164, dredging, Ontario and Quebec, $625,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Item 164 is in the Public Works department estimates.


Arthur John Lewis: Is there any overlapping?
Are the two departments dredging in the same place?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all. Our work is in the channel. The Public Works department is dredging at the ports and harbours. Our work relates only to providing a clear channel for vessels in the St. Lawrence.


Mr. SHAW:: I understand-perhaps the
minister will correct me if I am wrong-that there are three dredging services; the dredging of the St. Lawrence ship channel, for which this vote is asked; the dredging service of the Public Works department along the borders of the St. Lawrence river; and thirdly, the dredging service of the Railway department. Will the minister tell us the exact jurisdiction of each, and why it is necessary to have so many dredging services with necessarily heavy overhead costs? Is it not possible to combine all these services into one?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid the only information I can give is as regards my own department. As far as the Public Works department is concerned, the work that is done is along the lines suggested by my hon. friend. As far as the Railway department is concerned, I could not supply the information. Perhaps their dredging is in connection with the canals. I do not know of any dredging done by the railways as a department.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: How can the minister's department tell exactly where his jurisdiction begins as compared with the Public Works department?


Mr LAPOINTE:: Our work is on the channel of the St. Lawrence river.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is there no danger of conflict between his department and the Public Works department in determining what the channel


Mr LAPOINTE:: 
Ernest Lapointe: He believes in his own
effectiveness, I see.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Quite right, I think.


Mr. MILLAR:: What is the depth of the
bt. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal?


Ernest Lapointe: It is thirty feet the whole distance now, but this work is being done to deepen it to thirty-five feet.


William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister know of a new port being opened on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal?


Ernest Lapointe: Where is that?


William Findlay Maclean: On the south
shore, some place near the Richelieu.


Ernest Lapointe: I will try to develop
the port of Quebec before starting a new one.


John Millar: Will this work of dredging the St. Lawrence be permanent when completed, or will the mud wash in again?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to be made permanent.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What does
the minister mean by permanent? Surely he does not mean that he is going to have a vote of this kind just for one or two years. Will not dredging have to be done continually in the channel.


Ernest Lapointe: This is to pay for the
operation and the maintenance of all the boats, dredges and barges which are used on this dredging work.


Edward Joseph Garland: But it is
a continual work going on year after year.


Ernest Lapointe: It will go on so long
as the programme is not completely executed.


Edward Joseph Garland: What does
the minister mean by the programme?


Ernest Lapointe: A thirty-five foot channel from Montreal to the sea.


Edward Joseph Garland: I hope the
minister will let one who is interested, myself, know when he has found a method of clearing a channel by dredging and maintaining it clear without dredging afterwards.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, some dredging will be necessary, but not this considerable work, which will go on until the programme is completed.


Mr. GOULD:: Under which department
do the dredging operations at Fort William and Port Arthur take place?


Ernest Lapointe: Public Works. We
have only to do with the St. Lawrence channel.


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister considered some union of the dredging forces of the Dominion? There really seems no reason in the world why part should be in one department and part in another. I would think that by doing so, dredges otherwise discarded might be utilized for other services.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion deserves
consideration. I claim that I am a reformer but I do not want to make changes without due thought. This division was probably made for good reasons, but I am quite willing to try and study what reasons influenced those who made the change. These operations were carried on in the same way during the time of the former government and also under different Ministers of Marine. I am quite willing to consider the matter and see whether it is desirable to make a change.


William Findlay Maclean: On this very point, I heard a discussion only this week
that we should have in this country at a very early date a Minister of Finance who would find out whether there could not be a consolidation of departments which would result in there being only one department for example, instead of three. We want a concentration of departments under one head, which would effect a great saving. That would apply to a great many departments of this government and that is where the economy is to come in the future. That is what is being argued now in the country and I think there is something in it. This government ought to have [DOT]syhat they have in the United States, a special officer to go through the budget and see whether economies can be introduced as respects certain items of the different departments. We are all talking about economy, but if we adhere to the present system we shall never make any progress. The Prime Minister or the Finance Minister ought to get the ministers together and ask this one question:	Where can savings be effected by consolidation, co-operation or co-ordination? A substantial reduction in the budget of Canada can be effected in that particular direction. There certainly will be a movement on the part of the people of this country in a very short time, in the direction of closer consideration of the requirements of all the departments in order to determine whether we cannot have economies whether it be by co-ordination or some other means.


Ernest Lapointe: As a matter of fact,
one department, the Naval Service, has disappeared since last year. Part of it is now under the Department of National Defence and part of it under the Marine and Fisheries department.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see very much disappearance myself.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg the right hon.
gentleman's pardon.


Arthur Meighen: Formerly it was under
the Marine and Fisheries, now it is under the Minister of National.Defence. The Minister of National Defence is given another name but the officers are all there. If the getting together of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance would not bring any more results than the much vaunted amalgamation of the Naval Service with the Department of National Defence, I think we might save time in transportation. What might be done would be to bring all dredging, all really public works operations, under the Public Works department. Or, if you wish to consider them as marine matters bring them all under

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
the Marine department. Here we have today dredging operations going on under the Marine department, dredging operations under the Public Works department and I venture to say-I have not the least hesitation in saying-there is more going on under the , Railway department, and the same thing obtains in the case of elevators. We have some public elevators operated by the Railway department, others operated by the Department of Trade and Commerce, others operated ' ven by the Marine department, whose head could not keep out of it-I do not mean the j resent minister-


George Perry Graham: His predecessor.


Arthur Meighen: -and we have others operated by the National Railway Board, and I am not sure that I have completed the list yet. Anyway, they are scattered over the whole service just in proportion to the avidity of the minister and deputy minister of each department. Why that should be I never could understand. The progress of reform was somewhat rapid for years but it was not all accomplished. I venture to suggest to this government that in these days of peace, restfulness and traniquillity-when otherwise ministers are simply softening the cushions of office, watching for commissions to place their friends on, watching for vacancies in the Senate and scanning the mortality on the bench-


An hon. MEMBER:: Providence will act there without any effort of ours.


Arthur Meighen: -why could they not devote some attention to moving-even though it be slowly, at least moving-in the direction of real reform in the service. Get all these dredging operations together, get our elevators together, and have unity of control and economy of operation.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend spoke of the naval amalgamation and said that the officers were all there. Surely he knows that is not the case. There is one deputy minister for two services, there were at least two deputies before.


Arthur Meighen: They are there still but are called by other names.


George Perry Graham: They are not, pardon, me.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Desbarats is there and Sir Eugene Fiset is there. I notice from a return that he is drawing $10,500 a year.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is playing on words.


Arthur Meighen: I am not, I am playing on dollars.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend may be an authority on dollars sometimes but not an authority on cents. Sir Eugene Fiset has retired and is entitled to draw his pay until his leave of absence is concluded. Sir Eugene Fiset will not come back, there will be but one deputy minister where formerly there were two.


Arthur Meighen: For the Department of National Defence?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: There is Mr. Desbarats who will be called Financial Controller. He will enjoy the same salary with the status of a deputy.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: That is what he is.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend is wrong.


Arthur Meighen: What is he now? He has the status of a deputy and he has the salary, without question. The minister cannot be right. I am not positive unless I know but I am pretty sure I read a return just lately to the effect that the retirement of Sir Eugene Fiset applied to one sphere only not to the two. I am no authority on this but it seems there is a military sphere and there is a civil sphere, and the one he has retired from is the least remunerative and also carries with it quite a pension allowance. The other sphere he still fills and intends to continue in. This is in a return I read very lately. I should not say I was astonished but I noted very carefully in my own mind the large amount that he will be drawing when this so-called retirement takes effect.


George Perry Graham: My right hon. friend, I hope, will allow me to put him right. Sir Eugene Fiset has retired on a pension which takes effect on the expiration of his leave of absence.


Arthur Meighen: When will that come?


George Perry Graham: At the end of this year, I think; I forget the exact time. Then he will be out of the service and drawing the pension to which he is entitled under the act. The legislation passed provides for one deputy where there were two before. We are getting away from this item I am afraid. If my right hon. friend will remember there was a full discussion of the legislation which was introduced when he learned something with respect to the inability of anybody to mix the navy with the militia to any great extent, and the proposition to retain Mr. Des-

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
barats as deputy of the Naval Service as a separate branch of the Defence department. One of the branches of parliament refused to acquiesce-


Arthur Meighen: That was right, it was not the minister's fault.


George Perry Graham: -and that department will only have one deputy instead of two as heretofore.


Arthur Meighen: Will there be a controller or anybody else with the salary of a deputy?


George Perry Graham: The department has a controller who is altogether distinct from the deputy. I think the Department of Defence should have a controller-and I think some of my hon. friend's colleagues approve of that-in charge of all finances, as has the Railway department and other departments. I think, perhaps, that department requires it as much if not more than the others. There will be a controller, but he will not have the status of a deputy minister.


Arthur Meighen: What salary?


George Perry Graham: He draws $6,000 a year, but he will not have the status of a deputy minister.


John Millar: Referring to the St. Lawrence river, what effect will the completion of this drainage have on the price of transporting grain? Recently, considerable grain is going by water to Quebec. I found out last year, or at least during the shipping season of the year, that no grain leaves Quebec by water. I infer that some of the larger boats cannot go from Quebec to Montreal, but after the completion of this work all the boats large and small will be able to reach Montreal, and it may perhaps lower the rate on grain. Is there any reasonable grounds for expecting a lower rate?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think the larger ships will go beyond Quebec. That is my candid opinion.


John Millar: WTith thirty-five feet depth of channel, will there not be more ships going to Montreal than at present?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, certainly more, but with some danger. In many places the channel is narrow and there will always be a certain element of difficulty between Quebec and Montreal. One of the main objects is to try to obtain reduced rates of insurance. When a route is safe for navigation-and this applies below Quebec as well as between Quebec and Montreal-it is hoped, and we
even have the assurance, that the rates of marine insurance will be reduced, which will go a long way towards meeting the views of my hon. friend.


John Millar: After this work is completed, what will be the reason why the larger boats will not be able to reach Montreal? Will it be because of the width of the channel or the depth of it or what? Will it be because thirty-five feet is not sufficient?


Ernest Lapointe: Because the length of the larger boats is great and the width of the channel will not permit them to go through, particularly at certain times of the season, to Montreal without a certain amount of danger.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The triplication of dredging services, as appears to be the fact, leads one to the conclusion that if considerable saving is to be made in the public service, then we must obtain, so far as government services are concerned, some co-ordinating factor. I remember reading a report of Sir George Murray, written some ten years ago, in which he suggests that it would be a great thing to have co-ordination in the public service. Just at this point I want to suggest that the British Treasury Board has been empowered to do that particular work. Our Treasury Board, as I understand it, is not empowered to undertake the work of co-ordination, not by statute in any event. It seems to me that something has to be done along that line, if a saving is to be effected, and I am positive that that is the method which will result in the saving of perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to this country every year. I think it is along that line that exploration must be made if we are going to have not only an efficient public service in the country, but also an economical public service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the maintenance and operation of Sorel shipyard, $125,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is where the minister has effected the greatest slaughter, I understand.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think so.


Arthur Meighen: He has slain both his thousands and his tens of thousands here, and I notice an extra charge of $35,000. Is that a life-saving allowance to the minister for protecting his favourites?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Mr, LAPOINTE: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to when he speaks of slaughter. I am a man of peaceful disposition. Everyone agrees on that point. The $35,000 shown as an increase over 1922-23 is simply a transfer from the appropriation for the St. Lawrence ship channel, and does not indicate any enlargement of operations at the shipyard. The transfer was made as a matter of convenience, and to enable certain expenditures to be accounted for directly that were previously accounted for indirectly through the ship channel appropriation. Expenditures for 1921-22 and 1922-23 are included in ship channel expenditures. Hereafter expenditures for the shipyard will be shown separately. As a matter of fact nothing more will be done at Sorel. It is a mere matter of bookkeeping.


Arthur Meighen: How many men have been dismissed from the Sorel yard?


Ernest Lapointe: As few as possible. There is no pleasure dismissing officials from the public service. I do not know the number.


Arthur Meighen: The minister must have had an exceedingly painful year and a half, judging from my own mail which was laden down with tales of woe of the minister's operations in the Sorel yard. He has made it a veritable patronage paradise.


Ernest Lapointe: It was my good fortune, on acount of the kindness of heart of my colleague, to be away at the time those things occurred. But I am quite willing to take the full responsibility, because I have to. Still being away, it was less hard for me to bear it.


Arthur Meighen: Who was the actual executioner?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: The minister must know who was in his place when he was away.


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau) was acting minister, but I have to take full responsibility for everything. He is the best man in the world, and 1 know he must have suffered very much when he had to perform his duty in that connection.


Arthur Meighen: How many returned men were fired?


Ernest Lapointe: No one that I know of. Mr. MEIGHEN: Oh, yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know of any.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister would give particulars. What is the wage bill paid this year?


Ernest Lapointe: I have that. My memorandum reads as follows:
1.	To provide for the payment of the salaries for; Office staff, composed of one director, secretary, typists, assistant director, one accountant and staff of nine bookkeepers, one storekeeper and staff of seven clerks, one mechanical draughtsman and staff of four draughtsmen, one timekeeper and clerk.. .. $33,600
2.	To be applied to the maintenance and payment of salaries of fourteen shop foremen and
their clerks	 29,160
3.	To be applied for the payment of salaries
of five watchmen, one gate-keeper, four firemen, one messenger and six pumpmen.. ..	19,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the whole list?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose we take the first lot, $33,600; how many of those men are new appointees of my hon. friend or of his substitute?


Ernest Lapointe: I have not the details to give my hon. friend that information.


Sir HENRY DRAL  TON@: I will ask the minister to let it stand until he can get the details.


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed that six employees were dismissed. I may say to my right hon. friend that after 1911 the whole staff was changed.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not take much of a look at the operations of his substitute if he suggests six.


Ernest Lapointe: Out of item number one mentioned by my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: I think this item should stand until the minister gets some knowledge of it, because the facts in connection with the Sorel shipyard are really startling.


Ernest Lapointe: No man was dismissed unless there was good ground for his dismissal along the lines mentioned by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the session.


Arthur Meighen: The certificate of a member showing that he wanted him to go.


Ernest Lapointe: That a man has been guilty of offensive partisanship to the knowledge of a member of parliament. If this is not done, there is an investigation, and the report of the commissioner is accepted. Surely my right hon. friend should not complain. We are keeping everywhere men that my right hon. friend's friends put into the service during their regime, and we are being blamed by our own friends for doing that. Surely

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
we should not incur any criticism in this House, when men who were dismissed for nothing after 1912, are still asking for work and we are not giving that work to them.


Arthur Meighen: The minister need never expect that he will do anything that will satisfy those who seek for patronage, nor will I ever find fault with the minister for dismissing where offensive partisanship has been established. The investigations which the minister has carried on, where even he has dared to investigate-and the same applies to other departments-have been farcical to a degree.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Arthur Meighen: I have had letters from his own strong supporters who are disgusted with the operations of those investigators. To state to the House that a member says that a man is guilty of partisanship, without producing the certificate or giving any details whatever, is most unfair to anyone in the service. The cases are not one or two or a dozen; they are simply legion. There should certainly be a fair investigation and a fair show given. If there has been active participation in politics, the minister has a perfect right to dismiss, and I could find no fault with him. Instead of that no regard whatever has been had to the circumstances.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, there has.


Arthur Meighen: None at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Let my right hon. friend come to my own city where there is an agency of the Marine department, and let him say how many men have been dismissed in that agency, when all those who were dismissed after 1912 are asking for work, when my colleagues here are asking me to replace those men who were dismissed, when they are not [DOT] put to work and when we are keeping on the others who have not been dismissed. If there is one thing we should not deserve any blame for, it is in connection with the question of dismissals, and I am sure the remarks of my right hon. friend will be read with great interest by the people of the city of Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: I sincerely hope they will. The minister often refers to 1912. We have had the same experience that he has had, but we certainly went far more thoroughly into the cases.


Mr. CANNON:: Does my right hon. friend say that seriously?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend makes very exaggerated statements, and other ministers make them too. I shall not be afraid, in the slightest degree, of any fair comparison by any unprejudiced person. The minister must remember that there is this difference: For some years the Civil Service Commission has been established, and appointments have been made by that commission, wholly without regard to politics. That constitutes a somewhat different situation. If, after that is done, the axe of patronage is still to be wielded, the case is hopeless. A government that takes the responsibility, boldly faces the situation, strips patronage from its hands almost entirely,-entirely as regards the service under the commission;-undoubtedly takes a penalty for doing so, and a very severe one, as the hon. member knows the late government did. Once that is done, surely the least a new government can do is to permit appointees to remain in the service, to permit patronage to remain outside, and not to seek to reintroduce it and the old methods and to seek to justify it by something that took place years and years ago. I do not know about Quebec. I gave the minister this credit. As regards his own department, ] have not had any substantial complaints from the city of Quebec. They may have thought their case was hopeless.


Ernest Lapointe: I have requests from my own friends.


Arthur Meighen: They may know the power of the minister and have conceded that despair only was their lot. I do not know, but in other departments from the city and district of Quebec, I have had cases simply by the score. The reason why I rose was that I have had cases from his own department at this point. Undoubtedly, slaughter went on that I do not think wa3 any credit to the government. I am glad the minister himself was not there. It appears that the immediately guilty party, the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Bureau), has now returned to the House.


Jacques Bureau: Present.


Arthur Meighen: He had access to the minister's seat for just long enough to create this situation in the town of Sorel.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, and it is a good one. I have nothing to take back on it.


Arthur Meighen: No, he never takes anything back. He is a master of the patronage axe, and I do not think we could do better now than listen to just what he has accom-: plished.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

Mr.. BUREAU: I have accomplished a great deal in the interest of the country. The foreman at Sorel Mr. Lacouture, an appointee of the late government, we retain. He was appointed to replace a Liberal who was fired without inquiry or anything else by the friends of my right hon. friend. He is there still. The dismissals that took place, took place because there were reasons for them. The reasons were that the member came and upon his own responsibility made the statement that acts of partisanship had been committed, stating the particular acts.


Arthur Meighen: Verbally?


Jacques Bureau: In writing, and verbally sometimes. This may have been verbal.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister produce these written statements of the member?


Jacques Bureau: The verbal ones I could not produce, but there are some I could produce.


Arthur Meighen: I think they are mostly verbal.


Jacques Bureau: I made inquiries. I went to Sorel, and I made inquires of the foreman as to the respective value of the men. Those that went out went out because they were not the proper persons to fill these situations and those who were appointed to the situations were better men than they were. I did this in the interest of the Sorel yard and of the country.


Arthur Meighen: I really thought I would get a better justification than that-


Jacques Bureau: There can be none.


Arthur Meighen: -from the ingenuity of the Minister of Customs. What he says in effect is: "I was approached by the member for the district-"


Jacques Bureau: I did not say that.


Arthur Meighen: "-and the member for the district said that they were partisans."


Jacques Bureau: They were accused of partisanship.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know the difference. He wanted them to go, and in justice to this great Dominion and to the public service, he fired them.


Jacques Bureau: In the interest of the Dominion, yes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think in view of the interesting dissertation that has taken place, we ought to have from the minister a list of the number dismissed.


Arthur Meighen: And the names.


Ernest Lapointe: Does it interest the hon. member too?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes, I am interested intensely in this matter of partisanship, and I am anxious to see that the Civil Service Commission operates, not only as regards the Sorel yards, but in every part of the Dominion.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know that those men are under the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would be willing to put them under the commission and to use my influence to bring that about. One thing the country is disgusted with is the abuse of patronage which has been inflicted on it for many years.


Ernest Lapointe: What does my hon. friend think of those people who were dismissed without any reason a few years ago and who want their positions back now? What is his opinion? Must they suffer the injustice permanently, if an injustice was done? Has he kindness in his heart only for those new men who were appointed to take their places?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I have every sympathy with anyone who has suffered injustice.


Ernest Lapointe: But sympathy is not enough.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I do not see however how the minister can do justice to those who have suffered injustice by doing injustice to others.


Ernest Lapointe: No, but by redressing the injustice that was done.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: You cannot redress an injustice to an individual by dismissing someone else, and thus doing an injustice to him.


Ernest Lapointe: Is that so? If that someone else worked for the dismissal of his , predecessor and himself got the position under unfair circumstances, does my hon. friend say that such a man is entitled to that position, while the other who has been ousted should suffer permanently?


Jacques Bureau: That is bad justice.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I suggest that the minister bring us the list that we may investigate the matter, and if anyone has improperly secured a position then certainly he should not be continued in it.


Arthur Meighen: On the minister's argument, he had better bring us the list for 1S96. According to the minister, the further back you go the stronger the case becomes.


Ernest Lapointe: No.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I never went further back than 1912.


Arthur Meighen: Because that suits the minister. It just shows the futility of the whole argument; if you keep going back, you might as well go back from one election to another to the birth of patronage.


Ernest Lapointe: But those men are all dead.


Arthur Meighen: You can never get rid of patronage on any principle of that kind, and that is what the hon. member (Mr. Shaw) is endeavouring to point out. What the committee wants to know is what justification there is for these dismissals. I think the minister should produce the names together with the certificate of the member, giving such particulars as can be inquired into, so that we may see what is behind it all. Parliament has a right to this.


Lucien Cannon: Before the minister does that he might produce the record in regard to the 12,000 Liberal employees who were dismissed by the friends of the right hon. gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: I should like that too.


Lucien Cannon: The right hon. gentleman would like the record in regard to the dismissals in 1911?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: It is all very fine for the leader of the Opposition to give us-


Jacques Bureau: A lecture.


Lucien Cannon: Yes, a lecture-


Ernest Lapointe: After all his friends are
safe.


Lucien Cannon: It is all very well, I say, for the right hon. gentleman to give us a lecture in 1923. But I want him to go back to 1911.


Arthur Meighen: Why not go back to 1896?


Lucien Cannon: If he wants to go back to 1896, I think I am justified in asking him first to go back to 1911 and explain why his friends at that time dismissed 12,000 liberal employees, without investigation, inquiry or anything else.


Arthur Meighen: Nothing of the kind.


Lucien Cannon: The leader of the Opposition cannot, now that he is in opposition, maintain a theory which his friends put altogether aside when they were in power. We know how the government of this country was run from 1911 to 1921; there was nothing but patronage, and rank patronage too, everywhere. The Civil Service Commission was a joke and a farce, and that joke and that farce are in evidence everywhere; they were continued under the pretext of abolishing patronage, although enabling hon. gentlemen to appoint their own partisans and supporters throughout the country. The whole Civil Service is filled with Conservative employees, and we contend that if one thing is good for the Tories it is just as good for the Liberals-


Edward Joseph Garland: And it is worse for the country.


Lucien Cannon: I do not know about that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Oh, yes; the country says so.


Lucien Cannon: I would rather have a friend do my work than an opponent; at least I should have more confidence in him. I was going to say, the last man who should get up in this House and raise the debate which is now going on is the leader of the Opposition, who was the arch-partisan while in power. Nothing he did was inspired by anything else than the party spirit. We all know that. And although to-day he gets up in this Chamber and sings an altogether different tune, I do not think that many people will believe him. So far as we are concerned in Quebec, and for that matter throughout the country, we want our ministers to be ministers of the Crown and to run the country themselves; we do not want the Civil Service to do it. As regards my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Shaw) I think he has a right to be strongly opposed to patronage if he sees fit. Every man is entitled to his own views, and the' hon. member may be perfectly sincere. I have absolutely no right to doubt that hon. gentleman's sincerity, as I have to doubt that of the leader of the Opposition; because the hon. member for Calgary has no past as the leader of the Opposition has. But I might ask the hon. gentleman from Calgary to explain how it is, if patronage is such a bad thing, that when the farmers came into power in Ontario, in Manitoba and in Alberta patronage was revived and they knew exactly how to play the game as well as any other party?	.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to tell the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) that I have not the slightest sympathy for anyone who

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
plays the patronage game, I do not care whether it be a Farmers' government, a Conservative government in 1911, or a Liberal government in 1923.


Mr. MICHAUD:: In the name of what party is the hon. member speaking?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The sooner an effort is made by every government, no matter what it is, to eliminate patronage entirely from the public service, the better it will be for the country.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I would inform the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) that our provincial government in Manitoba does not exercise any patronage. I am not opposed to the Liberals placing their own friends in positions if there are vacancies and if those friends happen to be qualified and the positions are properly filled under the Civil Service Act. But I do want to assure the hon. gentleman, speaking in the name of my own province, that we have no patronage in Manitoba.


Arthur Meighen: I want to put a thought or two to the member for Dorchester that he can think over in the dinner hour.


Lucien Cannon: I can think it over right now.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member spoilt his speech, so far as it might have any effect on a fair-minded audience, by the assertion that the Civil Service Commission is a farce.


Lucien Cannon: Under the old government.


Arthur Meighen: Under the late government, yes; that is what the hon. member said. Now, there has been some investigation lately, and there is not a member of this House who would suggest sincerely-


Lucien Cannon: Will you allow me a question?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Lucien Cannon: If the right hon. gentleman intended that the Civil Service Commission should carry out the law as it stands, how is it that the old commissioners were replaced by friends of his?


Arthur Meighen: To start with, they were not replaced by friends of ours. One member of the three on the commission was appointed by the government that preceded us, the Laurier government. The secretary, who has always been known to be most influential and to take an active part in the commission, was also appointed by the preceding govern-{Mr. Shaw.]
ment. All we did was to appoint the other two. I do not know that such a proceeding can be duplicated by the present administration.


Lucien Cannon: Does the right hon. gentleman claim that it is not a matter of patronage to appoint a minister to the Civil Service Commission?


Arthur Meighen: There was no minister appointed.


Lucien Cannon: What about Doctor Roche?


Arthur Meighen: He had been a minister, it is true.


Lucien Cannon: He could not be both at the same time; if it had been possible, he would have taken both, jobs.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member gets anywhere by an assertion of that sort, if it is put before any fair-minded man in the Dominion. Hon. members know the present chairman of the commission, and I do not think that anyone will seriously suggest that the commission has acted partisanly in all the time of its existence, either under the late government or under this government. The member who asserts it is a mere partisan instrument does not contribute much to the establishment of the judicial character of the commission, nor does he contribute much to his own reputation in this House. What he states is simply not the fact. I want to say this, however, I have heard the number dismissed by the previous government stated at different times variously: at one time it is 6,000, at another time 8,000, and to-day 12,000. I have no doubt that in a few years it will have risen to 112,000. But one will be as near the truth as the other. Certainly, there were some dismissals and there was debate upon them. But I believe that any hon. member who reads the debates will see that they were not carried to any great extreme; and there was considered to be, as I think there was in some cases, ample justification for certain dismissals. It is true, however, that there was not at that time in the outside service of Canada any pretence at a commission. No government had dared to take that course, and no member of this House can know, unless he was a member of that government that did, what a government will encounter that does dare to take such a step.


Ernest Lapointe: Would my hon. friend
agree that I should reinstate in my department all the employees dismissed without investigation in 1912?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: Dear me! I think if
he would replace all those dismissed in 1896 he would not be going back too far.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
say there was an investigation in every case?


Arthur Meighen: There was an investigation. There may not have been an investigation by a commissioner under the Inquiries Act in each case.


Ernest Lapointe: Most of the officers in
my department were dismissed without investigation.


Arthur Meighen: If we are to go back
from one election to the other we get nowhere. There can never be reform if you are going to carry on the principle of vengeance; it cannot be done. The hon. gentleman says I was a partisan of the partisans. I venture to suggest to him that I had to do with the appointment .directly of more Liberals than Conservatives. In my own county only one was dismissed. Nor was I a member of the government until the middle of 1913, in fact I was not a member of the Cabinet until 1915. I do not think he was quite justified in pointing to me as the arch-offender in effecting dismissals. Besides, the majority of the appointments I had to do with, which were chiefly to the Bench, were in favour of Liberals.


Mr. JACOBS:: During the Union Government?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and Liberals were
appointed who opposed Union government.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who are they?


Arthur Meighen: One of them was the
son of a recent hon. member opposite who was opposed to Union government throughout. He was appointed by the previous government a judge of the Supreme Court of Saskatchewan.


An hon. MEMBER:: The exception proves the rule.


Arthur Meighen: Others I could name
one by one. These were much more important offices than the petty ones whose occupants hon. gentlemen opposite have dismissed. Faithful servants, one by one, score by score, have been dismissed. That is not in the interests of those individuals, it is not in the interests of the civil service of Canada. A strong effort has to be made to stand to what we have reached. If we cannot get any farther, let us at least not retrogress. I make that appeal to the government, and I
do so particularly on this item because I think it is in relation to it that the chief transgression has taken place.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The CHAIRMAN:: We were discussing item 230:
To provide for the maintenance and operating of Sorel shipyard, $125,000.


Arthur John Lewis: The hon. minister said that an amount of $35,000 was transferred to this item and that that accounted for the increase In regard to the item from which it was transferred has that $35,000 been deducted therefrom?


Ernest Lapointe: It has not. As a matter of fact, it was intended to have a much larger amount for the other item, but council decided to reduce it to make an increase of $35,000 only.


Arthur John Lewis: And that amount was transferred to this item?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution
carry?


Arthur Meighen: I did not know that item No. 229 carried. I understood it was standing till the minister got certain information.


George Newcombe Gordon: Item 227 is to stand, and items 228 and 229 have been carried.


Arthur Meighen: Item 230 stands till the information comes down.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will be surprised at the extent of the misinformation he has received. The number of permanent employees who were dismissed there is very very small indeed. I think I could count them on the fingers of one hand.


Arthur Meighen: They are mostly on the temporary list, are they not?


Mr LAPOINTE:: They are day labourers.
They are in no way permanent. More than that, as to those day labourers who perhaps have considered themselves as being dismissed or as to whom my right hon. friend has been informed by somebody to that effect other shifts have been put on for fifteen days or three weeks just to give employment to the unemployed in the city of Sorel. That
revised edition

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
was done under the supervision of Mr. Lacouture, the Superintendent of the Sorel shipyards, and a supporter of the former government with the co-operation of the charitable associations of Sorel. I do not want to pose as a philanthropist in the matter at all, but really I do not deserve the criticism that is being made.


Arthur Meighen: If the minister would let this item stand and bring down the information, if it is of the character he describes, I assure him there will be no delay so far as I am concerned when this item is reached again.


Jacques Bureau: What is the information my hon. friend wants? The names of the people put out?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: There were three or four only.


Arthur Meighen: The information I ask for will be found in Hansard. I asked for it about a quarter to six this evening-the dismissals, and on whose certificate,, and what the nature of the information was.


Jacques Bureau: I can tell my hon. friend as to one man. One man, Morgan, was dismissed, and dismissed for cause because he was the secretary of the Tory organization during the last fight.


William F. Carroll: Bad man.


Jacques Bureau: Politically, not otherwise, and he was dismissed on the recommendation of Mr. Cardin, the member for that constituency who stated that he was the secretary of the Tory organization and took an active part against him in the last election. I thought that was sufficient ground, and I dismissed him.


Arthur Meighen: That is one.


Jacques Bureau: There are two more. I forget their names-


Arthur Meighen: About two hundred more, according to my information.


Jacques Bureau: -but they were dismissed on the same grounds.


Arthur Meighen: If that is the fact there should be no delay when the item is reached again.


Ernest Lapointe: We have been discussing this for over two hours now.


Arthur Meighen: And the information i3 not here.


Mr BUREAU:: I have given one third of the information. There are two more I think.


Arthur Meighen: Oh!


Jacques Bureau: That is all.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution carry?


Arthur Meighen: I have asked the minister to hold this item until we get the information. He admits he has not it here. He cannot get through all his estimates, he is holding one item; why not hold this one? About eight have gone through.


Ernest Lapointe: Because we have been discussing this for two hours, and to let the item stand would mean the whole discussion over again.


Arthur Meighen: We will discuss it longer still, then.


Ernest Lapointe: I really do not deserve the criticism my hon. friend is making. In fact, I am blamed all the time for keeping his friends in office. That is the blame I am receiving, not what he is ascribing to me now.


Arthur Meighen: I do not dispute that, but does he not see the help I am giving him now against that attack?


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend is not giving any help to his friends whom I am keeping in office.


Arthur Meighen: I am not looking to my friends. I am looking to the country.
Item 230 stands.
Amount required for the construction of one selfpropelling Hopper barge (revote), $54,800.


Arthur Meighen: When was this started?


Ernest Lapointe: Last year. It is under construction now.


Arthur Meighen: What is the estimated cost?


Ernest Lapointe: The contract is for $274,000. It was granted to Canadian Vickers, who were the lowest tenderers.


Arthur Meighen: How much has been
spent?


Ernest Lapointe: There was $219,200 expended before the close of the year.


Arthur Meighen: Two hundred and nineteen thousand dollars had been expended, and the contract is for $224,000-


Ernest Lapointe: No, $274,000.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Arthur Meighen: Oh. Were there any other tenderers besides Canadian Vickers?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes, I have the list here:
The Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co.
Ltd. Lauzon, Levis, P.Q	 $300,000
Fraser Brace, Limited, Montreal	 205,000
Engines by Inglis, Toronto, and boilers by
the Robb Engineering Works	 310,000
Engine and boilers by J. Englis & Co.
Toronto	 315,000
The Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., Collingwood	 319,000
The Port Arthur Shipbuilding Co. Ltd.
Port Arthur, Ont	 322,675
The Halifax Shipyards, Limited, Halifax,
N.S	 324,500
The Wallace Shipyards, Limited,	Vancouver.	340,000The Midland Shipbuilding Co., Midland,	Ont.	385,250
The tender of Vickers was $274,000, much by far the lowest.


Mr. BOYS:: Did I understand the minister to say the contract price was $274,000?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Why was $285,000 required?


Ernest Lapointe: That was the estimated cost by the engineers of the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agencies-rents and contingencies, $212,000.
Ernest Lapointe: The increase of $2,000 there provides for the statutory increases in salary.


Mr. HANSON:: How many agencies are
there and where are they located?


Ernest Lapointe: There are eight agents located as follows: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Montreal, Parry Sound, Victoria and Prince Rupert.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is it necessary to
maintain a separate agency in the province of Prince Edward Island? That must be a very small territory. It seems to me it could be yoked up with either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.


Ernest Lapointe: That agency covers the northern coast of Nova Scotia and the northern coast of New Brunswick as well as Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen islands.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The New Brunswick agency only covers the Bay of Fundy?


Ernest Lapointe: The Bay of Fundy and
as far as Lockeport in Nova Scotia.


William Alves Boys: What are the agencies for,
what work do they perform?


Ernest Lapointe: For placing and maintaining necessary aids to navigation and other work. All the lightkeepers and the vessels employed in placing the buoys are under the control of these agencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $650,000.
Mr. LEGER:: I should like to ask the
minister if the lightkeepers were given any increase in salaries last year?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I must admit that there have been requests for increases in the salaries of the lightkeepers, and their case is deserving of consideration. The only reason for not yielding to these requests is economy and the disinclination of parliament to increase any expenditure at the present time. I may say that my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Forke) told me that he desired to plead for the lightkeepers when this item came up. The question of increasing salaries is under consideration.


Arthur John Lewis: Are these men under the
Civil Service Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: The most of them are.


Arthur John Lewis: Would they get the customary statutory increase if they were under the Civil Service Commission?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a minimum and a maximum salary provided in every class and they are getting it year by year.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is there any prospect of a reclassification in the near future in response to the demand that was made?


Ernest Lapointe: The question is being considered.


Auguste Théophile Léger: These officers are certainly not adequately paid for the work they do. Their duty is to protect navigation and in this work they are engaged from the month of April, you might say, up to the month of October. The salary for part time officers engaged in this work amounts to only about $30 or $35 a moDth. With very few exceptions the amount they receive is only $30, which is wholly inadequate to maintain themselves and their families. They are located in very lonely and isolated spots and I think they should have a little more salary than they are now paid in order to enjoy a fair living. Inadequate payment is not much of an encouragement to efficient work. It may be said that if these men do not want the positions they can resign, but that would not be

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
a fair answer to their request. Other men would take the jobs at insufficient salaries. I would ask the minister to consider the advisability of making a reclassification of these officers in order that they may be a little better paid in the future.


Edward Joseph Garland: Did the minister state the average salary paid to lighthouse keepers?


Ernest Lapointe: There are twenty classes of lightkeepers. In class 1, the minimum is $2,880 and the maximum $3,240. There are 10 lightkeepers in class 1.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What class of lightkeepers would those be?


Ernest Lapointe: They are in charge of the most important lights. Those are Cape Race, Belle Isle, Bird Rocks, Pelee passage, Es-tevan point, Pachena, Leonard island, Lan-gara, and Sand Heads. There are 21 lightkeepers in class 2. The salary is from $2,100 to 2,280. There are 56 lightkeepers in class 3, with salaries from $1,560 to $1,740. There are 39 in class 4, with salary from $1,500 to $1,680. There are 13 in class 5 with salary from $1,440 to $1,620. There are 17 in class 6 with salary from $960 to $1,200. There are 32 in class 7 with salary from $840 to $930.


Jacques Bureau: Dispense.


Ernest Lapointe: I am giving the details.


Jacques Bureau: There are not going to be any lighthouses on the prairies.


Ernest Lapointe: The classes continue until we reach class 19 which relate to the contract lights. In class 19 the minimum is $60 and the maximum $80.


Arthur Meighen: Is that per month?


Ernest Lapointe: Per annum.


Arthur Meighen: What do they do for that wage?


Ernest Lapointe: Those are small wharf lights.


Arthur Meighen: Are the keepers supposed to stay there?


Ernest Lapointe: No; they go and light up in the evening and go in the morning to extinguish the lights.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the lowest class of full time men and what are they paid?


Ernest Lapointe: That would be class No. 7, $840 to $930 per y*ar.
(Mr. Leger.]


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had an interview with one of these gentlemen from my own native country when up here last winter, and he told me he got the magnificent salary of $200 a year. He had been on the job for twenty years. He was appointed by the old government prior to 1911. He further told me it was impossible for him to do any outside work, except once in a while, when he did a little fishing. He also told me he could not possibly live on the salary.


Ernest Lapointe: He could not.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And I quite agreed with him. I think this case ought to receive special consideration. This man does the classifying of the lights. Is that under the department? I do not suppose the Civil Service Commission do it.


Ernest Lapointe: It was done by the Civil Sendee Commission.


Mr. DUFF:: Arthur Young and Company.


Jacques Bureau: No, Griffenhagen.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Possibly the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) thinks he could do it a great deal better himself, but I did not ask him.


William Duff: I could do it better than the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson).


Richard Burpee Hanson: I take issue on that.


William Duff: The hon. member would take issue on anything.


Arthur John Lewis: Is there an allowance in addition to the salary? This item says, "salary and allowance".


Ernest Lapointe: They got a living bonus for the last two years, in common with all other civil servants.


Arthur John Lewis: That covers the allowance.


Arthur Meighen: That is not an allowance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is not an allowance.


Edward Joseph Garland: I understand the minister is a little diffident about increasing the salaries because of possible objection by the House. We might appropriate Duncan Marshall's salary and distribute it amongst these men.


John Millar: Is the salary of $840 for seven months' or twelve months' service?


Ernest Lapointe: In many cases it is for twelve months' service.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Mr. FORKE:: I met some of those men from the lighthouses and discussed the whole situation with them, the wages they were getting, the hours they were putting in, the loneliness of their lives, the disadvantage in not being able to educate their children and a great many things. I think really they ought to get a little more pay than they are getting at the present time. I am just as much for economy as any one, but I would like to begin at the top and come down.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad the hon. member takes that view. I know the work that the lighthouse keepers are doing on the St. Lawrence, and I know that in many cases their salaries are not commensurate with the services they give to the country. The employees who deserve the first consideration are the lighthouse keepers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Could the minister tell us
in what class the Gannett Rock light keeper in the Bay of Fundy is placed?


Mr. TOBIN:: Could the minister increase the salaries of the lighthouse keepers without going to the Civil Service Commission?


Jacques Bureau: No, they have been classified.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no light on
Gannett Rock.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, I have been there myself.


Mr. LUCAS:: Are any of these lighthouse keepers provided with a house?


Ernest Lapointe: All the permanent ones,
the full-time men have houses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $850,000.
Arthur John Lewis: Has the maintenance any reference to food, or do these men supply their own food?


Ernest Lapointe: This increase has reference to fuel, delivery and supply, freight and cartage, for the use of the staff.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these purchases by tender or by agents of the department?


Ernest Lapointe: In every case by tender and contract, except for small merchandise requirements?


Arthur John Lewis: How many lighthouses has the department to keep up?


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister said supplies were purchased by tender. Is there a public advertisement for these supplies, or is there a selected list in each case.


Ernest Lapointe: We ask prices from the
dealers in every locality.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister asks the
friends of the government to put in tenders?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand there are no public tenders called for in the province of New Brunswick.


Ernest Lapointe: No more in New Brunswick than elsewhere. We are asking the dealers for prices of articles in the different localities. Tories and Grits are invited to give their prices, and in many cases the friends of my hon. friends get the contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister quite sure
of that?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, there have been
many changes in this country.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is why the minister
is1 where he is.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to an item which seems to have been neglected by the agent in the district. I refer to a very important light on the mainland, at Richibucto Cape. I understand the keeper has asked the agent to look after it and get it put in proper shape, but it has not been done. Some complaint was made last year. This place is open from the shore right up to the light and the cattle go in. The agent paid no attention to the complaint and it has' not been remedied. Therefore, I call the attention of the minister to it so that he may see that the matter will be attended to in the future,


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member is not the only member who is in such a position. There are many others. We are asking for repairs of that kind. This vote formerly was $1,000,000, but it has been decreased to $850,000, and the unwillingness to increase the appropriation is responsible for certain necessary repairs, such as those my hon. friend mentioned, not being done, but I will try to meet his views.


William Alves Boys: It was only $800,000 in 192021.


Ernest Lapointe: I mean a few years
ago, especially before the war

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Burpee Hanson: While this may not be
exactly relevant to this item, I should like to get some information in regard to the tugboat Murray Stewart. Last year there was an appropriation of $100,000 in the estimates to replace the Lambton that was lost in lake Superior in a gale with large loss of life. On that occasion the minister, in making an explanation, stated that no decision had been reached whether a boat would be purchased or one would be built. Later on it was discovered that the minister had purchased from one, Mr. Stewart, a gentleman living in Toronto very close to Mr. M. J. Haney, president of the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, a ship called the Murray Stewart. This vessel, I am instructed, was built at Port Arthur some few years ago. I am informed that her hull was new but her machinery was old, having been transferred from some other vessel; that the purchase price paid by the department was some $80,000. I am further advised that that vessel had been sent down from the Great Lakes to the harbour of St. John, not under charter, but in the hands of agents for sale, and that at any time that boat could have been purchased for $25,000. Later on, after the Lamb-ton was lost, friends of the government, including Mr. M. J. Haney and his friend, Mr. Stewart, of Toronto, had this boat transferred from the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company to Mr. Stewart's name, and they unloaded her on the the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the sum of $80,000. This boat was intended to replace an icebreaker. I understand that she is absolutely useless for that purpose, and that the $80,000 expended for that purpose might just as well have been thrown away; that this spring boats had to be hired to do in Midland harbour the work that she was designed to do. I should like to have some information about [DOT]this boat other than what has been given in -answer to an inquiry made through the order paper.


Ernest Lapointe: I must say that this
boat was to replace the Lambton, as my hon. friend has said, and an appropriation of $100,000 was voted last year for that purpose. The department was in immediate need of a boat for the work which had to be performed by her. Only three boats which were suitable for that purpose were offered to the department. They were visited and inspected by the engineers of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What are their names?


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot give the names just now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The deputy will know.


Ernest Lapointe: The Murray Stewart
was recommended to me by the officers of the department as being the one best suited for the purpose. It is a steel tug, length 119 feet, beam 26 feet, gross tonnage 234-46, registered tonnage 92 25, speed 11 knots. It was built in 1918 by the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, complete except for the engine, which was rebuilt at the time of the construction of the hull. She was purchased for $80,000 from James Frederick Martin Stewart, of Toronto, to replace the Lambton which was lost on lake Superior in the spring of 1922. The boat will also be used to render assistance to ships handling grain in Georgian bay ports at the close of navigation each year. Although she is not intended for an icebreaker, she is much more suited for that work than the one she has replaced.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true, but
if she was purchased for an icebreaker sha could not perform that duty.


Ernest Lapointe: She never was purchased for an icebreaker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was the explanation
given by the minister last year.


Ernest Lapointe: To assist ships in handling grain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think I can refer the
minister to the pages of Hansard. Is it not a fact that the engines in this boat were second-hand engines taken out of another boat, and that when she was purchased she had no engines?
' Mr. LAPOINTE:	The engines were in
excellent condition, although second-hand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That, of course, is not
answering my question.


Ernest Lapointe: I said "although secondhand."


Richard Burpee Hanson: I beg pardon. Did the
minister see Mr. Haney in regard to the purchase from Mr. Stewart? If he had any correspondence with him, I would be glad >f he would produce it.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know the
gentlemen. I would not recognize them anywhere if I saw them

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister surely does
not say that he has never met Mr. Haney who laboured for the government down in the Maritime provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry. My hon.
friend is better acquainted than I am with him. I do not know him.


Edmund William Tobin: He has a good name, anyway.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Is this vessel equipped
with wireless?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it is not.


James Arthurs: Are the other vessels
presently on the Great Lakes equipped with wireless??


Ernest Lapointe: None of them on the
Great Lakes.


James Arthurs: Why not? The Minister will remember that last fall there was :& great difficulty in regard to navigation on lake Superior. Would it not be well to have these vessels equipped with wireless?


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion is one
which deserves consideration.


James Arthurs: More than that, I think
it deserves very favourable consideration. I think all these vessels should be equipped with wireless, especially in view of the situation as it was last fall and as it may be any *other season on the Great Lakes.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right, but there
was no wireless there two or three years ago any more than there is now. I have been *trying to keep expenditures down.


James Arthurs: May I be excused for
*saying that that is not absolutely in accordance with the facts. The Simcoe was equipped with wireless until she was taken down during the war for service on the ocean.


Ernest Lapointe: The Lambton was not
equipped with wireless.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Coming back to the Murray Stewart, I understand that the minister had this boat thoroughly inspected before he bought it?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the minister dot have to have substantial repairs made on that vessel this last spring-to the boilers?


Ernest Lapointe: Some repairs were made on that boat.


Richard Burpee Hanson: After she had been inspected and purchased and $80,000 paid over?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the $80,000 represented the price of the boat as she was when we bought her.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree. What repairs
were put on her and were tenders asked for those repairs?


Ernest Lapointe: I may inform my hon.
friend that this boat cost over $200,000 to build.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This boat was built by
the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company in their own plant. They transferred into her an old engine that had seen years of service, an engine that was in no sense modem. That is one of the reasons why she was not sold when she was down on the Atlantic coast. If she cost $200,000, it must be borne in mind that she was built during the war at the peak of prices, and that is no criterion at all of her value to-day. If the minister doubts that statement he can just consider the merchant marine.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not responsible for the merchant marine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you are responsible for this vessel.


Jacques Bureau: He wants you to broaden out.


Ernest Lapointe: Though I have the
greatest opinion of my hon. friend I must confess that when it is necessary to purchase another boat for my department I shall rather take the advice of the chief engineers and other experts of the department than that of the hon. member.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course, that is a very cheap remark to make.


Jacques Bureau: But very appropriate.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But it does not make me subside for a moment.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, no, I do not want to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to know when this boat was taken over, where the crew came from, what was the cost of getting her to the scene of operations, and how long it took to get her there.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend should not be over-inquisitive about this item, and I will tell him why: It was passed days ago. I do not object, of course, to his asking any questions in reference to the item, even although it has been already voted, so long
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

as they are reasonable; but he must not overstep the limit. I am quite willing to give all the information I have by me, but this matter does not come under this item.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister has not the information I cannot expect him to give it. But do I understand that when we give him a blank cheque, as we did last year, we are never to ask any questions with relation to the expenditure of the money so voted?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, that is what it
amounts to.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman misinterprets the minister.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend gave me a blank cheque of $100,000 for the purchase of a boat; I made a good bargain and got one for $80,000, saving $20,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You got a second-hand $25,000 boat for $80,000.


Ernest Lapointe: It was built in 1918.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hull was bu'lt in
1917.


William Alves Boys: If the repairs cost over $20,000 it might not be a good bargain. The deputy minister is probably trying to find out what the repairs cost.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot tell my hon. friend how much was paid for repairs. I was not supposed to answer these questions to-night, because the item to which they relate has already been passed.


William Alves Boys: Of course, if the minister takes that stand then it ends the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: No, the matter is not necessarily ended; I am simply giving the reason for my not having any information to offer hon. gentlemen in reply to these questions.


William Alves Boys: I am not finding fault at all with the minister; I am only asking for information if it can possibly be got.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to get the information.


William Alves Boys: Then I understand that at the moment the minister cannot tell us what was paid for repairs?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


William Alves Boys: I thought the deputy was looking it up.


Ernest Lapointe: So he is, but he has not been able to find it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it not a fact that the boat was intended, among other things, to be used as an ice-breaker, and that she failed to function as such and the department had to hire other boats to do this class of work?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is my information. Mr. BUREAU: Misinformed again.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Was this boat used for placing the lightkeepers at the respective stations this spring? If not, was she engaged elsewhere, or was she considered unsuitable for the -work?


Ernest Lapointe: The ice conditions this >
ear were particularly bad. There was so much ice that it was thought advisable to charter a boat to do the work.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I take it, then, that this boat was not used because she was not equipped to stand the ice.


Ernest Lapointe: There was so much ice that it was thought dangerous to use her.


William Alves Boys: Where can we find the item that provided for the cost of repairs to this boat?


Ernest Lapointe: It will be found under Dominion Steamers, item 215.


James Arthurs: I would impress upon the minister the necessity for equipping all boats of the merchant marine with wireless.
, Mr. LAPOINTE: I shall certainly take the suggestion into consideration.


Mr. MANION:: What are the regulations governing the closing down of lighthouses in the fall months? Is there a regular date for closing them down, or do they stay open until the navigation companies decide to discontinue operations?


Ernest Lapointe: Navigation is supposed to close on December 20, when the lighthouses are closed.


Robert James Manion: Last year, I know, navigation was open on the Great Lakes after the 20th of December, and the lighthouse keepers were not taken off until some time subsequently.


Ernest Lapointe: Navigation closes at the date I have stated, and the lighthouse keepers are picked up as soon as weather conditions permit.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Robert James Manion: I know that navigation was open last year a good deal later than it has been in previous years.


Ernest Lapointe: The official date is December 20.


William Alves Boys: I presume it would be easy for the minister to have his deputy turn to the items that make up the total of $1,500,000 referred to in item 215. If he did that we could find out what was required for the repairs of the boat in question.


Ernest Lapointe: The repairs to the hull and engine for the year were $11,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was there a tender?


William Alves Boys: Does that include all repairs? The minister says "hull and engine"; perhaps there were other repairs in addition to these.


Ernest Lapointe: The whole amount for the Murray Stewart is $11,000. including all repairs, salaries, fuel, steward supplies and repairs to hull and engine.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Were not tenders called for in connection with repairs to the boiler, and were they not rejected because they were too high?


Ernest Lapointe: I have no recollection.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I wish the minister would look into the question. My information is that the boilers needed a great deal of repairing and tenders were asked for, but the amounts of the tenders were so high that, in view of the fact that the boat had just been bought, she was patched up instead of being repaired properly.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman's information is wrong.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think it is.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction of lights and aids to navigation, including regulation of traffic in -the Detroit river and such other places as may be found necessary, $500,000.
William Alves Boys: There is a very substantial increase of $100,000 here, which I presume the minister will explain.


Ernest Lapointe: A great deal of new construction and renewal work has been postponed from year to year for several years past until it cannot reasonably be postponed any longer. It is proposed to enlarge operations and to begin some of the work this year. For this purpose an increase of $100,000 as compared with 1922-23 is provided for. As a matter of fact, we have from time to time
deferred the construction of new lights and other aids to navigation on account of not having the necessary funds. I think most members who represent maritime constituencies have had their constituents urge them to ask for new aids to navigation, and they know that this added expenditure is absolutely necessary.


William Alves Boys: Are there two or three very large new items, or is the increase generally distributed?


Ernest Lapointe: It is generally distributed. Everything is submitted to the lighthouse board, and no new improvement is made without being recommended by the board; the minister comes next.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister continuing the practice of only authorizing new lights and aids to navigation that have been first recommended by the lighthouse board; or has he adopted the reverse practice of suggesting these improvements to the board?


Ernest Lapointe: Where' the request is made direct to me, it is sent to the Lighthouse Board, they pass upon it, and the minister accepts their decision; otherwise life would be miserable for me.


William Alves Boys: I think in an item of this size we ought to have a fuller explanation. A hundred thousand dollars is a great deal of money. Where are the increases immediately to be found?


Ernest Lapointe: I can give my hon. friend a list of the new work recommended, but it is very long.


William Alves Boys: I was not asking the minister to take up the time of the committee with a lot of small things. If he would single out a few of the larger items, I think those are all we would be interested in.


Ernest Lapointe: Here are the principal items: Fog alarm and light stations, Green island, Nova Scotia, $30,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that a new light?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. A fog alarm at West Point, Anticosti, $15,000; a lighthouse and dwelling at Entry island (Magdalens), $18,000. On the Great Lakes there is a fog alarm and lighthouse at Trowbridge island, lake Superior, $30,000; another fog alarm at Angus island, lake Superior, $30,000. In British Columbia, among other items, I find a fog alarm and dwelling at Merry island, $18,000; at Quatsina, fog alarms, $9,000.
Supply-Marine and Fisheries


William Alves Boys: What have you got in Kempen-felt bay, lake Simeoe?


Ernest Lapointe: I hope my hon. friend will send me his requests direct.


William Alves Boys: I would be glad to do so if the minister would promise to accede to them.


Ernest Lapointe: They will be submitted to the proper board. Then there are renewals recommended at Bunker island, Nova Scotia, $15,000; lighthouses at cape Sable, $16,000; a dwelling at Scatarie, $12,000. In New Brunswick, a dwelling at Machias Seal island, $12,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister ought to go out and visit those places.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope to do so next sum-mre and to see my hon. friend there. Then at Anticosti a dwelling, $12,000; a light ship at Princess shoal, $25,000; and so on. I hope I have satisfied my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: These are all large expenditures. Have they been recommended by the Lighthouse Board?


Ernest Lapointe: Every one of them.


Mr. FANSHER:: I see this item also covers regulation of traffic in the Detroit river. What is the nature of the regulation?


Ernest Lapointe: This is the most congested channel in the navigable waters of the country, and the department is looking after its regulation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What supervision is exercised over the bootleggers in that district?


Ernest Lapointe: The Customs is looking after that.


Jacques Bureau: That is all right, don't worry.


Burt Wendell Fansher: Are there too many boats crossing, do I understand?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh yes, there are many.
Mr, HANSON: Are these new lighthouses being built by tender?


Ernest Lapointe: In every case where it is possible. The only exceptions are at isolated points where it would not be possible to obtain tenders.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine signal service, $104,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister explain this item?
[Mr Lapointe.]


Ernest Lapointe: It is to provide for the maintenance and operation of marine signal service stations. These have been established for the purpose of reporting the movements of ships, weather and ice conditions, and dangers to navigation generally. The system extends from St. John and Halifax to Cape Race and Belle Isle, and from the gulf of St. Lawrence through the Great Lakes to Sault Ste. Marie. The increase of $15,000 as compared with last year is to provide for normal expansion, including statutory salary increases, increased telegraph and telephone tolls, stationery and some necessary repairs.


William Alves Boys: It is increasing quite rapidly.
I see in 1920-21 it was only $65,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it has been increasing. The marine signal service has expanded tremendously, and requests are continually coming in for a still greater expansion of this service. Undoubtedly it is necessary for the safety of navigation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $250,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the minister mind
explaining the decrease in this vote?


Ernest Lapointe: With pleasure. Last year provision was made for the construction of a pilot boat at Father Point at a cost of $100,000, which expenditure of course will not be required this year. We have, however, to add $6,000 for statutory increases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the custom of the
department to provide boats for the pilots at the different ports? I understand that the port of St. John pilots have always had to provide their own boats. I am rather surprised to learn that in the province of Quebec the government provides these boats.


Ernest Lapointe: The pilots on the St.
Lawrence river have been supplied with boats by the department from time immemorial-I suppose prior to there being any pilots at St. John.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be interesting to know if the minister will extend this accommodation to the pilots on the Atlantic, because I think the St. John pilots would be very glad to have their boats provided for them by the government.


Ernest Lapointe: The suggestion will have my most serious consideration!


Jacques Bureau: Do the pilots at St. John take off the mail bags from the steamships?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Jacques Bureau: These boats on the St.
Lawrence take the mail from the incoming steamships and deliver it on the dock, to be shipped by the Intercolonial out West to Vancouver.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They pilot the mail boats just the same. We do not have to lighter them down there like they do at Quebec.


Jacques Bureau: We do not lighter them. This is so as not to stop the ship. It is to give better service to the people of British Columbia. They come to Father Point, drop the pilot or take one on, the mail bags are taken off and landed on Rimouski wharf, and from there they are taken by the Intercolonial and go on to Vancouver.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable for the good of navigation, $40,000.
Robert James Manion: I see the item is the same as last year, $40,000, yet I know there was difficulty there this year in regard to breaking the ice. The company that had the work had a contract price, $40,000, was it not?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The company that did the breaking of the ice last year fell down on the job this spring, and another company was called in. Was that charged up to the contractors who succeeded in getting the contract for the work?


Jacques Bureau: That was done while I
was acting for the minister. The company that had the contract fell down, and we were wired that ships were stuck in the ice, and that it was pressing that we should do something. Another company offered its services, and we thought it was advisable to accept, which we did. The contract price was paid less the amount charged by the other company, which is being hpld over to pay the company that took over the work.


Robert James Manion: Then it is the intention of the government to charge the cost up to the contracting company.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot say, I am no longer
acting for that department.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a claim pending with regard to that, but no decision has been arrived at yet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why did not the minister send the Murray Stewart up there? That is what she was purchased for, we were told last year.


Ernest Lapointe: She was not intended
for that, but as we are told that she is such a good boat we may use her.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Amount requited to pay pensions to pilots-Louis Rob. Demers, Joseph Lapointe, Bartholemi Lachance, Alphonse Asselin, Elzear Desrosiers, Hubert Raymond, Arbel Bernier, Adelme Pouliot, Edmond LaRochelle, L. E. Morin, A. T. Simard, Joseph Plante, Victor V&zina, Raymond Baquet, Alfred LaRochelle, Theo-phile Corriveau, Alphonse Pouliot, Emilio Couillard, Treffle Delisle, David Dumas, Alfred Gaudreau, F. X. Demeules, Adjutor Baillargeon, Joseph Pouliot, Arthur Baillargeon, John A. Irvine. Camille Bernier, Joseph Eugene Lachance, Elzear Normand, Phileas Lachance, $9,475.
Mr. BAXTER:: I have no objection to the item, of course, but will the minister explain why the pensions for these pilots are chargeable to the vote, while if my impression is correct, the pilots in the maritime province ports which have a pilotage service get their pensions out of the funds provided from the pilotage dues from the vessel. If I am in error, I would like the minister to correct me.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is right, but this has been voted since 1906 under an agreement between the pilots of the Quebec district and the government. By order in council of December 5, 1906, provision was made for the payment of an annual pension of $300 to every pilot in the district of Quebec who had retired after reaching the age limit of 65 or in special cases 60 years. In addition and by agreement a life pension is paid to a number of pilots who retired voluntarily in the interests of the service prior to 1913. The number receiving such pension is thirty. This appropriation provides for that number in full. It has been voted by parliament since 1906.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: May I ask the minister further whether there has been within a year or two some change in the St. John pilotage in the nature of having it taken over by the government? I cannot express it more exactly than that. I am under the impression there has been some change in the system.


Ernest Lapointe: The pilots of St. John have been brought under the Minister of Marine like those of Quebec, Montreal and other important ports. The Minister of Marine has become the pilotage authority. That was recommended by a royal commission some years ago, and I understand the pilots themselves wanted the change.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I cannot at all object to it, but I want to know if the same result as takes place in the Quebec or Montreal district will eventually take place at St. John, Halifax and other Maritime province ports;

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that is, when 1a pilot is pensioned, will he fall on this general fund, or even though the minister takes charge will it remain a purely local matter?


Ernest Lapointe: The agreement I spoke of covered the case of the pilots of the Quebec district, who were then pilots. None of those who have pased their examinations and have become pilots after that date come under the provisions of that agreement, and when the pilots who are at present being pensioned under that agreement disappear there will be no such pension paid, because the agreement will not apply to the new pilots.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patrol of the Northern waters of Canada, $15,000.
Mr. BANCROFT:: Will the minister explain this item?


Ernest Lapointe: It is to provide for the publication of reports of the Canadian Arctic expedition. Approximately one-half of the reports prepared or to be prepared will be published by the close of the fiscal year, 1922-1923, and it is hoped to complete that part of the work of the expedition before the close of the fiscal year 1923-1924. Also it is hoped to complete the binding of 3 or 4 volumes of these reports, for issue to libraries, universities, and so forth, before the close of the ficsal year 1923-1924. The salaries are as follows: Hon. J. C. Patterson, Investigator of titles to British possessions in Arctic seas, $2,400; F. Johansen, Assistant Zoologist, $2,280.
I might give a list of the volumes prepared by the different scientists with regard to the work of the Arctic expedition, in geology, botany, and so forth.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not interested in the names of all the volumes, but I would like the minister to tell us who owns Wrangel island.


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to know' myself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Marine-Meteorological service including Magnetic Observatory, grants of $500 each to Kingston and Montreal Observatories, and allowance of $400 to L. F. Gorman, Observer at Ottawa, $287,629.
Ernest Lapointe: The increase in this item is asked for in order to provide for an enlarged distribution of weather bulletins and for printing the Ontario and Quebec section of the Climatology of Canada, the completion of the Magnetic Observatory at Meanook, Alberta, the replacement of the existing Ob-IMr. Baxter.]
servatory building at Quebec, the old building having been pronounced beyond repair, and $1,000 for miscellaneous expenses. A saving of $4,871 will be effected in salaries, of $4,000 for repairs to stations, and $500 in travelling expenses.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister explain why a special allowance is made to Mr. L. F. Gorman, observer at Ottawa? Is that a method adopted to give him a larger salary, or what?


Ernest Lapointe: I understand that this vote has been made for twenty years and that the gentleman deserves his salary to the full extent. I agree that it seems peculiar that he should not have been classified with a fixed sum covering the whole amount of his salary, but this has been an annual appropriation for, as I said, the last twenty years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have found in the last session or two since I came up here, that when no better reason can be given for doing a certain thing the reason is assigned "Well this has been done forever and ever". I think that is the very weakest kind of reason that can be advanced for doing this, that and the other thing.


Ernest Lapointe: This is good doctrine
coming from a Conservative.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have heard that reason assigned in the committee very often. It is no reason at all to advance. I submit to the minister that to say that because the thing has been done for an innumerable number of years it must be kept up is no proper explanation. If this gentleman is worth the money why not pay him accordingly? If it is a sop for him or a method to get round the Civil Service Act why not say so? I suggest that if the gentleman is worth the money as the minister suggests he should be paid the salary to which he is entitled and not have money voted each year in this way.


Ernest Lapointe: I admit that the observations of my hon. friend appeal to me. I think if he remains a few years in opposition he will become a good reformer. However, I will look into the matter and if it is possible to have the gentleman get his salary otherwise than by this item of $400 additional I will see to it that it is done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Steamboat inspection, $119,210.
Ernest Lapointe: The appropriation provides for statutory salary increases and for the appointment of two clerk-stenographers, one:

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
in the inspector's office at Port Arthur and one in the inspector's office at Kingston, the whole involving an expenditure of $4,400 in excess of last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and disbursements of fishery officers and guardians, fisheries patrol and fishery protection services, $880,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister if any decision has been reached with respect to the use of Canadian Atlantic ports by American fishermen? That is a live question I think, at the moment, and the House is entitled to a statement with respect to it.


Ernest Lapointe: The question is ,still under consideration and a decision will be arrived at shortly. I will then be pleased to make an announcement.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the statement that has been given out to the press every day for about ten days.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid that in most instances the press merely guessed at it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, they are good guessers. The government is doing nothing as usual.


Jacques Bureau: At the last election they were bad guessers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not down in my locality. Perhaps the minister, for the information ot the House will state how this question has arisen and what has been the action of the American government as regards the use of their ports?


Ernest Lapointe: During the war there was an international commission which investigated all matters concerning the fisheries of both countries, that was one of their recommendations, and it was agreed upon by both governments. The United States ports were opened to Canadian fishing vessels just as the Canadian ports were opened to the American fishing vessels. When the war was over the Americans closed their ports again claiming that the privilege previously enjoyed had been granted under war legislation and that the powers of their War Times Measures Act had expired. On the other hand we kept our ports open to American vessels. Since 1888, under what was called the modus vivendi, American vessels were allowed the use of our ports on payment of a small license fee. Many interests in our country were in favour of granting that privilege to the Americans. Many of our people in the Maritime provinces were selling their fish to Americans.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the modus vivendi include a supply of bait as well?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, it did. On the other hand it resulted in placing the Canadian fishermen in a state of inferiority compared to American fishermen, because the latter used our ports for all the purposes mentioned and shipped their fish to the United States in bond and free of duty. Now a very high duty has been imposed on Canadian fish entering the United States under the new Fordney tariff. Consequently there has been a movement on the part of Canadian fishermen to deprive their competitors in the United States of the right which they do not want to grant to our fishermen. Under the conditions as they exist to-day my own opinion is that if we cannot get from the United States privileges similar to those we grant, it is only fair and just that we should treat American fishermen as Canadian fishermen are treated by the United States.
'	9


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let me say to the minister that I entirely agree with the concluding part of his observations. You will never gain anything from the American government by lying down and submitting to them; you always want to have something that you car retaliate with in dealing with them. When they closed their ports to our fishermen a mistake was made in not immediately closing our ports to them, regardless of the objection that might be raised by a few supply men in some of the Atlantic ports. If that had been done long ago the United States would have realized that we had a stiff backbone and that we were able to stand up for our own rights. There has been so much delay that the closing of our ports to American fishermen may not have the result my hon. friend anticipates. However, I would say close them at once as far as I am concerned.


Thomas George McBride: I would concur in the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Hanson). As a representative from the Pacific coast, I think it is about time that Canada should treat American fishermen in a manner corresponding to the treatment our fishermen receive over there. I think this government should take a very strong stand on the matter. They should close the Canadian ports to American fishermen, and keep them closed until the ports of the United States are opened to the fishermen of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
Building fishways and clearing rivers, $40,000.
Mr. CALDWELL:: When this item was up last year I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that there are two or more dams built across Salmon river in Victoria county with no fishways in them. On that occasion the minister told me the matter had been investigated and it had been found there was not water enough in this river to enable salmon to get up. I made it my business to investigate the question during the recent summer and at a dry period of the season. I was somewhat surprised to find, after the statement of the minister, that this is quite a large river-in fact lumber is driven down it, I believe, for a matter of sixty miles. There is no time in low water when there is not plenty of water for salmon or for boats, and pretty good navigation. The river got its name from the fact that it was teeming with salmon at one time; therefore it was called Salmon river, and is a tributary of the St. John riier, not far below Grand Falls. Salmon cannot go up the Grand Falls in the St. John river. That is one of the reasons why the fish should be able to go up the Salmon river to the breeding ground in the northern country. It was one of the most prolific sources of salmon in years gone by, as I learned from residents whom I interviewed there.


Ernest Lapointe: Are there any salmon
there now?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I doubt if there are;
the dams have stopped them coming up. I would, therefore, urge the minister to have the fishery overseer go there and make an inspection.


Ernest Lapointe: How long have the dams been there?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I do not know the
number of years. I know there has been quite an urge from the settlers that fishways should be put in the dams when they were built. This was not done, and due to that fact the salmon have become almost exterminated on the upper reaches of the river. If fishways were put in, they could go up there and breed.
There is another matter which I called attention to last year, and I would like some information in regard to it. It is the question of the pollution of the rivers by sawdust from the sawmills. The northern end of the St. John river is the boundary line between the United States and Canada, running through Madawaska county on the one side, and the state of Maine on the other. With regard (Mr. McBride.]
to our own mills on the Canadian side, and in fact on both sides of the river from Grand Falls down, which is Canadian, the regulations are very strict, and well enforced, I believe, by the fisheries overseers to prevent sawdust being dumped into the river, because it is very injurious to the fish. However, there are mills on the American side of the St. John river where the river is a boundary line, and I . believe the sawdust from those mills is being dumped in the river. The American authorities are not very particular about it, because the river almost immediately runs into Canada, and the injury is done in Canada. It is a very great injury. Our Canadian sawmill men are compelled to burn their sawdust, or to carry it back on the high ground where it can do no harm. I suggested to the minister that this matter might be referred to the International Joint Commission. I believe there is such a body, is there not? Has this been done? I asked last year that it should be done, but I believe no action has been taken.


Ernest Lapointe: It has been submitted
to the commission, as my hon. friend suggests, and they said it was not a matter they could deal with. We are trying to negotiate with the Commissioner for the state of Maine with regard to this very matter, and I hope we will be able to get a solution such as would suit my hon. friend.
With reference to the hon. member's question in regard to the Salmon river, in view of what he has just said, I will make it a point to send an engineer there this summer to inquire into the conditions, and if it is necessary, we will compel the owners to put in fishways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who bears the expense of building these fishways' in the dams? Is it the department or the owners of the dam?


Ernest Lapointe: The owners of the dam.


Mr. MILNE:: When this matter was up before, I drew the attention of the minister to the fact that there was a little stream up in Manitoba, White Mud river, on which the railway company had a dam near the village of Gladstone. I was assured that the department would look into the matter and see that a fishway was built so that the fish could go up. I understand that during the summer an inspector went up and looked at the dam and the fishway, and from what I caD gather nothing has been done. The citizens there tell me no change has been made. I asked some of the officials of the railway company why they did not fix the slide so that the fish could get up, and they assured me

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
that it was built according to the specifications of the Fisheries department, and they did not know what else they could do. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that a fish inspector going up and looking at the slide does not assist the fish one bit in getting over. We have been trying for a long time to get that fishway built so that the fish could go up. For the last ten or twelve years we have been working at it as hard as we could, and we are no further ahead than when we started. It seems to me it is the next thing to a crime to have in the dams fishways which are not suitable and which the fish cannot climb. It deprives the settlers of the opportunity of getting a few fish in the sipring. If they could get over the dam there is nothing to hinder them going up into the country 40 or 50 miles. Not only that, but the fish die below the dam. They pile up there until they are sticking out of the water, starve to death, and pollute the stream. In addition to that, the fish do not get up to the shallow waters and the sandy beaches to spawn, as I understand they should. I think this is a matter of great importance. It is too bad to have our people deprived of the food, and it is too bad to have the fish depleted, because they cannot go up the river to spawn.


Ernest Lapointe: I thought we had written to my hon. friend long ago explaining where the matter stood. We were waiting for the water to subside before taking final action in the matter. It is still engaging the attention of the department, and I hope we shall be able to do something.


Thomas George McBride: We have a fish inspector out in British Columbia whom everybody respects. He simply goes along and when he sees a dam in a creek he gives the owner a certain time to put a passage over it. When the inspector comes back, if the passage is not constructed over the dam as ordered, he blows the whole dam out with dynamite. I do not see why the same regulations should not be enforced in regard to the dam under discussion.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is an Irishman.


Thomas George McBride: Yes, he is an Irishman,^ and a good one at that.


Robert Forke: We are very peaceable and law-abiding on the prairies and do not attempt any such doings as that. The conditions which the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Milne) describes exist all over the prairie, and on the prairies the railway company at intervals have dammed the streams
for the purpose of getting water. I think we brought this matter to the minister's attention last year. I remember some years ago writing to the game guardian in Manitoba complaining that the chutes were so built that the fish could not get up. He inspected them and said that they were built according to law. W'ell, that did not help the fish. I think the trouble is the chutes are so steep that the pike cannot jump over them as the salmon do. The pike are slower going and are unable to get up, except in high water. I agree with the hon. member for Neepawa that while people who are used to salmon, such as the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell), look with contempt upon a pike, we on the prairie are only too glad to get them, because they are good food. It seems a pity that this condition should exist. I know the streams are being depleted. The fish cannot leave the lakes and go up to spawn, and where there were plenty of fish some years ago there is none to-day. My house as almost on the banks of Pipestone creek, and we used to be able to go out and catch a fish any time we wanted to, but we cannot get any now, and the only reason for this is that they cannot spawn. I think the chutes are ,'too steep and the regulations should be altered. The fish cannot go up except in high water. I think the minister might look into this, because it is important.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I would like to impress another matter upon the minister. It is not right for a man to put his own fishway in his dam. He should have someone see that the fishway is properly put in.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I can realize why a man running a sawmill with water power does not want a fishway in his dam. It wastes water. He is inclined to put in a small chute that will not waste much water. They had better not waste any water at all if they do not make it big enough so that the salmon can go up.


Ernest Lapointe: We always provide
plans and specifications, and an engineer is sent there to see that the work is well done.


Lewis Herbert Martell: WThat evidence is there that any of those fishways were in any way defective? I have heard a great deal about this, and I know from my experience in the department that fishways are constantly put in; but it seems to me that, though every effort should be made to permit fish to pass upstream for spawning, too many restrictions are being put on industry. Requests are made for fishways here and fishways there;

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
or the statement is made that sawdust is getting in a stream here and sawdust is getting in a stream there, and people are compelled to install a fishway, according to plans and specifications supplied by the department, for the purpose of letting one or two fish get up stream, irrespective of the damage this is doing to industry.


Robert Forke: We want fair play for the fish.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that sawdust in a stream does not affect the fish?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not suggesting anything of the sort; but with all due respect to my hon. friend, I know as much about fish as he does. I happen to come from a fishing constituency, and I was brought up practically in a fishing boat or vessel. I quite understand that sawdust or other mill refuse, is deleterious to fish life. But when, in order to meet the demands of one or two in a particular community, as regards streams away inland you put injunctions on millers who are making a living by sawing a few boards, you are putting a wrongful injunction upon industry. I remember some years ago when I was an official of the Marine and Fisheries department, word came from the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), that, I think it was called the Grace Falls Pulp and Paper Company, were polluting the waters and destroying fish. It appeared that once in nine years a man had caught a fish in that particular place, and immediately an action was begun in the courts of law to punish this company. Technically they were guilty. I was sent down by the department, being an official at that time, to investigate the matter, and I must say to the credit of the minister, although he was not of my political persuasion, that he immediately stopped the prosecution and said that the thing was absolutely absurd. That is what is going to happen again. I do not think people should be compelled to put in fishways or be prevented from letting a small quantity of sawdust get into a stream, when the fish life is not in any way commensurate with the amount of employment given to the people of the community.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I am glad the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) is no longer in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I hope the minister has not many officials with the same views on fish life as the hon. member for Hants has.


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to have him back in the department.
[Mr. Marteli.J


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like him to change his views before . he administers the fishery laws. He speaks of penalizing industry in order that people may fish. Our millers do not object at all to comply with the regulations, and where there is one miller, there are hundreds of people who want to fish. The question is one of the greatest good to the greatest number. Our millers do not feel that it is any great hardship to take care of mill refuse.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not want to be misquoted at all.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If they did not do so, the fish would be exterminated, and fish is a very nice food.


Robert Forke: The only industry we have on the streams I mentioned is the fishing industry, so this cannot do any harm to other industries.


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am speaking simply of the upper streams where there is very little fish life, and it is absurd to interfere with industry in that connection. If people are polluting streams where the fishing industry is important they should be prevented from doing so, but the law as it stands to-day is absolutely too drastic.


Jacques Bureau: I want to protest in the name of the fish in my riding.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the item under which the vote is paid for clearing snags out of the river St. John?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries, and the demand for fish, $25,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this money spent for
advertising?


Ernest Lapointe: To some extent.


Robert Forke: How are the deep sea fisheries developed? This may be a foolish question, but I should like to know.


Ernest Lapointe: This is to provide for the operation and maintenance of a publicity [DOT]-it is propaganda as my hon. friend said- and marketing division, for the purpose of distributing information in regard to the fish of Canada, its food values, methods of cooking and so forth, all with a view to the creation of a wider demand and greater consumption. Through this division a press bulletin service was carried on. Interesting information regarding fish and the fisheries was prepared and sent to all the newspapers, and it was being widely used. Special illustrated articles

Supply-Marine ana Fisheries
regarding the fisheries as well as recipes for cooking fish were supplied to household periodicals. As a result, what would have been equal to 600 columns in 200 newspapers of fisheries matter, appeared in the newspapers last year. There are also arrangements made with the Trade and Commerce department for moving pictures showing how valuable our fisheries are.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are very good. Under this item I should like to ask the minister if it is the intention to have another roving commission on the Atlantic similiar to the one we had on the Pacific last year, captained by the admiral from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and with the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) as forecastle boy. From the press I understand that such a move is under way. How much was the expense of these gentlemen who had this junketing trip to the Pacific coast last year? Has it been paid yet, and is it considered that it was a violation of the Independence of Parliament Act for these gentlemen to receive compensation for their time? I should like to have some information about that.


Ernest Lapointe: Whether or not it is the intention to have another commission lies in the hands of parliament. Last year a commission was appointed on the unanimous recommendation of parliament, first on the unanimous recommendation of the committee on Marine and Fisheries, and, second, on the unanimous approval of that report by parliament, so there was nothing else to do but to appoint a commission. My hon. friend was responsible for it as much as I was, because he is a member of the House of Commons which approved it unanimously. I think that is a fair position to take. Am I wrong?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think I was in the House at the time. If I did vote for it, I desire to repudiate it right now; but the man who is responsible is the minister, because without his consent this could not have occurred.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister is the servant of parliament.


Jacques Bureau: And a good one at that.


Ernest Lapointe: If it is in the power of the minister to give or grant, the minister will always grant it. He thinks the combined wisdom of parliament, including my hon. friend, is much greater than his own. That is my reason for saying that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any intention of having a similar commission roving around the Atlantic during the coming season?


Ernest Lapointe: That question is before parliament now. I understand a report of the Marine and Fisheries committee was presented to this House a few days ago; but a motion to approve the report which was made was postponed, and it is still pending. Therefore, my hon. friend will have ample opportunity to give his opinion in the matter.


Mr ROBICHAUD:: I am glad to find
another friend of the fishing industry in the person of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson).


Lewis Herbert Martell: He never caught anything more than a minnow in his life.


Jacques Bureau: That is a direct insult. I would not take it.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: It strikes me that
there must be some other factor besides this item. The item reads:
To assist in the conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries.
I should like to ask the minister whether the main purpose of this item is to come to the assistance of the industry.


Ernest Lapointe: I explained to the hon. member the purpose of the item. There might be many other things that could be done.


Jean George Robichaud: Is there anything else that is intended?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. [DOT]


Jean George Robichaud: 

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
is only twenty hours from Boston. If our produce were shipped via Fredericton, which is only 150 miles distant, it would help matters considerably, provided that proper train connections were established. As it is now we are one day and a half from Fredericton but with proper train connections we could land our fish at that point in about nine hours. It would then leave Fredericton in the afternoon, landing in Boston next morning. At that rate the Baie des Chaleurs coast would be twenty-two hours' run from Boston, so that fish from the coast could be placed in the Boston or New York market as the case might be in twenty-two or twenty-four hours instead of after a delay of fifty-six hours as is now the case. This is one matter that the department might look into.
Some time ago an hon. member from Ontario in the Fisheries committee made the statement that at certain times of the year good fish was almost a luxury in some parts of Ontario and could not be bought at any price, whereas our fishermen in the county of Gloucester had dumped on the American markets millions upon millions of pounds of nice fish which they could not sell to cover the freight and tariff charges entirely. This is one respect in which the department could be of some real advantage to the fishermen of that part of the country. I think that we should have proper rail connections, and there should at the same time be established some kind of intelligence bureau that would keep the Maritime provinces in touch with other sections of the country. Fish, it has been proved, is one of the most valuable foods that can be used; and it has been stated that the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have produced some of the most intelligent men

and I am not speaking of myself for a moment-that this country has seen.


Ernest Lapointe: Do not be so modest.


Jean George Robichaud: We have contributed
able men to the political life not only of Canada but of the Mother Country. For example, the late Prime Minister of Great Britain, the Right Hon. Mr. Bonar Law, is a native of my own province; and I believe that this superiority of intelligence is due to the fact that our people use a lot of fish. I do not wish to depreciate the food products of other parts of the Dominion, but I certainly think that this valuable food produced in the Maritime provinces should be used more extensively in Canada; and although I have nothing whatever but admiration for the good qualities of the women of

the West, I do not think that they are quite as skilled in the art of cooking fish as are the ladies of the Maritime provinces. It does not matter what hotel you visit in the Maritime provinces, you will find the fish excellent and well cooked. If the art of cooking fish were more extensively practised throughout this country, more fish would be used. To be serious I would impress upon the minister and the committee this fact: The fishermen of the Maritime provinces are becoming disheartened and are leaving the country for the United States. Family after family have gone and we are losing many of the pioneers of this country. So far as the Maritime provinces are concerned, we are losing the flower of our population. The fishing industry is one of the oldest of our activities -in this country. I was astonished on entering the legislature of the state of Massachusetts some time ago to see in front of the speaker's chair, as the emblem of the state, a golden codfish. But so far as my knowledge of the Canadian parliament goes, and judging from the reports 1 have read of the proceedings in this House during the past twenty years, if a man stood up and ventured to talk about fish he was regarded as a faddist. It was considered an extraordinary thing for any member to broach the subject. I think, Mr. Chairman, that this is a mistake; we should insist on the value of this industry and, whether or not there are some who may think that the question is not of any great interest, we should talk so much about fish that the government will perforce do something to encourage the industry and thus retain our population within the precinct of this country of ours.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before
this resolution is adopted, Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Marine to a few remarks that I wish to make and I hope that he will not press the item through. We have no money to spend in advertising fish. If the Maritime provinces' fish cannot speak for themselves, at least they do so through the voice either of the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), or the member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Robichaud). There is no necessity for spending the public funds for that purpose. I appeal to my old friend. What is the sense of disbursing money for a display of moving pictures of fish? I am calling the minister's attention to that fact. It is most unreasonable, at present, owing to the financial state in wh'ch the country finds itself. We have no money to spend on moving pictures of

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
fish, even though they be salmon which leap in the British Columbia rivers.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the first objection which I can find to my hon. friend's speech is the adjective "ancien"-old-which he made use of in his expression "my old friend."


Andrew Ross McMaster: Friendship persists.


Ernest Lapointe: I hope that my hon. friend shall always be my friend, in the future as well as he was in the past.
Now, it is perhaps to be regretted that, in this committee of which my hon. friend is chairman and over the deliberations of which he presided with such distinction, the fishing industry was not included with that of agriculture.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the minister
kindly speak in Gaelic so we can understand him?


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid my hon.
friend from Brome would not understand me in Gaelic. I am speaking for his benefit.


Ernest Lapointe: The fishermen of Canada have been complaining for ever so long and more so at present, that a sufficient interest is not taken in their industry, that everybody is interested in other industries, agriculture among others, but that the fisheries of the maritime provinces and Brit'sh Columbia are neglected. I think that, especially at a time when the fishermen have never been under such hardships, my hon. friend should not be so parsimonious about the small amount put to their credit for the development of their industry.
. Mr. McMASTER (Translation) : It is rather difficult to swallow moving pictures.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not expect my hon. friend to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the inspection of pickled fish, $25,000.
William Alves Boys: Why the increase?


Ernest Lapointe: Last summer we had to appoint three new inspectors on account of the increased work.


William Alves Boys: Where are they located?


Ernest Lapointe: Yarmouth county, Eastern Halifax county and Guysborough.
215|


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not quite understand the necessity for the inspection of pickled fish. It seems to me that if properly pickled they would pass any investigation.


Ernest Lapointe: This appropriation is for the purpose of enforcing the Fish Inspection Act and the regulations made thereunder. The Governor in Council makes regulations prescribing the materials to be used for containers for fish, the size of such containers, how they shall be made and marked, and the quality and weight of the fish packed in them; and for the appointment of inspectors for the enforcement of these regulations and the exaction of penalties for their infraction. The improvement in the fish packed since the passing of this legislation has resulted in a much wider demand for inspection not only from the fishermen but from dealers as well, and this has necessitated an increase in the number of our inspectors.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fish culture, $370,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, under this vote I desire to get some information from the minister with respect to a matter in the province of Nova Scotia. On the 11th May I put a question on the order paper respecting the Margaree River Salmon Fisheries Association. Yesterday an answer was brought down, which of course was no answer at all. These are the questions I put on the order paper:
1.	When was the Margaree River Salmon Fisheries Association formed, and what are its relations, contractual or otherwise with the Department of Marine and Fisheries ?
2.	What were the names of the members of the association in 1921 ?
3.	Was any change made in the membership of the association in 1922? If so, at whose instance?
4.	Were any persons, members of the association in 1921, deprived of their interests or shares in the association, or in the proceeds received from the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the year 1922 by reason of any action of the department or any officer thereof, in the year 1922?
5.	Has any claim been made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries by any person, for a share of the payment agreed to be made to the association by that department, which has been disallowed? If so, who are the persons and what are the reasons for such disallowance ?
6.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the instance of any member of parliament, changed the membership of such association?
7.	If so, who was such member of parliament?
The very illuminating answer I got yesterday was as follows:
The answer to these questions will be contained in the return moved for by Mr. Hocken for Mr. Hanson on the 14th instant.
336S

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
It must be apparent that at this late stage of the session the return would not be brought down before these' estimates were under consideration by the House, and I regret very much that the minister has not seen fit to give me the desired information. I have to say that this is one of the most glaring cases that has ever come under my notice of interference on the part of a sitting member of any riding with property rights and vested interests. Briefly, these are the facts' About 1909 a non-incorporated association was formed at Margaree in the county of Inverness for the purpose of supplying parent salmon to the government hatchery which was established in that vicinity about that time. The association originally consisted of a relatively small number of members, but in 1910 the membership was brought up to nineteen and continued at this figure until the summer of 1922. Several of the original members died in the meantime and their places were filled by their widows or elder sons, by agreement in every case.
The association, subject to the direction of the superintendent of the pond, so called,- an official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries-laid the fish trap each year, at the expense of its members; that is to say, the trap was the property of the members of the association, and while they were an unincorporated body, yet there was a contractual relation existing between the members and the department to supply these parent fish. In every case the material has been paid for by members of the association. At the annual meeting of 1922 the year's business was provided for as usual, and a contract was made with one of the members for setting a trap and no question of additional membership was raised. On the 4th of August, 1922, the president of the association, Mr. Severin Arsenault, got orders from the department by wire to have the trap set. At the same time he states he got orders from the hon. member for Inverness in this house (Mr. Chisholm) to exclude from the list of persons to be served with notice to set the trap, the names of five Conservatives and to include five Liberals in their places. Arsenault carried out his instructions, but the Conservatives nevertheless turned up and did their part in the work.
About the same time, namely on August 9th, J. A. Rodd, Superintendent of Fish Culture of the Fisheries branch of the department, wrote to P. D. LeBlanc, superintendent *of the pond at Margaree, stating that the department "understands that the present membership of the association is as follows" and {Mr. Hanson.]
proceeded to eliminate the five Conservatives and include the five new Liberals. On learning the names included in this list John C. LeBlanc-one of the Conservatives-wrote to Mr. Rodd protesting and explaining what the situation really was. Mr. Rodd replied on August 31st disclaiming any intention of determining the question of membership but proceeded as follows: "The information before the department showed that the membership for the present year consisted of the persons whose names were communicated to the Superintendent of the Pond"-referring of course to the letter of August 4th to P. D. LeBlanc. J. C. LeBlanc replied to this at length on September 13th pressing for the sources from which the department obtained its "information." The department replied on September 20th in the usual vein, not disclosing its source of information.
On December 18th the secretary-treasurer of the association, Thos. J. LeBlanc, also one of the Conservatives, wrote to the department asking for the cheque in payment of the association's account for the year. In previous years the cheque had, properly, been sent to the secretary-treasurer. He waited a month for a reply which, under date of January 17, 1923, informed him that "a cheque has been issued and forwarded to Severin Arsen

suit the president for distribution amongst those who are entitled to any portion of it."
Arsenault cashed the cheque and in the distribution left out the five Conservatives and included the five Liberals who had no property interest in the trap whatever.


Ernest Lapointe: We have nothing to do with that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think you have some-ting to do with it, if you will allow me to proceed.
Arsenault states he was ordered by the member for Inverness to divide the money among the persons named in a list furnished by the superintendent of the pond, P. D. LeBlanc, and that he acted accordingly. He further stated that there were certain departmental forms or blanks which were sent to the superintendent of the pond filled in with the names of these nineteen Liberals and that he was required to pay to the persons named in these forms.
I want to say to the minister that the whole matter is now before the courts of Nova Scotia, and undoubtedly if these people cannot get any justice from his department they will get it from a court of law. But I want to point out the attempt made by the hon. member for Inverness in the exercise of political patronage to deprive five gentle-

Supply-Marirte and Fisheries
men in his own constiuency of their proprietary interests in their fish trap. I want to point out to the members of this House that the minister and his department-I do not say perhaps that the minister knew anything about it personally, but certainly his department knew there was a change in the membership and that it was an involuntary change, that it was a change dictated by the hon. member for Inverness, a deliberate attempt to deprive people of their property rights, and that will be demonstrated, I have no doubt, in due course by the courts of Nova Scotia, where I believe they are still administering justice notwithstanding some recent appointments.


William Duff: Order.


Jacques Bureau: Do not reflect upon the courts.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think it was a matter of justice and right for the minister to save these fishermen the necessity of going to law and incurring the expenses of counsel, solicitors' costs and the costs of tria'. I think the minister himself should look i-.ito this matter and see justice done irrespective of all question of political patronage. If he does not like the way things have been done in the past he is not bound to enter into a contract with this association in future, but after having once entered into a contract with an unincorporated body like this he is bound, I say, to see that the money is properly distributed. Remember this is an unincorporated body, each member of which has a property right. I am sure that will appeal to the minister as a legal man. He is bound to see that the rights of these people are respected whether they eider into another contract with his department or not. That is all I ask for, a plain matter of common justice. And I wish to say this: I think it is a small matter for any member of parliament to attempt to deprive one of his own constituents of some of his property rights by the mere exercise of the power of patronage.


William Duff: Will the hon. member **:. the committee what document he is reading from or where he got his information?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not addressing any
remarks to the hon. member for Lunenburg, and I say further, when we are asking the ministers a question I do not think we want an answer from the hon. member for Lunenburg.


William Duff: I did not make an answer, and it is very discourteous to say the least for the hon. member for York-Sunbury when I ask him a civil question as to what document he is
reading from to make such an answer as he did. I think the committee has a perfect right to the information I asked for. He read from a document, and if he is a gentleman he will give me a gentlemanly answer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the minister wants to
know I shall be very glad to supply the information, or to show him the document.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: I am much obliged to
my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson) for bringing this matter up. It has been a subject that he has evidently taken a great deal of interest in.
First let me tell him for his information that when he talks about the politics of these men he does not know the first thing about it. There were Liberals and Tories in what he calls the association. There were Liberals and Tories who ceased to be members of that so-called organization, and let me remind him that some of these men that he seems to stand up for to-night were supporters of mine and not supporters of the Tory party.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, the history of this matter. If my hon. friend had just taken the trouble of discussing it with me, as I would have done with him, were the circumstances reversed, he would have been in a much better position to discuss this question intelligently. He evidently does not know the first thing about it.
Some years ago the department in their wisdom thought fit to pass a regulation preventing the setting of salmon nets in the tidal waters of the rivers of Canada, including the Margaree river. At that time there were several people, perhaps twenty-five, setting nets in the Margaree river. They were getting a little revenue from it. When the regulation was passed, the department of course prevented them from setting their nets. About this time a fish pond was opened up there for salmon to supply the hatchery and I suggested to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that it would be a good thing for him to give the business of catching these salmon for the pond to some of the men who were deprived of the right of putting their nets in the river. At that time I suggested the names of seventeen men. Afterwards the names of two additional men were added, but that did not at all comprise the number of men that used to operate nets in the river previous to this regulation, preventing the setting of nets in the Margaree. These nineteen men were operating-that is were getting these salmon for the fish pond up until last year. I have no compunction in the world in telling my hon. friend, if it will bring any comfort to his soul, that I suggested myself that a

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
change should be made. I will tell him the reason why. I did not think it was right to continue this thing as an apparent favour to a few people while their neighbours were deprived of it-neighbours who were entitled to consideration. I suggested to the department that they drop five of these men and take up five more, and let me tell my hon. friend that most of the people living in that section, yes, 80 per cent of them are supporters of mine. I did this simply from the standpoint of justice and fairness and did not do it without the knowledge of these men-one and all of them. I said I would recommend that five of these men would be dropped and some more of the remaining 17 would be dropped later, until we were able to give each one of the men who were deprived of net fishing in Margaree by government regulations their turn of this somewhat valuable privilege. I propose to follow up that policy. Notwithstanding the moral lecture my hon. friend has been giving me I propose following it up and seeing to it that all the men who enjoy the right of putting nets in the Margaree river will have a turn at this privilege in so far as the trap is concerned. I am not a lawyer and I cannot understand the mentality of my hon. friend when he attaches any guilt to the department whatsoever. The department said to a certain number of men down there "We want you to get salmon for the pond and we will pay you so much." These men got together and they bought a trap. The fact that the trap was bought and paid for is one matter. It was not paid for by the department. The department had nothing at all to do with it. All the department had to do was to tell their agent down there to see that a proper trap was provided, that is, a trap suitable for the purpose, and to see that the salmon were properly looked after until they found their way into the pond. That is all the department had to do with it. Let me tell my good friend something else: When these five men were going to be added in place of the five that were dropped they went to the five that were dropped and told them "We will pay you the value of your part of the trap, we are prepared to do it any time." The seventeen men were in this position. When the time came I made a recommendation to the department.-I say this right now in the presence of my hon. friend and if he can take any comfort out of it or if he can see anything unmoral in that he can view it according to his own judgment-I suggested to the department to put those five men in place of the five to be dropped. These seventeen who were left in
[Mr. Chisholm.1
had a trap on their hands and there was only one of two things for them to do: They would either have to operate this trap or buy a new trap because evidently they could not satisfy the other five men for the reason that they expected to enjoy this privilege in perpetuity, they expected it was to be everlasting. They have discovered, however, that it was not going to be done and I will assure my hon. friend it will not be done. I will tell him something more: As a lawyer he, in my judgment, should refrain from discussing a matter that is before the courts, as he says. This, I tell him, is a primary principle of law as I understand it. In the judgment of the court in Nova Scotia my hon. friend may find himself sadly mistaken, and it may be a salutary lesson to him. Now, as to the cheques. The cheques were sent down by the department with instructions to pay the money to those to whom the money was due and a list of these men was sent to the party to whom the list was sent. To whom else should the money be paid? The day the trap was put into the water the agent of the government there told these five men dropped "You have no right here. My instructions are that these nineteen men are to operate these traps." Here comes in my guilt again because I suggested this change. I thought it proper to make a change in order to pass the privilege over to some other men who were entitled to it. The five men dropped had not the privilege of setting a trap in the river-that privilege could only be given to them by the department, which privilege was actually refused to them by the authorized agent of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. gentleman think that it is a matter of good conscience to deprive five owners of their property without compensation, or even to attempt to force them to sell out their interests?


Alexander William Chisholm: I can tell my hon. friend that I am just as conscientious as he is, and that I have just as much regard for a man's privileges or rights as he has. I told him that when these five new men went in they saw the old men whose places they were taking, as my hon. friend says, and told them "We will pay you for your property." The only property they had was one nineteenth of the value of the traps each.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You admit there was a property right then?


Alexander William Chisholm: There was a property right in the trap but that did not carry anything with it. The department had nothing to do with that.



192S

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Marine and Fisheries
An hon. MEMBER:: I thought there were five to begin with?


Alexander William Chisholm: There were nineteen
in. My hon. friend has not been listening to my observations evidently. These men, that is the seventeen who were formerly in the number who got the salmon and the five new men, got the salmon and delivered them to the proper parties. The money was sent down to the president of what my hon. friend calls the association. I never knew it as an association. I will tell my hon. friend that when the trap was originally bought his humble servant did a good deal by way of encouraging these men to go into this thing, and did something by way of financing to get the trap for them; but so far as the organization as such is concerned I never heard a word about it as an organization. The money was paid to these men whom the department authorized to get the salmon and they are no doubt contented. The other five men now go to court. Would it not be fair and reasonable for my hon. friend, knowing this, to let this matter drop until we get the decision of the court on the legal point, if there is one, determined. So far as justice is concerned I consider that ample justice and more was done to these men. What is more, I will see that more of them will go out in turn if the department will take my recommendation, as they have done in the past, that new men shall go in and that this privilege, which is a very nice privilege shall be spread over the whole community, including the men who, previous to the new regulation, were allowed to put their nets in the river. I trust my explanation will be satisfactory to my hon. friend. I can see a change in his mind right now; I think his countenance indicates that I have made an impression on him, that he sees things differently.


George Newcombe Gordon: I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that this debate seems to be out of order under rule 234 of Beauchesne's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure which denies the right of members of the House to refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending. In view of the fact that there was criticism of the conduct of a member of the House that hon. gentleman is perhaps justified, as a matter of privilege, in replying. I doubt the right of hon. members to debate the question in view of the fact that it is sub judice.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not rising to dispute your ruling at all, Mr. Chairman; it is probably correct. I do not know anything about the rules of the House. I must confess I have
seen the outside of Mr. Beauchesne's book but never the inside.


George Newcombe Gordon: If a matter is pending in a court of justice it is not debatable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I desire to ask the minister if he proposes to respect a contract which the department entered into in the early season of 1922 before this change of the association took place? I can ask him that question surely?


Ernest Lapointe: The department has
nothing to do with the members of the association in question, and after the remarks I have heard to-night I do not want to have anything to do with them. We are buying the parent fish from which the eggs are taken for our purposes and we are paying a certain amount for them. The money is paid to the president of the association and we let the members decide among themselves how it is to be divided. I do not want to interfere.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I ask the minister why a change was made in issuing the cheque to the president of the association, whereas in previous years it was sent to the secretary-treasurer?


Ernest Lapointe: I am informed not during the last few years. The cheque was always sent to the president of the association, and that has been done this year. Again I repeat I do not want to deal with the members of that organization.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the minister just where the pond is situated for which money is being voted in connection with fish culture?


Alexander William Chisholm: It is situated on the Margaree river.


Edward Joseph Garland: I mean the pond as to which we are voting this appropriation.


Ernest Lapointe: There are thirty-two
hatcheries as follows:
Nova Scotia	 4
Prince Edward Island	 1
New Brunswick	 4
Ontario	 8
Manitoba	 3
Saskatchewan	    1
Alberta	 1
British Columbia	 10


Edward Joseph Garland: Where is the one in Alberta?


Ernest Lapointe: At Banff.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine biological board of Canada, $42,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: What ia the duty of this board?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: I have the following memorandum:
The board was established by Act of Parliament (2 George V, chap. 6) in 1912 and has charge of all biological stations in Canada and the conduct and control of marine biological investigations. While the board is, in the main, a volunteer organization, the members and investigators not being paid, it arranges the investigations so as to throw light on matters connected with the life history of fish, their origin, development, structure, functions, distribution, etc., and reasons for deterioration, etc. Permanent biological stations are maintained at St. Andrews, N.S., and at Departure bay, Nanaimo, B.C., and a small sea-going vessel is also maintained on the Atlantic coast. In addition to the permanent stations, seasonal or temporary stations are established from time to time and at various points as occasion requires.
An increase of $8,000 is provided in comparison with 1922-23 for the purpose of repairing and enlarging the bio-logical station on the west coast.
We intended to have an increase but the Minister of Finance will not let it go through, so that I can strike it out of my book.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: How many scientific men are employed in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: Professor C. McLean Fraser, University of British Columbia, continued fishery investigations, salmon, halibut, herring and so forth, also conjointly with international (U.S.) committees, researches on pile-borers and ship worms, faunistic studies, and so forth; Mr. Cyril Berkley, assistant at station, biochemical studies on fish and their sea-water environment, bacterial studies; Professor C. H. O'Donoghue, D. Sc., University of Manitoba, marine invertebrates and fourteen other fishery and faunistic problems, fish food, and so forth; Miss Mounce, University of Manitoba, faunistic studies and preparation of biological material for researches. Mr. H. A. Dunlop, University of British Columba, investigations at Harrison lake hatchery, and spawning grounds, into the biology of the sock eye and other Fraser river salmon, and Mr. G. Foerster, University of British Columbia, Fraser river sockeye investigations on Harrison lake and lower Fraser. These are the scientists working in British Columbia.


William Garland McQuarrie: Do I understand these are professors employed in the different universities mentioned who devote a portion of their time to this work in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is to say, they
spend their holidays there?


Ernest Lapointe: If the hon. member
calls that a holiday. They are not paid. They are doing voluntary work. Of course, 
they must not do that during the season of the university work. They are doing it in the summer time.


William Garland McQuarrie: Are there no permanent employees?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, Professor Fraser is employed permanently.


William Garland McQuarrie: Not connected with
any university.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, with the University of British Columbia.


William Garland McQuarrie: He teaches in the
university as well?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: And devotes some
of his time to the work of the department?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and I might say
to my hon. friend that the board is arranging for another permanent man in British Columbia.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me that this is a very important branch of the public service of Canada, and that we should have on the Pacific and also on the Atlantic coast a permanent board of scientific men who will devote all their time to the work, who will study the habits of the fish, who will be able to advise the minister as to the proper methods to be employed in the hatcheries and otherwise. It seems to me that the minister should make arrangements to go into this subject more extensively. The matter was taken up by the British Columbia Fisheries Commission, I think some reference was made in the report of that commission. I know the commissioners agreed that the work was a very important one.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member referred to the British Columbia Fisheries Commission. Does he understand that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) referred to me as the fo'csle boy, and the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) as the captain of the commission? I would like to ask what my hon. friend's position was. Was he a midshipmite or what?


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not understand.


Lewis Herbert Martell: The hon. member never
heard the discussion.


William Garland McQuarrie: No, I did not follow
it. It is pretty hard sometimes to keep up with my hon. friend. But I have been interested in the fisheries of British Columbia for many years.

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Lewis Herbert Martell: I am not casting any
reflection on the hon. member but one hon. member opposite did cast some reflection on some hon. member. My hon. friend was not in the house.


William Garland McQuarrie: I did not hear it. I
think the hon. member will agree with the remarks I have just made as to the importance of a scientific investigation into our fisheries on the Pacific coast and also on the Atlantic coast. I think he will agree that attention has not been paid to this feature in the past. I know I have found a great deal of difference of opinion as to whether or not the hatcheries are doing any good in British Columbia, as to whether artificial propagation of salmon should be continued or not. It seems to me that is a matter which should be determined by a scientific investigation, and that it is important enough to warrant the department in having a permanent force in British Columbia to at all times study this particular question of hatcheries and other questions pertaining not only to the salmon fisheries but to the other fisheries on the Pacific coast. We have a Chief Inspector of Fisheries who is a very good man. But the Chief Inspector is kept very busy attending the departmental matters such as the issuing of licenses and so forth. The Chief Inspector of Fisheries has no time to devote to the study of fishery questions. He has no time to devote to the study of hatcheries. He has no time to devote to the study of the habits of fish. This requires some man to be on hand all the time who can devote his fullest attention to studying fishery matters. I suggested at one time to the late minister the necessity for having someone out in British Columbia who could co-operate with the Chief Inspector of Fisheries and who could be ready and available at all times for the purpose of making these scientific investigations. I am glad to hear that the minister is making an arrangement to get another scientific man on his staff in British Columbia. I would suggest to him that it will not be sufficient for him to employ university professors during their vacation, but rather, that the department should have on hand some one or, perhaps, two scientific men of experience who will be available at all times on this important work.


Ernest Lapointe: I quite agree with the
important suggestion of my hon. friend. I may tell him that the Biological Board had a meeting last week, and a programme has been submitted in conjunction with the officers
of the department. I think, at a later date, there will be either legislation or an item in the supplementaries which will meet the wishes of my hon. friend. *


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine and Fisheries-salaries and contingencies, $624,340.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Are the increases only the statutory ones?


Ernest Lapointe: As a matter of fact there is a decrease. The increase that appears in the item is caused by the combination of the Department of Marine and that portion of the Naval Service that was transferred to the Department of Marine on the first July last. As a matter of fact, there is a decrease of one in the personnel of the Department of Marine as constituted last year. It is proposed, however, to include for 1923-24 fifteen persons on the headquarters of the Radiotelegraph branch that were paid previously out of the appropriation for radiotelegraph service. The increased expenditure for civil government is caused by the amalgamation of thp Marine department as constituted last year with part of the Naval Service department, that part of it which includes the radiotelegraph service, protection of fisheries and many other things.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister has, as I understand, the radiotelegraph service under his control, will he to-night broadcast his thanks to the House for having got his estimates through very speedily?


Ernest Lapointe: I will see that that is done with thanks.


William Duff: Is the first item, $6,000, the salary of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


William Duff: All I have to say is this, that in my opinion and in the opinion of many men in this country, the Department of Marine and Fisheries is as important as any other department of the government, and more so, as somebody behind me suggests. It seems to me that if the Deputy Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Railways, and the Deputy Minister of Justice can have salaries amounting to $10,000, this important department should also have a deputy who should receive as much money as any one of those deputies. I am sorry the deputy minister is present, because I could say this better if he were not here. But I will say that the government should take steps in the Supple-
Supply-Marine and Fisheries

mentary Estimates to put the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries upon the same salary basis as the Deputy Minister of Railways and the others I have mentioned. 1 think, of course, there is room for reorganization in the department, although I am not going to discuss that question now. I have not known the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries very well personally for a number of years, but I have known him by reputation, and he is entitled to $10,000 a year just as much as is the Deputy Minister of Railways and the other deputies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radiotelegraph service and to provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations and the general administration of radiotelegraphy throughout the Dominion, $454,900.
Ernest Lapointe: This item was discussed this afternoon, and it was suspended until after eight o'clock at the request of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton), who wanted to know the expenditure on salaries and wages in that branch. The expenditures are as follows:
Maintenance and Operation
Technical Operators. Labour..	staff..	Construction	.. $40,876 29 .. 59,126 60 .. 4.395 91Technical Labour..	staff..	, .. 4,160 65 .. 9.626 37Total	$118,185 82


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is this for land service or for government-owned vessels?


Ernest Lapointe: For the whole system. For land, for vessels, for the distance-finding stations and for radiotelegraphy throughout the land.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the power of the radio-distributing stations at the present time, the distance of transmission? I know some are able to distribute 300 miles on the lakes, but what is the power of the various transmitters? I just want to find out how far Canada can broadcast?


Ernest Lapointe: There are various stations. Some of them are broadcasting for 200 miles, others up to 1,000 miles, and others more than that.


Jacques Bureau: Vancouver was heard in Australia.


Mr. WHITE:: Can the minister give us any idea as to the new constructions that are to be carried on this year?
fMr. Duff],


Ernest Lapointe: I can give them all this afternoon, and the hon. gentleman will find them detailed in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the maintenance and operating of Sorel shipyard, $125,000.
Jacques Bureau: I promised to give my hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) certain names this afternoon. If I remember rightly I gave one of them, W. Morgan, when I came back at eight o'clock. Morgan was dismissed on the declaration of Mr. Cardin, a member of parliament, that he had been using the officers of the department to copy electoral lists. I thought there was ground for his dismissal and I dismissed him, and he is still out. He was replaced temporarily by another man who was recommended and whom I thought was a proper person to take his place. There was also the case of H. Yerjean, stock bookkeeper, to whom the same remark applies. L. E. Trempe, who was employed in the stores, was also dismissed on the same ground. These are the men whom I dismissed. With regard to the charge against me of having dismissed Laforest, foreman caulker, this man was dismissed by the superintendent in order to make room for a more competent man. I had nothing to do with his dismissal.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: In the cases of the dismissals referred to, were the accused given an opportunity of presenting their side of the case?


Jacques Bureau: I did not make any investigation. The charge was made by the member representing the division. There was a specific charge of a specific offence over the member's signature, and I took that as sufficient evidence of the guilt of the persons.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to provoke any long debate on a subject of this kind now, because I shall before the session closes, under another department, have occasion I think to remark upon this system. I am not going to discuss what has been done in the pastel am go'ng to deal only with what is done in the future. I think, however, that it is about time that we came to an end of a system, if there has been such a system, which permits any man to be dismissed on the mere statement of a member of parliament, who is necessarily a partisan. I do not think it is good business; I do not th'nk that a man who is in the employment of all Canada, should be subject to dismissal simply on the statement of another man who is only the representative of a portion of the people in the constituency that

Supply-Marine and Fisheries
has returned him to parliament, a man who in many cases will have his passions inflamed against an official who he may think has done him an injury in the election field. There ought always to be some fair trial. There are cases where a trial would not be necessary, where a man confesses to having been guilty of certain conduct. But I do not think that a man should be tried behind his back; it is neither British nor French to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries-amount required to pay H. Tremblay for services as private secretary to the acting minister while acting as such from September 19, 1922 to January 19, 1923, $200.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What happened to this man after the 19th of January?


Jacques Bureau: I might explain this. When the minister (Mr. Lapointe) was away and I was acting I had this gentleman as private secretaiy, and when the minister returned his services were no longer required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River St. Lawrence ship canal-maintenance and operating dredging fleet (Governor General's warrant of October 16, 1922), $80,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I presume the minister will give the committee a statement of what urgency there was to render the Governor General's warrant necessary?


Jacques Bureau: I might also explain this mattei. For the last six or seven years there has been in existence a fleet, valued at some three or four million dollars, pre-war prices, of dredges, scows and tugs on the Richelieu river and the Chenal du Moine. This fleet was in a state of deterioration for want of proper care and attention. I took hold of the department in the month of August, acting for my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) who was at Geneva, and I made a personal inspection of the Sorel shipyard and looked over all the ships, dredges and scows that were there. I discovered that one of the dredges had sunk simply from lack of proper care. The rust had corroded the steel and the vessel was down, and when I asked what it would require to salvage this vessel I found that it would cost about 817,000. I took the superintendent of the St. Lawrence channel, together with the foreman of the yards at Sorel, and made a thorough inspection of the boats. I asked them to tell me which of them could be preserved, which ought to be scrapped, and which could be salvaged. Accompanying me was my secretary, and as I say, there were the superintendent of the St. Lawrence channel and the superintendent of the yards.
We went over every ship and found that certain hulls would have to be scrapped, while there was a certain percentage of the machinery that could be salvaged. It was found that a shed would be necessary, and that a quantity of paint would be required to prevent the steel work from deteriorating. For this work it was estimated that the sum of $80,000 would be called for. I came back with a detailed statement covering each ship, scow and dredge, and recommended to council that this fleet, which was worth, as I have stated, some three or four million dollars, should be salvaged as far as possible. Under the circumstances it was considered that the special warrant should be issued. That warrant was issued in order that the work might be proceeded with at once. I did this as a matter of sound business, to prevent the further . deterioration of this valuable fleet, and it resulted in saving money to the country. That is the whole matter in a nutshell.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If the minister will kindly apologize to all the members whose conversation he has been interrupting I think the incident may be closed.


Jacques Bureau: I stopped because I was
afraid to interrupt the conversation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ocean and river service-To provide for the temporary relief of distressed seamen-Further amount reauired, $4,150.
Ernest Lapointe: An amount for this purpose is voted each year. The amount voted last year was not sufficient on account of the unusually large number of seamen whom we had to help back to this country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public works chargeable to capital-Fisheries-To provide for inspection of canned and pickled fish- Further amount required, $3,000.
Ernest Lapointe: I explained this in the previous vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Amount required to pay balance due to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for the removal of the span of the bridge over False creek, B.C., at different times since 1918, to permit of the movement of vessels, $8,934.08.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Is this in consequence of a mistaken idea that at one time prevailed regarding our jurisdiction over False creek? Otherwise, when the Canadian Pacific Railway crossed there why were not the usual terms imposed?

Supply-Marine and Fisheries


Ernest Lapointe: The explanation in regard to this was given last year, but I will repeat it. It is as follows:
The Canadian Pacific Railway constructed a bridge across False creek, Vancouver, in 1886. This bridge was replaced by a larger structure in 1898. In 1918 it transpired that the vessels being constructed at the Coughlan Shipyard for the Imperial Munitions Board could not pass to sea without the removal of a span of this bridge. This difficulty was the subject of negotiations between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Department of Public Works at that time. The Canadian Pacific Railway contended that the bridge was properly constructed with the approval of the Public Works department and consequently they were under no obligations to so alter the bridge as to make it possible for vessels of a larger class to pass through. In these circumstances it became necessary for some one to take action, and the undersigned after having discussed the matter fully with the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, entered into negotiations with Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the result being the submission of a proposal that if the courts should decide that the bridge was properly constructed and had the approval of the Public Works department, the govermnent would be responsible for the expense of removing the span to enable the vessels being constructed at the Coughlan yards to pass out. On the other hand if the courts should determine that the bridge was improperly constructed and did not have the approval of the Public Works department, the Canadian Pacific Railway would be responsible for any expenditure incurred for the removal of the span. Letters were exchanged between this department and the Canadian Pacific Railway confirming this understanding. In the meantime the matter was referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion and under date of the 20th instant-
That was June of last year.
that department writes as per copy attached hereto.
The Department of Justice stated that we had absolutely no case against the Canadian Pacific Railway.
In these circumstances there does not appear to be any alternative but to ask for a special vote of parliament to indemnify the Canadian Pacific Railway for the expenses they have incurred in this connection. Last session a sum of $32,000 was placed in Supplementary Estimates 1922-23 to cover expenditure up to end of June 1920, but a statement of expenditure up to 31st October, 1921, shows that the total expenditure incurred in this connection is $40,934.08, necessitating a further amount of $8,934.08.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Will this have to be done in the future for vessels to pass through there?


Ernest Lapointe: Negotiations are being conducted between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Marine and Fisheries and Public Works departments to come to a final arrangement in the matter.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It would seem to me advisable to put a bridge of a different type there and so cut out these payments.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the purpose in view.
	,


Thomas George McBride: I know this bridge very well, in fact I supplied the material to build the substructure of it in the first place, but I think the bridge should never have been built where it is. There is another bridge practically in the same location that would serve the purpose equally as well, and this bridge is a detriment to navigation. At the same time, as permission was granted for its erection, I think it is up to this government to see that the swing span is widened so that boats can get in and out. It was not an expensive bridge to build in the first place and I think the appropriation in this estimate would practically cover the expense of widening the swing span, at least it should go a long way towards it. I should like to see the government take hold of this without further delay and reach a settlement of the difficulty so that this vote will not come up every year. There is no call for it whatever.


Ernest Lapointe: I think you are quite right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income-to increase the amount of loan authorized by vote No. 136, Main Estimates, 1922-23,-additional amount required, $13,099,493.34.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Chairman, this and the following item are very large, but they are urgent. These are last year's estimates. We took the amount to pay a debt and thereby made a large saving on the rate of exchange. This is merely to replace the money that we then paid out. The succeeding vote represents money that we need to pay our debts on account of the merchant marine for last year. It does not enter into our next year's estimates.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This will not alter last year's result in any way as presented to us by the minister in his railway statement some weeks ago?


George Perry Graham: No, I think the method of book-keeping will show that this does not interfere with that result. The Canadian National Railways paid off some securities which were due and thereby saved a large amount of money on account of the rate of exchange. Now we hava to replace the sum.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Railways and Canals-to increase the amount of loan authorized by vote No. 139, Main Estimates, 1922-23-additional amount required (including Governor General's Warrant, November 20, 1922-11,000,000, $1,700,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is this for?

Supply-Railways and Canals


William Duff: I am not going to discuss this matter now as I intend when the Main Estimates come up to discuss the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, but I just wish to enter my protest now against any money being spent for this purpose. I intend to discuss this item with others when the Main Estimates come up. I think the government has no right to spend any money on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I take it that this money has already been spent. What is it for? Deficits?


George Perry Graham: For the deficits in connection with the management of the Government Merchant Marine last year.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: This is not urgent, is it?


George Perry Graham: Yes, because we owe the bills of the Merchant Marine and we want to pay them. '


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It does not matter whether the item goes through to-night or to-morrow, does it?


George Perry Graham: I do not suppose it would make any difference.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Then in the absence of the hon. gentleman who leads on this side I would suggest that the item stand.


George Perry Graham: I would not press for the passing of the item to-night only it is the 1st of June to-morrow and to-day is the 31st of May. These are bills that have been contracted, and we must pay them. The passage of this item will not interfere with any discussion on the Merchant Marine or anything of that kind, because I have not had my main estimates before the House at all this year.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think perhaps as there will be other items on which we can have a general discussion when the Main Estimates come up, this might pass.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Railways and Canals-contingencies- additional amount required, $5,000.
George Perry Graham: This is for contingencies last year. We were $5,000 short.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Trade and Commerce-mail subsidies and steamship subventions-Canada and Newfoundland, steam service or services between, $35,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: All the rest of these are through, are they not?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Most of them are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada and the West Indies and South America, or both, steam service or services between, $340,666.66.
Joseph Tweed Shaw: Could the minister give us the names of the boats engaged in this subsidized service, with the tonnage and passenger capacity of each?


James Alexander Robb: The boats are the Chignecto, 400 feet; the Chaleur, 400 feet; the Caraquet, 400 feet, and the Chaudiere, 370 feet. Three of these vessels were built in Belfast, and one in Middlesborough, one in 1S93, one in 1S94, and one in 1899. I might say to my hon. friend that these boats are a bit old and a little slow, and we are advertising for a new service extending over two different periods. We are asking for tenders for a five-year period and also for a ten-year period, and when the tenders are in the government will decide which will be most advantageous to Canada. As perhaps my hon. friend knows, this is part of the contract we have with the West India islands under the trade agreement made in 1920.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister has not given the information I asked for. 1 did not ask for the length of the boats. I wanted their tonnage and passenger capacity. I should also like to know their 3peed. I want to find out whether they comply with the terms of the West India agreement.


James Alexander Robb: I may say frankly that we fear they do not, and that is why we are asking for new tenders. Under the contract we had a certain limit of time within which to provide for the ships, and we are now advertising for four new ships to give a fortnightly service. Perhaps this admission that we do not think these boats comply with the terms of the contract for the West India service will satisfy my hon. friend.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am quite satisfied they do not comply with the terms either as regards tonnage, speed or passenger capacity. I would ask the minister whether there are not any ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine that would comply equally well with the requirements of the West India trade.


James Alexander Robb: No. They are very far from complying with the requirements. There are two services, one on the west side, and another on the east side. The Royal Mail Line are the contractors on the eastern side, and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine have the service on the west side, but they are

Supply-Trade and Commerce
very far from complying with the requirements of the trade, and our friends in the West India islands are objecting somewhat on that account. The previous government advertised for tenders, and my recollection is that they came in either just before this government assumed office or immediately afterwards. The-terms were such that the government did not feel able to accept them. The tenderers asked for a guarantee of 7 per cent upon their investment. We did not think that would be profitable to this country. We preferred knowing exactly what we would have to pay rather than give a guarantee on the investment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether the Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels are operating in competition with the other vessels of which the minister spoke?


James Alexander Robb: The Royal Mail Line have complained that the Government Merchant Marine boats call at some ports and pick up some of the best cargoes, but we do not admit that. They are not operating in competition with the Royal Mail Line because as I mentioned a moment ago there are two services, one on the east and one on the west side. The trade agreement of 1920 calls for two distinct services, and the Royal Mail Line are running from St. John and Halifax to Barbados, Trinidad, Bermuda, the Leeward islands and the Windward islands. The merchant marine boats run to the Bahamas. Jamaica and British Honduras, so there is really no competition between the two, although the Royal Mail Line have complained that in some cases the government boats on the return trip pick up some very profitable cargoes. We do not admit that that is a disadvantage to the people of Canada. It is competition that means cheaper products for our people.


Edward Joseph Garland: Under the agreement it was provided that the service was to be weekly. The minister has just stated that tenders are being called for for a fortnightly service. How does he expect, therefore, that these new steamers sailing fortnightly will comply with the terms of the West Indies agreement?


James Alexander Robb: The experience we have is that a fortnightly service will be all that the trade will warrant. I do not believe that Canada can pay for a weekly service in view of the business that offers down in those islands.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does the minister mean to cut the estimate one-half in view of the fact that we only get one-half the service?

Mr. R)3BB: We cannot disclose what the policy of the department will be until we receive tenders.


William Irvine: If they have decided to give half the service we ought to decide to give half the amount of money.


James Alexander Robb: The West India islands also contribute to the subsidy that is paid.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: How much do they con-tribule?


James Alexander Robb: 
Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has simply given in answer to the hon. member (Mr. Shaw) the amounts that the representatives of the respective colonies undertook to recommend to their governments to pay?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister give us the amounts that have been paid out by the islands?


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I have that?


Edward Joseph Garland: Have they paid anything.


James Alexander Robb: Some of them have and some of them have not.


Mr GARLAND (Bow River):: Could the minister get the exact amounts that have been paid? I think that is rather important.


James Alexander Robb: I do not know that I have that information here, but I can get it for my hon. friend. I thought earlier in the evening that this matter would not come up so my deputy is not here. I do not think I can give that information to my hon. friend at the present time.


Edward Joseph Garland: If it will make it easier for the minister we can let the item stand until the deputy is here.


James Alexander Robb: I will be glad to let it stand.

Supply-Trade and Commerce


Edward Joseph Garland: If the
minister can give the information I am willing to go on.


James Alexander Robb: I have here this memorandum on the western group which may help my hon. friend on the question. Article 15 reads as follows:
Article XV. The government of Canada, subject to the adoption by the governments concerned of the recommendations embodied in Article XVI, undertakes to provide as soon as possible, and in any case not later than 'the 1st January, 1921, a fortnightly freight, mail and passenger steamship service between Canada, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and British Honduras, on the following lines:
The Canadian Government Merchant Marine, therefore, at the request of the Dominion government, took two of their smaller ships and converted them into passenger and freight vessels, by the addition of cabin accommodation, and put them on this route. It was impossible, however, to provide a fortnightly service, as called for by the agreement, with only two ships. These ships have therefore been sailing every three weeks, from Montreal in the summer, and Halifax in winter. The loss on their operation -I ask my hon. friends to note this-has been heavy, amounting, in the year 1921, to over $400,000, or more than the total subsidy paid by the government to the four steamers of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, which performed a more frequent and extensive service with more suitably fitted boats than the two steamers of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Edward Joseph Garland: Since that time has the Canadian Government Merchant Marine put on some larger boats?


James Alexander Robb: We have tried to improve the service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask about this treaty, because I really must confess ignorance. The minister stated a little while ago that under the terms of the treaty there had to be a weekly service. Now he states it is only fortnightly. Are the terms of the treaty in this respect elastic or what is the actual -condition?


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend can obtain a copy of the treaty. It is printed and quite lengthy.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What treaty is that?


James Alexander Robb: The treaty of 1920.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: With Jamaica?


James Alexander Robb: Yes. It is somewhat elastic. It was an agreement made for ten years. The
government of Canada have every desire to meet our West India friends. We want that trade for Canada if we can secure it, but we do not want to pay out more for the service than the business will warrant.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are there any ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine that can perform this service at the present time?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This particular service is now being performed by the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and by no others.


Milton Neil Campbell: But not the whole service, just one service?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The service to Jamaica, Bahamas and British Honduras is being performed by the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The other service, to Bermuda, Trinidad, and British Guiana is being performed under contract by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company?


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand that. 1 have here the report of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and it gives particulars of the service to the West Indies. I notice that Sir Henry Thornton in his report claims there has not been freight enough. He says:
The combined passenger and freight steamship operation inaugurated to give service every three weeks to the Bahamas, Jamaica and British Honduras, from the outset, has been unprofitable from a revenue standpoint, and in an endeavour to reduce losses Bermuda was added to the itinerary in June, the Canadian Fisher and the Canadian Forester making Hamilton, Bermuda, an additional port of call.
It looks to me as though all this service could be performed by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I would like to read for the information of the House the resolution passed by the district council of the province of Quebec, comprising councils No. 5, 8, 9 and 17 of the National Association of Marine in Canada. In part the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas, subsidies have been granted to steamship companies owned and operated outside Canada, particularly to the West Indies, while Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships, owned by the people of Canada, are lying idle and our seamen walking the streets of our towns and cities, swelling the unemployed. Under the West Indies-Canada agreement the Canadian government was to furnish the ships for this West Indies and British Honduras freight and passenger service:
It seems to me to be extraordinary to pay out a very large amount of money in subsidizing other ships while the vessels of our own merchant marine are lying idle. I have a
33S0
Supply[DOT]-Trade and Commerce

letter here from a seafaring man, a former officer in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and he states that there are ships of 3,400 tons of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine that can very well be utilized on this route. He says that a large number of these ships were tied up in the spring of 1922 that could just as well have been used on this service. I wonder if the minister could give us any information as to that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This matter
was discussed a year ago when the same estimate was being considered, and the same criticism was offered by some hon. gentlemen that is being offered to-night.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Not nearly so much last year as may be offered to-night. I think the facts were not known then.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was
very considerable criticism last year, I have not heard much to-night. The suggestion is made that this service could be carried on by the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I should like to tell hon. members sitting opposite to me that if they knew the conditions attaching to this particular trade, and could hear the views of the gentlemen who understand it they would not suggest that this service could be performed by the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine-I refer to the whole West India service. The larger service is that from the Atlantic ports of Halifax and St. John to Bermuda, Trinidad, Demerara, and British Guiana. That service is being carried on by a company known as the Royal Mail Steam Packet company. I think that is the name of the company.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is not the hon. member perfectly sure that is the name of the company?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it is
the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. Possibly I may have omitted a word from the title but I do not think my hon. friend would mind that particularly because that would not affect the question. I hope he does not think so, I hope his mind is centered on something more substantial. This contract was entered into some ten or fifteen years ago. At that time a trade treaty was entered into between Canada, certain of the British West India Islands, and the government of Great Britain, and a part of that treaty was that a freight and passenger service be installed or established and subsi-

dized by the interested parties. I think the British government pays something on account of that service as well.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. member say that the British government pays part of the subsidy?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think they
do, on account of the mail service.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member is not sure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not too sure. I speak subject to correction. In order to obtain the service-and it was deemed to be important-it was necessary to subsidize it. No private capital would go and perform such a service voluntarily and carry the mail without a subsidy. Persons who are acquainted with the West Indian trade know that the freight bound for Canadian ports is available only at certain seasons; that is, in the crop moving season, when the sugar, coffee and cocoa crops are being moved. But for two or three months in the year the steamers go north with very little freight. Then a very important consideration for those requiring the service was that it should be a regular service, and that was its great value-that every two weeks a ship would leave an Atlantic port for a West Indian port. That is of inestimable value to exporters. If they did not know or were not sure that these steamships left with perfect regularity we could never have developed the trade we have with the British West Indies. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships could not perform that service. They were never built for it, in the first place. Some of these ships run very irregularly to some of the islands, taking their chances of getting a cargo north and south. I have seen some of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships advertised to leave Halifax on a certain day, and they would not leave for nearly a month after, waiting for freight. It is an essential factor in the development of trade to have a regular transportation system, so that the importer and exporter can rely upon the regularity and promptness of that service. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships were not built for such a service. They were not built to carry on a passenger service at all, and we would have to violate the treaty which was entered into with the West Indian islands if we abandoned the service altogether, and declined to carry on the present contract, or a new contract with some other shipping concern. It certainly could not be carried on by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships because they cannot
338!
MAY 31, 1923 [DOT]
Supply-Trade and Commerce
carry passengers, and I do not think it is possible to reconstruct the ships to make them suitable for that purpose. So that I say, in so far as the Bermuda, Trinidad, Demerara and British Guiana service is concerned, it cannot be carried on in conformity with the provision of that convention by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is it not likewise a fact that
the Royal Mail Packet ships cannot, under any circumstances, comply with the terms and requirements of the West India trade agreement?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In what respect?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Because the minister has
already admitted that the ships do not come up to the standard in tonnage, or in speed or in passenger-carrying capacity, and I think they cannot comply with the requirements as to time of service.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax:	Even if that
were true, it would not prove incorrect the remarks I have made regarding the inability of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine to carry on the service.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I quite agree with that,
but you will realize that there may be a partial compliance with the agreement by the merchant marine, but there can only be a partial compliance.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships could not carry on the service at all, wholly or partially or fractionally. It may be true that the Royal Mail boats are not performing the service well within the obligations of that treaty. I am not sure about that. My own impression is that they are, but everybody realizes that the ships they have now in the service are old and inadequate, and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company themselves have publicly made clear their realization of that fact, and their desire to construct four new steamers, more modern boats, and put them into that service. It is for that reason they would like to have a long term contract with the government and boats specially designed for that sendee. The boats now in the service were quite old when the treaty was entered into. Nobody, I am sure, realizes more than that company itself that the boats are hardly up to the requirements of the trade, although they may be well within the requirements of the treaty. Now trade has developed and travel has developed, and it is desirable that
a better service be given between Canadian ports and the West Indies, and we can never get the service without paying some subsidy. We cannot, I think, continue our thide arrangements with the British West Indies unless we assist that service. We certainly cannot give a regular mail service, which is a very important factor in trade, unless we have boats sailing promptly and ar, regular intervals from Canadian and West Indian ports.


William Irvine: Has the hon. member any idea of the amount of trade that is done on this line as far as Canada is concerned?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have not
seen the figures lately. Usually I have these figures in my mind and am well acquainted with them, but I do not know them at the present moment. The trade has been very irregular and rather depressed in recent years. I fancy it has been unprofitable to the steamship company. I think during the war they probably lost a very considerable sum; at least they would have, had they not been permitted to raise their rates, but I want to assure my hon. friend, if he thinks our trade connection with the British West Indies is worth anything to this country-and it is-that it can only be kept up by the continuance of this service. Now the Canadian Government Merchant Marine have some boats running to these islands that are served by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company. I think myself it is very foolish to have these ships competing with the steamship line which is subsidized, and I do not think they contribute anything to the development of our trade.
Just a word as to the service between Canada, Jamaica and British Honduras. I have not any personal knowledge of this service, except that I have a little knowledge that comes to me from those who are interested in trading between Nova Scotia and these islands. This treaty was entered into in 1920, I think at a time when Canalians and people generally gained a clear vizualization of the future trade not only between Canada and these islands, but the world over, and I fear that rather an extravagant bargain was made in the establishment of this service. It does not appear that there is a possibility of developing a trade that would warrant the cost to this country last year. I am informed by business men who know, whose firms have been trading with those islands for the last fifty, seventy-five or a hundred years, that it is not possible to develop trade with those islands to warrant the service that is being carried on at the present time. I have no particular

3382	' COMMONS
Supply-Trade and Commerce
suggestion to make to the minister about the matter, except that it requires careful consideration. It would be far better to give to some private companies two or three of these Canadian government ships and let them operate the service in the best possible way. It need not be a regular passenger service. I think the passenger service should be cut out altogether. The boats are not suitable for the service and this is costing money. We are carrying passengers, mostly tourists, over this route at a great loss to the country. There would be better satisfaction, and I believe the people of the islands interested would be satisfied if a fair freight service might be given to them, and I think that is possible at a very much less cost than that at which the service is being carried on to-day.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman is speaking of the western group just now, is he not?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Jamaica, the Bahamas and British Honduras.


Edward Joseph Garland: That would be the western group.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Canadian Government Merchant Marine.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is operating there.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member thinks the service should be cut off?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not say that it should be cut off; but I understand that it was carried on last year at a net loss of $400,000, and I am informed by persons who know the possibilities of trade in those islands, that it is not capable of any great expansion.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the same statement not apply to the eastern group that it is unprofitable business at the present time? Why do they want a subsidy if the business pays?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No subsidy is being paid.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am talking about the eastern group now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No subsidy is being paid by the other group. Our trade has developed with the British West Indies, but our trading with those islands is linked up with the subsidized steamship service.

You cannot separate them. We have a trade prefemce with these islands, and one of the conditions of the preference was that this steamship which is a joint passenger, freight and mail service, should be carried on. You cannot drop one without dropping the other. They are linked together.


Edward Joseph Garland: The preference is an expensive one.
Mr. .MACLEAN (Halifax): I doubt if any shipping company would undertake to carry on the service without a subsidy.


William Thomas Lucas: For what length of time will that treaty run?


James Alexander Robb: For ten years.


William Thomas Lucas: From what date?


James Alexander Robb: From 1920. I have the information for which my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Shaw) asked as to the trade with those islands. I am speaking now of the British West Indies, and I will not give the figures exactly. In 1922, the total trade was $15,300,000 and in 1923, $18,500,000. I am sure my hon. friends will realize that it is worth something to Canada to have this good customer. We expect, as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has said, that with improved facilities this trade may grow. Perhaps I might put on Hansard, although this will take a little time, the advertisement for tenders, and let me say at this point that if the Canadian Government Merchant Marine or Sir Henry Thornton desires to tender for this service and can give the service and comply with the conditions, surely we will give the preference to our own vessels.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He cannot tender.


James Alexander Robb: I am not questioning whether he can tender or not.


William Duff: He cannot tender.


James Alexander Robb: This is the advertisement for tenders:
1.	Tenders for a mail, passenger and freight steamship service between Canada, the British West Indies and British Guiana, are invited, and will be received at the office of the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada, until noon of June 15, 1923.
2.	Tenders must be submitted on the enclosed form, and should be sent in sealed envelopes, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada, and marked legibly on the outside "Tenders for steamship service between Canada, the British West Indies and British Guiana", and if submitted through the mails should be registered.
3.	Tenders are invited for the performance of one or more of the following services:

Supply-Trade and Commerce
(a)	Sailing fortnightly from St. John or Halifax, and calling one week on the outward passage at Bermuda, Barbados, Trinidad, and British Guiana, and on the homeward passage at Trinidad, Grenada, St. Vincent, Barbados, St. Lucia, Dominica, Montserrat, Antigua, Nevis, St. Kitts, and Bermuda; and on alternate weeks calling on the outward passage at Bermuda, St. Kitts, Nevil, Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, St. Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent, Grenada, Trinidad, and British Guiana, and on the homeward passage at Trinidad, Barbados and Bermuda.
(b)	The same service as specified in Clause (a) except that sailings shall be made from St. John and Halifax alternately.
(c)	Any other frequency of service, or itinerary, or other variation from the terms of this call for tenders, which tenderers may desire to offer.
4.	Tenders are invited for service covering a period of five or ten years, commencing within two weeks after the date of the last sailing from Halifax under the present contract which expires on March 31, 1924.
5.	The steamers to be employed should be from 5,000 to 6,000 tons gross, capable of maintaining an ocean speed of 12 knots, and providing accommodation for 100 first class, 30 second class, and 100 steerage or deck passengers, and should be provided with 'tween decks.
6.	The tender must state the amount of subsidy required, and the period for which the contract is requested.
7.	The contract will ^provide that there shall be reasonable proportionate allocation of passengers and cargo accommodation between the colonies mentioned in Clause 3 (a).
8.	There shall be no unfair differentiation in rates of freight against the smaller colonies as compared with the rates of larger colonies situated at a similar distance from St. John or Halifax, and freight and passenger rates will at all times be subject to the approval of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
9.	The steamers should be so constructed that, so far as the traffic warrants, cold storage shall be provided, but alternative tenders may be submitted offering the steamers with or without cold storage.
10.	The steamers employed shall at all times, if required, carry such mails as may be offered for that purpose by the postal authorities of Canada, or the West Indian Colonies, and the contractor is to land and embark all mails at terminal points and ports of call at his own expense.
11.	The contract will be subject to such general conditions as are incidental to all similar steamship subsidy contracts granted by the Canadian government.
12.	Any further information required in regard to this call for tenders may be obtained on application to the undersigned.
13.	The minister does not bind himself to accept the lowest or any tender.
The committee will observe that there is an option of five or ten years. These tenders are due, I think, on the fifteenth June of this year, and after the tenders are in and the government have had time to consider them, they are at liberty to accept or reject any of the tenders.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister, I think, has given the committee the impression that the subsidy is justifiable because of the fact that a trade treaty has been 216i
entered into, and under it a certain steamship service is required. Is that the case?


James Alexander Robb: That was part of the treaty; but we had a subsidy there before the treaty because it is worth something to the Dominion of Canada to have a customer with whom we do a bus-ness amounting to $18,000,000 a year. There is no railway communication down to those islands, and you cannot get the business except by a steamship service. We have a considerable preference in that market for our products, and we ship to those islands large quantities of flour. The Dominion of Canada practically controls the trade in flou-of the West Indian islands, because we hav-1 a considerable preference on flour. We also ship to those islands large quantities of dairy products and fish. It is largely agricultural products that are shipped down there, and in return they send us back products which we require in this country, such as fruit which we cannot grow here, and sugar. I submit that it is a fair trade between Canada and the West Indian islands.


Edward Joseph Garland: I had not quite finished my question. I presumed, however, it was because of the treaty and the requirement of the regular sailings that the subsidy was being continued. The tender that has just been read calls for a fortnightly service, but the treaty calls for a weekly service. Even if you get the new and improved boats with the new subsidy under the new tender, you still do not comply with the trade agreement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Which treaty was that-the first or the second?


Edward Joseph Garland: The last treat3r, the one that is now effective.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend must understand that there are two parties to a bargain. The people who are doing the business down there intimate that it will not pay. I will put on record the memorandum I have as regards the whole business down there:
Under the agreement, the Canadian government, pledged itself to "use its best endeavours"-
That was the pledge.
-to arrange for a mail, passenger and freight service, to come into effect as soon as possible, and in any case within three years, between Canada and the eastern group (see article X).t
In order to carry out this part of the agreement, th 'refore, the government called for tenders for this service on September 20, 1921, receivable up to noon of January 31, 1922. When the last mentioned time arrived, only one tender had been received, and this was from the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
present contractors. The Canada West Indies Trade agreement contemplates the establishment of a weekly service. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., however, pointed out that there is not sufficient trade on this route to keep up a weekly service, and that any attempt to run such a service would be followed by a heavy loss. They, therefore, propose to put on a fortnightly service. As it would be necessary to build four new ships for this route they wanted a contract for the life of such ships, viz. twenty years, They stated that they could not afford to run the proposed new service for a fixed subsidy while the steamers of the C.G.M.M. were at the same time running in competition with subsidized vessels. The R.M.S.P. had previous to this been making complaints to the effect that the C.G.M.M. ships came into Trinidad, Barbados and Demerara, and took away a large proportion of their most profitable cargo,-
That is, on the homeward voyage. There is not enough business for both services on the homeward voyage, although there is quite enough for both going down. It is in the interests of the Canadian people for us to send all the business we can down there.


William Irvine: But if they are to take
freight down they must bring freight back.


James Alexander Robb: -that is, sugar and molasses. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company protested against this, stating that while it is admitted that there is sufficient southbound traffic for both lines, yet the northbound cargo is limited in quantity and there is not sufficient for both lines.
I would emphasize the fact that there is a good deal of business going down, but (he complaint is that our vessels take away from their freight coming back. I am not debating the question whether they are right or wrong, but that is their complaint.
The R.M.S.P. offered, therefore, to provide a fortnightly service with new steamers of the size and type contemplated by the West Indies Agreement, on condition that the government guaranteed a minimum return of 7$ per cent per annum on the capital value of the said new ships. It may be added here that the present revenue on this service works out at between three and five per cent on the capital value of the four old steamers which the R.M.S.P. are running, after taking the subsidy into account.
We did not accept that contract. We are how submitting tenders which will be opened in June and the government are using their best endeavours to meet the desire of the West India islands because we want to keep those customers of ours, provided, of course, that the service is not too expensive.


William Alves Boys: Do I understand that the
stipulations of the advertisement just read do not comply with the terms of the treaty? If so, what would be the use of securing a contract of that kind? What is the penalty in the event of the treaty being violated?


James Alexander Robb: Our friends in the West Indies (ire not unreasonable, and I do not think that

they are prepared to pay their proportion of the cost if the traffic does not warrant a weekly service. Now, I do not know on whose behalf hon. gentlemen are complaining. We have had a communication with the people there, and I have here a message the Prime Minister transmitted.


William Alves Boys: I am not complaining at all.
I confess at once that I know very little about this matter, but it struck me that it might be idle to call for tenders if the service would not comply with the treaty; I thought we might not get the benefit of it. I should think it would be essential to make sure that the other parties to the treaty would be satisfied with the stipulations in the tender. One would suppose that this would be a condition precedent to the acceptance of any tender. Is it the intention of the department, even if the tenders are thought satisfactory, to accept them without making certain of the satisfaction of the other parties to the treaty? If they were not satisfied, it might involve a variation in the terms of the treaty.


James Alexander Robb: We will certainly not enter
into a contract unless it is acceptable to the West Indies.


Edward Joseph Garland: I suggest
that it is hardly fair for the minister to characterize as complaints a very fair criticism of a very questionable looking item.


William Duff: It is not questionable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are one or
two points that are not clear, if this is to be anything like an intelligent presentation of the case. According to the very statement just now read by the minister, the Canadian Government Marine is in competition with a subsidized line.


James Alexander Robb: That is the complaint.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the complaint, and I presume it has some foundation. If that is so, then it is the very point that leads some of us to object to the item. I confess that it does seem very strange, to me at least, that there should be a large subsidy like this granted by the government to a steamship line when at the same time we have our own Canadian Government Merchant Marine vessels in competition with that line. I do not wonder that our vessels are losing, where they are in competition with a line subsidized against us by ourselves. That is the main point, and I do not think it has yet been answered. The statement has been made by the minister, I think, and by

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that the Canadian Marine boats are not suitable for this route. Are there any boats belonging to the government that can be made suitable for it?


William Duff: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not know
anything about shipping on the east coast, although I do know something about the conditions on the west coast. But I was talking with a captain of one of the Canadian Government boats a few months ago and he informed me that some of these vessels could very readily be converted to meet the needs of that route. He must know what he is talking about because he is on that run himself. He said that very few additions would be necessary to provide a passenger service, and that if there were cold storage facilities these boats could bring back a very profitable return cargo in the form of fruit, and so forth, coming to Canada. Has there been any thorough-going investigation of the possibilities of this route, or has there been any authoritative report on the subject?


James Alexander Robb: I know nothing about steamships myself and I do not pretend to know anything about them. But if the gentlemen who are responsible to the Dominion of Canada for the management of the Government Merchant Marine, and who undoubtedly should know a great deal about vessels, consider that any of the government boats can be so equipped as to meet the requirements of the route without involving too great an expense, I have no doubt they will so inform the government. As I have pointed out, we are asking for tenders.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have we had any
report on the subject?


James Alexander Robb: Tenders will be opened, on
June 15th. I might repeat that there is no complaint as regards the service going down; there is ample business on the downward trip. The complaint has reference to the upward voyage; they claim that we take away business from the subsidized line. We must remember that while the Canadian Government Marine has made a loss, the people of Canada have had some -advantage from the reduced freight.


Milton Neil Campbell: My information is that last season the Royal Mail Steamship Company raised its rates 25 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: We have no complaint on record.


Milton Neil Campbell: The department would have to consent to the increase?


James Alexander Robb: We have no complaint of the rates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The remarks of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) are quite natural. It is only fair to concede the fact that persons not acquainted -with this particular trade should think it strange that we should be paying $350,000 a year for a steamship service while at the same time we have our own government ships operating in these waters. I am not objecting either to the criticism that the policy of subsidizing steamships is in itself wrong. I must confess that I am not very much enamoured of it. However, in this particular case the steamship service is part of a trade convention. We receive preferential treatment in the West India islands on certain conditions, one of them being the maintenance of this service. I do not know whether some of the vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine might not be made suitable for this service, but their conversion would cost millions of dollars. Personally I have no faith in the government operation of ships. I say it is much cheaper and more satisfactory in every respect to pay a subsidy to a privately-owned line than to have the vessels owned and operated by the government, because such operation [DOT] will always be more expensive. The public will not allow these ships to be operated as carefully and economically as is the case with privately-owned ships. I think therefore that on the whole it is in the interests of the development of Canadian trade to subsidize this private service rather than attempt the conversion of our government vessels at a cost of millions of dollars and then operate them at a cost far in excess, I am sure, of the cost of operation of privately-owned ships.


Thomas George McBride: With respect to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, I made the statement on the floor of this House last session that any ship under five thousand tons would never pay operating expenses. There are some twenty-two of these ships under that tonnage. I repeat that statement to-night, and I do so after going over their plans and specifications very carefully. The sooner the government realizes that these ships cannot possibly be made to pay and gets rid of them the better it will be for the taxpayers. A good deal has been said, possibly not in this House, about the late government building those ships. I am not finding fault with that policy, although I did not approve of it at
33SG

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the time, but they were constructed when most people expected shipping would be good for many years to come. Construction took place at a time when wages and building material were at the very top notch. Last year I went into this question very carefully with the late Mr. Kennedy, then Minister of Railways. In fact he asked me to form a company on the Pacific coast to see if we could not operate these ships, but this I refused to do, because I knew they could not be operated at a profit the way their boilers are constructed. I am not going into this in detail, indeed, it would not be in the interests of the people that I should, because I think it will be better for the country that these ships be disposed of and what I might bring out would not add to the chances of the government getting rid of them. If the government can get 20 per cent of the cost of these ships I think they will be getting a good price; and I question whether they will be able to get even that. If you attempt to convert them into passenger ships they will be a still greater burden, because they have not the required power or speed, and we shall only be getting further into debt for something that will never be a paying proposition.


William Irvine: As it is twelve o'clock and this is a very important item I would ask that it be allowed to stand over.


George Perry Graham: We have been spending hours on this item, and surely we ought to get it through now.


William Irvine: Then we will spend more hours on it, Mr. Chairman.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution
carry?


William Irvine: Will the minister tell us the profits of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Line for last year?


James Alexander Robb: I think I gave that a few moments ago. I have not the information under my hand just now, but it was about 5 per cent on the investment. It will be found on Hansard.


William Irvine: It may be on Hansard, but I should like to get it now.


George Newcombe Gordon: The minister is not required to give information twice on the same vote.


William Irvine: I am not sure that he even gave it once.


James Alexander Robb: Yes, I gave the information.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister simply said he thought it was 5 per cent. I think we are entitled to know the exact amount in dollars of the profit or loss, if any, made by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company last year.


Milton Neil Campbell: Sir Henry Thornton
speaks rather optimistically of the prospects for trade in the West Indies, and I am not entirely convinced that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine cannot handle the business.


James Alexander Robb: He will probably tender for the contract.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have received several pamphlets and letters from practical seamen, one a former officer in the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and I am assured by them that these vessels could be used to advantage in this trade. I notice in the Official Journal of the Marine Engineers of Canada, published in St. John, New Brunswick, that a Halifax correspondent writes, in part, as follows:
We also have to regret that quite a number of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine are still laid up in the Northwest Arm. These if put in commission would give employment to between 250 and 300 men. I was surprised to read a few days ago that the government had made a new contract for two years with the R.M.S.P. Company to supply the West Indies an d Demerara service. Why could not four of the Canadian Government Merchant fleet be fitted for this work, and thus give employment to our own men and put the charter money into the government coffers? We sincerely trust that the new government will remedy these abuses and bring about a better state of affairs.
Now. notwithstanding all that has been said in criticism of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine I note that it made a small profit in both 1919 and 1920.


James Alexander Robb: On the Pacific.


Milton Neil Campbell: We must remember, of course, that very few steamship companies have made money of late years. Sir Henry Thornton in his report says:
The steamers, Canadian Fisher and Canadian Forester, in operation on this route, are not suitable for this trade, and it is considered essential, in order to make a success of this branch of the service, that a special type of oil-burning steamers, with increased passenger accommodation, and fitted with proper refrigeration and ventilation facilities to take care of perishable shipments, be provided.
I understand that their specifications come pretty well up to the standard of the other vessels they are competing with, and it does seem to me unreasonable that this amount should be paid out to subsidize vessels operat-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ing in competition with the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. If the capital investment in the Merchant Marine is too large, it should be written down the same as the American government did with their fleet. They wrote it down I think to about fhty per cent of the capitalization.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships would
have to be reconstructed anyway. The operators would have to come to parliament and ask it to vote the money. Parliament would have to grant it to them, and it has not done so yet.


Milton Neil Campbell: I quite understand that, but I think this matter should be taken into consideration before any subsidy is granted. Let the government make definite inquiries from the Railway Board as to what can be done and ascertain what the recommendations are. It seems an extraordinary thing to tie the country up for five or ten years to a subsidized service without knowing what our own ships can do. In this same report on the Merchant Marine, Sir Henry Thornton also draws attention to the fact that these ships, while perhaps not paying as a separate branch, are drawing a large amount of freight and bringing tonnage for the Canadian National railways. That also should be taken into consideration.


William Duff: At this late hour I do not' want to enter into any lengthy discussion. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell) in what he read from Sir Henry Thornton's report has upset his own argument. First he read something from a marine paper which deprecated the fact that some of the Government Merchant Marine steamers in the Northwest arm were out of commission, when they might be giving employment to a certain number of men. Then it went on to say that if they were put in commission they could be used on the West India service. Then my hon. friend read from Sir Henry Thornton's report that the present steamers on the route were not fitted for the business, and that the type of steamer required was an oil burner. That just fixed the hon. gentleman's argument. Sir Henry Thornton admits that there are no steamers in the Government Merchant Marine fitted for this West India service, which includes carrying passengers, mail and freight, and that is an absolute fact. We may talk till we are black and blue, and I do not want to take up time to-night because I shall discuss this matter on another occasion, when I shall be able to prove that there is not one steamer of the
whole sixty-three in the govemmenet fleet that is fitted for carrying passengers, mail and freight. At the present time they are using two or three of these steamers on the Honduras route, and they are carrying practically no freight. At some ports at which they call, at Belize and Jamaica they are landing only five pounds of freight, and these steamers are being run at an expense of three or four thousand dollars a day. My hon. friend is correct about freights being increased, but it was not twenty-five per cent. About two years ago they were increased fifty per cent, and for this reason:	The government
steamers which are competing with the Royal Mail Packet boats on the same route were getting part of the business which the Royal Mail boats should have had if they were to pay, and when the Royal Mail Company found that the Canadian government boats were taking part of the business, which was not sufficient for them both- both lines were carrying only half cargoes- the manager of the Royal Mail Packet came to Ottawa and placed his statement before the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He showed him that they were losing a large sum of money and the Minister of Trade and Commerce called in Mr. Teakle, the manager of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, and asked him what he thought about it. Mr. Teakle said: "Yes, we are not making any money, and instead of getting $2.40 for a cask of fish and $1.10 for a barrel of flour we should get more." The Minister of Trade and Commerce consequently increased the freight rates both on the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Royal Mail Packet line. That is exactly what happened.
The trade agreement with the West India islands calls for a twelve-knot service. The Canadian Government Merchant Marine boats cannot comply with that because their speed is only between eight and nine knots, and inside of two years, although as the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) says, we do not want to say too much about it, owing to poor construction these government boats will need new boilers and engines, as their engines and boilers are practically no good.


William Irvine: Would the hon. member tell us if the beats that are now being subsidized are all speedy enough to meet the requirements of that trade?


William Duff: Yes, I think they are twelve-knot boats. I am a shipper in Nova Scotia and am using these boats, not every fortnight, but every once in awhile, and we are quite
33SS

Supply-Trade and Commerce
satisfied with these boats so far as trade with the West Indies is concerned, although, of course, a faster boat would be better.


William Irvine: You are not sure they are up to the standard.


William Duff: The Royal Mail Packet boats, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: I have here a list of the Royal Mail Packet boats on this service and only one of them is a twelve-knot boat. The others were all built thirty years ago, so they are not very modem.


William Duff: The contract calls for a twelve-knot service, and I say that the Merchant Marine boats cannot give that service.


William Irvine: Neither could the other
boats.


William Duff: The minister has not to accept the tender of the Royal Mail Company. He can accept anybody's tender that is satisfactory, yours or mine.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the Royal Mail Company get the new contract they will have to put on new ships. Their ships were able to comply with the terms of the original contract ten or fifteen years ago, but nobody disputes the fact that these ships now are hardly suitable for the purpose. If they are the successful tenderers these boats will be withdrawn and new boats put on in time.


William Irvine: Why were they not withdrawn last year?


James Alexander Robb: We could not get anyone else to take the service. Let me repeat what I said before. The previous government in September, before going out of office, advertised for tenders. Those tenders came in in January, 1922. The tenderers wanted a guarantee of 7 per cent on their investment, and the government did not consider that that was a profitable bargain for the Dominion, so the best thing we could do was arrange with our West India customers to accept a continuation of the previous service by the Royal Mail Line, and we arranged with them to continue the service. My hon. friend asked a moment ago as to the earnings of this company. I have a notation here that the present revenue-I do not know whether this is profit; we have no way of determining the profit; that is for the people who are running the service-works out between three and five per cent on the capital value of the four old steamers which the company are running, after taking the subsidy into account.
(Mr. Duff.]


William Irvine: This seems to be getting more complicated as we go along. The minister has shown us that the ships that had the contract last year from the government did not meet the requirements of the treaty, and yet they got the contract.


James Alexander Robb: It was the former service that was continued. The West India islands are a consenting party to that arrangement. They pay something too.


William Irvine: Yes, I understand, but you let the contract to this company because you could not get anybody else that could meet the requirements of the treaty.


James Alexander Robb: We had the Royal Mail Company carry on.


William Irvine: Under these circumstances
does not the minister think it would have been reasonable to have let the contract to the government's own ships?


James Alexander Robb: They could not give the service.


William Irvine: They could not give the
service, yet the Royal Mail Company is complaining that the government ships are taking the trade.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend has missed
the point. There are some islands that the Canadian ships cannot go into at all, and the complaint of the Royal Mail Line is that the Canadian boats go into the profitable islands and skip the others.


William Irvine: WThy should they not?


George Perry Graham: That is not keeping the
contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is not
much profit in it for the tax payer of Canada.


William Irvine: The hon. member for Lunenburg has just said that he could prove to us that there was no ship belonging to the Canadian government that could be refitted to take part in this trade. I say that if he can prove that, now is the time to do it. It is no use proving it at some other time after this estimate has passed. If he has the proof, we ought to have it now.


James Alexander Robb: Let us understand each other. Here is a contract with the West India islands. Does my hon. friend say that we should repudiate that contract and cancel the service?


William Duff: I can answer the question of
my hon. friend (Mr. Irvine) very briefly. The contract calls for a twelve knot ser-
33S9

Supply-Trade and Commerce
vice. The Canadian government cannot supply boats which will sail more than nine or ten knots. Consequently I have answered my hon. friend.


William Irvine: I do not think he has. The minister has just said that they had to take boats last year that had not the necessary speed because they could not get any other. How does he know that they will not have to do that again this year?


William Duff: That is another question.


Milton Neil Campbell: This treaty has never been lived up to in the past, and the information I have is that the Canadian Government boats,, although not exactly of the type required for this service, are just as good as the boats operating on it to-day. Now, I have that from practical men. I had that from a number of men in the Maritime provinces not very long ago, practical men, who assured me that these vessels were quite fit to be put on to do that work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask him why he makes that statement? What is the purpose of this criticism? Why are the facts not properly considered as they are? Who are the people in the Maritime provinces who say these ships could perform that service? Are they men who want a job on a boat, do they want to get on the Civil Service list, or are they men capable of having an opinion on the matter at all? My hon. friend should know, he could easily find out, that there is not a single ship in the Canadian Government, Merchant Marine that can carry on the passenger service between Halifax and St. John. That is a part of the present treaty and it was a provision of the old treaty. What is the use therefore in asking to have ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine carry on the service?


William Irvine: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I was asking my hon. friend a question. Will he tell me what it is he wants to know, and what the reason is for this opposition, this persistent inquiry which has, I think, been answered a dozen times?


Milton Neil Campbell: I was simply giving information that is in my possession. I have a letter here on the subject and a good deal of other information. I am not prepared to give the writer's name but he is a practical seaman. Furthermore I have read a resolution passed by this body of the marine
engineers of Canada to which surely some weight must be given.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Very little
weight as read. It looks to me as a resolution that was passed as a bit of propaganda upon the request of somebody. You can get a resolution passed to-day anywhere and upon any subject if you take the trouble to have it done.


William Irvine: I would like to point this out. The hon. member for Halifax asks "Who are these men who suggest that our ships can do this work, and are they men who want to get a job sailing?" I ask: Who are the men who want a subsidy? Are they men who want profits? I submit that these men have as good a right to be heard as the gentlemen for whom the hon. member for Halifax seems to be speaking.


James Alexander Robb: We are advertising for tenders and any person can tender for this contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not speaking for anybody. The government are asking for tenders from steamship men to perform this service. I do not know who will get the contract. We were very fortunate during the war to have this long standing contract with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, otherwise our West India service would have been interrupted four or five years.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I want to ask my hon. friend a question because I do not wish to misunderstand him. Do I gather that the contract which is proposed to be entered into does not take effect until March of next year, and that we are now concerned with the voting of the subsidy for the current year?
Mr. ROBB For carrying on the service.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The sum of $375,000 for this
year?


James Alexander Robb: No $340,000.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The contract for next year is no use in determining what is going to be done this year. That is the question I want to ask my hon. friend? Is not that a fact?


William Duff: If that is true what is the use of discussing this matter? Even if some of the vessels of the Government Merchant Marine could be fitted up for the service they could not be fitted up this year and it is quite evident we can only get the service performed by the Royal Mail Packet Steamship Company. Therefore we are only wasting time in discussing the matter.
Supply-Trade and Commerce


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand the original contract expired four years ago or possibly more, and that it has been renewed for two years at a time since. Nothing better could be done. I do not think that two years ago ships could have been obtained anywhere to carry on that service in a better way than the vessels of the Royal Mail Packet Steamship Company were doing. Temporary arrangements were made for that and I think it is just as well it was done because we have a clearer realization to-day of probable trade currents between Canada and the West Indies, and m fact between all other countries of the world. In 1920 our idea of the future trade of this country was not very sanely based, otherwise I think the Jamaica contract would have been framed in different terms.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I would like to ask, as the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has done, where we are going to get by this discussion? What action is proposed? Is it suggested that we shall vote this amount of money or that we shall reduce it? If we reduce it we cannot get even the service that we have got at the present time, and that service is of very considerable value to the Maritime provinces. More than that it extends at least as far as Montreal. The very importation of sugar into the country is surely of importance, and the fact that that sugar is brought in water-borne through our own ports [DOT]has, I think, quite an effect in keeping down to some extent the price of sugar. Of course that is something that is determined by the larger market but I think it is' one factor. I do not think that anyone, in the Maritime provinces would want to give up this link of connection with the British West Indies. I do not think that anyone in any other part of Canada would want to deprive us of any opportunity that we have of doing that business. And the business is not confined to what originates in the Maritime provinces. The rest of Canada has its opportunities just the same as the Maritime provinces have. It has become perfectly clear that the steamers are not adequate according to the subsidy requirements. But if you say to the owners of the steamship "Very well, your steamers are not fit, we will not pay any subsidies" you lose such service as you have got. If you try to replace it by something you produce yourself you cannot, as the hon. member for Lunenburg says, fit them up within the requisite time, nor are the boats structurally capable, that is the boats of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, for passenger service. If hon. gentlemen who talk in this way were a little nearer salt water than they are they would realize that the type of boat 
for a mere freighter is' just as different from one that is built for a combined freight and passenger service as perhaps a yacht is from a battleship.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Well, hon. members may
laugh. But where do we get as a result of this discussion? Are we going to drop all assistance, are we going to drop such service as we have now got? If directions could be given to the minister as to what he is to ask for for a future contract, very well let us give him the suggestion and let us not say that there shall be no service. I do not see how we can get the present service for any lesser amount of money. If I thought we could I would ini press upon the government to try and save money.


James Alexander Robb: We cannot, we tried.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to
protest against the continuation of this subsidy. I listened very intently this evening to the reasons advanced for its continuation and I must confess I have not heard a single good one from hon. gentlemen opposite, not one. They talk of their treaty and they talk of trade. As to the treaty it was fractured to pieces long ago. Not a single boat of the Royal Mail Packet Company's vessels complies with the trade requirements. For instance, the Caraquet is of 4,800 tons and 5,000 tons is required in the agreement. A speed of 12 knots is required in the treaty, and the speed of the Caraquet is 11 knots. Take the Chigneeto and by the way it is a fairly old boat; it was built thirty years ago in my own country.


William Duff: Is the hon. member not aware that these ships are not operating under the terms of the treaty? They are operating under an old arrangement made many years ago.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, quite so. Last year the argument was put up by the hon. member or some of those associated with him that the reason for the continuation of the subsidy to these boats was the treaty,


William Duff: Oh, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: I beg pardon.


William Duff: I beg your pardon.


Edward Joseph Garland: We find the Chigneeto has a tonnage of 4,756. It has a speed of eleven knots, not twelve. Then take the Chaudiere, it has a tonnage of 4,019, built 34 years ago in Sunderland, Great Britain, and so on.

Supply-Trade and Commerce
Now let me take the passenger accommodation which everybody is talking about so much. It is true the trade treaty calls for a certain passenger accommodation, 100 first class, 30 second class, and 100 steerage and deck passengers, and yet we find all the subsidized boats have only accommodation for 60 first class, 30 second class and 20 third class. So that in every respect they fall below the requirements of the treaty. It may be true that you can get a new line of boats on the service, but even so will it be warranted? I do not think it will be. The treaty is already broken, and, so far as I can see, the advantage to Canada has been little, if anything, and I will tell the committee why in a moment. I am sorry the minister was not able to provide the committee with information requested by [DOT]one of the members for Calgary, with regard to how much the West Indian government had paid this government as a part of its share of responsibility. It may amuse some of the members of committee to know that outside of that section, which has not been complied with very well up to date, there is another requirement. The agreement says:
If a subsidized steamship service is arranged for, the government of Canada will endeavour to secure the co-operation of the owners of such steamship service towards the provision of hotels and bungalows in the colonies, the governments of the colonies being prepared on their part to offer such facilities as may be practicable both as regards sites and financial assistance.
The main objection to the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and the Royal Mail Steam Packet appears to be the fact that you cannot equip the merchant marine with passenger accommodation, but, so far as I can see from the agreement, the only type of passenger who wants to go down there will be those who want a lazy holiday and not the business men. The business man will) any business instinct would never take the slow boat, not even the 12 knot boat if you had any. He would go to New York, make a rapid trip and get through with his business. The whole subsidy is to provide the wealthy people with opportunities for a lazy voyage. The agreement looks as though it were framed for that purpose. I have the greatest respect for the nautical knowledge of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), but I would submit that there are others in the House who know a little about it, not so much perhaps as he does. There are some members from the prairies born and raised for many years in seaport towns, who may presume t.o know something about the matter, but the hon. member in his criticism of the merchant marine said the engines were no good, the boats were no good and nothing good about them.
I think before the committee on transportation in 1921 he said he would like to see them all sunk.


William Duff: Hear, hear-better for the country if they were sunk.


Edward Joseph Garland: That statement will give the committee an idea of the loyalty of the hon. member to government ownership.


William Duff: Hear, hear.
Mr. GARLAND' (Bow River): I wish to quote for his benefiit from the Montreal Daily Star shipping notes, October 10, 1922. This article deals with one Canadian Government Merchant Marine boat with new and untried engines, built by the Canadian Vickers Limited, a Canadian firm. This paper says:
The ship, with new and untried engines, built by the Canadian Vickers Limited, eventually completed . a maiden voyage of 13,000 miles without a single breakdown, This is still considered a wonderful feat for a new vessel.
The hon. member's criticism of the merchant marine on account of inadequate engines has broken down completely, in fact it was broken down long ago. I am a little confused as to the hon. member's attitude at this day. In 1919. I think it was, he said he was rather critical of this very subsidy. I quote from Hansard, page 1284, where he refers to the Royal Mail Steam Company on the eastern route as follows:
These boats are loaded to the hatches every trip and cannot take all the freight that is offered. A lot of freight is left at Halifax every time the boats leave. If these boats can ply between Halifax, Jamaica and Cuba without a subsidy the Royal Mail Steam Packet boats ought to be able to do likewise.


William Duff: Hear, hear.


Edward Joseph Garland: I agree with him.


William Duff: That was before the Canadian Government Merchant Marinfe boats were put on.


Edward Joseph Garland: According to the hon. member's statement, a lot of freight is left at Halifax every time. Now I may say the hon. member for Guysborough at that time was also particularly critical and asked the minister to look into the question and see if we were not allowing matters to drift a little too much, and if each year, before the estimates came before the House, he could find out the standing of the different companies and what they earned during the previous year. There was some criticism of

Supply-Trade and Commerce
the compagnies earning the subsidies. Then the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), apparently acting as the minister at the time, states at page 1285:
The matter of granting subsidies to steamship companies, particularly in connection with services to other countries is, I must admit, a very doubtful one.
I very much agree with the hon. member. I am sorry he has also changed his opinion since that- time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I said that tonight.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very glad. Why not carry it out?


An hon. MEMBER:: So say we all.


Edward Joseph Garland: Apparently the hon. members are, shall I say, excusing their consciences by saying "I said that too," but they are making no effort to do what they pretend is right.


James Alexander Robb: Is the hon. member finding fault because we declined to accept a tender asking for 71- per cent on the investment, or is he finding fault because we are asking for new tenders and reserving the right to accept any or the lowest tender?


Edward Joseph Garland: Any tender such as the minister has sent out can meet with nothing but utter disapproval from me The tender called for a subsidy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the hon. member against the subsidy?


Edward Joseph Garland: Absolutely opposed to subsidies.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then that is all there is to say.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, not at all. We might look into the history of this thing a little bit. The hon. member for Lunenburg stated on the 23rd March, 1920, at page 634 of Hansard:
But I am not under ordinary conditions in favour of bonusing the building of ships or any other industry.
But Mr. Keefer replying to him says:
The people of the West Indies have never realized that while we have been taking only one third of their total exports in a direct way-
I need not read it all, but he says:
What is the reason? Lack of transiportation, namely, ships-Canadian controlled ships.


William Duff: Who said that?


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Keefer.


William Duff: I thought the hon. member
said I said it.


Edward Joseph Garland: 
James Alexander Robb: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend's argument. I just want to ask him this. Apparently Colonel Amery was of opinion-I have not read this, but that is what I gather-that the Empire wanted to keep that business with the West Indian islands. It was unprofitable to attempt to carry it on towards Englnad. If Canada did not come in, the United States would have got the business. Is my hon. friend proposing to-night that we shall cut out the business altogether and let it go to the United States?


Edward Joseph Garland: If the minister has no more confidence than that in the people of the British West Indies with their British governors and British connections, I would suggest that he have a little more faith, courage and hope. I want to read the words of a well known and respected former member of this House. As reported in Hansard of 1920 at page 899, Mr. Michael Clark said:	'

Supply-Trade and Commerce
I want to say that there is a party in this House, which is much larger in the country, and behind which there is a swelling tide, which is absolutely at one both on profiteering contracts and on subsidies. We here, to a man, are opposed to subsidies and bounties on principle. We say they are unjust, they are bad political economy, they are wrong, and we oppose them.
Those words, I may say, express my sentiments exactly.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Is that gentleman still a member of the same party?


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. gentleman had better write and ask him. I venture to say that after the budget of this year, he would prefer to belong to this party than to the party of my hon. friend.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is not sure of that.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have had a brief discussion to-night on the question of contracts made for two years or more ahead. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), as reported on page 2261 of Hansard of April 19, 1921 said:
But I do say that no other line of ships competing against the company-
The Royal Mail Steamship Company-
-which has this contract can do any business. It does not matter how many ships are put on or who are operating them, they cannot get the trade and will operate only at a loss; at the same time they will be doing an injury to the other company.
The hon. member for Halifax is reported as defending private ownership, irrespective of the fact that this country owns a government merchant marine and that the people are taxed to pay the cost of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the people of this country are being very heavily taxed to-day, and I would like to see the burden lessened.


Edward Joseph Garland: The costs have to be paid anyway whether the service is a government-owned one or a privately-owned one.
So far as I can see, in reading the history of this steamship line to the West Indies, the country has had to pay all the way through. It has never paid to keep up that service. The minister refers to the important service, the great trade, the danger of violating the treaty which has already been violated. He has referred to a trade of $18,000,000 a year. I question very much whether he can state many years when the trade has reached $18,000,000. There might have been one year, but not very many. He also throws a little sop to the committee by stating that the trade was mostly in agricultural products. Last year I tried to give to the House some figures showing the falling off in trade, and I gave them in dollars. The hon. senior member for Halifax at once raised the question that tonnage was the proper basis for comparison, and I have endeavoured to secure tonnage in this case. For example, let us take agriculture or some natural resources such as fish, in which the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) will be interested. In 1920, before the treaty that was to develop trade came into operation, we shipped $1,621,419 worth of fish.


William Duff: Was that shipped by these steamers?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not talking about that. I am talking about the trade treaty, the magnificent increase in trade that has been built up by this treaty.


William Duff: Which treaty?


Edward Joseph Garland: The West Indian treaty.


William Duff: It is not in effect yet.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon. member should wake up. I would suggest that the hon. member for Lunenburg read the sessional papers of 1921. The hour, perhaps, is fairly late, and it may be his usual custom to go to bed early. In 1920, there was fish exported to the West Indies from Canada to the extent of $1,621,419. In 1922, there was only $1,347,083 worth, or a falling off of about $300,000 worth. In fruits, in 1920, there was j$113,177 exported, whereas in 1922 there was only $8,526 exported. The minister was talking about wheat and flour a little while ago. In 1919, we shipped 32,000 bushels of wheat to the West Indies; in 1920, none; in 1921, 2,512 bushels, and in 1922, none.


James Alexander Robb: How much flour?


Edward Joseph Garland: I will tell the committee in a moment. The value in dollars of that wheat was in 1919, $80,000, in 1920, nil; in 1921, $4,885 and in 1920 it was, of course, nil. The minister made quite a point of the fact that agriculture was being assisted by this treaty. These are the figures with regard to other grains:
1919,	32 bushels exported.
1920,	35 bushels exported.
1922, 92 bushels exported.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is increasing.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes. My hon. friends from Ontario will be interested

Supply-Trade and Commerce
in bran, shorts and middlings. The trade in this showed quite an increase-16,452 hundredweight shipped in 1920, and 21,434 hundredweight shipped in 1922. That is, shipping out of that province what is needed for the development of the dairy industry there.
Now, we come to the question of wheat flour. In 1918, 410,230 barrels were shipped. That increased the next year by about 100,000 barrels. In 1920 the trade fell off to about 52,200 barrels, and to-day the figure is 524,683 barrels or under what it was in 1919.


Mr. PARENT:: What was it in 1918?


Edward Joseph Garland: It was 410,230 barrels.


William Duff: That is pretty good.


Edward Joseph Garland: In 1919, 573,580 barrels. The treaty came into effect the next year, 1920. Immediately there is a falling off, and you find that in 1922, we have lost about 50,000 barrels. The trade under the treaty is not increasing very fast.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What does that mean? My hon. friend must be talking for a purpose or he should sit down.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am talking for a purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what
I want to know. What is his purpose? If the hon. member is talking for the purpose of informing the committee, and if he can interpret the figures, I hope he will tell me whether or not he ascribes that decline in trade to the treaty? If not to the treaty, to what other cause or causes does he think it is due?


William Irvine: Change of government.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister a little while ago made a somewhat exaggerated speech about the vast value of the treaty to agriculture. He stated that the great bulk of the export trade to the West Indies consisted of agricultural products. If the member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) would listen intently, I think he would see that I am endeavouring to prove, and I think effectively, that the minister, I will not say did not know what he was talking about, but slightly exaggerated the facts. In 1918, we shipped 215 tons of hay, and that increased by 1923 to the enormous amount of 339 tons; in other words, in five years, and after nearly three years of the operation of a very effective treaty, that was the increase in business in that direction.


Jean George Robichaud: Tell us about potatoes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I doubt
very much whether there is any notation here about potatoes; perhaps they did not ship any. No doubt the hon. gentleman is interested in potatoes; I too, as well as he, was interested in fish.


Jean George Robichaud: If the service between the Maritime provinces and the West Indies were discontinued, what does the hon. gentleman think would happen to the farmers of New Brunswick who ship a good deal of potatoes to the West Indies?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He does not
care about that.


An hon. MEMBER:: He only wants to
block the estimates.


Edward Joseph Garland: The member for Halifax interjects a remark which I think he must know is both unfair and insulting. I am not endeavouring to hold up the item, nor have I any objection to anyone in Canada trading with any part of the world. I should be only too glad to see my hon. friend's potatoes go to the West Indies or anywhere else.


Jean George Robichaud: With or without a
subsidy?


Edward Joseph Garland: Without
any subsidy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman really mean to suggest that he is discussiing this matter with a view to informing his colleagues or parliament upon the real issue before the committee?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
know whether the hon. member is unduly dense to-night; it may be due to the lateness of the hour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The member
for Halifax is not a bit dense just now. He is sufficiently bright to understand why the hon. gentleman is talking in this fashion.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What does the hon. gentleman think is the reason?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I need not
waste time stating it now; I will tell the hon. gentleman in the morning.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Does the hon. member for
Halifax think that anyone has given any

Supply-Trade and Commerce
more information to the committee than has been submitted by the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland)?


Edward Joseph Garland: The total
exports in 1918 were $6,838,563; in 1919, they had increased to $10,200,582. They remained roughly about the same in 1920, but increased slightly in 1921 and fell off by almost three million dollars in 1922. These are the exports about which we have heard so much. If the minister and the member for Halifax care to study these schedules giving the summary of the trade of Canada with the West Indies over a number of years and with individual islands they will discover without much trouble that our trade with Cuba has increased largely during all these years, while on the other hand our trade with the West Indies, since the coming into effect of this magnificent treaty, has actually fallen off. So that with an island to which we have no subsidized steamers running we have a greater trade than we have with the West Indies where our subsidized boats call.


William Duff: Can the hon. member tell the committee how the products of the Maritime provinces get to Cuba?


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
care to answer that question.


William Duff: No, because you cannot answer it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Frankly, I cannot.


William Duff: Then the hon. member's
whole argument falls, because most of the goods shipped to Cuba go by New York steamers, which is a different proposition altogether from sending them direct from St. John and Halifax.


Edward Joseph Garland: We have
been in good humour up to the present and I hope the hon .member will not be otherwise.


William Duff: I am in good humour.


Edward Joseph Garland: The
greater part of the export and import trade with the West Indies is still done via the United States.


Georges Henri Boivin: And does the hon. member encourage that?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, sir.


William Duff: W'hat are you talking about then?


Edward Joseph Garland: What I say is that I am not willing to subsidize a line of ships to call at islands that do a smaller trade with us than does an island to which we send no subsidized ships. Some hon. gentleman opposite tried to show that there was no competition between the Government Marine and the subsidized line, but that there is such competition I do not think any hon. member will doubt. Both the Government Marine and the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company complain about it; they have both protested against this competition. The Canadian ships which are now running on the West India service claim that there is sufficient southbound traffic for both, but that there is not enough northbound traffic to justify a double service. I have here a statement of Mr. Teakle, who says that there is not sufficient traffic between the West Indies and Canada to maintain three distinct services. The minister did not inform the committee that there is being inaugurated a new service between Montreal and the West Indies by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Surebr the Canadian Pacific Railway are not going to put boats on an utterly losing service. There are protests from various associations against this subsidy. An hon. member read resolutions from the National Marine Engineers' Association,, and I have similar resolutions from the International Association of Machinists, the Trades and Labour Council of Montreal, representing 62 or 63 councils, and from other bodies protesting against the continuance of this subsidy; and I submit that the time has come when the people of this country ought not to be asked to pay profits- for that is what it amounts to-to a firm of ships that are owned in England, whose shareholders are in England, and the captains and sailors of which ships are mostly Englishmen, while our Canadian seamen are out of jobs, as even the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is aware. We have our own marine, and this subsidy should be discontinued and our ships be allowed to run in fair competition with any other line. The treaty should be abrogated because it is of no advantage to Canada. I have gone thoroughly into this matter and I think I have proved to the satisfaction of the committee that the subsidy should be discontinued. I move therefore that the item be reduced by the sum of $300,000.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman quoted some remarks I made in the House in 1919 in opposition to subsidies. In reply I might say that I have never changed my opinion on the subject. If the

Supply-Trade and Commerce
committee will allow me to be a little personal, I would say that sailing ships in which I am interested are doing business with the West Indies in competition with the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company and the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. These little ships, of which I am manager, go to Barbados and the other islands with Canadian products and bring back molasses and other commodities. For instance, this week I was home sending the schooner A. W. Chisholm to Trinidad with a cargo of cotton. These ships get no subsidy from this or any other government, they sail on their own bottoms, and if we lose money we grin and bear it. Consequently I agree with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) that we should not pay subsidies if it is possible to avoid it. But a change has taken place since I made my speech in 1919 which makes it essential for us to pay this subsidy, if we are to continue the service to the West Indies. And the change is that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships are now engaging in the same trade and taking business which the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company should get. If a new contract is entered into by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with a reputable firm which will supply good ships, my opinion is that inside two or three years we will not have to pay any further subsidies because there will be sufficient business developed to enable such a line to be operated without assistance. But at present owing to the stupidity of some one, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships having been put in competition with the Royal Steam Packet Company's fleet, both lines are losing money, and as a result this parliament is compelled to vote a subsidy to maintain communication between the West Indies and the Maritime province ports. It would be suicidal to talk of discontinuing the subsidy now, for the shippers of the Maritime provinces would not be able to get their products to the West Indian markets, and consequently our farmers and fishermen would suffer. Therefore while I am opposed to subsidies in principle, I say it is necessary to have this subsidy voted, and I hope it will Ije agreed to.


William Alves Boys: When do the existing contracts expire?


James Alexander Robb: The original contract expired
four years ago, then it was renewed for another two years.


William Alves Boys: When is the end of the year?


James Alexander Robb: The previous' government advertised for tenders in September, 1921. The only tender we received asked for 71- per cent upon the investment. We did not accept this tender, but we continued the present arrangement for a further period of two years, which will expire in 1924. We are advertising now for new tenders.


William Alves Boys: So as a matter of fact this vote is necessary to discharge our obligations under contracts which are still in existence?


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
member for Lunenburg suggests that we could not do away with this subsidized service because our trade would then cease. I submit, Mr. Chairman, we have plenty of boats we could put on that service, and the hon. member could increase the business of his own boats.


William Duff: What are you talking about?
Mine are sailing ships.


Edward Joseph Garland: Certainly,
but they carry cargo?


William Duff: Yes, but these steamers are for passengers and mails.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am not
interested in the passengers to the West Indies from Canada. They are simply holidaying people, not business people.


William Duff: How does the hon. gentleman know they are not going down on business?


Edward Joseph Garland: I was speaking to a lady only the other day who informed me she intended to take a trip to the West Indies. I said, "I hope you are going by the Canadian Government Merchant Marine or by the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company's boats, because I should like to have your experience of the trip." She replied, "Oh no. No one wants to go to the islands on those slow old boats. I shall go from New York." I have no doubt that business people would take the same route.


William Duff: Hon. members on this side and on the other side who understand anything about this business must be laughing in their sleeve. Let me tell my hon. friend that every first class passenger who leaves from Halifax or St. John on the Royal Packet steamers for the West Indies are business men or trade agents. The hon. member does not know that or he would not get up and talk in this way. Why are these business men . travelling by these slow boats? For this

Supply-Trade and Commerce
reason, the boats call at Bermuda and other ports and while discharging cargo a business man has time to go ashore and do his business. That is why the passengers are business men, not rich people of leisure. I should like the hon. gentleman to acquaint himself with the facts before talking such utter nonsense.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I think it is quite obvious to everyone present what the result of this vote is going to be; the subsidy as proposed by the government will undoubtedly be carried. Now, we can, if not profitably or pleasantly, at least endurably, I suppose, stay here until two or three o'clock in the morning, and nobody will be a bit further ahead. The case against the subsidy has been as fully presented as it can be I should think. Those of us who are in favour of the subsidy will have to take the responsibility of voting for it, while those who think that a subsidy is wrong in principle will have the advantage before the country of having stated their view and supported it by their votes. Now, might we not just as well proceed to take the vote as continue a discussion in which no memBer is going to convince any other member of a single fact?


William Irvine: Would the hon. member
apply that same principle to all other questions? If so we might as well go home.


An hon. MEMBER:: It would be a very
good idea.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: No, only to the case under [DOT]consideration.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister a moment ago in answer to a question from the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys) stated that the contract was already let, and that therefore the money had to be voted. Am I right?	'


James Alexander Robb: A contract was given for two years, but there is a clause in all these subsidy contracts that their continuance is subject to the vote of parliament. If parliament does not vote this money the contract ceases. But there is an obligation on the part of the Dominion to carry on this contract until March, 1924. And we are not the only parties to it; our fellow-Britishers in the West Indies are also concerned. We are trying to carry out our part of the contract. If my hon. friends desire to continue the argument all night, well and good. I have been in that game before, and I agree with the hon. member for St. John City (Mr. Baxter) that nothing is to be gained by it. I never favoured -such tactics when I was opposition whip. If
my hon. friends say frankly they do not want to take the vote now, we can adjourn and go home lik.e decent men to-night, but we can stay here until August just as well as they can. But if hon. gentlemen are prepared after reasonable debate of the amendment to vote, I do not object to staying a little while longer.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I submit to the committee that we are trying to act conscientiously and carefully? Some of us have gone into this matter with care, and we are trying to do our duty as we see it. There is no intention on anybody's part to hold up or unduly obstruct the business of the House, a,nd I think any such suggestions are rather unkind.


James Alexander Robb: I am glad to have that assurance.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I understood the minister to say that we are obligated so far as this particular item is concerned to the amount of $340,000.


James Alexander Robb: It is $340,600.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Whatever it is. Will the minister state shortly the actual terms of the contract existing between this company and the government under which this liability arises? I want to get particulars as to the nature of the service to be rendered and the tonnage of the boats to be used if any tonnage is provided for, or does the government simply say: You carry on the service fortnightly with these boats that you have got and we will pay you $340,000.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend is right. That was the best arrangement we could make at that time. When the late government advertised for tenders for the improved service in order to carry out the contract, the tender that came in was not satisfactory. We considered that a basis of 7{ per cent on the invested capital was too uncertain, so we made an arrangement with the company to continue the service that had existed for many years and we paid them the same subsidy.


William Irvine: I am not going to make a speech, although I had a great deal of information that I wanted to give to the committee, but since I have been assured by my hon. friend from St. John and by hon. gentlemen opposite that they do not pay any attention to what is said anyway, it is unnecessary to make a speech. I understood the minister to say that he thought it advisable to subsidize an opposition line in order to secure competition which would result in lower freight rates for the Canadian people.

339S

Supply-Trade and Commerce


James Alexander Robb: I hope my hon. friend did not understand me to say anything of the kind. I do not remember making any such statement.


William Irvine: I thought the minister did not remember having said that, buf. I am quite sure he said it.


James Alexander Robb: Hansard will show.


William Irvine: Yes, I think it will show he made that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: There are two points I would like to mention before the vote is taken. A suggestion was made from the opposite side of the House that if the government took off the government boats and continued this service, in other words, gave a monopoly to the Royal Mail Line, in a very short time the profits presumably of the company would be such that there would be no further subsidy required. I would like to ask the committee if it has ever been on record in the history of Canada that any steamship company ceased to ask for a subsidy or to get it. Did the condition ever arise when a company would come forward and say that it did not require any further assistance? No, they have always asked for it, and they have always got it.
There is another phase of the question. The minister said that when he was calling for these contracts there was only one tenderer. Now if we do away with the opposition of the government boats and practically give a monopoly to this Royal Mail Packet Line, it will not be $340,000 that they will want in two years, but five or six hundred thousand dollars because they will take deliberate, cold-blooded advantage of the fact that they have no competitor in the field. You cannot dig up a competing line in a week or two. The company that has a monopoly stampedes you. I have had some experience out west with that kind of thing. When the contract has nearly expired the people served by this line are naturally very anxious to see it maintained, and the company that has been given a monopoly knows that they have driven off competitors, and they get busy and hold up the government. We may lose money by the continuation of the merchant marine service down there, but we shall save it in the other way by stopping a monopoly, and if there was no opposition that would be the inevitable result.
I have only this to say as regards the vote: There is no question that as the government have entered into the contract parliament will have to vote the money, and judging from the numbers here the government will carry the 
vote. I hope they will, because I realize they have to carry out this contract. But I think there is a great deal of light to be let into this system of subsidies all over Canada, and I do not think the discussion to-night has been time ill-spent. I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bow River, not that I am in favour of doing away with the vote, but as an expression of sympathy with him and those who support him in the suggestion made from across the floor that they are animated by improper motives, as if they had no right to do so if they chose.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not
want the committee to be under the impression that we in this corner of the House are moving this amendment from pique or anything of that kind, nor because we fail to recognize the sacredness of a contract. I submit that it is a protest from the people of Canada whom we are here to represent against the government of Canada entering into contracts that compel the subsequent voting of money by the members of the House.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Friday.
Friday, June 1, 1923